r .34,
J1, If

,.

"' .I ”q. , ,

’fl: ‘fy‘nfi’f . .m. a.

~ r .,,,,_,, W ,—

"” v :r- 1:. ~ _
l I

",
..‘v~

 

 

mgrfi

Date

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBR

IIHI III ”III HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIIIIUHHI

3 1293 00558 3913

   
     

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE EVOLUTION, IMPLEMENTATION AND
ANALYSIS OF A NON-ADVERSARIAL,
COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATIONS MODEL

presented by

Barbara Jo Burghardt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Education
degree in

   
 

Major professor

February 24, 1988

MSU i: an Affirnmlivrl Action/Equal Opporlunily Inslimriun

0-12771

DVIESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Piace in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiII

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

 

 

 

03v Nanci

~¥~———_——_w

 

      
     
  

Am“ " H.1-mlnb
altar mm.“ .

gvz umonrnu: sour
Ion, IMPLEMENTATION n

  

."“

‘ '-ANALYSIS OF A NdN-ADVERSARIAL,

COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATIONS MODEL

by

 

Barbara Jo Burghardt

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1988

 

ABSTRACT

THE EVOLUTION, IMPLEMENTATION AND
ANALYSIS OF A NON—ADVERSARIAL,
COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATIONS MODEL
by

Barbara Jo Burghardt

Alternatives to traditional adversarial bargaining are
necessary in labor relations, and particularly in public
education, where time lost to strikes, grievance handling and
contract misinterpretation has drained energy from
professional endeavors. Cognizant of this problem, the
teachers union and administration of School District 41 in
Glen Ellyn, IL agreed to consider an alternative negotiations

model for the spring of 1987.

This study describes the creation and implementation of
that model. The WIN-WIN concept of conflict resolution was
used as a base, but was altered to meet district
requirements. Steps used to create the model are described,
and the procedures and protocols of the model are included.
Implementation required two weekends and ten negotiation
sessions, and used a multi-spokesperson, problem solving
format. Data were gathered through firsthand observation,
supported by minutes. Minutes were reviewed and corrected by
the process group, composed of union and administrative

members.

 

 

Barbara Jo Burghardt

The strengths and weaknesses of the model are analyzed,
and its generalizability to other school districts is

considered.

The major strengths of the model include: (a)
establishing problem solving as a mind set, (b) allowing
union and administration to speak directly to each other, and
(c) limiting time spent on negotiations. Weaknesses include:
(a) the exclusion of middle management, (b) inadequate
training, (c) the ambiguity of the facilitator role, and (d)

the lack of a plan for process breakdown.

The study recommends that this process be refined and

used again in union-administration interactions.

The study includes a review of perspectives on Case
Study Research, or Naturalistic Inquiry. There is a
definition of Naturalistic Inquiry and a discussion of
problems found with it. Particular attention is paid to
internal and external validity and to the need for

replicability.

 

 

Copyright by
BARBARA J0 BURGHARDT
1988

 

 

 

 

 

To my father
William T. Burghardt

who taught me the true art of negotiation

 

 

 

 

O

-- Dr. John Suehr, who first convinced

me that I should enter this program

-- my parents, who provided
encouragement and support when it was most

needed

-- Dr. Arthur Jones, who suggested a

stimulating study topic

-- Peter Boekhoff, who provided the
final typing, editing and motivation which

brought this study to completion.

vi

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter I -— Statement of Problem . .

I. The Problem . . . . . . . .
II. The Need . . . . . . .

III. Bargaining History of Sample District

IV. The Purpose . . . . . . . .

V. Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. The Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 2 -- Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . .
I. Stages in the Development of Labor Relations
II. Collaborative Approaches . . . . . . . . .

III. Collaborative Models in Collective Bargaining

A. Collaborative Approach .
B. Theory Z Bargaining . .

C. Situational Approach to Bargaining

D. Integrative Bargaining .
E. Collective Gaining . . .

F. Goldaber WIN/WIN Contract Development

Program . . . . . . . .
IV. Strategies and Techniques .

A. Separate the People from the Problem
B. Focus on Interests, Not Positions
C. Invent Options for Mutual Gain
D. Insist on Using Objective Criteria

V. Design and Planning . . . .
VI. Summary . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 3 -- Design of Research . . .
I. Description of Study . . .
II. Description of Sample . . .

III. Description of Process . .
IV. Collection of Data . . . .
V. Treatment of Data . . . .
VI. Limitations of the Study .
VII. Description of Methodology
A. Current Perspective . .
B. Definition . . . . . . .
C. Need . . . . . . . . . .
D. Standard Problems . . .

vii

o

p..-

CD\!\IJ>I\Ji—‘

ll

12
20
25
25
28
3O
33
34

36
43
44
46
47
47
49
51

54

54
54
55
57
57
58
59
59
6O
62
62

 

 

 

VIII.
Chapter 4

I.

II. Design and Planning . . . . . . . .
A. Participants . . . . . . . . .
B. Facilitator Selection/Role . . .
C. Process Workshop . . . . . . . .
D. Communications Lab . . . . . . .
E. Negotiation Sessions . . . . . .
F. Closing Session . . . . . . . .
G. General Ground Rules . . . . . .
III. Selecting a Facilitator . . . . . .
IV. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 5 -- Implementation of Process . . . .
I. Preparations . . . . . . . . . . .
II. Process Workshop . . . . . . . . .
III. Communications Lab . . . . . . . .
IV. Negotiation Sessions . . . . . . .
V. Closing Weekend . . . . . . . . . .
VI. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 6 -— Analysis and Recommendations . .
1. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Governing and Managing . . . . .
B. Building Skills: Training . . .

C. Communications and Publicity .
1. Keeping Participants Informed

2. Keeping Un- involved Members
Informed . . . . . . . . . .
3. Handling Information Sharing
4. External Publicity . . . . .
D. Monitoring and Evaluating . . .
II. Research Questions / Summary . . .
III. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . .

IV.

._n
0

viii

Validity)

c. Reliability

Summary .

0

Boundary Problems
2. Focusing Problems
3. Authenticity Problems
a. Intrinsic Adequacy
b. Extrinsic Adequacy

— Evolution of Process

First Steps:
A. Mutual Goals .
B. District Climate
C. External Feedback
D. Gauging Commitment
E. Surveying Options

Conclusion

The

0

Decision

0

o

o

.

63
6A
64
65

67
7O
71

74

75
77
77
78
80
81
85
86
86
87
87
88
90
9O
96
100

103

103
104
106
110
120
123

127

127
128
133
137
137

138
140
141
141
144
146
147

 

1
P
-

 

.a\.-

Bibliography . .

Appendix C -— Glen Ellyn News Articles for February 4,

.: 2"...-
F3y2n£ q

March 25 and May 20, 1987.
Submitted for Discussion at

Communications Lab. Disposition
of Issues. . . . . . . . .

Issues

190

210

    

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

LIST OF FIGURES .

Representation of Inquiry Space or
Domain of Inquiry . . . . . . .

Designing a Program . . . . . . .

Planning a Program . . . . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

Statement of Problem

I. THE PROBLEM

Collective bargaining in the public schools has become
a reality. Unfortunately, the nature of that reality has
often been detrimental to the parties involved. A brief

glance at the literature reveals the following statements:

"School Districts that engage in collective
bargaining have generally adopted an industrial
relations bargaining model. This model often
requires of both sides such behaviors as
secrecy, strategy, threats, and force . . . the

antithesis of what educators desire children to
learn."1

"The aftermath of confrontational
bargaining is likely to be marked by grievances,
poor staff morale, and continued distrust
between employees and the school district."2

"Instead of the bargaining table being the
place where issues are addressed seriously, it
has become a place where power is tested and
where issues are overshadowed by threats,

personality clashes, and confrontation
tactics."3

1Jeanne Kolar, Leo R. Croce, and Justin M. Bardellini,

"Integrative Bargaining in One California School District,"
Phi Delta Kappan, December 1981, p. 246.

2Randy Bohannon, Jerry Gates, and Chuck Namit,

Checking Your Negotiations Style: The Situational Approach
to Bargaining (Olympia, WA: Washington State School
Directors' Association, 1985), p. 2.

3R. Michael Holmes, "Reduce hostility: Use teacher
negotiations to solve mutual problems," American School
Board Journal, August 1981, p. 28.

l

 

 

And finally:

". . . a time when board/teacher dialogue
was strained, mistrust prevailed, and ublic
support of public schools was waning."

The traditional, adversarial approach to collective
bargaining is adopted by newly bargaining school districts
as the accepted practice. Teachers' associations and school
boards submit proposals to each other and proceed to engage
in strategies that culminate in the trading off of issues.
Most publications that advise on bargaining strategies
encourage confrontational thinking, and stress that gains
only occur with fierce adherence to positions. The anger
and suspicions this procedure produces on both sides can
taint the professional relationship between board,
administration and teachers, and can also create contractual
inconsistencies that sabotage efficient contract management
efforts. As the quotations above so clearly demonstrate,
another approach to collective bargaining in the

professional sphere is needed.

II. THE NEED

Simply stated, the need of the educational community
is to establish viable alternatives to adversarial

bargaining and to discover models that would aid that

4Wayne Buidens, Margaret Marten, and Arthur E. Jones,
"Collective Gaining: A Bargaining Alternative," Phi Delta
Kappan, December 1981, p. 244.

 

 

3

exploration. As Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia Burton

state in their book Mutual Gains:

"We contend that union—management
relationships are not quite as adversarial as
they might seem in theory, but rarely have the
beneficial possibilities that the union—
management relationship can bring been fully
tapped."5

Alternatives to adversarial bargaining are rare,

although attempts at collaborative processes are increasing.
However, these attempts demonstrate lack of concrete
procedures to follow once the traditional method has been
abandoned. If a district decides to try an alternative to
adversarial bargaining, what source is available to guide
them in the creation of a new process? Possible models are
suggested by Irving Goldaber, Richard Wynn and others,6 but

there is a decided lack of information on collaborative
bargaining and on the implementation of such a process.
Particularly, what is needed is workable structure models,

with established protocols and procedures to guide the

creation of alternative models.

For the betterment of the education profession, school

5Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia Burton, Mutual
Gains: A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation (New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1987), p. xiii.

6Irving Goldaber, The Goldaber WIN/WIN Contract
Development Program: A Thirty-Day Program (Schaumburg, IL:
Northwest Educational Cooperat1ve, March 1—3, 1984); Richard

Wynn, Collective Gaining: An Alternative to Conventional
Bargaining: Fastback 185 (Bloomington, IN: P51 Delta
Kappa, 1983). Others are reviewed in Chapter 2.

 

 

4

boards, administrators and teachers must start working
together. Educational reform legislation passed by many
state legislatures has mandated that collaborative
committees be formed and joint policy be created,
specifically in the areas of teacher evaluation and student
discipline. Given the nation's current reexamination of its
educational system, school districts will need to draw upon
all their resources to solve the often long-standing
problems inherent in a slowly changing institution. School
boards, administration and teachers will need to establish
problem—solving venues to confront the myriad of demands
placed upon their systems. If educational leaders upgrade
the quality of their interactions and establish

collaborative working relationships during bargaining, not

only will effective problem solving result, but education
will assume the high professional status it deserves. And

as models for attaining this collaboration are supplied,

guidance during the transition will be assured.

III. BARGAINING HISTORY OF THE SAMPLE DISTRICT

Collective bargaining in School District #41 has been
reasonably amicable for the last ten years, even though the
traditional adversarial mode was used. Although the

teachers have never chosen to strike, strong conflicts and
dissatisfaction have occasionally surfaced. The last major

confrontation occurred in 1976, when negotiations went to

 

5
mediation, and the teachers protested the lack of

contractual progress with a march down the main street of
Glen Ellyn and a candlelit vigil outside the subsequent
board meeting. From that time until the present, reactions
were more subtle in nature. However, a feeling of

discontent prevailed.

Prior to the creation of the new model, the teachers'
negotiating team consisted of four Glen Ellyn Education
Association (GEEA) members and an Illinois Education
Association (IEA) Uniserv (field) representative. The
school board team was comprised of the assistant
superintendent of finance, the board's legal counsel, and
two rotating board member positions. In one year the
superintendent also joined the team. The spokespersons for
the two sides were the IEA representative and the board
counsel. The board occasionally had additional personnel in
an adjacent room to confer with during caucuses. At various

times this included the superintendent, the assistant

superintendent of curriculum, or another board member.

The format had become standardized and was included in
the contract. By a designated date each year, proposals had
been exchanged. This was well in advance of the first
negotiation session, so that each side could consider its

strategy. At the negotiation sessions the two

spokespersons, briefed by their constituents, would explain

the reasoning behind various proposals. Unfortunately,

 

6
these discussions were generally viewed as a preliminary to
the true bargaining, which involved the packaged tradeoff of
issues. Using this process, the goal was to find a package
of issues acceptable to both parties, and at that point

tentative agreement was reached.

The result was a system that demanded extensive
negotiation time (usually four to six months), and that

produced a settlement barely acceptable to each side.

Teachers rarely left the table feeling that their
concerns were understood, for they had not been able to
explain their own positions, and the desired recipients of
their reasoning (superintendent and principals) were not
present at the table. Although the board's legal counsel
was charged with communicating the teachers' concerns to

administration, teachers often felt that this did not occur.

The process described hampered communication, due to
the construction of the school board team, the assumption of

adversarial attitudes, and the designation of a single

spokesperson.

Teachers never spoke directly to their employers about
their concerns, to the loss of both sides. Issues were per-
ceived as a contest of wills, rather than as problems to be
resolved. Composition of the board's and teachers' teams
had remained fairly constant, so that an understanding of

the process and of the necessary posturing was present. It

 

 

7
was understood what needed to be said, what sequences must
proceed for settlement to occur. However, communication

during the sessions was minimal, and frustration and suspi—

cion, although carefully controlled, were always present.

This was the situation that existed in September 1986,

the beginning of the negotiations year.

IV. THE PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the evolution

and implementation of an alternative bargaining model, and

then analyze this model for strengths, weaknesses and

applicability for general use. The model to be used is the

Integrated Negotiations Concept (INC), as created and

applied by the participants from School District #41 in Glen

Ellyn, IL, for negotiations in the spring of 1987.

V. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study will attempt to answer the following

research questions:

1. What are the strengths of the created model?

2. What are the weaknesses of the created model?

3. What recommendations for change can be made in

the future use of this model?

 

8

VI . THE OVERVIEW

Alternatives to traditional adversarial bargaining are
necessary in the labor relations field, as the results of
confrontational tactics have had increasingly destructive
results both to management and to labor. Strikes, time lost
to grievance handling, and contractual misinterpretation
have taken a toll on many institutions, in addition to
absenteeism and inefficiency due to poor staff morale. The

results in public education have been an interrupted

education for this nation's children, and the allocation of

valuable energies away from professional efforts.

There are few documented approaches to collaborative
bargaining, and even fewer structured models. Existing ones
are reviewed in Chapter 2. Also included are possible

strategies and techniques to use in a collaborative setting,
and a final design model for creating and implementing a

collaborative model.

Chapter 3 explains the methodology chosen for this
study and contains a treatise on current case study
perspectives. A brief description of the sample district is
included, as is an outline of the process used in the
creation of the negotiations model. The collection and

treatment of data are discussed. Data are analyzed using

"The Design of Effective Union—Management Cooperative

9
Efforts"7, a suggested process guide for model creation.
The limitations of a study of this nature are also

explained.

The evolution of the negotiations model will be
explained in Chapter 4 and its implementation discussed in
Chapter 5. Chapter 6 will analyze the process (its
procedures and protocols) by using the design model
mentioned above, and will ascertain its strengths and

weaknesses. It will also produce working hypotheses to

guide future researchers in this area.

The creation of the model entailed a total of over 300

hours of effort, as almost all steps in the process involved
group interaction and consensus on various issues. There

were no unilateral decisions made, and the complete
involvement of all participants was expected. Initial
meetings centered on the formation of the protocols and
process, and later ones on the selection of a facilitator

and on the agreement on rules for the bargaining sessions.
Irving Goldaber's WIN/WIN Model was used as a base struc—
ture, but the needs of the individual district had to be

agreed upon, and then the model altered to fit those needs.

Implementation covered a six-week time span. The

beginning and ending sessions encompassed whole weekends;

7Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton, Mutual Gains, pp.
139-209.

 

10

three—hour interim meetings were held twice weekly. After
settlement, further meetings were held to clarify certain

issues and to evaluate the process.

It is hoped that by establishing the groundwork for
this kind of an effort, other districts will realize a de-
creased time demand, and will benefit from the elimination

of unnecessary steps. In any event, it will certainly alter

the relationships of the parties involved, and they will

never perceive collective bargaining in quite the same way

again.

 

 

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

Collective Bargaining in the public schools has, for
most sophisticated areas, become an accepted procedure.
Unfortunately, the nature of that bargaining is often
hostile, as evidenced by the preponderance of teacher

strikes in recent years and the frequent use of grievance

action to settle union—management conflicts. A more
cooperative approach to settle disputes must be considered

-- and this is the focus of the current study.

A review of relevant literature substantiated the

common perception of bargaining as adversarial. The
majority of writings dealt with techniques used to control
or conquer your opponent. However, since the focus of this
study is cooperative models, this chapter will limit itself
to reviewing attempts at cooperative bargaining in school

settings.

This chapter will basically deal with five major

topics:

I. Stages in the Development of Labor Relations
II. Collaborative Approaches
III. Collaborative Models in Collective Bargaining
IV. Strategies and Techniques

V. Design and Planning

11

 

 

12

The differences between Section II, Approaches, and

Section III, Models, may need some elaboration.

A number of groups have tried somewhat loosely
structured cooperative approaches, which were composed of
techniques used in dealing with a conflict situation. These

will be described in the second section. More structured

models have also been created under various names, which
include the procedures to be used as well as the techniques.
These will be discussed in the third section, to show the
similarities and differences of cooperative models, and lay

the groundwork for the proposed study model.

I. STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS

The inevitability of collaboration is suggested in the
work of Charles T. Kerchner and Douglas Mitchell.l In an
article published for the National Institute of Education in
Washington, D. C., they describe the progression of stages

in labor relations in public schools, and while cooperative

relations are seen as inevitable, they are not seen as

permanent.

Kerchner and Mitchell describe three generations and

two intergenerational periods of conflict between teacher

1Charles T. Kerchner and Douglas Mitchell, The
Dynamics of Public School Collective Bargaining afid_Its
Impacts on Governance, Administration and Teaching(
Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Education, March

1983), p. 1—6.

 

 

 

 

13
organizations and administration. The First Generation is

called the "meet and confer" stage. There is a high level

of trust, and organizations are not very strong or
important. There is a general feeling that administration

has the best interests of the teachers at heart.

The First Generation breaks down, usually over
ideological issues. Teachers feel they have been denied
justice and dignity, and overt actions such as strikes are
not uncommon. This Intergenerational Conflict ends with a
legitimacy for the newly militant teacher union and an
acknowledgement of the necessary function of the

administration.

This ushers in the Second Generation, a time charac-
terized by "good faith bargaining." Conflict is reduced,
although flare—ups of high feeling occur. Strikes occur
over economic issues, if at all, and the primary source of
tension between teachers and administration is the scope of
bargaining. Eventually, the relationship between the two
groups becomes comfortable, and knowledgeable insiders

develop patterns of interactions by which labor relations

are handled.

The Second Intergenerational Conflict occurs when
concerned outsiders feel that labor organizations have taken
over the schools and must be controlled. These people run

for school boards, and trust again becomes low and conflict

 

 

 

 

14
high. This stage ends when management becomes an aggressive
member at the bargaining table, and teachers accept that

role for management.

The Third Generation is one in which the teachers

accept that their status and economic well—being are

dependent on the public perception of themselves as being

competent and having the best interests of the students at
heart. Management enters this phase when it realizes that
important school policies are made through the collective

bargaining process and cannot be kept separate. "Thus, in

the Third Generation, there is an explicit joining of

bargaining and policy."2

Kerchner and Mitchell feel that not many districts
have reached this point, that most labor relations in public
education are still developing toward this stage.3 It is
felt that the environment described here would be the most
conducive to cooperative labor relation efforts, and the

scant amount of related literature supports the newness of

the concept.

It is interesting that in another paper Kirchner and
Mitchell join Wayne Erck and Gabrielle Pryor in warning
about the hazards of cooperative efforts. While

acknowledging a growing stream of literature documenting

21bid., p. 7—5.

3Ibid., p. 1—9.

 

   

 

 

15

cooperative labor relations in public school settings, they

warn:

"Accommodative relationships between school
executives and teacher union officials do indeed
develop in some cases, but cooperative
relationships are politically hazardous for both
parties. Episodic upheavals in the political
environment can sweep elected and appointed
officials from office, challenge the legitimacy
of established working relationships, and
radically alter labor relations."4

An alternative to the sociological perception
presented above is given by Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and
Cynthia E. Burton in their book Mutual Gains: A Guide to

Union- Management Cooperation.5 Their focus is general

labor relations rather than a perspective limited to the

public sector, and they refute the belief that cooperation
in labor relations is a new trend, for historical records
show there have been waves of cooperative dealings, often

associated with national and economic crises.

Union-management cooperation dates from the turn of
the century, with early unionists advocating worker owned
and managed enterprises. In the last half of the 1800‘s,
there was spirited debate in the labor movement about

whether to cooperate with the owners of capital or to

4Douglas E. Mitchell, Charles T. Kerchner, Wayne Erck,
and Gabrielle Pryor, "The Impact of Collective Bargaining on

School Management and Policy," American Journal of Education

89 (February 1981): 153.

5Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton, Mutual

Gains: A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation (New YorE:
Praeger Publishers, 1 )I P. .

 

   

 

 

16
promote worker ownership. The prevailing notion of business
unionism supported traditional businesses and sought to
improve wages, hours and working conditions. Experiments
involving joint participation occurred, one being the
Filene's Department Store in Boston, which in 1898
instituted a Cooperative Association. This association
could make or change any store rule, Subject to veto by the
owners, and the owners' veto could be overridden with a
two—thirds majority vote. Other attempts included elected

representational bodies, complete with a House of

Representatives and a Cabinet!

The shop committees that formed during World War I
provide one of the clearer antecedents to the cooperative
movement, caused by the need for full production and domes—
tic labor peace. Although a number of these occurred out—
side union settings, they occurred at a time of rapid union
growth, and eventually were encompassed by union groups.
Their major purpose, as stated by William Leavitt Stoddard,

administrator of the National War Labor Board, was to:

". . . bring about efficiency and better
working conditions. . . . The organization is
dual or joint and is based on a theory of coop-
eration rather than the theory of competition or
conflict."6

Immediately after the war, many employers abandoned

these programs, but they came back even stronger in the

61bid., p. 37.

 

17
1920's. The number of workers covered by shop committees
climbed from 319,000 in 1919 to 1.5 million in 1924 in more

than 814 firms.

As the danger of fascism grew in Europe and Asia,
discussions of union-management cooperation escalated, and

during the war years a new labor—management relationship
emerged, led by the War Production Board. A major activity
of the body was to promote the development of labor—
management committees throughout American industry. The
committees were a great success, not only increasing
efficiency in industry, but also allowing workers the

satisfaction of working with management.

After the war, the labor-management climate worsened
significantly. As wartime pressures ended, and servicemen
returned to the work force, tensions escalated and strikes
broke out. Management rights clauses and union security
agreements became commonplace, sharply delineating authority
recognition. Union-management cooperation fell by the

wayside, and although there were examples of cooperation

during the 1950's, it never reached the high levels of the

1920's and the 1940's.

During the 1960's, the focus was on general human
relations theory, rather than union-management relations.

The stage for today's cooperative approaches was set by the

work of Kurt Lewin, Renses Likert, Robert Blake, Jane Mouton

 

rustz-zuninste-I .:.:v~.....:.;.-- - . -
. - ' --.'l'.

18

and others, who developed action research models and new

understandings of group dynamics.7 As the 1970's

progressed, various studies researched and supported the
concept of union-management cooperation. One of the most
significant was a study released by the U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, entitled Work in America. It
generated intense discussion on worker alienation and the

need for new forms of work organization. By the end of the
1970's, partly sparked by the Japanese models of workplace
success, interest and activities had increased. The

cooperative strategy was rediscovered as a way to increase

the viability of the unionized sector, competitiveness, and

union satisfaction.8

Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton feel that, given the

activities and principles stated in the past, the current
trend toward cooperative relations can hardly be called

"new." They feel that if any lessons can be learned from

the historical record, they are:

l. Cooperative programs aren't permanent (The

impetus for cooperation is perceived as purely situational).

2. Macroeconomic forces play a major role in the
longevity and incidence of cooperative programs (Cooperative

approaches are affected by depressions, wars, the state of

7Ibid., p. 43.

81bid., p. 44.

 

 

19

the economy, and major social forces).

3. Historically, there has been a contest between
joint union-management programs and management-initiated

programs.

4. There is a long and proud history of union—
management cooperation in the United States. The
cooperative plank has always existed, although admittedly a
minority viewpoint to the more pervasive adversarial

conception of labor relations.9

It appears that Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton are
implying that cooperative ventures, like many historical
movements, are cyclical in nature, which can certainly also
be surmised from the work of Kerchner and Mitchell.

Although Cohen—Rosenthal's viewpoint encompassed a national
perspective and Kerchner's focused on a small self—contained

environment, the rotation of stages is clearly presented.

The current appearance of cooperative union—management
relations in public education can in that light be expected.
Societal demands for reform and a need to reestablish
credibility in education as a profession have compelled some
administrations and unions to join forces to work toward the

mutual bettering of education as a whole. Insufficient

financial supply, coupled with large—scale changes, has

91bid., p. 46.

20

started educators down collaborative paths. At this point
cooperative labor relations is still "experimental" and
infrequent, but a growing desire for collaborative,

supportive environments on the part of both management and

union can be anticipated.

II. COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES

A number of attempts to end adversarial relations and
establish more civilized, communicative approaches in
education have been documented recently. Those presented
represent behavioral or attitudinal components rather than
changes in collective bargaining structure. A further

section will address change models.

One example of changed attitudes is shown by R.

Michael Holmes, writing in the American School Board
Journal, who cautions administrations against confrontation
tactics in negotiations.10 He feels many school officials
try to resolve conflict in one of two ways, either of which
he sees as counterproductive to increased communication and
efficiency in public schools. One method, labelled
WIN/LOSE, espouses the philosophy of one side winning
everything and losing nothing, while the other side loses
everything and wins nothing. Another method, based on

10R. Michael Holmes, "Reduce Hostility: Use teacher

negotiations to solve mutual problems," American School
Board Journal, August 1981, p. 28.

 

21

compromise, creates a give—and—take environment, where each
side will experience some gain and some loss. He feels the
former method creates imbalances in a system guaranteed to

cause future conflict. The latter does not find the best

 

solution to a problem, but rather a solution based on the
tradeoff of issues, often leaving specific concerns

unresolved or even not considered.

What is proposed is a problem—solving approach, where
both sides present perceived problems, and then the entire
group looks for solutions to those problems. If solutions

cannot be discovered that completely eliminate a concern,

alternatives can be drafted that best meet the needs of the
problem. The advantage here is that each side clearly
understands the needs and positions of the other, and if a

compromise must be reached, it is a compromise toward the

solution of the problem, not a compromise in bargaining
items. Where the first method described above deals with

the ending strength of bargaining results, and the second

compromises on issue clarity, the third actually addresses
the problem, and therefore would create the most beneficial

solution for both sides.

Holmes ends the article with the following

consideration:

"Perhaps more than anything else, the problem solving

approach offers us the opportunity to lay the groundwork for
the reestablishment of positive, productive

 

'_ erratum? slushy: :-::=--:- ' .'--1 -' - - ' --~ -.;v

 

22
relations between school boards and bargaining
units. We are all in this school business
together, and we need each other to succeed. We
need each other's wisdom, trust, cooperation and
commitment. If we continue to function with an

us—against—them attitude, one fact seems
certain: We will all lose."ll

Problem solving as an approach is again addressed in

the article "Tackling Problems Through Negotiations" by Lane

Tracy and Richard B. Peterson.12 They define the components
of problem solving as defining the problem, investigating
its causes, proposing alternatives, and choosing the best
alternative. It is interesting that in a list of variables
containing trust for the other side, friendliness for the

other side, acknowledgement of legitimacy and support from

the other side, respect for the other side was found to have

the strongest correlation with success in problem solving.

A cooperative approach to negotiations is encouraged
by Johanna and Phillip Hunsaker, who offer the following

among a list of negotiating guidelines:

1. Negotiation should aim toward the satisfaction of

all parties.

2. The importance of give-and—take should be

recognized in compromise situations.

111bid., p. 29.

12Lane Tracy and Richard B. Peterson, "Tackling

Problems through Negotiations," Human Resource Management,
Summer 1979, p. 14.

 

 

23
3. The essence of successful negotiations is
cooperation. Any succession of moves toward
agreement will need the cooperation of the

parties to reach mutually acceptable solutions.l3

From a slightly different view, Charles S. LaCugna, in
a paper for the Washington State School Directors' Associa-
tion, indirectly supports problem solving as an approach in
bargaining, but feels that labor relations groups, locked in
adversarial perspectives, would be unable to change their

attitudes without help. He proposes that parties select

". . . a permanent neutral to monitor their
labor relations . . . he would have formal and

informal relations with the parties throughout
the term of the collective bargaining agreement
and during the bargaining for a new collective

bargaining agreement."14

The permanent neutral could be used in a variety of
positions, such as mediator, fact-finder, monitor,
counselor, and guide. The neutral could "foster
communication, allay suspicions, reduce animosities, suggest

mechanisms for handling complaints, and conduct meetings."15
Problem solving as an approach was more concretely

l3Johanna S. Hunsaker, Phillip L. Hunsaker, and Nancy

Chase, "Guidelines for Productive Negotiating
Relationships," Personnel Administrator, March 1981, p. 38.

14Charles S. LaCugna, A Plan to Reduce Arbitration and

Negotiation Impasses (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State
School Directors' Association, 1985), pp. 5-6.

15Ibid., p. 6.

 

 

24
advanced by Frank B. Brouillet, the Washington State
Superintendent of Public Instruction, in 1974.16 The state
had been experiencing increased labor relations tensions in
public education, dating from the enactment of a collective
bargaining bill in 1965. After a long and vicious teachers'
strike in 1973 in the Vancouver area, Brouillet organized

what came to be known as the Washington School Collaboration

Project. Launched on a statewide level, the model exposed

over 3000 individuals to 24 hours of training in formal
problem solving and 12 hours in negotiations strategies and
roles. Four successful problem solving techniques were
used: (A) the advocacy approach, which seeks win-win
outcomes, with a maximum of face saving involved for all;

(B) Images of Potentiality, which focuses on long-range

goals and putting differences of opinion to work to solve
problems; (C) "Management—responsibility guidance," which
assigns specific individuals the responsibility of meeting
school district objectives; and (D) research utilization,
a systematic process that clarifies the problems, finds

alternative solutions, and selects appropriate responses.

As a training model, especially one administered

statewide, it serves as an example of the need and use of
instructing local negotiators in formal problem—solving
techniques.

l6Gaye Vandermyn, "Learning the Negotiations Game,"
Compact, July/August 1974, p. 970.

 

 

25

III. COLLABORATIVE MODELS IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The previous sections of this review have dealt with a
brief history of collective bargaining in a specific and
historical sense, and a review of collaborative approaches
to labor relations. However, since this paper deals with
the creation of a new model, a comprehensive review of

existing models seemed indicated. They are described below.

A. Collaborative Approach

John J. Augenstein chose this title as a description of
the model he created for the schools in the Diocese of
Youngstown, Ohio.17 There was a perceived need for the
integrating of two concepts, justice for teachers and the

existence of a community of faith. This model is an attempt

to achieve that integration.

The participants are termed Collaborators (teachers)

and Stewards (pastor, principal, parents, parishioners,

board members). The number of participants can be decided
by the group with an ideal size being eight (it is inter—
esting to note that in the example used there were three
teachers and five stewards). Larger districts could elect
to enlarge the group with more representatives. There are

17John J. Augenstein, A Collaborative Approach to
Personnel Relations: A Modal Process for Justice in the

Catholic School Community of Faith (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC
Document Reproduction Serv1ce, ED 195035, 1980), pp. 9—13.

 

26
two leaders, one from each representative group. The
Participant has responsibilities relating to attendance,
preparation, participation, and resolution. During discus-
sion, each group presents its feelings on a certain matter,

but should be prepared to accept a consensus rendered by the

total body, even when its own ideas do not hold sway.

Meeting location and agenda are decided by the

leaders, and study materials are prepared and distributed

well in advance.

The format of the meetings is generally: (a) prayer
service, (b) presentation of information, (c) discussion,

(d) resolution, and (e) concluding prayer.

Augenstein provides sample session content outlines.

One is included below:

Fifth Session

1. Prayer service
2. Brief review of last session
3. Issue C: Personal and Family Monetary

Needs (Lay Teachers)

a. Salary Scale (wages)

b. Other Benefit Compensation (For
this issue, it is helpful if each
constituent or group can develop
one or more proposals for the

whole group's consideration. The

 

 

 

27
starting points are existing wage
scales and benefits.)
4. Review of agreements reached at this
session or summary of points made
5. Identification of issue or issues for
next session
6. Establishment of individual or group
assignment for next session
7. Establishment of date, time and
location of next session
8. Prayer Service or Reconciliation Rite

9. Socializationl8

Final items covered in this process model are: the
process time frame (which should be included in the yearly
school calendar); the final decision—making responsibility
(this should be decided at the outset); and the

dissemination of results to the proper bodies.

There is a brief discussion of a conflict resolution
technique used in this process. The stages generally are
(a) the stating of the problem, (b) the listing of possible
solutions, (c) the listing of conditions for solution,

(d) consideration of possible consequences, (e) the review

of all solutions, and (f) selection of the best solution.

Examples of each step are given for a specific problem.

18Ibid., p. 11.

 

 

28

B. Theory Z Bargaining

This model, based on a Japanese management philosophy
described by William G. Ouchi as "Theory Z," shares the

following principles and techniques with that philosophy:

-- unity between management and union on
the goals of the organization

-— cooperative team approach

—— genuine concern for employee welfare

-— consensus decision making

-- emphasis on problem solving

—- structures and styles that facilitate

communication

-— concern beyond short-term benefits19

The model, based on problem solving, was used by the
North Clackamas and Lake Oswego School Districts in Oregon.

As proposed in 1974, the components of the model were:

1. Each side would bargain for itself with no

outside help at the bargaining table.
2. Each side would have a team of eight.

3. Teachers would only bargain issues pertinent to

their local.

19Marilyn Pheasant, "Theory Z Bargaining Works:
Teachers and Administrators in Two School Districts Replace
Hostility with Trust," OSSC Bulletin 28 (March 1985): 2.

 

 

29

4. Teams would meet monthly to discuss any problems
they had.
5. By agreement, they could negotiate the contract

whenever a problem was found, or when they felt

it was desirable.20

During implementation, the following actions occurred:
the school board agreed not to employ a professional
negotiator and the teachers agreed not to bring a uniserv
representative to the sessions; all levels of administration
were represented on the administrative team; the teachers
agreed to bargain only local concerns; there was agreement

to continuous negotiations in monthly meetings; and the
board agreed to give the administrative team wide latitude

to negotiate non-economic issues. The success of these

actions produced a positive result in the first year.

Two major developments occurred during the second year
of the process. One was that the superinten— dent, who had
conceived of the process, was made the team spokesperson,
and the other was that the superintendent persuaded the
school board to make their first offer their best offer, the
latter effectively ending positional bargaining once the
teachers' union was persuaded of the sincerity of the

offers.

201b1d., pp. 4-5.

30

There have been two major threats to the process: in
1977 when new union officers felt bargaining had been more
productive the old way, and in 1978 when bargaining went to
mediation and fact-finding. In the first case older members
persuaded the new board to continue with the process, and in
the latter, even though the teachers did not approve of the

fact-finders' report, the union leadership recommended

acceptance, and members attending a rally voted to approve.

There were no further threats to the process, and as
of 1985, it was felt that the feelings of trust and
cooperation between the teachers and administrators had

grown stronger over the years.

The benefits from the model are felt to be: (a)
attitudes of mutual problem solving and cooperation
developed; (b) time spent on negotiations was greatly
reduced; (c) teacher concerns changed from union business to

curriculum and student achievement; (d) the association
became a helpful ally to the administration (passing budget

levies, enforcing building procedure); and (e) rumors and
speculations, often leading to misunderstandings, stopped

because of the monthly meetings.

C. Situational Approach to Bargaining

After briefly comparing a Traditional Bargaining Model

(adversarial) and an Interest Bargaining Model (win-win),

 

ni: has massing ed: .5315» our-1:10.: u‘ Mm: w-.- art: "i’-":u'\.'.la'.'-Jq

"’1- 1:: ..'._i \r 9-,. I. - E- {9-, 3 .- .-.;1-jf.v._- __,-, - s' _. _-.- '- -_ -' fl

-
a. ..n .J

 

 

61

"Investigator actions can take two forms:
imposition of a priori constraints on the ante—
cedent conditions (control), and imposition of
constraints on the outputs. The more an inves-
tigator does both, the more he is experimentally
inclined; the more an investigator does neither,
the more he is naturalistically inclined. Both
experimental and naturalistic approaches (as
well as others) can, thus, be conceptualized as
occupying different areas within a common
inquiry space defined by the two dimensions
noted."4 (see Figure 1)

.-

Naturalistic
Inquiry

“Ideal"
Experiment

/

HIGH

Degree of
Imposition of
Constraints
on Possible
Outputs

(Dependent
Variables)

    

 

  

LOW

LOW HIGH
“Ideal"

Naturalistic Inquiry

Degree of Imposition of Constraints on
Antecedent Variables

(Independent Variables)

Figure 1: Representation of Inquiry
Space or Domain of Inquiry5

4Egon G. Guba, Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic

Inquiry in Educational Evaluation (Los Angeles: UCLA Center

for the Study of Evaluation, 1978) p. 79.

51bid., p. 10.

 

 

 

31

Chuck Namit believes that there are problems inherent in
both.21 The traditional approach is too confrontational,

and inexperienced negotiators can stumble over the rough

issues in collaborative (win—win) bargaining.

Kenneth H. Blanchard and Paul Herseys created a
leadership model call the "Situational Leadership Model."22
The basis of that model is that different situations demand

different leadership styles, and that to adopt one rigid

style and use it in all situations will lead to failure.
Namit contends negotiations should be approached in this
manner, since a single inflexible negotiating style will
limit the possibilities of success and insure unreal
expectations. To that end the "Situational Approach to
Bargaining" has been developed as an aid to select an

appropriate bargaining style and strategy to fit various

situations.
Four bargaining stages have been identified:

1. Conflict Stage -- "warfare," high degree of

distrust on both sides;

2. Containment -— "armed truce" —— each side

acknowledges the other -— board tries to contain

21Randy Bohannon and others, Checking Your

Negotiations Style: The Situational Approach to Bargaining

(Olympia, Wash.: Washington State School Directors
Association, 1985), p. 8.

221bid.

 

 

32

union demands;

Accommodation —— emphasis is on building a
relationship -- reason and persuasion are used;
Cooperation -— trust is high and motivation is to
solve problems —— issues are usually dealt with

as they arise.

Namit feels that in any given negotiation round the

parties may move through any of these stages, and that a

knowledgeable negotiator will determine the stage for

specific issues and handle the situation accordingly.

Elements or Bargaining descriptors, which would vary

depending on stage entered, were seen to be:

1.

3.

Motivation Element of the Bargaining Relationship

(desire of the participants for a smooth

interaction);

Decision Making Element (at what level in the
district hierarchy are decisions made; who are

the participants in the decision?);

Bargaining Process Element (what stage is used?).

In a parting observation, Namit noted the following

characteristics as indicative of districts who have reached

a Collaborative Stage:

33
1. They have a Realistic Assessment of the

Bargaining Stage.

2. They agree that the Durability of the Agreement

is the Measure of Success.
3. They have Written Principles which provide Focus.
4. They have Developed a local Trust Capital.

5. They realize that Mutual Interests are Essential

to an Agreement.

D. Integrative Bargaining

In an article about bargaining in Livermore,
California, Jeanne Kolar and others explain that in

Integrative Bargaining, conflict is perceived as a failure

in problem solving that can be overcome by the application

of effective problem—solving skills.23

In this model, both sides agree to omit "throwaway"
items from the bargaining proposals, and to admit openly
their bargaining priorities, thereby eliminating the
strategy need of the traditional bargaining process. In
addition, the board/administration and the teachers agree to
submit all unresolved issues to study committees composed of

23Jeanne Kolar, Leo R. Croce, and Justin M.

Bardellini, "Integrative Bargaining in One California School
District," Phi Delta Kappan, December 1981, p. 246.

 

 

34
all three parties. These committees study each unresolved
issue, and their recommendations are submitted to
negotiations in the next year. The committees objectively
examine data and consider alternative solutions that best
meet the needs and concerns of interested parties, without
losing track of district goals. It also allows a large
number of people to contribute information and feedback on a
given issue, and eliminates quick decisions without adequate

reflection.

The board negotiator is an administrator hired from
within the district. Although the board negotiator reports

negotiations progress directly to the board, if teachers
feel they need to address the board personally on certain
issues, their chief negotiator and union president attend

executive board sessions to present items for discussion.

Honesty, mutual trust, and cooperation between the
parties are essential, and it is imperative that the
superintendent and president of the teachers association
model this relationship, and have ready access to each
other. Having risked trusting each other, the Livermore
school management are now working together in a climate of

mutual honesty and respect.

E. Collective Gaining

Another model that uses monthly meetings in the

bargaining process has been successfully implemented in

 

   

 

 

35
Forest Park, Illinois.24 (In the early development of the
process, Participation Training was provided for the total
staff, and in-service courses in group dynamics and

interpersonal relations were offered, so the proper

interaction perspective would be held by all parties.)25
The gaining committee consists of five teachers, the
superintendent, a building administrator and two school
board members. The committee strives for collaborative

problem solving and decision making, with the goal of

finding solutions that are beneficial to the total group.

Meetings are held monthly, and the responsibility for
chairing the meeting rotates. The meetings are open to the

public, and broad participation is encouraged.26

Teachers are given release time for faculty gaining
meetings monthly, and the issues are also given discussion
time during school board meetings and administrative

meetings, so all constituents are adequately polled.

0

Problems submitted for discussion must follow the

agreed criteria:

24Wayne Buidens, Margaret Marten, and Arthur E. Jones,
"Collective Gaining: A Bargaining Alternative," Phi Delta
Kappan, December 1981, p. 244.

25Arthur E. Jones, Collective Gaining: A Collective
Bargaining Alternative (Schaumburg, 111.: Northwest
Educational Cooperative Conference, March 3, 1984), p. 1.

26Buidens, Marten, and Jones, Collective Gaining, p.
246. ————-———-——-—-————

 

 

36

a. The problems should affect all the groups
represented.
b. The problems should reflect a need for

participatory integration of the views of all

factions.

c. Solutions to the problems should potentially

benefit everyone —- children, parents, teachers,

administrators, and board members.

d. Fiscal and legal implications of problems should

be evaluated prior to the meeting.

Voting as a means to decision making is prohibited —-
the goal is to arrive at a general consensus. Caucuses are
not allowed, but items can be tabled if additional input is

needed by a representative group.

"The process of arriving at consensus
requires committee members to make every effort
to accommodate varying positions and different
opinions. If they manage to do so, they develop
a feeling of ownership and a commitment to
successful implementation of the final solution.

Decision making is multi-lateral, and eventual
agreements are a product of open discussion."27

F. Goldaber WIN/WIN Contract Development Program

The model developed in this paper was based in part on

the WIN/WIN philosophy and Contract Development program

27Ibid., p. 245.

 

   

 

 

37
created by Irving Goldaber through his work as Director of
the Center for the Practice of Conflict Management, in
Miami, Florida. For that reason, both aspects of his

program will be thoroughly explored here.

In a paper published by the Confederation of Oregon
School Administrators in 1982, Goldaber explained

alternative models of response to conflict.28 He felt a
conflict proceeds along several action routes, linked
together in a chain. In the beginning, a CALM exists.
However, then some imbalance in the system creates a
CREVICE, which CHALLENGES the state of calm. At this point,

with the forces at a CROSSROADS, a CONFLICT is imminent.

Four paths are possible at this point.

1. LOSE/WIN MODEL

This constitutes a model of avoidance. The party
desiring change decides, for a number of reasons, not to
confront the adversary. This will usually occur when the
party desiring change is in a position of less power than
its adversary.

28Irving Goldaber, Transforming Conflict into a

'WIN-WIN' Outcome (Salem, Ore.: Confederation of Oregon
School Administrators, 1982), p. 1.

 

 

 

38

2. LOSE/LOSE MODEL

If two forces of equal strength reach conflict, a
COUNTERBALANCE may occur, and the state of conflict, similar

to a cold war, becomes the status quo.

3. WIN/LOSE MODEL

In this model, at the point of CONFLICT, a CLASH

occurs, and each party seeks to gain what it desires,

through the destruction of its opponent.

4. WIN/WIN MODEL

If, after the conflict has been joined, the parties
decide to explore a COLLABORATIVE relationship, acknow-
ledging shared goals, a win/win arrangement is possible.

Its characteristics are a voluntary yielding of power, a

"newpromise," and a willingness to disagree agreeably.

While the first and third characteristics above are
clear in their intent, the second needs some explanation.
"Newpromise," a word created by Goldaber, is "a solution to
a conflict situation employing a restatement of the original

standoff to arrive at a valid articulation of the

obstacle."29 It is a re-analysis of the original conflict

to ascertain other acceptable solutions.

29Ibid., p. 7.

L—__

 

 

39
Goldaber points out that reestablished states of calm
are not meant to be permanent; that change, and therefore
conflict, inevitably follows calm; and that a positive,
beneficial way to handle conflict will enrich both parties

as they move through states of transformation.

The Goldaber WIN/WIN CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM is
designed to bring labor and management to a signed contract
in which both parties attain their desired goals. Both

parties will emerge as partners in the labor—management

relations of the district, all within thirty days.30

The program itself begins with the agreement of both

labor and management to use the WIN/WIN Program in their
upcoming negotiations process. At this point the presiding
officers of the two groups meet to establish tentative
protocols for the program. The officers then take the
protocols back for finalization to their respective groups
(a set of sample protocols, created by Goldaber, can be
found in Appendix A). Protocols cover topics such as the
composition and number of team members, the role and
requested behavior of the facilitator, the timing and
schedule of meetings, guidelines for the Communications
Laboratory, the establishment of committees, etc. (the

protocols will become defined as the program progresses).

3OIrving Goldaber, The Goldaber WIN/WIN Contract

Development Program: A Thirty—Day Program (Schaumburg,
111.: Northwest Educational Cooperative Conference, March
1-3, 1984), Pp. 1—14.

40

Each group then meets separately to prepare a list of
questions. Parties are encouraged to present for discussion
any and all concerns of their group, regardless of the
negotiable nature of these items. The purpose is for each
side to hear the emotions and reasons behind the other's
list. Each group meets separately to compile these lists,

which are then brought to the Communications Laboratory.

The "Communications Laboratory" is scheduled for
Friday night, all day Saturday, and Sunday morning. Strict
rules of behavior are engendered and followed. Examples of
rules are that individuals from opposing sides alternate
speaking, that no one may be interrupted, that no one may be
criticized for what he says, and that topics are discussed
until all views have been heard. The point of the sessions
is to have each side hear the other's reasoning, not

necessarily to produce solutions.

On the concluding day of this session, items are
determined to be negotiable or not negotiable, and then are
categorized by topic. Committees are appointed, comprised
of participants of the laboratory weekend, with each
committee assigned one Contract Matter topic. Examples of
topics would be Salary and Wage items, Contract Language

items, Benefits items, or Working Conditions items.

The charge of the committees is to meet separately,

over a three-week period, and to find possible acceptable

41
solutions to the proposed items. Any items not resolved

after three weeks are brought back to the large group.

On the fourth weekend, all participants meet again in
the original large group for an all—day Saturday session.
Committee members bring all recommendations and unresolved
issues back to the large group for resolution. At the end
of the weekend, all items are resolved and a Contract

Writing Committee is formed.

This committee then converts all agreements into
official contract language, the total group meets together
to approve the contract, and it is then taken to the
representative bodies for ratification. The group meets one

final time to sign the approved contract.31

Goldaber feels this program is successful because the

parties come to the table acknowledging the failure of
traditional bargaining as a process, and firmly committed to

making attempts at another perspective.

It is interesting to note that these are the only
specific procedural collaborative models found in the
literature. A scan of additional literature revealed other
authors reviewing models already present.

3lCopies of this condensed program, along with

questions and answers, will be found in Appendix A. Also
included there is the WIN/WIN model devised and used by the

Glenbard Township High School District #87, in Glen Ellyn,
111., for the spring of 1987.

 

 

42
William J. Jones, in an article exploring the
beneficial results of intense communication before, during
and after the bargaining process, uses both the California
model of Integrative Bargaining and the Collective Gaining

model of Illinois as his examples.32

Raymond L. Hagler and Mary J. Thompson refer to
Kerchner's Generational Stage sequence and to collective
gaining and integrative bargaining in an article pleading

the causes of collaborative labor relations.33

At the community college level, Robert V. Moriarty
compares the distributive (traditional) bargaining posture
with the integrative model, also describing the use of a
neutral, using as an example Goldaber's WIN/WIN'Program.34
Karen M. Moriarty describes the use of Goldaber's WIN/WIN
model in District 230, in southwest Cook County, Ill. A
district that had exhibited historic labor unrest negotiated
in thirty days a contract that brought an increased sense of

32William J. Jones, School Labor Strife: Rebuilding

the Team: Communications Alert (Arlington, Va.: National
School Public Relations Association, 1982), p. 14.

33Raymond L. Hogler and Mary J. Thompson, "Collective

Negotiations in Education and the Public Interest: A
Proposed Method of Impasse Resolution," Journal of Law and

Education 14 (July 1985): 443-69.

34Robert V. Moriarty, "Trustees and Collective
Bargaining," New Directions for Community Colleges 13

(September 1985): 75-80.

 

 

 

43

trust and mutual respect to the bargaining parties.35

The models described above use a number of interaction
techniques and strategies, and these will be described

further in the next section.

IV. STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Getting to Yes, by Roger Fisher and William Ury,
explains a negotiations model they have called principled
negotiations.36 As the Director and Assistant Director of
the Harvard Negotiations Project, they are at the forefront
of modern negotiations analysis. Adversarial bargaining is
termed positional bargaining here, since it usually entails
the adapting and then surrendering of a series of positions
by the parties. The authors state that "Any method of nego-
tiations may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should

produce a wise agreement, if agreement is possible. It

 

should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not
damage the relationship between the parties."37 Positional
bargaining must be considered unsuccessful when the above
criteria are applied. It is felt most decisions are unwise,

35Karen M. Moriarty, Win—Win Bargaining: Thirty Days
to a Contract (Clearwater Beach, Fla.: Annual Meeting of
the Association of Negotiators and Contract Administrators,
November 7-9, 1984), pp. 1-5.

36Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1981), p. 11.

37Ibid., p. 4.

 

 

44
since they usually split the difference between final
positions, rather than addressing the underlying concerns of
the parties. They are inefficient, due to the large amount
of time used for the establishing and then changing of
positions. Positional bargaining also encourages a contest
of wills, which is damaging to the relationship of the

parties in the long run regardless of settlement.

The major components of the principled negotiations

model are explained below:

A. Separate the People from the Problem. Three

categories are identified with which to effect

the above dictum.

1. The first is Perception. Are you clearly
understanding what the other side is saying? And are you
truly stating what you mean to say? Parties are encouraged
to repeat back to the other side, without judgment, what it
is believed they are saying and mean. Clarification can
take place at that point. The authors urge that "Under-
standing their point of View is not the same as agreeing
with it."38 Also included here is the other party's sense
of inclusion in the process. Rarely will an amicable
settlement occur if one side feels the other does not value

its opinions, beliefs and ideas.

38Ibid., p. 25.

45
2. The second category is Emotion. In most

negotiating situations there are strong feelings toward the
issue. Find out what beliefs are producing those emotions.
Recognize and understand them, and acknowledge them as
legitimate. Often, simply acknowledging that certain

emotions are present, and that they are legitimate, will
defuse them. And, if necessary, allow the other side to

"let off steam," without responding or defending yourself.

3. The third category is Communication. The problem
perceived here concerns parties who are not trying to
communicate anything, but are simply speaking to impress or

further solidify their position. And even if one party is

seriously trying to communicate information of substance,
often the other side is not really hearing, but is already
formulating its next response. Even if both sides are
listening and speaking seriously, misinterpretation can
result. The solution to such communication problems

basically involves active listening, and then acknowledging

what is being said. Not only will the intent of the
statement be clarified, but the message will be sent that
their concerns are important to you. Speak to be

understood, speak with a purpose, and speak about yourself,

not about their faults.

A positive way to confront "people problems," then, is
"to understand empathetically the power of their point of

View, and to feel the emotional force with which they

46

believe it."39 And to prevent "people problems," build a

relationship early between the parties, through joint

 

committees or other means.

Ideally, the parties should think of themselves "as
partners in a hard—headed, side—by—side search for a fair

agreement, advantageous to each."40 And that leads to the

second component.

B. Focus on Interests, Not Positions.

 

Interests are a party's needs, desires, concerns, and
fears. Your interests are what caused you to take the

positions you did. Reconciling interests rather than
positions works because for every interest, there usually
exist several positions that could satisfy it, and even
though positions are opposing, often many interests are
shared. Identify your interests, communicate them openly
and aggressively, and encourage the other side to do the
same. "One useful rule of thumb is to give positive support

to the human being on the other side equal to the vigor with

which you emphasize the problem."41

391bid., p. 24.
40Ibid., p. 39.

4lIb1d., p. 56.

 

 

47

C. Invent Options for Mutual Gain.

There can be many possible solutions to a problem.
Often, however, parties have a fixed idea about the solu—
tion, and do not consider others. In this step, parties
should first invent options without judging them. They
should broaden the list of possible options instead of look—
ing for "the one single answer." Brainstorming is a viable
technique to use at this point. Then look for material
gains. Shared interests lie latent in every negotiation.

Often, through brainstorming, agreements can be drafted that

were not originally conceived by either party.

D. Insist on Using Objective Criteria.

At this point, agree to negotiate on some basis inde-
pendent of the will of the other side. Usually this entails
an external standard or procedure, independent of the two

sides' positions. Some examples are market value, prece-
dent, scientific judgment, efficiency, costs, etc. If both
parties agree to a standard, mutually agreeable decisions

can be made, preventing one side from having to give in.

Principled negotiations produce wise agreements
amicably and efficiently. Relationships are protected as
struggles for dominance are reduced. Since time-consuming
posturing is eliminated, along with the necessity for making

and changing commitments, efficiency is achieved. And wise

 

 

 

48

agreements result from both sides working together to find
the best possible solutions, aided by the use of established

legitimate and fair criteria.

Continuing in the same vein, Fred E. Jandt, in his
book WIN-WIN Negotiating: Turning Conflict into Agreement,
offers similar strategies, although more liberally titled.42
He describes six reactions to conflict, and contends that
conflict is inevitable and often beneficial. A number of

sources of conflict are delineated, and thinking that will

escalate a conflict is examined. Destructive and construc-
tive uses of conflict are depicted, and also included is a
review and critique of the techniques used in the book

Getting to Yes.

At this point Jandt begins to describe the attitudes
and behaviors that will result in successful collaborative

bargaining. He feels that the key to gaining power is to

identify what you and the others really desire. Acknowledge
that you have as much to offer them as they have to offer

you. You should determine what you really want (and not a
symbol of the want), rank these wants, determine who

controls what you want, and then trade what you want for

what the other person may want.
Your goal is twofold. First, determine what is your

42Fred E. Jandt, Win-Win Negotiating: Turning
Conflict into Agreement (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1985), p. ix.

 

\__J_li-1m§53efl mini. £._II__:I_9:_1__EI_:'_1_.1:.'T__ 553-33. -r ' -- :4 .-.H--‘-"..'..3 rich-d

‘i'... 4’: .‘ (I. _-|‘l-'.-.I:.II ..' '-_‘

 

 

49
"mini—max," a term used by Jandt to describe the minimum and
maximum you can give away and accept. Then, determine your
opponent's mini-max. Successful bargaining here will be
based on the accuracy of your knowledge about real wants,

not necessarily stated wants.

"Unpacking" is a term used to describe breaking down

an issue into its component parts. If a single issue can be

changed to multiple issues, then movement becomes possible

on part of a problem, which will often cause movement on
other parts. Parties are cautioned to keep their options
open, however: "Never agree irrevocably to a single point

until the entire agreement has been accepted."43 For the

necesary tradeoffs to occur, parties must remain flexible.

Jandt concludes with his definition of win-win

negotiating: "a concept for making conflict work in which
parties summon all their imaginative skills and resources to
provide each other with an array of benefits that neither

would realize if not for the other."44

V. DESIGN AND PLANNING

Whereas Fisher and Ury, and Jandt, in their books
concentrate on strategies and techniques to use in the

actual negotiations, Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E.

43Ibid., p. 293.

44Ibid., p. 298.

 

 

50

Burton, co—authors of Mutual Gains: A Guide to

Union—Management Cooperation, analyze and describe a

45

concept. Operating from a research base, Part I addresses

various issues. They include a definition of union-
management cooperation from a broad perspective, the impact
on union and management if they decide to cooperate, a
history of cooperative attempts (described elsewhere in this
chapter), attempts in American industry to implement
cooperation, and an intensive look at cooperative programs

in the international sphere.

Part II presents various ways to incorporate a
collaborative approach into aspects of the union—management
relationship. The grievance procedure is discussed as a
problem—solving tool, the use of labor-management committees
is explored, new industrial structures such as quality
circles are delineated, and the effect of these changes on

revenue enhancement is presented.

Part III recounts in detail the steps necessary to the
implementation of a cooperative effort. Because this design
will be used in the analysis of the model presented in this
paper, it will only be touched on here, and explained more
fully in a later chapter. Briefly, Cohen—Rosenthal's design
consists of six steps: The decision to participate and its

implications; the initial planning of the progam; the

45Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton, Mutual Gains, p. xiii.

 

 

 

51
governing and managing of the program; developing and
delivering the training to the necessary participants; the
efficacy of the communications; and the monitoring and

evaluating of the program.

The final section of this work addresses the financial

side of cooperative efforts, with various chapters dealing
with profit sharing, incentive plans, open sharing, and

employee ownership.

A conclusion that espouses all the literature reviewed

here is best stated by Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton:

"Union—management cooperation is really an
issue of choice. It is neither inevitable nor
impossible. It is the choice of the union and
management partners to opt for cooperation or
confrontation. Once that commitment is made
there is an enormous range of choices bounded in
large part by institutional imagination about

what forms cooperation can take. The parties
must carefully choose the approaches best suited

to their own particular circumstances and need
. . . the choices do not end with selecting an
approach, for within each one are a number of

’ choices about how it should be developed and
nurtured. At the end the choice emerges again
about whether the cooperation was worthwhile,
should it continue, and if so how can it be
improved or extended."46

VI. SUMMARY

This review of literature briefly touches upon five

major areas. Section I presents a historical reflection on

46Ibid., p. 263.

52

cooperative labor relations, both from a closed, one-

district perspective and from a large, whole—world View.

In Section II, various articles are then presented
which show collaborative approaches to negotiations and
labor relations in general, without actually describing the

specific models available to attain these ends.

Section III is a comprehensive review of any published

collaborative models. Interestingly enough, only six models
were identified. They are:

A. Collaborative Approach Process

B. "Theory Z" Bargaining Process

C. Situational Bargaining Process

D. Integrative Bargaining Process

E. Collective Gaining Process

F. WIN/WIN Contract Development Program

Strategies and techniques to be used at the table are

identified in Section IV, using two well—known works,
Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the

Harvard Negotiations Project, and WIN/WIN Negotiating by

Fred E. Jandt.

There are obvious difficulties inherent in devising
and implementing a collaborative negotiating model, and
Section V explores these avenues. The book Mutual Gains by

Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton thoroughly

 

 

53

reflects on basic design problems, and it is this
perspective which will be used in analyzing the new study

model later in this paper.

An unusual dearth of information on the subject of
cooperative union—management models indicates the newness of
the concept to modern-day labor relations. Although
individual programs exist and have received attention, they

are isolated examples of an experimental nature, and often

are based on specific relationships that exist in particular
leadership groups. Widespread use or even consideration of
anything other than adversarial positioning seems to be just

beginning.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3

Design of Research

1. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY

This study is a naturalistic case study. It is

descriptive in nature and concerns the evolution, imple—

mentation, and analysis of a collective bargaining model
created by School District #41, Glen Ellyn, IL, in the

spring of 1987.

II. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE

School District #41 in Glen Ellyn, IL, is a small
elementary district, consisting of four elementary schools

and one junior high school. There are 179 teachers employed
there, and the administration includes four elementary
principals, one junior high school principal, two assistant
superintendents, and one superintendent. There is a

seven-member elected school board.

The community is just west of Chicago, in affluent

DuPage County. The 1980 U. S. census revealed the following

profile:
Population —- 59,961
Average household income -- $30,600
Average cost of a home -- $90,800
Average educational level -- 15 years

54

 

 

 

55
Ethnic makeup -- predominantly white, with
3% nonwhite and 1% hispanic
Average household size -— 3

Homes with children under the age of 18 —- 45%

Glen Ellyn is a professional community, where educa—
tion is a priority concern. There is extensive community
involvement in the schools and much support of the

educational process there.

III. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS

The initial group was composed of two board members,
the superintendent, the assistant superintendent of finance,
six Glen Ellyn Education Association (GEEA) members, the
Illinois Education Association's Uniserv (field) represen-
tative, and the board's legal counsel. Two meetings were
held, on January 12th and January 20th, 1987, to establish

interest and develop charges.

The second group formed came from within the first,
and consisted of two GEEA members, the superintendent and
one school board member. This group met on January 27th and

February 5th to establish protocols for the process and to

screen facilitator applications.

On February 10th and February 17th, the first group

met again, with the addition of two more GEEA members.

Potential facilitators were interviewed by the total group

 

 

 

56

and the facilitator selected.

On March 12th the small group met with the chosen
facilitator to outline expected conflicts, first in total,

and then each side separately.

Formal negotiations began March 20th and let, with a

Communications Lab format, similar to that described in the
review of literature. The group consisted of the entire

school board (seven members), the superintendent, the
assistant superintendent of finance, and legal counsel for
the board's team, and eight GEEA members plus the IEA
Uniserv representative for the teachers' team. This session
encompassed Friday night (5:00 to 9:00) and Saturday (9:00

to 6:00).

For the next six weeks, a smaller component of the Lab
group met for negotiation sessions. This group was composed
of four GEEA members, two school board members, the Uniserv
representative, the board's legal counsel, the superinten-

dent and the assistant superintendent of finance. A total

of ten meetings were held.

The entire Lab group met on Saturday, May 2nd, to
review tentative contract agreements and further discuss
unresolved issues. The session lasted from 9:00 until

12:00, at which point all issues were resolved and

contractual agreement was reached.

57

IV. COLLECTION OF DATA

Throughout the process described above, data were
collected through first—hand observation. During the
planning stages two individuals, this observer and the
superintendent, took notes at each meeting. Impressions of

meetings were verified at subsequent meetings, as notes were
reviewed and confirmed by the entire group present at the

meeting.

During actual negotiation sessions, two additional
sources were made available. The small negotiations group
agreed to the presence of an impartial non—participant to

act as recorder. This individual was charged with recording

not only issues discussed, but also opinions and viewpoints
expressed on the issues, designating the source as the
board's team or teachers' team. These notes were then
reviewed at the next meeting by the entire group for

validity.

The group also agreed that a number of the negotiation
sessions could be recorded on tape. This was agreed to at
the request of this observer on the condition that the tapes

would be used solely for this study.

V. TREATMENT OF DATA

The evolution of the negotiations model will be

described, and then the steps taken will be analyzed using

 

 

 

58

"The Design of Effective Union-Management Cooperative

Efforts," contained in the book Mutual Gains by Edward

Cohen- Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton.l This design will
be described more fully during the analysis; however, the
six major headings are indicated below to provide

indications of content:

1. First Steps: The Decision on Whether to

Cooperate and Getting Started.

2. Setting Clear Direction: Designing and Planning.

3. Taking Charge: Governing and Managing.

4. Building Skills: Developing and Delivering
Training.

5. Creating Awareness: Communications and
Publicity.

6. Keeping Tabs: Monitoring and Evaluating.

VI. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

There are two perceived limitations of this study.
The first is the use of observations as a data gathering

mechanism, and the resulting potential for subjectivity.
The group feedback processes described in the next section
lEdward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton, Mutual

Gains: A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation (New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1987), pp. 139—209.

59

counter this possible flaw.

The second limitation pertains to the generalizability
of findings. Due to the selection of case study research as
the methodology, the effects of this model on other school
district negotiations can only be assumed. It can be argued

that a similarity exists in school district relationships

and attitudes because of the nature of its constituents, and
that a reasonable presumption might be made as to effect.

However, since generalizability cannot be established, this
study will produce only working hypotheses, to be used as a

basis of further research.

VII. DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY

A. Current Perspective

This study will be a descriptive case study. It is
fortunate that the disfavor with which the case-study method
was once viewed in scientific circles is on the wane. It is
appropriate to explain the new perspective emerging on the

case study methodology, or naturalistic inquiry (N/I).

The altering situation is described by Wayne W. Welch

and others:

"For several years, the accepted evaluation
paradigm has been the controlled experiment. It
is the dominant research for the physical scien-
ces and psychology and the one that most resear—
chers were exposed to in graduate school. But
concerns about the difficulty of implementing

 

60

experimental studies of human service programs
and the limited success enjoyed by them have led
to a search for alternative approaches . . .

these approaches study objects or programs within
and in relation to their naturally occurring

contexts."2

"The past two decades have witnessed both

an intellectual and ideological struggle over
what constitutes meaningful research methodology

in the behavioral sciences. We need only read
the opening two pages of many papers presented
at AERA [American Educational Research Associ-
ation] annual programs over the last several
years to be cited a litany of the strengths and
weaknesses of naturalistic versus experimental
studies, quantitative versus qualitative
methods, or soft versus hard research . . . .
Today, however, researchers are facing up to the
magnitude of establishing certainty; no one
research method can provide the answers."3

The viewpoint of the two studies above, and others
mentioned below, is that case—study or naturalistic inquiry
is gaining credibility as a research method. A description
of naturalistic inquiry, and its relation to other research

methods, can be found below.

B. Definition

Egon G. Guba states that naturalistic inquiry can be

defined by what the researcher does.

 

2Wayne W. Welch, ed., Case Study Methodology in
Educational Evaluation: Proceedings of the Minnesota
Evaluation Conference (Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and

Evaluation Center, May 1981), p. 1.

3Harriet Talmage and Sue Pinzer Rasher, Quantifying
Qualitative Data: The Best of Both Worlds (Los Angeles:
American Education Research Association, April 1981), p. 1.

     

.. _ " _ -. _ 5J3 . .. ' .. -
. ypofbbnfissm dareeast luipn.W:-. n ~~::12::- 'sflw
-- has: wins Been w .36':‘ -- - - -- - in "Q

‘-"_'.r'--" --;‘:r- .-- 1.11, '_.I'i.‘. ' . r_' :1 - ' - -: . '
'-.'- '2- ":~.':p‘*-.-'I -u' '_ - L".
_ l

 

61

"Investigator actions can take two forms:
imposition of a priori constraints on the ante—
cedent conditions (control), and imposition of
constraints on the outputs. The more an inves—
tigator does both, the more he is experimentally
inclined; the more an investigator does neither,
the more he is naturalistically inclined. Both
experimental and naturalistic approaches (as
well as others) can, thus, be conceptualized as

occupying different areas within a common
inquiry space defined by the two dimensions

noted."4 (see Figure 1)

“Ideal”
Experiment

/

HIGH

Degree of Experiment
Imposttion of

Constraints
on Possible
Outputs

(Dependent
Variables)

Naturalistic
Inquiry

 

LOW

LOW HIGH
“Ideal”

Naturalistic Inquiry

Degree of Imposition of Constraints on
Antecedent Variables

(Independent Variables)

Figure 1: Representation of Inquiry

Space or Domain of Inquiry5

4Egon G. Guba, Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic
Inquiry in Educational Evaluation (Los Angeles: UCLA Center
for the Study of Evaluation, 1978) p. 79.

 

51bid., p. 10.

         

_ _ 0 _ -it into ins-19th? :antmunad -....-'
safioleflb'l'tlz on: 91!: ”(d been: I----!-- .-e..-';-- -;*iup=1i - '
' r

-n‘,-_' ' .-E ""..‘-_—..Ja1

 

62
Because naturalistic inquiry is perceived as being one
part of the total research schema, Guba feels its validity

as a method is established.

C. Need

The need for naturalistic inquiry is described in part
by these purposes: to enlarge the strategies available for
dealing with emergent questions, to provide an acceptable
basis for studying process, to provide an alternative where
it is impossible to meet the assumptions of the experimental
method in the real world, to avoid the implicit shaping of

possible outcomes, and to optimize generalizability.6

Experimental studies were considered more reliable,

since by establishing the same controls and testing for the
same results, efforts could be replicated. However, the
application of these results was often questionable in a
natural situation where variables were not controlled and
outputs could not be constrained. There is a need for

studies of events in their naturally occurring environments,

and case study research fulfills this need.

D. Standard Problems

Guba describes certain standard problems, however,

that can be anticipated with naturalistic inquiry. These

61bid., pp. 79—80.

 

 

.
I'u

 

63

problems are presented in simpler forms elsewhere in the
literature,7 but Guba's analyses are more complete, and his
perceptions will be described below. How the current study

confronts these problems will also be explained.

1. Boundary Problems

Boundary problems describe problems in setting the
limits of the inquiry. Constraints that would create an
unnaturalistic mode are to be avoided, and yet a totally

unstructured study is rarely desired. Guba suggests the

following four strategies:

1. Verification —— Documentation of facts.

2. Causation —- Seeking of causes for the
state of affairs.

3. Contravention -- Seeking of solutions to
the situation.

4. Consequence -- Determination of the conse-

quences if the situation is not altered.

The study presented in this paper is an example of
verification. The negotiations model process is described.

That is the boundary of this study.

7Donald Ary, Lucy Chester Jacobs, and Asghar Razavieh,
Introduction to Research in Education (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972), p. 286; John W. Best,
Research in Education (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1981), p. 111; Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding
Educational Research: An Introduction (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1979), p. 296.

 

 

64

2. Focusing Problems

 

Two varieties of focusing problems are defined: con-
vergence problems, relating to the establishment of sets of
categories within which data can be assimilated and under—
stood; and divergence problems, relating to the "fleshing

out" of these categories with sufficient information for

completeness.8

Convergence problems were quickly solved by the

establishment of the following categories:

a. Evolution of the process
b. Choosing of facilitators
c. Implementation of the process

The use of a descriptive research design greatly
aided the formation of categories, as chronological breaks

occurred naturally, establishing different focus.

I Divergence problems did not occur, for all information
was gathered as the process advanced, and the extensive par—
ticipant input created a continual documentation of events.

3. Authenticity Problems

Problems of authenticity are the most complex. Guba

states:

8Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, p. 80.

65

"The classic criteria of authenticity ap—
plied to research are validity, reliability, and
objectivity. As a matter of fact, all three of

these concepts are currently undergoing an over-
haul . . . the position to be taken here is that
these concepts, while relevant, are in some need
of reinterpretation in order to be fully applic—
able to the N/I situation . . . new terms will
be introduced: intrinsic adequacy in lieu of
internal validity, extrinsic adequacy in lieu of
external validity or generalizability, replica-
bility in lieu of reliability, and impartiality
in lieu of objectivity."9

a. Intrinsic Adequacy

In dealing with problems of intrinsic adequacy
(internal validity), the naturalistic inquirer is advised to
establish safeguards against potentially invalidating

factors. Distortion of observations through bias and faulty

data gathering techniques are mentioned.

The distortion risk was minimized by the verification
mode used in this study. While it is true that the observer
was a participant, and that other participants knew of the
study, objectivity in relating the process was preserved by
continual group discussion and consensus on what was occur-

ring. This prevented the domination of any one perspective.

Also relating to intrinsic adequacy, Guba encourages
establishing the degree of structural corroboration, so that
evidence is strengthened or supported from within the

system.

91bid., p. 62.

66

The techniques of triangulation and cross-examination
are suggested. Triangulation forces the observer to combine
multiple data sources, research methods and theoretical
schemes to check the validity of propositions. Cross—
examination establishes that there are alternative

inferences that may be drawn from any set of facts.

Throughout this study, there was constant corrobora-
tion on perceived process with the total group. In the

early stages process decisions were recorded by various
participants (including this observer) and then typed and
reviewed with the total group at the next meeting. The
process therefore progressed with the full agreement of

those involved as to what had occurred.

Once negotiations sessions commenced, another
perspective was introduced in the form of an impartial, non-
participative note-taker, who was directed to record issues
discussed and also the various opinions expressed about the

issues. The recorder was not to indicate which individual
spoke, but only which side was stating a certain opinion.
These notes were typed and distributed to all participants
at subsequent meetings, where they were reviewed, altered if
necessary, and approved. Structural corroboration was thus

achieved through the consensus of the various perspectives.

A further technique is to establish adequacy through

persistent observation. Guba states:

 

 

67
"Thus, internal adequacy is, to some extent,

a function of the amount of time and effort which

the naturalistic inquirer invests in repeated and

continuous observation. Not only will the inves—

tigator be able to differentiate typical from

atypical situations or identify the enduring or

pervasive qualities which characterize a situa-

tion, but he will also know when to give credence

to the occasional aberrant or apparently idiosyn-

cratic observation which nevertheless carries

great insight and meaning. Thus, persistent

observation and extended contacts are some of the

hallmarks of the internally adequate

evaluation."10

This observer was one of the original participants
meeting with an initial group in January 1987 to begin the
process and choose facilitators. A second small group was
then appointed to implement the charges of the first

committee, and this observer was also a member of that

group. The formal negotiation sessions beginning in March
were composed of a large representative group (described
earlier) and then a group of core negotiators who met for
the small—group negotiation sessions. This observer was

assigned to all committee levels, so that the demand of

persistent observation was met.

b. Extrinsic Adequacy (External Validity)

It is interesting to note the amount of discussion the
issue of generalizability raises in naturalistic circles.
Guba suggests several possible approaches that can be taken,

as a function of the investigator's focus:

lOIbid., p. 65.

 

 

 

68

i. A representative situation -- where

generalizability is argued for all per—

sons passing through that situation.

ii. A time -- when all findings hold for
individuals passing through a certain

time.

iii. Special populations -- generalization
occurs for a certain class of social

organizations (schools, prisons).

iv. A recurring encounter -- the investi-
gator generalizes to types of
encounters (e. g., a police—juvenile
interaction, or school district
negotiations), or to the population of
which the persons involved in the

encounter are a "sample."11

Referring to the last approach, one researcher
attempts to defend generalizability on the basis that "there
are occasions when groups of people will react in a uniform
and predictable manner, regardless of their individual
perceptions . . . note, as an example, the high degree of
uniformity in any society's life, produced by outside

constraints without much attention to individual

llIbid., p. 69.

 

 

 

69
variation."12 It is tempting to adopt the view that all
school districts are composed of predictable components and
structures by their very nature, and that there is
significant commonality in the relationship between teacher
organizations and administration / school board during
negotiations. However, at this point in methodology
evaluation, the assumption of these relationships and

commonalities is unsupportable and must be rejected.

One further view on generalizability comes from Robert
Stake, who contends in a number of articles that it is the
reader, not the researcher, who should decide how

appropriate the case study is for generalization.l3

"How is knowledge from case studies differ—

ent from other research knowledge? . . . Case
study knowledge is (1) more concrete, (2) more
contextual, (3) more developed by reader inter-

pretation, and (4) based more on reference
populations that are defined by the reader's
previous experience. . . . Readers have enormous
power, though it is not infallible, to recognize
what is relevant and irrelevant to their own
circumstances . . . the population of cases most
relevant to decision—oriented research and
program evaluation is the population that the
reader already has experience with. Except in
the most politicized of situations, understanding

12V. K. Gilbert, The Case Study as a Research
Methodology: Difficulties and Advantages of Integrating the
Positivistic, Phenomenological and Grounded Theory
Approaches (Halifax, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Institute of
Educatidfi? June 1981), p. 5.

13Robert E. Stake, Recommendations for Those
Considering the Support of Naturalistic Case—Study Research
(Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Center for
Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, June
1980), p. 5.

 

 

 

 

70

and action will ultimately be based more on

personal conviction that on formal research

findings."14

The varying points of view expressed above indicate
that the concept of generalizability is undergoing revision.
However, until widespread acceptance of these views has

occurred in the scientific community, any generalizations
realized from case studies should be considered working
hypotheses, to be tested in subsequent encounters. That

will be the viewpoint of generalizations taken in this

study. It is noted in conclusion, however:

"While a single case study may not be an ap-
propriate basis for generalization, several case
studies focusing on the same questions, utilized
as part of a hypothesizing and theorizing pro—
cess, and employing similar methodology, could be

significant sources of information —- an 1
increased possibility for generalization." 5

c. Reliability

 

There is no easily apparent way to establish

reliability in a case-study of this kind. Guba feels that
"since it is impossible to have intrinsic adequacy without
reliability, a demonstration of intrinsic adequacy amounts

to a simultaneous demonstration of reliability."16 For the

14Wayne W. Welch, Case Study, p. 39.

15Steven Baruch and Rolland Callaway, Focusing Case
Study Research: Can We Reason Together? (Chicago: American
Educational Research Association, April 1985), p. 6.

l6Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, p. 71.

 

 

71
purposes of this study, reliability was established by group

review of conclusions as described above.

VIII. SUMMARY

This study is a naturalistic inquiry into the evolu—

tion and implementation of a collective bargaining model.

The sample site chosen for this investigation was

School District #41 in Glen Ellyn, IL, an upper middle class
suburb of Chicago. School District #41 is a small
elementary district consisting of four elementary schools
and one junior high school. It exists in a community that
avidly supports its school system, and considers education a

high priority.

The evaluation of the collective bargaining model
began in January 1987, and the process was completed in June
1987. Many groups and subgroups were formed to work in the
process, but all groups were comprised of administrative
personnel, teachers, and school board members. The majority
of the data were collected through firsthand observation.

However, other sources of data were notes taken by an

impartial non—participant, review of these notes by the

group, and tape recordings of the negotiation sessions.

In the treatment of the data, the process model itself
will be analyzed for strengths and weaknesses using "The

Design of Effective Union—Management Cooperative Efforts" by

 

 

 

72
Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton in their book

Mutual Gains.l7

Limitations of the study include the bias and subjec-
tivity that can occur with the use of observation as a data
gathering technique. This potential weakness was alleviated
by the use of group review of process and proceedings. The
use of an impartial note—taker and the tape recording of

results in the negotiation sessions also contributed to the

validity of the data.

A further limitation concerns the generalizability of
the findings. Although there is a similarity in the rela-
tionships and structures of school district negotiations,
generalizations at this stage of methodology evolution would

be unsupportable. The findings of this study will be

treated as working hypotheses for future research.

The internal validity of the study was established
through the use of constant group review and necessary
alterations of written perceptions. Validity was also
supported by the written and reviewed notes of an impartial
non-participant, and by tape recordings of negotiation
'sessions. External validity has been discussed above as a
limitation, and its place in this study described.

Objectivity and reliability are also discussed above as

l7Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton, Mutual Gains, pp.
139-209.

 

 

 

Although experimental, replicable methods h

scientific basis, the study and analysis of human

 

interaction in its natural unaltered environment provides a
viable view of the workings of society. The methodology of

this study is chosen based on that premise.

 

 

s ashatvoxq sumo-swag hemflmu 'F.7'-"'lu‘. :1.- -¢ uni-333393“ ti:

1: -'._:.---..~£-=_\.--. at“? ._ -- - - - .- c.3353»

-_:. _ . . ..1'1

 

Chapter 4

Evolution of Process

The process summarized earlier will now be described

in depth, and analyzed. The guide for the analysis will be
the "Design of Effective Union-Management Cooperative
Efforts" as described in Mutual Gains: A Guide to Union—

Management Cooperation by Edward Cohen—Rosenthal and Cynthia

1

E. Burton. Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton describe six separ-

ate divisions in the analysis of a collaborative process:

1. First steps: The Decision Whether to Cooperate

and Getting Started.

2. Setting Clear Direction: Designing and Planning.

3. Taking Charge: Governing and Managing.

4. Building Skills: Developing and Delivering

Training.

5. Creating Awareness: Communications and
Publicity.

6. Keeping Tabs: Monitoring and Evaluating.

The collaborative negotiations process created in

School District 41, Glen Ellyn, IL, for the spring of 1987,

1Edward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton, Mutual

Gains: A Guide to Union—Management Cooperation (New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1987), Pp- 139-209.

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

75
and subsequently titled the Integrated Negotiations Concept

(INC) will be analyzed using these divisions.

I. FIRST STEPS: THE DECISION

"In the beginning, there is something or a

set of circumstances which motivates one or both

parties to look at cooperative approaches. Rare-

ly do organizations take an anticipatory look at

their situation and examine additional options

for coOperation or ways to improve the management

of the organization and the effectiveness of the

union. More often than not, some precipitating

crisis motivates either or both parties to sug-

gest a cooperative approach."2

School District 41 had not experienced a crisis per
se, but two circumstances suggested alternatives to the
status quo in negotiating technique. One was the use of
Irving Goldaber‘s WIN—WIN negotiating model (described in
Chapter Two) in many of the surrounding school districts in
the spring of 1986. The other was the hiring of a new

superintendent, who had worked previously with Goldaber, and

whose philosophy on management—staff relations closely

matched the concepts presented in that program. Given the
amicable relations of the staff and administration in
District 41, an alternative to the traditional adversarial

bargaining approach used previously was greatly desired.

After some separate preliminary exploration of the

Goldaber WIN—WIN Program by both the administration/school

2Ibid, p. 139.

76
board and the teachers' association, an initial meeting was
scheduled to determine the total group's interest in
pursuing a cooperative venture. The meeting occurred on

January 12, 1987, and was composed of three school board
members, the superintendent, the assistant superintendent of

finance, the school board's legal counsel, the IEA

representative, and six teacher association representatives.

Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton feel that at this stage the

following issues need to be addressed:

— Determining mutual goals and objectives,
— Examining current organizational climate,

- Analyzing the labor-management
relationship,

- Reviewing previous cooperative efforts,

8- Looking at the experiences of others,

- Gauging commitment,

- Surveying the range of options,

— Assessing risks and benefits,

— Arriving at a written agreement,

- Considering a consultant.

For purposes of organizational clarity, these topics
have been grouped, and each will be considered in the light

of the actions of School District 41.

77

A. Mutual Goals

The school board/administration had some concerns
about an increasing fiscal deficit in the district. These
concerns were voiced at the meeting held January 12th. It
was also felt by the administration/board and teachers'

association members that a lack of communication existed
between these two groups. Rarely was a forum created where
school board members and teachers discussed their concerns.
A final issue was both groups' dissatisfaction with the
attitude that seemed inherent in traditional bargaining, and
that did not reflect the generally friendly relations
between the administration and teachers during non-

bargaining times.

B. District Climate

By the initial meeting held January 12th, a number of

significant aspects of the district had already been
considered by both the board and the association. The
climate of the district was determined to be very positive,
with teachers generally feeling strong support from their

principals and the parents of the district.

The labor—management relationship, described more
fully in Chapter 1, was in a transition stage. Although
relationships were generally cooperative for day-to-day

dealings, they seemed to regress to adversarial positions

 

 

 

 

78

during times of conflict. During bargaining and previous
grievance procedures, both sides froze into "positions,"

amid fears of losing ground, and any real communication

stopped. It was the desire of both parties to change that.

The superintendent, upon his entry into the district a
year before, had instigated the first real cooperative
committee dealing with administration/board and teacher
communication. The purpose of this committee, composed of

principals, superintendents and teachers, was problem

solving. The Communications and Problem Solving (CAPS)
Committee was becoming more established, and its purposes
and uses clearer to the participants. The group's per—
ception of this committee played an instrumental part in the

positive consideration of a cooperative negotiations effort.

C. External Feedback

The Goldaber WIN—WIN Program had showed an impressive
success rate. By the summer of 1986 it had been used in
sixty—two districts around the country (see Appendix A) and
had failed to result in contractual settlement in only two
instances. The IEA Uniserv representative, in a presenta—
tion to the teachers' association, described the pros and
cons of the program. Advantages included a shortened time
limit and openness of communications. Using the Goldaber
Program, the time for negotiations was limited to thirty

days, which contrasted favorably with the usual time demand

 

 

79
of six months. Also, gpy issues of concern could be brought
to the table and discussed, whether negotiable or not.
Teachers would also have the opportunity to directly address
£11 members of the school board and personally explain the
reasoning behind their concerns. Open dialogue was

encouraged, and many misunderstandings could be resolved.

Disadvantages were that traditional bargaining
inevitably occurred as settlement neared and final decisions
had to be reached. Neither side was usually prepared for

this regression in format. The IEA Uniserv representative
stressed that not all negotiation problems had been solved

with this program. Also, if the decision was to use a
WIN-WIN facilitator, the cost, which would be mutually
borne, was exceptionally high. However, the Uniserv

representative had participated in a number of WIN—WIN

Bargaining Sessions, and generally recommended the use of

the program.

The superintendent had participated with Goldaber in a
conference entitled Contract Without Crisis and also had
helped implement a cooperative bargaining venture in his
previous district.3 He strongly believed in cooperative

enterprises and was very supportive of this attempt.

3Arthur E. Jones, Collective Gaining: A Collective

Bargaining Alternative (Schaumburg, IL.: Northwest
Educational Cooperative Conference, March 3, 1984); Wayne
Buidens, Margaret Marten, and Arthur E. Jones, "Collective
Gaining: A Bargaining Alternative," Phi Delta Kappan,
December 1981, pp. 244-245.

 

 

 

80
D. Gauging Commitment
"Determining the depth of commitment on both
sides is very difficult. . . . there should be

top—level sanction and involvement on both sides.

Potential participants in the initial stages of
developing the project should be of sufficient
status and caliber that success is possible.

. . . Adequate resources should be available.
. . . The employer must be willing to pay for
the time involved and training needed for an
effective program."4

In School District 41, initial indications were that
commitment was genuine and deep. The participants in the
initial group meeting on January 12th had already spent
several sessions familiarizing themselves with the WIN-WIN
Program and came ready to discuss it seriously. The union
participants included the president of the union, the IEA

Uniserv representative, and four members of the Negotiating
Team, all experienced members from previous bargaining

sessions. The administrative team included the superin-
tendent, the assistant superintendent of finance, the school
board's legal counsel, and two school board members. All
members represented the top power structure in each group's

hierarchy.

It was generally agreed that since one of the purposes
of the collaborative effort was mutual striving for fiscal
responsibility, expenses would be kept to a minimum. The

intention of both groups to provide monies for the effort

4Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton, p. 146.

 

81

was tentatively indicated at this first meeting. The

groups' levels of commitment were high.

E. Surveying Options

The union participants came to the January 12th
meeting prepared to discuss the possible use of Goldaber's
WIN—WIN Program. The superintendent, however, suggested

that the group consider alternatives to that program. The

Goldaber program stressed a thirty-day time line and total

involvement of the school board and teachers' association.
The administrative level (superintendent) was seen as
accessory and used only as resource. It also espoused the

division of the total group into subcommittees, with each

 

subcommittee discussing and solving assigned topics.

The superintendent felt that perhaps a more viable
model could be created if Goldaber's model was used as a
base, but altered to fit more closely the needs of the
district. The superintendent proposed the following

alterations:

l. Elimination of multiple subcommittees
2. A flexible time limit

3. One subcommittee that would negotiate all issues.

Problems with the Goldaber Program included the

following:

 

5135:! Wonder. 3d: 0.1 ans: ems-1. 311's“,- ,.-n='.-:..- 5dr " .3; .'

bin-=5; 't' -:'—:' :' Hr: '- ' - pulsat-

._‘. -:." - ' ' . Hal-'11:?

..
.II

 

 

82

1. Isolation of subcommittees

2. Thirty-day time limit

3. Facilitator expense

4. Time commitment by board members.

Various discussions ensued concerning aspects of that
program, and the advantages and disadvantages of creating a

new model.

The group ultimately agreed to adjourn to give
participants further time to consider this altered proposal.

The groups agreed to reconvene January 20th to make a final

decision.

The original group reconvened on January 20, 1987.
The group agreed to use a mutually acceptable alternative to
collective bargaining, based on the WIN—WIN model, but
altered for use in this specific district. The union had
brought a number of suggestions and requests. The use of
facilitators was a major concern. It was agreed that the
use of a facilitator would be wise because of the general
inexperience of the group in such a process. The cost of a
Goldaber WIN-WIN facilitator was extreme, and other
facilitator sources were viewed as viable and more
reasonably priced. The union suggested the use of an
IEA—IASA (Illinois Association of School Administrators)
team. The group finally agreed that a mutual selection

process be used to hire a facilitator. The entire group

83

agreed to interview prospective facilitators, and dates were

established.

The union suggested a forty-five day time limit for

the process. They felt that with one subcommittee negoti—
ating all issues, thirty days would demand an excessive time
commitment. However, settling well before the end of the
school year was also seen as advantageous, so ratification
could occur before the summer recess. Agreement was reached

on a forty—five day time limit.

The union also suggested that the entire school board

and a corresponding number of teachers be present at the

beginning and ending weekends. There had been some
consideration of only partial board involvement, both in
terms of number of members present and number of meetings
attended. The union felt the commitment of the entire board

was essential for the success of the model. After some

discussion, this was agreed to. The weekend of March 20th,
both Friday and Saturday, was established as the first

weekend, and Saturday, May 2nd, would close the process.

A subcommittee consisting of the superintendent, one
board member, and two teacher representatives was formed to
write the actual protocols for the process. The Goldaber
Program would be used as a base, but the changes indicated
by the group would be incorporated into the protocols. This

group would also screen faciliitator resumes and choose the

 

 

 

84

final facilitators for interview. These conditions were

agreed to by the entire group.

Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton state "When all the infor-
mation is in, a 'go or no-go' decision needs to be made.
The process of reaching that decision will inform everything

the parties wish to do in the future. [Labor and manage—
ment] must accept responsibility for the decision to proceed
and make it work. Shortcutting the necessary steps leads to

lower levels of commitment and less informed choices."5

The discussions of these organizational meetings have
been recounted in some detail to demonstrate the range of

options that were suggested and considered by both sides.

Because the decision was made to alter a model to address

the various concerns of the participants, all parties felt
their Views were given serious consideration. It created a
model that truly represented the needs of the group it would

serve .

The time line used and the composition of the group
also allowed for the evolving of the concept; for the
understanding of and acceptance of the process by those who
would implement it. This increased ownership by the

participants, and ensured their interest in its success.

51bid, p. 147.

85

II. DESIGN AND PLANNING

On January 27, 1987, the subcommittee met to formulate
rules and protocols for the proposed model. Cohen-Rosenthal
and Burton stress the importance of the involvement of
top-level participants in the design and planning stages.
Once again this criterion was met, as the subcommittee

consisted of the superintendent, one board member and two

teacher representatives who were experienced negotiators.

The superintendent supplied a discussion model, as a
means of structuring the meeting. All necessary topics for

discussion on the INC model were included on the guide (see

Appendix B).

The Statement of Purpose was the first discussion
item, and a statement reiterating the group‘s reason for

pursuing a cooperative model was drafted.

The large initial group had already agreed to use
Goldaber's WIN-WIN Program as a basis for the model, so the
organization of the discussion guide followed that format.

The Process guidelines to be discussed included:

— Participants

- Facilitator Selection/Role
— Process Workshop

— Communications Lab

- Issue Disposition

 

86

— Negotiations Sessions
— Closing Session

— General Ground Rules.

As the subcommittee moved through the categories, it

became apparent that there was a strong consensus on what

the purpose of the model was, and how to formalize the
structures based on the group's dictates. There was rapid
agreement on most issues, many of them having been

determined by the large group at the previous meeting.

A. Participants

The consensus at the large group meeting had been that
the participants from the management team would be the
entire school board (seven members), the superintendent, the
assistant superintendent of finance, and the board's legal
counsel, a total of ten members. The teachers agreed to
construct a team of an equal number of participants, which
would include the IEA Uniserv representative and experienced
teacher negotiators. Ideally teachers representing all

schools in the district would be selected, for a total of

ten individuals.

B. Facilitator Selection/Role

It was agreed that the facilitator would be mutually

selected by the original group and his purpose would be to

87
advise on process skills at both the beginning and closing
weekends. The facilitator would also be expected to conduct
a Process Workshop on the designated Friday night, to

acquaint participants with a problem—solving approach to

bargaining.

C. Process Workshop

The purpose of the Process Workshop would be to expose
all members of the INC group to a participative, problem-
solving approach to conflict and instruct them in ways to
use this in the current situation. The group would meet
Friday, March 20th, from 5 to 10 P.M. The participants
would be all indicated INC participants. The superintendent
suggested as a site a local Junior College conference room.

Consensus was reached on these matters.

D. Communications Lab

The structure of the Communications Lab would follow

the Goldaber model, with the change being the nature of the

participants. The proposed new model would include admin—
istrative representatives as an integral part of the team.
The original Goldaber model included only teachers and

school board members.

The purpose of the Lab was to present issues for

discussion and disposition to the total group. It would run

 

88

from 9 A.M. Saturday until the group agreed to adjourn, and
would start again on Sunday, March let, at l P.M. if

necessary to complete the process.

Each side would bring a list of concerns, both nego—
tiable and non-negotiable, to the session, and display these
concerns on newsprint around the room. All parties could

speak. The IEA Uniserv representative and school board's
legal counsel would act as resource personnel, but would not

be directly involved. Caucuses would not be permitted. The

site used would again be the local Junior College.

It was agreed that each issue would be discussed, and
then either dropped or assigned to a group for further
action. One of those groups would be the Negotiation Team.
It was possible some issues would be assigned for resolution

to the Administrative Council, the union, the CAPS

Committee, or the CAC (Curriculum Advisory Committee). By

the end of the Communications Lab weekend, each issue would
be addressed, and either dropped or assigned for further

study to one of the above groups.

B. Negotiation Sessions

The Negotiation Sessions would be composed of a

subgroup of the original large group, including the

superintendent, the assistant superintendent of finance, two

school board members, legal counsel to the teachers and

 

 

 

89
board, and four teacher negotiators, for a total of ten
participants. A strong concern was expressed at this point
by the teacher representatives over the school board's plan
to rotate their members of the negotiating team. This had
been the past practice and had been deemed valuable by the
board, in that it allowed all board members to become
familiar with the process, and yet accommodated the various
professional obligations of their members. The teachers
strongly protested this plan, in that they felt this
practice broke the continuity of the team they were facing
and necessitated explanations and backtracking at the table.
Participants who attended every negotiation session had
ownership in the process and desired its successful

completion. The teachers felt a rotating role inspired no

such commitment and trivialized the board's role.

The superintendent and board member present expressed
surprise at this concern. They agreed to bring the issue

back to the full board for discussion and resolution (it was

eventually agreed to).

The subcommittee decided there would be no structured
format to the Negotiation Sessions. Issues would be
assigned to Negotiations from the Communications Lab, and
that group would determine how they wished to proceed.
Caucuses would be allowed but discouraged, and each side
would appoint one moderator. The two moderators would set

agenda and attend to the clerical needs of their respective

 

 

 

90

sides. It was agreed that all media releases from this
group would be joint releases, and that a neutral recorder

would take notes and distribute them to both sides.

F. Closing Session

The purpose of the Closing Weekend was to address
unresolved issues. Participants would again be the full INC
group. All agreements from the Negotiation Sessions would

be reviewed and tentative contractual settlement reached.

Caucuses would be allowed if necessary. The session would
begin at 9 A.M. Saturday, May 2nd, and continue until
agreement had been reached. It was hoped the facilitator

would aid in the resolution of any disputes.

G. General Ground Rules

Under General Guidelines, it was agreed that any media
releases would be joint in nature, that only members of the
initial weekend lab could observe the Negotiation Sessions,
and that the cost of the facilitator and any meeting

expenses would be shared.

These protocols would be reproduced, and each side

would present them to its members for final approval. The
process model was thereafter known as INC (Integrated

Negotiations Concept).

Except for the interviewing and selection of a

 

 

91
facilitator, this completed the Designing and Planning of
the Process. Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton warn against
rushing this stage:
"Careful design of a cooperative program is

an essential and critical step in the successful

program. Too often, this step is rushed through

or skipped over in favor of accepting a

prefabricated design. . . . Rushing into a

program . . . without proper adjustment to the

local environment can cause long-term delays,
muted performance, or outright failures."

Although the first meeting occurred January 12th and
the protocols were finished by January 27th, it is felt
adequate time was given to the planning and design process.
The decisions and suggestions brought to the large group

meetings reflected many additional hours of discussion by

both sides involved in the process. The intensity of con—

sideration more than offset the expediency of the decision.
It also encouraged the submersion of participants in the

process planning, so that continual reflection was possible.

Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton's flow chart succinctly

indicates the steps suggested in a successful design effort.

The design steps follow, and will be used to analyze

the effectiveness of the process used by School District 41.

The first step, of selecting the designer/planners,
was done by group consensus, and drew members from an

already select, informed and interested group.

61bid, p. 151.

 

92

Select union and management
designer/planners

Identity possible techniques to use

Determine pros and cons of each
technique

Obtain employee input for the program

Identity internal and external helps and
hindrances to the program '

Identity resources for the program

Select techmque(s) to be used

Devise strategies to maximize helps and

minimize hindrances

Confirm program resources
Develop design for program
/

Review, modify and approve program
design

Figure 2: Designing a Program7

 

 

71bid, p. 152.

 

 

 

 

 

93

Steps two, three and four had occurred during the
large group sessions to an extent, and were finalized and

made more specific by the subcommittee that met on January
27th. The large group identified possible techniques to
use, centering most discussion on the Goldaber WIN-WIN
Program. The model was outlined, with a discussion of pros
and cons, and various alternatives to aspects of the program
were considered. Employee input had occurred in preliminary

explorations by the union, and also at the table during the

group sessions.

Step five, the identification of internal and external
helps and hindrances, centered mostly on the need for and
selection of a facilitator to aid in problem solving skills,

and to aid in the resolution of any disputes at the final

weekend.

Step six, identifying resources, had been discussed at
the initial meeting, and the union and administration/board
had agreed to split the cost of the facilitator and any
meeting costs. Each side could bring in additional resource

personnel as deemed necessary.

Step seven, selecting the technique to be used, was
also accomplished at the large group level. It was agreed
to use the basic precepts of the Goldaber WIN—WIN Program,

with the following alterations:

 

 

 

 

94

l. The time limit would be extended from

30 days to 45 days.

2. The administration would be equally

represented on the management team along with

the school board. In the original model, admin-

istration was employed in a resource capacity.

3. Instead of all participants of the Lab
being assigned to subcommittees, only one

subcommittee would be formed, which would

negotiate all issues.

Step eight, devising strategies to help, was continued

by the subcommittee, which met on January 27th. There the

concern over the composition of the board's negotiation team

was discussed, and other issues were resolved.

Steps nine, ten, and eleven were also completed in

this subcommittee meeting, where resources were confirmed,

and the design was developed, reviewed and modified.

Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton at this point differentiate

between the designing and the planning. As the following

flow chart (Figure 3) shows, many of the considerations for

planning occurred during the design.

No training was supplied to the designer/planners.

They were all participants with considerable knowledge of

 

I
t .
* l

t
' l .

95

    
   
   
 

   

Will training in
program planning be undertaken
by designer/planners?

Select the planning process

 

Who?

. . . To do what?
I ntt estions Ian wall answer
do w qu p When?
For what purposes?
Collect information to answer planning
questions: seek employee input

Develop preliminary plan

Review and modify preliminary plan
/

Finalize and approve program plan

With what resources?

 

 

Figure 3: Planning a Program8

x

81bid, p. 159.

 

 

96

the internal workings of their organizations. A base model
for the process had been approved (WIN—WIN), and only simple

modification was necessary to fit their particular needs.

The decision to have a subcommittee plan the protocols

of the model had been suggested and accepted at the larger
group meeting, and the members were selected by consensus

from that group.

The questions of who, what, why, where, when and how
had all been anticipated by the superintendent in his guide,
and the ensuing discussion resolved those issues and created
INC, thereby completing the planning process. As was stated

earlier, all that remained at this point was to interview
and then select a facilitator. And that is the final stage

of the evolution process.

III. SELECTING A FACILITATOR

"Consultants (facilitators) are not always
necessary for the development of a cooperative
project. The need for a consultant has to do
with the complexity of the program and the situa—
tion. If the relationship between labor and

anagement is bad, a mutually trusted third party
might be helpful. If the skills needed to
accomplish a program are not resident in the
employer or in the union, a consultant can help

£111 the gap."9

The participants of INC did not feel they were in a

bad labor situation, only an unfamiliar one. Although in

91bid, p. 148.

 

 

97
previous bargaining sessions there had occasionally been
moments of anger and distrust, basically the relations were
amicable. There was some concern expressed about how to
discuss and resolve hard-line items like salary without

resorting to traditional packaging and tradeoffs.

There was also a general feeling of ignorance about
the problem—solving process, and a need for a formal
introduction to that aspect of interaction. Eventually, the
need for an unbiased third party was seen as crucial to the
success of the process model. For these reasons, the
decision was made to recruit a facilitator to aid in the

process .

Information of the need was relayed to various

conflict management centers. The union also requested that
the resumes of the local IEA—IASA (Illinois Education
Association - Illinois Association of School Administrators)

Negotiation Team be solicited.

By February 5, 1987, ten resumes had been received

from facilitators in the superintendent's office, and the

subcommittee was reconvened to screen the resumes and choose

four for the large group to interview.

Interview dates had been established as February 10th

and 17th, from 5 to 8 P.M., and all members of the original

decision—making group attended. The dilemma faced by the

interviewers has been expressed again in Mutual Gains:

 

 

98

"Beware of consultants who will do
everything for you and have quick and easy
solutions. This leads to consultant dependence
and simplistic analysis. In the union—management
cooperation field, the consultants should be
knowledgeable about collective bargaining, and
understand how to handle healthy conflict. Too
often human resources or organizational develop-

ment consultants have little understanding of
unions or the collective bargaining process."1

That was an authentic concern: Could an individual be
found who was familiar with collective bargaining and yet

also had been schooled in collaborative conflict management?

All of the individuals to be interviewed had excep—
tional resumes. However, those that had extensive conflict
management training knew very little about the labor rela-
tions field. Searching for a facilitator with experience in
cooperative labor relations proved difficult. The most
qualified candidates in terms of experience in WIN—WIN were
the IEA-IASA Negotiating Team, and their schedule precluded

any more commitments for the spring of 1987.

An interview guide had been prepared by the group and
was followed during all interviews (see Appendix B). Out-

side of the structured questioning, participants were free

to voice any concerns they had as the interviews proceeded.
A summary of the candidates' qualifications follows:

Candidate A —— President of a firm specializing in

lOIbid, p. 148.

99
organizational development and financial management with an
additional focus toward management and employee skills

development.

Candidate B -— Specialist in Human Resource

Development and Organizational Development and a practicing
psychologist. Had designed and facilitated participative

approaches to NBA conflict management negotiations.

Candidate C -— Consultant and Trainer in Conflict
Management, and Mediator. Had personally handled the
Skokie—Nazi conflict, the Kent State dispute, and the

Wounded Knee takeover.

Candidate D -— President and founder of a consulting
organization to improve organizational effectiveness and

labor-management relations.

Each of the candidates was extremely interested in the
created model. They all stated that cooperative negotia-
tions between labor and management were a departure from
accepted practice and an experience they would like to be
involved in. The general feeling was that a heretofore
untested process was being implemented, and they wanted to

be involved in it.

At the end of the fourth interview, on February 17th,
the group discussed all candidates and selected Candidate C

as the facilitator. Further discussion ensued until all

lOO
involved felt they could support the chosen facilitator.

The selection of the facilitator ended the planning process.

IV. SUMMARY

During the fall of 1986, School District 41 in Glen

Ellyn, IL was contemplating the contractual negotiations

scheduled for the spring. Both the union executive ranks
and the superintendent and school board were becoming aware
of alternatives to the traditionally used adversarial
bargaining mode and began to investigate Irving Goldaber's

WIN-WIN Program for possible use in their district.

After initial contacts between the board and union
elicited positive responses, it was agreed a meeting would

be scheduled to discuss their groups' mutual interest in

pursuing this path.

The timetable for the evolution of the new

negotiations model is as follows:

January 12, 1987 -- A representative group of
teachers, school board members, administrators, and their
respective legal counsels convene. A discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of the Goldaber WIN—WIN Program
ensues, and the superintendent suggests that the district
use the Program as a base, but alter it to fit district

needs. Participants agree to meet back on January 20th with

a final decision.

 

 

 

101
January 13 to 19, 1987 -- The teachers' union and
school board/administration meet separately to discuss their
interest in an alternative structure. Guidelines for the

proposed new model are created by each group.

January 20, 1987 -— The group reconvenes and agrees to
create a new model, based on the Goldaber WIN—WIN Program,
but with the changes suggested at the last meeting. New

concerns are presented and discussed. A Subcommittee is

appointed to meet and set the rules and protocols for the

model, based on the large group discussion. Dates are set
for the weekend sessions. It is agreed that the current
group will meet on February 10th, 17th and 24th to mutually

interview and select a facilitator. Both the board and the

union will make inquiries about facilitators.

January 27, 1987 —- The subcommittee charged with
establishing rules and protcols meets. Using Goldaber's
model as a guide, and integrating the large group direc—
tions, the protocols are established. The new model is
called the Integrated Negotiations Concept (INC). A major
concern of the union about the composition of the Board

Negotiation Team is discussed and resolved.

February 5, 1987 —— The subcommittee meets to screen
applications for facilitator. Four are chosen for the total

group to interview.

February 10 and 17, 1987 -— Four facilitators are

 

 

102

interviewed, and then one selected by the total group.

At this point, the model was considered ready for
implementation. Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton, in their book
Mutual Gains, point out that a true design effort for a
collaborative interaction should include the following
steps: determining mutual goals and objectives, examining
current organizational climate, analyzing the labor-
management relationship, reviewing previous cooperative
efforts, looking at the experience of others, gauging
commitment, surveying the range of options, assessing risks
and benefits, arriving at a written agreement, and
considering a consultant.11 They also feel that as
designing progresses to planning, the following actions must
be taken: consider possible training for the designers/
planners, select the planning process, identify questions
the plan will answer (who, what, why, where, when, and how),
seek employee input, develop a preliminary plan, review and

modify, and finally finalize and approve the plan.12

The actions taken by School District 41 in the

designing and planning of the Integrated Negotiations
/

Concept were analyzed using these criteria.

lllbid, p. 152.

lzIbid, p. 159.

 

 

 

Chapter 5

Implementation of Process

School District 41 of Glen Ellyn, IL, had created a
new negotiations model, as described in the previous
chapter. The selection of the facilitator on February 17,
1987 had completed the planning process, and the Process

Workshop and Communications Lab were scheduled for March

20th and let respectively.

I. PPEPARATIONS

In the ensuing interval, preparations for implementa-
tion progressed. For the Communications Lab on March let,
each side was to present, on large newsprint sheets, any and
all concerns regarding the labor-management situation. Each
side spent considerable time meeting separately during these
weeks to prepare those issues. As indicated in the

protocols, a release to the media was jointly issued (see

Appendix C, Glen Ellyn News, February 4, 1987).

flhe facilitator also indicated that he would like to
view the district, and then meet with each side to discover
the nature of local concerns, and to ascertain the direction
the Process Workshop should take. The subcommittee of two
teachers, the superintendent and one board member was

reconvened, and the meeting with the facilitator occurred on

March 12, 1987.

103

 

 

104

The facilitator met separately with each side to
establish rapport and determine potential conflict issues.
He then met with the entire subcommittee to finalize plans
for the weekend. The subcommittee explained what they hoped
would be accomplished at the Process Workshop, and what his
role would be. His charges included, among others, the
following two dictates: identify, discuss and practice

skills and techniques of collaborative negotiations; and

identify and practice productive negotiating behaviors and
identify unproductive ones. At this meeting, certain
behavioral expectations for the Communications Lab were
formalized. These included such items as the order of
presentation, the seating arrangement, and the order of

participant discussion upon presentation of issues (see

Appendix B for complete minutes).

II . PROCESS WORKSHOP

All INC participants met at the local Junior College

at 5 P.M. on Friday, March 20, 1987. The participants

included all seven school board members, two administrators,

legal’counsel for both sides, and eight teacher association

representatives, a total of nineteen individuals. This

gathering comprised the finalized INC participant group.

The workshop began with a personal interaction exer-

cise, where various group members introduced each other.

105
The Thomas—Kelmann Conflict Mode Instrument was
administered, so participants could contemplate their
generalized reactions to conflict. The group's results were

tabulated and discussed.

There then were a series of lectures on the nature of
conflict and conflict resolution, touching on the works of
Blake and Mouton. Role—playing was introduced with the
presentation of a hypothetical conflict situation.
Participants were asked to assume various roles, and to

attempt conflict resolution.

The group reconvened for a discussion of mediation.
The elements and necessary skills of mediation were drawn

from group discussion.

Brainstorming as a technique was demonstrated next.
Participants were divided into groups and asked to write
down any solutions that could be conjured from a fabricated

conflict. From that list of suggestions, the best possible

solutions had to be chosen. With that exercise, a
demonstration of creative problem solving surfaced. The

advantages of this approach were discussed and formalized.

The lecture mode was resumed at this point and
communication hierarchies were explored. A simulation game
was then employed to emphasize the use of empathic responses

to conflict situations. A small—group schema was chosen,

and the advantages of this kind of response delineated.

106

The workshop ended with a brief description of the
methods used in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury (see

Chapter 2). Participants were reminded of schedules and

obligations for the Communications Lab the next day, and the

session adjourned.

III. COMMUNICATIONS LAB

The INC participants met the next morning at 9 A.M.

Designated representatives of labor and management had
arrived earlier with the required issues on newsprint, and
had displayed them on the walls of the conference room.
Management had brought ten issues for discussion, and the

union had identified sixty concerns.

The protocols produced by the subcommittee had
stipulated that all issues needing discussion had to be
introduced at the beginning of the Lab. Additional items
could not be introduced later. The role of the facilitator
was to monitor and guide the interaction process, and the
role of legal counsel was observation, unless an opinion was
requested. Caucuses would not be permitted. It was
understood that each issue presented to the INC Lab would

have one of the following dispositions:

- Subjected to the negotiations process,

— Referred to a task force,

107
— Referred to administration for study and
action,
— Referred to the union for study and

action,

- Discussed and noted, with no further

action indicated.

The facilitator suggested that the following

guidelines be accepted:

1. Labor and management representatives

would alternate seating.

2. The parties would alternate presenting

issues. Discussion on each issue would ensue
until closure was reached (this was altered to

accommodate the number of union concerns).

3. The parties could jointly decide to

suspend consideration of an issue. Individual

sides could withdraw issues.

4. The items were not to be negotiated,
/but simply designated to the appropriate body

for resolution.

5. Discussions were to be considered

confidential.

6. Each side would keep a record of the

 

 

 

108

disposition of each issue. The dispositions
would be reviewed and finalized before

adjournment.

The board presented their first item and the reasoning
behind their concern. The union responded and the process
began. In an hour's time only three items had been
addressed, and the group briefly stopped to evaluate their
progress. It was obvious that the process would have to be

expedited if consideration of all issues was to occur in the

specified time. The facilitator reminded the participants
that the purpose of discussion was to determine the
disposition of an item, not to resolve it. It was agreed
that on the first three items much of the discussion
presented individual reactions to the relative worth of an
issue. The facilitator acknowledged that the nature of
certain items might elicit emotional response, but pointed
out that this was not the place for debate. The purpose of

this group was to decide where the issue would be debated.

 

The INC participants indicated that this was their intent.
The process then resumed in an expedited manner. Although
occasionally an issue caused considerable discussion, group
members were more cognizant of the purpose of the Lab, and

either monitored reactions from members of their own team,

or looked to the facilitator to bring closure on an issue.

To indicate the nature of the items, selected issues

are listed below (a complete list is found in Appendix C).

109

Selected School Board/Administration Concerns:

1. To contain the cost of medical
insurance.
2. To pursue means whereby teacher

discretion in use of personal days might be

assured.

3. To explore means whereby teacher
responsiveness to parent requests for evening

conferences might be assured.

4. To provide an overview of district
finances and to increase awareness of budgeting

processes.

Selected Union Concerns:

1. To request that the board commit to
making salaries equitable with District 87 (the

local high school).

/ 2. To discuss the need of professional

staff to have input into proposed program

changes before final decisions are made.

3. To consider the creation of some

system of equitable committee assignment.

4. To discuss the district's need for a

 

' I' an! :dpitn P.M.?) Isa-3.12:4! ' -=. '2. :-: “11.215

 

 

 

110

policy that would promote a management style

that would create a positive, supportive and

humane teaching environment.

The agreed-upon stopping time had been 5 P.M., but the
group decided that one additional hour might bring closure

to the entire Lab, and voted to continue. By 6 P.M. every
issue presented had been discussed and designated for
disposition. Although items were occasionally discussed and

noted without requiring further action, they were generally
assigned to one of four designated avenues: negotiations, a
task force (usually CAC or CAPS), administrative council, or
the teachers' association. A list of items assigned to each

group can be found in Appendix C.

At this point the Lab process was declared complete

and the group adjourned.

IV. NEGOTIATION SESSIONS

Each side had selected five of its members from the
INC participants to be on the negotiation subcommittee.
Management had chosen two school board members, the
superintendent, the assistant superintendent of finance and
the board's legal counsel. The union had chosen four
experienced teacher negotiators and the IEA Uniserv

representative. These individuals met briefly at the end of

the Communications Lab to schedule their meetings. They

 

 

111

decided to meet every Tuesday and Thursday from 4 to 6 P.M.
However, because the district's spring break began the

following Friday, March 28th, the consensus was that only
one meeting would occur the following week and then sessions

would begin in earnest on April 7th.

The INC Protocols stipulated that the negotiation
sessions could be observed by other INC participants, but

would be closed to all other individuals. Negotiation

participants were to discuss the issues openly and seek
agreement through an integrative problem—solving process. A
multiple spokesperson format would be employed. Caucuses

would be allowed but not encouraged.

The intent was that tentative agreement would be

reached each session on those items scheduled for discussion
and that contract language would then be drafted mutually by
legal counsel. Each side would appoint a moderator, who

would coordinate scheduling, assist in agenda determination

and be empowered to approve tentative agreements.

An impartial non—participant would be provided to keep

session minutes. These would be distributed to all members

of the INC Process, but would be considered confidential.

There were a total of ten negotiation sessions. Each
session will be briefly summarized, and any process concerns

that arose described.

112

March 24, 1987 —- This session consisted of
clarifications of protocols and general session planning.
The Process workshop and Communications Lab were reviewed
and critiqued. The nature of the minutes was reviewed.

Minutes would reflect discussion views held by teams, but

not by individuals. All action taken would be recorded. A
release to the media would simply announce that negotiations
were in progress (see Appendix C, Glen Ellyn News, March 25,
1987). It was suggested that items be discussed as clus—
tered on the supplied sheet, Matters for Negotiation (see
Appendix C). It was agreed that the next sessions would
start with contractual language items. The union was asked

to identify by cluster their top priority items, and they
agreed to do this. The session ended with a brief discus—

sion of the effect of early retirement on board finances.

April 7, 1987 -— Content issues discussed included
Maternal Leave, the definition of a "Certificated Employee"

in the contract language, and the inclusion of the
Evaluation Procedure in the contract. Language regarding

"Certificated Employee" was agreed to. No process

I
clarification occurred at this session.

April 9, 1987 —— The union requested a clarification
on the nature of confidentiality. They acknowledged the
confidentiality of the table, but desired to communicate the

disposition of items to the general membership. Management

then admitted being handicapped by the exclusion of certain

 

 

113

administrative members from the information chain. It was
agreed the disposition of items could be communicated to the
respective constituencies orally, but that written lists

would be withheld to prevent unwanted media involvement.

Discussion then continued on the Maternal Leave policy
language and agreement was reached. Consensus was also
reached on a Personal Leave provision. However, language
pertaining to the Evaluation Procedure, Early Retirement,

Leave of Absence and Reduction in Force was tabled.

April 14, 1987 —— Content issues discussed included
the Evaluation Procedure, Limited Access to Early
Retirement, Leave of Absence, Reduction in Teachers, Salary

and Insurance.

There were no clarifications requested on process

constraints during this session.

April 16, 1987 —— The union requested an update on
items from the Communications Lab that had been referred to
the administrative council for action. Little action had

occurred on those items, as the Negotiation Sessions were

drawing heavily on district resources. Most items would be

seriously considered once the Negotiation Sessions

concluded. Clarification was requested on certain items.

Another process issue arose. The item concerning

limited access to Early Retirement, which was presented by

114
management at the Communications Lab Weekend, had been
unexpected. The union team had not previously discussed

this issue with their membership and the confidentiality of

the table had prevented them from doing so since the Lab

weekend. The union requested the right to explore this
topic with the membership. After some concerns from
management about the need to maintain a confidential tone to
the proceedings, it was agreed that this one topic could be

discussed, with the assumption that actual dialogue from the

table would not be used.

Content items discussed at this session included

Evaluation Procedure language, Limited Access to Early
Retirement, financial perspectives regarding Salary and
Insurance, Mid-year Movement on the Salary Schedule, Board

Contribution to TRS (Teachers Retirement System), Job Shar-

ing, and Fair Share. The union remarked that the board's
legal counsel had been the predominant respondent in this
session on the issue of Fair Share. The union requested
that a more varied response pattern on this issue would help
them better understand the board's viewpoint (the issue of

Fair Share concerned the union's request that all non—

members of the association have an amount equal to union
dues withheld from their salary and remitted to the union.
This was to offset the expenses of contract negotiation and
maintenance, which benefited all employees. A Fair Share

Clause was common in neighboring districts). No agreements

115

were reached at this meeting. A list of unresolved items

was begun.

April 21, 1987 -— Language related to Early Retirement
was ratified, and the first salary proposal was placed on
the table. Discussion continued on the following items but
consensus was not reached: Salary, Insurance, Mid-Year
Movement, Job Sharing and Fair Share. No process concerns

were brought to this session.

April 23, 1987 -- The board spoke first in regard to
the union's salary proposal of an 8.02% increase on the
base. The board acknowledged that this proposal was a break
from precedent, in that the union had opened with a reason—
able request, and the board appreciated that intent. Since
the insurance monies would be tied to the total compensation
package, the discussion proceeded, focusing on various board

paid insurance percentages. The board presented a base
salary increase of 6.15%. The suggestion of an increase in
the percentage of board paid insurance premiums from 75% to

95% for individual coverage was also made. Job Sharing lan-

guage,/Fair Share and Involuntary Transfers were discussed.

The union felt that a short caucus would greatly

expedite matters and requested that action. The board
agreed, but reiterated that they felt all matters having a
financial impact should be considered together. After the

caucus, Job Sharing language was ratified.

 

 

116
The INC facilitator, who had returned to view a
Negotiation Session, commented upon adjournment that he had
just observed a very positive interaction, and that he was
impressed by the high tolerance level, open listening and

collaborative spirit he had witnessed.

April 28, 1987 -- This began the last week of
bargaining, if the May 2nd deadline was to be met. It was
suggested that all remaining money items be placed on the
table and briefly discussed. Consensus was to proceed along

these lines.

After all remaining items were reviewed and discussed,

the union suggested a short caucus.

The union caucus produced a composite package to

present to the board. This composite included repeated
requests on three items, altered stipulations on one item,
the tabling of three items and the withdrawal of eight

items. There was also an additional salary increase

proposal of 6.9% of the base.

/The union stated that the salary proposal indicated
was their rock—bottom figure, and they had decided to
present it now so that negotiations would not be delayed,
and in order to indicate to the board what they felt would
be an equitable settlement. There was strong reservation on
the part of the board at the term rock—bottom. They said

they felt their understanding of these proceedings was that

117
a mutual solution would be reached, and that flexibility at
all times was assumed. The union rejoined that sometimes
lower limits existed, and it was only fair to indicate those

as soon as possible.
On that note the meeting adjourned.

April 30, 1987 -- This session consisted of a number
of packages being placed on the table for consideration.

Various items were grouped and four caucuses occurred. The
session had regressed to traditional bargaining, in that
items were now being "traded off" in packages amid frequent
caucuses. A board member remarked regretfully upon the

abandonment of problem—solving as a model. There was no

response to this concern from the union.

The packages basically described a two year structure.
The first year proposal included changes in base salary and
medical coverage, and the second year addressed four items:

a salary increase, mid—year movement on the salary schedule,

a one—time longevity bonus and an increased life insurance

amount.

/
/

Over the course of the session, the amounts of all

these items were altered numerous times and then presented

as a package to the other side.

The session ended with the board's contention that the

union's last proposal did not significantly address the

 

 

 

118

previous board offer. The board had no counter offer at
that time, and asked the union to reconsider the board's

previous offer again for the session on May lst.
The meeting adjourned.

May 1, 1987 -— This meeting had been tentatively

scheduled at the beginning of the time frame as a

contingency. Its need at this point was apparent.

The union had been requested to present another

response to a previous board proposal. This was done. At

that point the board went into an hour—long caucus.

Upon returning to the table, the board presented a
commentary on the state of the negotiations process. There
was a concern from one board member that the process had
become a proposal/counterproposal approach, which opposed
the original concept of having open discussion by both sides
which would lead to resolution as a group. The board had
tried to explain what economic resources were available to
the district, and to balance them in their proposals. The
defici; position of the district was then stressed, and also

the fact that dollars spent on the settlement would further

increase that deficit.

Another member of the management team stated the

team's hope that discussions would not conclude by slipping

back into a separatist approach to negotiations. The

 

 

 

119

initial desire had been to proceed through the process to
its conclusion, positive or otherwise, sharing and incorpor—
ating interests, integrating what was to the mutual benefit
of both parties, and reaching an outcome that would satisfy
basic expectations in a fair and appropriate way. It was
felt this could still be accomplished. The union briefly
stated that they also had perceived the regression to

traditional bargaining, but hadn't seen how to prevent it.

At this point management presented its proposal to the
union. After some discussion, one of the unresolved issues,
that of insurance, was considered in a brainstorming session

and a creative solution was produced using that method.

The union then caucused, and returned with a package

proposal that was accepted by the board. All money items

were resolved at this point.

Two items of a philosophical nature remained on the
table. Upon further consideration, the evaluation procedure
language was ratified. However, there was still no

agreement on the issue of Fair Share.

1
l

The board stated that they had nothing more to add on
the issue, and that there was no latitude in their

parameters. The protocols indicated that the Closing
Weekend be used to reach agreement on unresolved issues, so
the union suggested that this topic be designated as the

discussion issue for the Saturday workshop the next day.

 

 

120

The board team reiterated that they really had nothing more
to discuss. The union rejoined there would be little point
in going over the same arguments, and questioned what the
next step would be, since strong feelings existed on both
sides. The union restated some of its concerns on this
issue, and then indicated they would like to present their
positions to the full meeting of INC participants, and also
seek counsel from the INC facilitator, who would be present

the next day. The meeting adjourned.

V. CLOSING WEEKEND

The stated purpose of the Closing Session was to

summarize tentative agreements reached during negotiation
sessions and to reach agreement upon unresolved issues. The
entire group of INC participants from the first Communica—
tions Lab weekend would assemble for this meeting. Many of
these participants had observed the negotiation sessions of

the subcommittee.

The facilitator would be present. He had not been
involved with the negotiation sessions, although he had
chosen to observe one session. The facilitator was to
assist participants with articulation of their respective
positions regarding unresolved issues, and would create an

atmosphere conducive to consensus decision—making.

Caucuses would be permitted. The session was to

 

 

 

121

continue until agreement was reached.

Only one issue was left unresolved, that of Fair
Share. This was something the union desired very much and
which the board opposed strongly on philosophical grounds.
Discussion followed the Lab format, with members from
alternating sides speaking. After two hours, the union
conceded the issue. All other items were then reviewed, and

tentative contractual settlement was reached.

Time lines for ratification were established, and
suggestions for an evaluation session were made. The
session adjourned at 11:30 A.M. on Saturday, May 2, 1987,

and the process was complete. The implementation of the INC

was concluded.

Although the protocols did not include an evaluation
procedure, a meeting was called for this purpose. The

meeting would also address an item tabled for further

reflection.

On June 2, 1987 the tabled negotiations item was
discpssed briefly and resolved. The evaluation of the model
commenced with an open discussion by the group of all the
steps in the process. This was conducted as a brainstorming

session. Selected reactions are presented below.

Process workshop —- Concerns centered around the

choice of a facilitator and his use of the workshop time.

122
The difficulty in choosing the right facilitator was
discussed and disappointment was expressed over what had not
occurred in terms of instruction. The time stricture was
mentioned and suggestions were to lengthen the process, and

to allow for assimilation of information by having the

workshop occur well in advance of the Communications Lab.
There was not general agreement on how to improve the
workshop, but all agreed it had not fulfilled its function.

The site and number and composition of participants were

deemed appropriate.

Communications Lab -— More positive feelings were
expressed. It was felt that each issue was given ample

discussion, and the goal of disposing of all issues was
achieved. There were again concerns with the process, and
the slow progress at the beginning. It was felt procedure
for the handling of issues needed to be set up beforehand.
The constant visual display of issues on newsprint was seen

as helpful. The Lab was viewed as successful.

Negotiation Session -— The smaller subcommittee was

approved of. Discussion ensued on the appropriateness of
observers, who caused feelings of uneasiness in some parti—
cipants. The need for communications with those outside the
process was discussed, and how the role of observers ful-
filled that need. The general protocols were approved.
Caucuses occurred as financial closure approached; however,

it was felt that might not be preventable.

 

 

123
Closing Weekend —- This was agreed to be disappoin—

ting. The two sides met for two hours and reiterated their
points of View until one side conceded. A suggestion was
made that perhaps all items should have been resolved in the
Negotiation Sessions. This led to reflections on whether

the process was not designed to fail if all the hard issues
were left until the last weekend. Should there be a last
weekend? If not, why have the large group at all? Creative
problem solving was only used once in the whole process.

However, participants felt a trust level had been estab-

lished and that this had been a successful first effort.

No concrete recommendations emerged from this meeting.

VI. SUMMARY

The Integrated Negotiations Concept (INC) was

implemented in School District 41 in Glen Ellyn, IL, in the
spring of 1987. Five major process divisions have been

determined. Each will be briefly described.

February 18 to March 19, 1987 —— During this time, the
board and union teams met separately to prepare the issues
needed at the Communications Lab. The subcommittee of one
board member, the superintendent, and two teacher
negotiators, who had drafted the protocols, met once with

the facilitator. The purpose of this meeting was to

acquaint him with any specific group concerns, and to

 

 

 

124

clarify their needs for the Process Workshop. Ground rules

for the Communications Lab were also reviewed.

March 20, 1987 —— The Process Workshop lasted from 5
P.M. to 9 P.M. All INC Participants attended. The group
included all seven school board members, the superintendent

of the district, the assistant superintendent of finance,

the board's legal counsel, the IEA Uniserv representative,
and eight teacher negotiators. The facilitator chaired the
workshop, and led the group through a combination of

lectures, discussions and simulations related to

collaborative problem-solving in a negotiations setting.

March 21, 1987 —- All INC Participants met at 9 A.M.

for the Communications Lab. Board and teachers had each

compiled a list of concerns to be addressed, and these were
displayed around the room on large newsprint. The board had
brought ten items for discussion and the union sixty. The
protocols stated that all items were to be openly discussed,
and the disposition of the items determined. Each item

would be assigned to one of the following categories:

— assigned to Negotiations

— assigned to Administrative Council
— assigned to a task force

— assigned to the union

- discussed and noted.

 

 

 

125
Initially participants tended to debate the issue at
hand, rather than simply assigning it to an established
group for resolution. Recognition of this behavior curbed
it, and the process was expedited. All issues had been

discussed and disposed of by 6 P.M.

March 24 to May 1, 1987 -- Negotiation of the
designated items occurred. The negotiation subcommittee
members were drawn from the INC group, and included the
superintendent, the assistant superintendent of finance, two
school board members, the board's legal counsel, the IEA
Uniserv representative and four teacher negotiators. The
facilitator was not included in the Negotiation Sessions.
Other members of the INC group were encouraged to observe
the subcommittee. Ten negotiation sessions occurred in this

time interval. All items but one were resolved by the end

of the May lst session.

May 2, 1987 -— At 9 A.M. the final stage of the INC
Process occurred. All original INC participants attended.
The purpose of the meeting was to resolve any remaining
issugs, and to review all agreements reached by the negotia—
tion subcommittee. The remaining item was discussed for two
hours; then the union conceded the item, and tentative
contractual settlement was declared. Plans for ratification

of the contract and evaluation of the procedure emerged.

This ended the formal INC Process.

 

 

 

     
  

|_

       
     

. 'jifl'“.“

9*rmbwption meeting of the subcommittee was held.

1, ,

1-

brainstorming format was used, and no concrete

recommendations emerged from the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6

Analysis and Recommendations

The previous two chapters described the evolution and

implementation of a collaborative, non—adversarial

collective bargaining model, used by School District 41 in
Glen Ellyn, IL, for negotiations in the spring of 1987. An
analysis of that process (begun in Chapter 4) will now be

completed. The following research questions, presented in

Chapter 1, will also be addressed:

1. What are the strengths of the created model?

2. What are the weaknesses of the model?
3. What recommendations for change can be made in

the future use of the model?

I. ANALYSIS

The model implementation will be evaluated using the

"Design of Effective Union-Management Cooperative Efforts"
as described by Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton in their book

Mutpal Gains. The following categories will be described as

to content and then used to review the created model:

A. Governing and Managing
B. Building Skills: Training
C. Communications and Publicity

D. Monitoring and Evaluating

127

 

 

128

A. Governing and Managing

1. Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton describe the need for

governing bodies or steering committees, to oversee cooper-
ative employee participation programs. In this case, the

negotiation subcommittee was providing its own governance.

However, the following warnings still hold true:

"All programs need to be sure that they have
effective governance to guide and nurture the
effort. . . . The comanagement of the process
requires formal structures to keep it going.
Informal agreements or laissez—faire approaches
simply do not work beyond the short term. Too
many programs become the domain of consultants or
particular personalities on either side, and no
structure is established to run the program.

Such programs have a very thin or tenuous base of

organizational support and guidance. If some-
thing should happen to the prime shakers, then
the program will collapse. Good governing struc—
tures shore up the framework of the program."1

The major fault of the Negotiation Sessions is that no
structure was supplied nor process expectation described.
No governing documents were produced. The negotiation
subcommittee was to govern itself, and yet no rules or
guidelines pertaining to its own management were ever

discpssed or composed.

The Process Description indicated that the partici—
pants were to openly discuss issues for negotiations, and

seek agreement through an integrated problem-solving

lEdward Cohen-Rosenthal and Cynthia E. Burton, Mutual

Gains: A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation (New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1987), p. 165.

 

 

129

approach. Caucuses were to be permitted, but discouraged.
It was the goal of each session to arrive at agreement on
those items scheduled for discussion. Tentative contract

language was to be drafted by legal counsel.

All four of the protocols listed above had been
abandoned, at least temporarily, by the end of the process.
Members from both teams expressed frustration with this

development, and yet a solution eluded them., The negotation
subcommittee or perhaps the design and planning subcommittee

should have considered drafting a contingency plan in case
of process breakdown. If such an occurrence had been
considered and discussed, and structured guidelines
submitted, the reappearance of an adversarial mode would
have been a signal for alternative action. Discussion of

content issues could have been suspended until the process

change had been discussed and resolved.

Given that there had been no preconsideration of this
occurrence, the negotiation subcommittee itself could have

declared a recess and decided to address the process
problem. Various individuals did express concern about the
\

direction the discussions had taken, but the process

deadline moved the group on.

One further solution could have been the recall of the
facilitator to aid in resolving the problem. This could

have been recommended in earlier planning stages, or

 

 

130
spontaneously decided by the subcommittee as the problem
arose. But because the subcommittee had really not taken
responsibility for its own management, none of these options
was considered. No governing documents had been drafted,
and no safeguards had been built into the program. This
lack of management and contingency planning was seen as a

fault in the negotiation sessions.

2. One further concern involved participant

selection. The importance of top-level involvement has been
discussed and is essential to the success of any collabora-
tive effort. That criterion had been met. Also critical,

however, is the involvement of middle—level management.
Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton state:

"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to
cooperative and participative programs has been
middle-level resistance. There are several
important reasons to have middle management
involved. First, they usually have a tremendous
amount of knowledge and expertise in the problems
under consideration and therefore add to the
problem—solving capabilities. Second, they are
likely to be involved in approving and putting
into place changes and therefore will be key to
successful implementation. Third, no one likes
to have his or her position eroded, and sometimes
there is an impression that these kinds of
programs aim at showing up the mistakes of the
people in the middle and circumventing their
authority."2

The omission of building principals from the INC

process was seen as unfortunate. An entire level of

21bid, pp. 166—167.

 

 

131

management, because of the confidentiality constraints, were
locked out of the process and information chain. They could
have been invaluable at the Communications Lab, since a
number of concerns dealt with building issues. Also, since
contractual items are often implemented at the building

level, changes must be understood. The inclusion of

principals on the negotiation team would have assured that.
It would also "reinforce [to middle management] the notion
that union-management cooperation is important, and central

to the mission of both sides."3

A number of issues brought to the Communications Lab
by the union concerned specific buildings and principals,
and perhaps it was thought that discretion was the safest
course. However, the nature of the interaction anticipated
for the process should have provided protection. "Ensuring
no character assassination of management or labor at any
level focuses the cooperative process not on personalities,

but on issues."4

A review of other collaborative models from Chapter 2
revegled the following facts: In Theory Z Bargaining, the
negotiating team participants included teachers, administra-
tion, and principals, but no board members. As the model

evolved, a board member was added. When the superintendent

31bid, p. 168.

41bid, p. 171.

 

 

132
involved in Theory Z Bargaining moved to a new district,
where principals were not part of the team, their feelings
of exclusion became an issue, and focused communication
became necessary.5 Three other models reviewed also
identified participants. The Collective Gaining Model
employed teachers, board members and administrators
(district and building). The Collaborative Approach by John
Augenstein used teachers, administrators and parents. The
Integrative Bargaining Approach used subcommittees composed

of the board, administration and teachers.6

In all models, the inclusion of the building level
administrator was considered necessary.» This further

supports the contention that all levels of a district
hierarchy, including middle management, should be

represented in a collaborative district process.

5Marilyn Pheasant, "Theory Z Bargaining Works:
Teachers and Administrators in Two School Districts Replace
Hostility with Trust," OSSC Bulletin 28 (March 1985): 2.

6Wayne Buidens, Margaret Marten, and Arthur E. Jones,
"Collective Gaining: A Bargaining Alternative," Phi Delta
Kappan, December 1981, p. 244; John J. Augenstein, A

Collaborative Approach to Personnel Relations: A Modal
Process for Justice in the Catholic School Community of

Faitfi (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
ED 195035, 1980), pp. 9—13; Jeanne Kolar, Leo R. Croce, and
Justin M. Bardellini, "Integrative Bargaining in One
California School District," Phi Delta Kappan, December
1981, p. 246.

 

 

 

133

B. Building Skills: Training

The INC process constantly referred to the necessary
process interaction as integrative problem solving. The
intent was that, using a multiple spokesperson format,

participants would openly discuss issues for negotiation and

seek agreement.

It was understood that "integrative problem solving"
was not an inherent individual skill, and that some training

in this process was desirable.

Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton state:

"Good results come from knowing what you are
doing. Most union-management programs require

new skills and understandings. Some believe that

it is as easy as sitting down together and talk-
ing. While this is a start, the most effective

forms of joint activity demand new understanding
of content areas and cooperative processes.
Without training, many programs hang on good will
and good luck. Training does the following four
things for any joint union-management effort:

1. It explains what the program is and
how it will work.

2. It teaches the basic principles,
processes and procedures by which the
activities of the program will be run.

3. It provides skill training in the
specific areas necessary to meet the
goals and objectives of the program.

4. It builds support for and commitment

to the program.

While clearly training is important, the
practice is often given short shrift. . . . The

 

 

134
landscape is littered with well—intentioned
programs that broke down in areas where proper

training could have made a major difference.
However, the biggest loss from the lack of

training is the diminished potential of

untrained programs."

The design and planning subcommittee, after discussion
with the original group, had drawn up protocols for a
Process Workshop. This was to entail only one session ——
the final choice of time was the Friday evening before the

Communications Lab. The facilitator would arrange for all

training and was supplied with the group's goals and

objectives for the workshop (see Appendix B).

1. This was the first area in which the planned
training model failed. The instruction desired was complex
and would take considerable time. By only allowing one

five—hour training session, instruction was drastically
curtailed and assimilation of information thwarted.
Participants were presented with complex ideas and behaviors
and each was quickly demonstrated with one example. Then

the group moved to a new skill.

"Frequently, there is a rush to get things
\cdone, and therefore many take shortcuts in the
training. Patience with the process is necessary
because less will get done in the medium and long
term if sufficient training is not provided. The
other manifestation of the 'get it done fast'
approach is to cram all the training into a short
period of time and overload the trainees."8

7Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton, pp. 176—177.

81bid, p. 177.

 

 

135
The brevity of the Process Workshop was seen as one of
the major flaws of the model and may have been partially

responsible for the process breakdown during the Negotiation

Sessions. All INC participants, and especially the
negotiation subcommittee members, needed more instruction

and rehearsal in the desired techniques.

2. Even given the brief time span allowed,
instruction at the Process Workshop was inappropriate.
"The curriculum should be as rooted in
reality as possible. Adults seek learning to
make an impact on their actual working and living
conditions. Overreliance on games, simulations
and hypotheticals should be avoided. If there is
a possibility to link learning to real situations

at work on the program, then this approach should
be taken."

The composition of the Process Workshop was thoroughly
described in Chapter 5. In summary, it included various
lectures on interaction processes, role-playing that
involved a negotiation skill (the separation of issues) and
empathic response, and a group brainstorming and

decision—making simulation.

\ Often during lectures the facilitator would briefly

explain a concept and if greeted with no response would
advance to a new topic. There was no indication that

concepts were being assimilated by the participants. None

of the simulation/role playing exercises dealt with a

91bid, p. 182.

136
collective bargaining situation, although this was
specifically requested. Some participants later expressed

disappointment that they had not been exposed to instruction

and practice in the processes they needed.
Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton state:

"Another major area of curriculum concern is
the problem—solving process. In essence, all
union-management cooperation is a problem—
solving effort. Though there are many
variations, any approach should incorporate
building facility with problem identification,
problem selection, problem analysis, solution
development and analysis, and preparation of a
recommended solution and implementation plan.

. . . The analysis section of the problem—
solving process requires strong attention."10

It is this aspect of the training that was neglected
at the Process Workshop. All participants needed more
instruction in and practice with actual problem—solving

processes, using potential collective bargaining situations.

If the facilitator felt that the time was insufficient

to achieve the desired goals, that should have been pointed

out at the March 12th meeting and accommodations made. If
the facilitator also felt that perhaps he had insufficient
skills or materials to instruct on this matter, that should
have been indicated. Not all facilitators are skilled in
training. An alternative might have included employing

separate individuals as the trainer and the facilitator.

lOIbid.

 

 

137

The lack of adequate training was seen as a major

hindrance in the implementation of the INC model.

C. Communications and Publicity

"Communication is a two-way process. Each
side must share information and ideas with each
other and listen to what the other side has said.

There must be clear communication from the
program to others outside of it and within the 11
H

program to and among its various participants.

Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton have clearly summarized the'
major communication paths in the paragraph above. These

will be reflected on, and the communications used in the INC

model will be reviewed.

1. Keeping Participants Informed

It is suggested in Mutual Gains that participants in a
program be kept current on the cooperative process using
meetings, newsletters or minutes as the avenue. Minutes

were used as an integral part of the communications flow in

the INC Process.

\

One problem in communications that was anticipated at
the design level was the need of information paths to keep

all INC participants informed on the negotiation
subcommittee actions. All INC members had participated in

the Process Workshop and the Communications Lab and had seen

llIbid, p. 189.

 

 

138
issue disposition, and then half the members had been, in
actuality, removed from the process. It was essential that
those people remain familiar with the ongoing discussion, so
they could contribute feedback between Negotiation Sessions
and would also have more viable reflections on the Closing

Weekend, when the total group would reconvene.

Minutes of the Negotiation Sessions were being taken
by an impartial non—participant and then approved by the
subcommittee. It was decided to send these minutes to all

INC participants, stressing their confidential nature. INC
members not on the subcommittee were also urged to observe

the Negotiation Sessions as often as possible. This process
kept all participants adequately informed of the progress of

the negotiations.

2. Keeping Un-involved Members Informed

As noted in the Chapter 5 Negotiation Session
summaries, this became a problem for both sides. The
discussions during the entire INC were confidential. As in
other bargaining years, this presented committee members
with the dilemma of not being allowed to communicate with

the individuals being represented. On the management team,
none of the principals were included as INC participants,

and their continual exclusion from the information chain was

becoming a handicap to the administration.

 

 

139

The entire school board was involved in INC, so they
experienced no gap, but the nine teachers involved

represented over a hundred other people, many of whom had
been involved in the compilation of issues for the
Communications Lab, and who were interested in the progress

and status of issues.

A final decision on this issue was made by the

subcommittee, who decided to allow the oral presentation of
issue disposition to the uninvolved parties. It was

decided, however, that no written lists would be made

available, to avoid unwanted media involvement.

Upon reflection, it seems that perhaps the need for
confidentiality at the table needs to be reexamined.
Members of the affected organizations should be free to

observe their representatives during problem solving, and
may actually be able to contribute additional ideas between

sessions. The problems anticipated with observers may be

exaggerated. One of the greatest fears of negotiators with

the concept of open meetings is the potential for misunder—
standing what was said at the table. It seems that if
relations change from adversarial to problem solving, an
understanding of negotiation strategies and techniques will

not be necessary to understand action at the table.

 

 

140
A number of models even designate their meetings as
open, with the public invited.12 This suggestion should be
discussed and considered for experimental application. Lack
of communications with an interested constituency will cause

more misunderstandings than words overheard at the table.

\

3. Handling Information Sharing

It is necessary in problem solving to present all

relevant information to the group for consideration. This
will include complete budget figures and analysis as well as

anticipated revenues.

"The sharing of information can bring up
proprietary or very sensitive issues. It is
very important for both sides to exercise
restraint and discretion in the spread of
information. . . . Violating this principle on
either side undercuts the trust and res ect the
parties need to work with each other."1

Cooperative information sharing was a strong point in
the INC implementation. All materials were shared openly,

and any requests for additional information were promptly

expedited.

12Randy Bohannon and others, Checking Your

Negotiations Style: The Situational Approach to Bargaining

(Olympia, Wash.: Washington State School Directors Associ—
ation, 1985), p. 8; Buidens, Marten, and Jones, p. 244.

l3Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton, p. 194.

 

 

141

4. External Publicity

The INC guidelines stipulated that all information
concerning the progress of negotiations would be jointly
released. Only three articles appeared locally concerning
the process, all with joint union-management approval, the
last appearing upon contract ratification (see Appendix C,

Glen Ellyn News, May 20, 1987).
The INC designers were in accord with Mutual Gains:

"In all cases, publicity is best withheld
in the early stages of the program. There are
other more pressing issues that need to be ad-
dressed and the Shakedown period is hardly the
time for the glare of the public eye."1

D. Monitoring and Evaluating

"Setting up a program is one thing.
Keeping it going and making sure that it is
doing what it is supposed to do is quite another
task altogether. To keep tabs on how the
program works in the real world, effective
mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating what
has been set up and how gt works need to be
designed and deployed."1

The INC protocols make no mention of monitoring or
evaluating. As discussed in part A, no provisions had been
made for process breakdown. If the participants found the

process regressing to adversarial bargaining, as in fact

141bia, p. 196.

151bid, p. 198.

 

 

142

occurred, no system had been designed to reverse that direc-

tion. The need for an internal monitoring system is clear.

At the conclusion of the Closing Weekend, one item had
been tabled for later discussion. A date of June 2, 1987
was set, and it was also decided to use that meeting to
evaluate the INC model. The members of the evaluation were
to be the negotiation subcommittee, and the total time

allotted was two hours.

There was no guideline for the discussion other than
the process order of events. Participants responded
somewhat randomly to ideas and no concrete recommendations

emerged from the meeting.

The lack of an in-depth structured evaluation of this

model was the final major design flaw. Given the time taken
creating and then implementing this procedure, an evaluation

effort deserved equal reflection and consideration.

Cohen—Rosenthal and Burton recommend the following

considerations:

"Who should evaluate whom and what should
be reviewed must be clearly understood at the
outset. Every group in a program should
evaluate itself and its subordinate groups.
These various evaluations should be integrated
into an overall plan for evaluation. . . .

The first step within the group is to
brainstorm all of the questions the union and
management partners have about the process of
their effort. Process refers to the way the

 

 

143

program has been established or the how of the
program. Included as general categories under
process might be the overall design process,
management of the project, relationship to non—
direct participants, development of governing
bodies, communications approaches, implementa-

tion and development of ppm-participants, and
the use of consultants."

The negotiation subcommittee evaluated the entire INC
process. There were no questions about the remaining

participants becoming involved in an evaluation.

Brainstorming occurred, but it was unreflected
opinions to general statements. There was no brainstorming
on what questions to ask, as would have befitted an in-depth
evaluation effort.

"The ways in which answers to each question

would be exhibited should be listed under each

question. The aim should be to look for hard

data indicators before relying on composites of
opinions."17

A possible evaluation scenario would have been:
(a) select evaluation participants
(b) brainstorm items to consider
(c) categorize items and distribute to
participants for reflection
(d) gather data concerning items

(e) reconvene for a discussion of items

16Ibid, p. 206.

17Ibid, p. 207.

 

. h...t.

:lr... - I. .III.

ass-s

LJII.

144
(f) list consensus reached on items

(g) compile formal recommendations for

change.

"Evaluations do not end with the results
tabulated and reported. The most important part

of the evaluation is to use the results to learn
how to do the program better. The evaluators and
the entire governing body need to review care—
fully what has been uncovered and collected to
determine what improvements are needed where.
Improvements should have a clear plan for
implementation."18

Because the INC model did not include or implement a
formal evaluation, the process is unresolved. This is

viewed as a final major flaw in the model.

II. RESEARCH QUESTIONS / SUMMARY

The questions indicated at the beginning of the
chapter will now be considered individually, with answers

gleaned from the analysis.
1. What are the strengths of the created model?

(a) It encourages a sense of trust and
respect between management and labor.

(b) It establishes problem solving as a
mind set.

(c) It establishes a sense of professional

intimacy, so problems are jointly owned.

(d) It strives for contractual settlement

lSIbid, p. 208.

 

 

 

145
that will benefit both sides.
(e) All concerns can be voiced -— there
are no arbitrary limitations of topic.
(f) Management and labor speak directly to
each other, without the interpretation of

intermediaries. ‘
(g) It limits the time spent on negotia—
tions and prevents the buildup of resentment.

(h) A spectrum of teachers, from all
buildings or levels, address a spectrum of

management. Nothing is limited or pigeonholed.

2. What are the weaknesses of the created model?

(a) The exclusion of middle management
from the INC team is unfortunate.

(b) The need for extensive training in
participative decision—making may be
inconvenient.

(c) The role of the INC participants
(outside the negotiation subcommittee) is
unclear. Should they be involved more? Should
they be eliminated?

(d) The communication avenues to non—
participants are not established.

(e) There are no guidelines established

for the internal monitoring of the process.

(f) A contingency plan for process

 

146
breakdown is not present.

(g) The nature of the Closing Weekend is
unclear. Is it for additional negotiations? Is
it a formalized closure and finalization ritual?

(h) A structured evaluation process is not
included. -

(i) Facilitator needs are ambiguous. What
skills should he provide? Should he also do the

training? Should he come to Negotiation

Sessions?

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. This model was based on one established model,
the Goldaber WIN-WIN program. The group should now research

other models, for suggestions of improvement in their model.

2. A much expanded training session should be insti—

tuted, preferably within an established workshop structure.

3. The management team should be expanded to include

building principals.

\

4. All INC participants should be assigned to
subcommittees as the original WIN-WIN program describes.
Otherwise a small group of individuals control the process.

Communication between these groups will need to be pursued.

5. Confidentiality as a concept should be examined.

 

 

147
A problem-solving venue would benefit from open access —— to
total membership and perhaps to the public. It would also

resolve various communication problems.

6. A contingency plan -- in case the process
regresses to adversarial modes -- needs to be incorporated.
7. The facilitator role should be expanded or

eliminated. 'He occupies an ambiguous position.

8. The model urgently needs a structured in-depth
evaluation procedure. This should be created and

implemented before the next negotiations sessions.

9. The model should be reflected on, improved, and

used for future collective bargaining.

IV. CONCLUSION

The decision of School District 41 in Glen Ellyn to

create an alternative to adversarial bargaining was the

beginning of a positive process. The desire of both sides

to reject what had become a time—consuming and alienating

¥

exercise is laudable.

It is hoped that the detailed accounting of the
evolution and implementation of this model will inspire
others to attempt similar endeavors, while sparing them the

awkwardness of initial mistakes.

 

 

148
It is also hoped this study will provide a base for
reflection on the INC model and spur its future improvement.

Union and management working together to make workplaces
better sounds utopian, but it can be accomplished with

determination on all sides.

"We hold no illusions about the difficulty
of the task. On the other hand, we still marvel
at its possibilities for change. Union— Manage-
ment cooperation will not occur in all places, at
all times and in all ways. Cooperation engages
the principal parties in the common struggle for
significant betterment. By pointing the finger
in the direction of a better way, joint efforts
can make important and tangible improvements for
all concerned. A union and management can do

almost anything they set out to do when they -
summon common imagination and dedication to

quality application."l

lglbid, p. 265.

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

       

3- F." 4' ‘-"."."'e

“ é‘_ a ‘fi— -'L . .' :r“ a: .'.

 

APPENDIX A . . p t

 

 

 

149
CENTER FOR THE PRACTlCE
OF CONFUCT MANAGEMENT

2451 Drickell Avenue. Mloml, Florida 33129 wit/6560100 Irving Goldaber. PM). Director

 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM

The Goldaber Win/Win Contract Development Program is designed_
to bring both labor and management to a signed contract in
which both parties attain their desired goals. It_is de-
signed, further, to achieve this end more rapidly--in thirty
days-~and with less cost than is the rule in the traditional
approach to collective bargaining. And, still further, it

is designed to enable both parties to emerge from the exper-
ience with a shared recognition that they are indeed partners

in the labor-management relations of the district.

The traditional collective bargaining approach too often.in-
volves arsenal creation, deterrence politics, threat and
bluff. Duplicity and fakery are frequently employed. The
ability to destroy the other side is valued sometimes as the
ultimate weapon. Yet, the traditional bargaining procedures
are supposedly fashioned to bring the two sides together-—
magically-~into a working and supportive relationship. In
truth, the bitterness created often generates its own momen—
tum. On both sides, animosity and enmity usually breed dis-
trust and, at the worst, disloyalty.

The Win/Win Program is based upon an understanding that ad-
versaries should maintain their separate advocacies and pro-
ponencies, while engaging in a collaborative search for out-
comes in which each side gets what it seeks, what it wants.
Essentially, when two groups operating within the‘same eco-
nomic system, are in a competitive interface, each group--
although employing the phraseology—-does not really mean that
"Our group must win and the other group must lose." Each
group, most often unaware of it, is in reality stating, "Our
group“must win." It is not concerned with whether the other
group wins or loses...again, as long as it emerges victorious.

The social science theory undergirding the Win/Win approach
establishes that it is truly possible for both sides to win.
When they utilize this theoretical framework by participating
in the Win/Win Program, they do.

 

 

10.

11.

150

SAMPLE SET OF PROTOCOLS

T

WIN/WIN LABOR-MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The participating bodies in the Program are
and

The Facilitator of the Program is Irving Goldaber, Ph.D.,
Director of the Center for the Practice of Conflict Management
and , Associate Facilitator.

The FacilitatOrs do not offer content input on any issue under
deliberation. The Facilitators deal only with the arrangements,
the interpretation of the Protocols and the group process;

Each participating body consists of members and
resource person(s). The members of each participating

‘body are voting-members of that body. The resource personfls)

normally serve as experts to the participating bodies.

Each participating body names its own members. This designation
is not subject to the approval of the other body.

Both participating bodies are to name their participants by

5:00 P.M. on

The specific process to be followed is detailed in the ten~
phase "Sequence of Activity,” appended hereto.

Phases 3 and 4 of the ”Sequence of Activity" is the "Communi-
cations Laboratory.”

The "Communications Laboratory" is viewed by the participating
bodies as an instrumentality to facilitate the achievement of

agreements on contract issues during the latter phases of the
program.

During the "Communications Laboratory," participation is carried
on without access to reference material and consultant resources
outside the dialogue circle. -

If, at any time, due to tempOrary absences from the circle,

the number of voting-member participants of either body falls

to or less, the "Communications Laboratory" is recessed.
The llCommunications Laboratory" is resumed when the number of

voting-member participants in each body returns to or more.

 

 

Protocols 151
Page Two

12.

13.

14.

15.

16c

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

A voting-member participant who permanent withdraws either
before or during the "Communications Laboratory," or from
any other phase of the program, is not replaced.

Additional participants, exceeding the agreed number in
place at the start of the "Communications Laboratory,"

are not to be added to the group at any time during the
program.

If the number of voting-members of either participating
body who have withdrawn permanently is - or more

from either of the bodies, the "Communications Laboratory‘I
and the Program are terminated.

During Phase 3 of the Program--the first portion of the
"Communications Laboratory"--the participants in each group
post charts listing their complaints, concerns, questions
and aspirations...with regard to their dealings with the
other participating body in general, and with regard to
contract issues, in particular. All of the voting-member
participants comment upon and discuss these items without
any time limitation.

In Phase 4--the second portion of the "Communications Labora-
tory"--the participants identify- the contract issues upon
which ultimate agreement will take place.

The dialogue arrangement of the "Communications Laboratory"
follows the format stipulated in Dr. Goldaber's publication,
Transforming Conflict into a "Win/Win" Outcome, (published

by the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, Salem,
Oregon, 1982).

 

Resource persons may not speak during Phase 3; they may,
however, participate during Phase 4.

There are neither breaks nor caucuses during the "Communi-
cations Laboratory."

Participating body observers at the "Communications Labora-
tory" are nominated by either participating body and are
present at the invitation of the Facilitator subject to the
consent of the other participating body.

The Facilitator is authorized to designate Facilitator team
observers to be present during the "Communications Laboratory."

Observers at the "Communications Laboratory" are seated out-

side the circle of participants and do not engage in the
proceedings.

 

 

Protocols I52
Page Three

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

Observers are free to enter or leave the room of the "Communi—
cations Laboratory" at any time.

Smoking in the "Communications Laboratory" room is restricted
to a designated area of the room. When participants are in
the smoking area, they are in a position to see and hear the
other participants, but they, themselves, do not engage in
the dialogue. '

At the conclusion of Phase 4, the Facilitator appoints a
Contract Matter Committee of participants for each contract
issue. The presiding officer of each participating party
designates that body's members on each Contract Matter Com-
mittee. The Facilitator is free to group the contract issues
and assign a cluster to a single Contract Matter Committee.

The Contract Matter Committees contain members of
each participating body; either voting-members and
a resource person, or voting—members.

From Phase 5 on--after the "Communications Laboratory" is
completed-~the Program is terminated only if either or both
of the presiding officers inform the Facilitator of a desire
tO'terminate.

During Phase 5, the Contract Matter Committees meet separately
and either reach suggested agreements on the contract issues,
or move the matter as close to closure as possible.

Meetings of the Contract Matter Committees are closed to all
but Committee members.

Members of the Contract Matter Committees are free to consult
or speak with any person before or after Committee meetings.

Members of the Contract Matter Committees are free to bring
any resource materials to the Committee meetings.

Information each group possesses--not of a confidential nature--

is supplied by one participating body upon the request of the
other‘participating body.

In Phase 6, the Contract Matter Committees report their sug-
gested agreements as well as still-to-be-resolved outstanding
issues to the full group of participants. The full group
reaches agreement on the outstanding matters.

Resourse persons are permitted to participate in the dialogue
during Phase 6.

 

 

 

Protocols
Page Four . 153

35.

36.
37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

During Phase 6 each participating body is free to call for
caucuses; without regard to their frequency or duration.

Observers are not permitted to be present during Phase 6.

After agreement has been reached on all contract matters
at the conclusion of Phase 6, the Facilitator appoints a
Contract Writing Committee of persons designated by the
presiding officers of each participating body.

The Contract Writing Committee consists of either
voting-members, a resource person and a contract writer, or

voting-members and a contract writer for each par-
t1c1pating body.

The contract writer may or may not have been a participant
in the "Communications Laboratory.”

During Phase 7 the Contract Writing Committee prepares the
suggested contract, based on the agreements finalized during
Phase 6.

Meetings of the Contract Writing Committee are closed to all
but Committee members.

In Phase 8 the participants act on the suggested contract
prepared by the Contract Writing Committee. voting-
members of the labor team (designated by the pre51ding officer)
and votingvmembers of the management team (designated by
the pre51ding officer) recommend the contract draft to their
respective governing bodies for approval or ratification.

If the approval or ratification sought in Phase 9 is received
from both sides, the participants meet jointly in Phase 10
to sign the new contract. ’

No electronic recording is made of any of the proceedings
during Phases 1 through 9 of the Program.

At all times, the sole spokespersons for the program are the
presiding officers of the two participating bodies or their
designees. , ~

,Participants, the Facilitator and observers are authorized

to use the substantive material of the Program for profeSe
sional research and publication purposes, providing that the
individual identities of the participants are not revealed.

The Facilitator has the right to add any Protocol not included
in this list.

 

 

11.
12.

154

vIN-wm' PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Program Phases

 

The process to be followed as listed is the thirteen step outline,
appended.

During Step 5 each group posts charts listing their concerns and
questions. There will be no time limit on any chart.

At the conclusion of Step 6, the Facilitators will appoint the following
Sub-Comnittees:

A. Salary and Benefits

8. Working Conditions

C. Rights

0. Other Contract and Non—Contract Matters

By mutual agreement of both teams, the number of committees may be reduced
and/or consolidated. .

During Step 7, the Contract Issues Committees meet separately and agree on

recommendations on the contract issues for presentation to the full group.
During Step 7, if agreement cannot be reached, the Committee members come
as close to agreement as possible.

In Step 8, the Contract Issues Committees report their recommendations and
unresolved issues. The full group acts on the recommendations and
resolves the outstanding issues.

After agreement has been reached on contract issues a Contract Writing
Committee will be appointed.

During Step 10,' the Contract Writing Committee will write a draft
contract. ‘

In Step 11 both teams meet together to review the suggested contract.

In Step 12 each team recommends the contract draft to their governing
bodies for approval.

The governing bodies meet to act on the proposed contract.

When ratification is received from both sides, the participants meet
jointly in Step 13 to sign the contract.

 

 

 

WIN-WIN PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Page 2
155
. Membership/participants

1.- The participants in the Contract Development Program are:'

2. Each team will consist of up to members.

3. Each participant will name the members of its own team.

4. The participants will name team members by: (time) (day)

‘(date)

5. The schedule for Step 5 is as follows: ‘

6. A team member who permanently withdraws from any phase of the Program is
not replaced. '

7. If 4 members of either team have withdrawn permanently during Steps 5 and
6 the Program is terminated.

8. ,The number of members from each team on each committee will be determined
by dividing 12 by the number of comnittees.

9. Meetings of the Contract Issues Committees are open to only Committee
members. (Additional individuals may be in attendance only if there is
unanimous agreement.

'10. The Contract Writing Committee is composed of persons designated by the
presiding officers of each participating body.

11. The Contract.Writing Committee consists of three (3) members from each

. team.

Program Rules

1. During Step 5 team members will not have access to reference materials and
consultant resources. ‘

2. The Teams will determine issues to be considered in the develOpment of a
contract.

3. During Step 5 there will be no breaks.

4. There will be no smoking during Steps 5, 6, 8, 9, except in the designated
smoking area.

5. After Step 6 is completed L- the Program is terminated only if either or
both of the presiding officers infonn the Facilitators of a desire to
tenninate.

6. During Step 7, if agreement cannot be reached, the Committee members come

as close to agreement as possible.

 

 

 

 

WINeWIM PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Page 3
156
7. Members of the Contract Issues Committees are free to consult with others.
8. Resource material may be brought to Contract Issues Committee meetings.
9. Each Team's information is -shared except for that which is of a
confidential nature.

10. Each team is free to call for caucuses during Step 8 with no time limit.

11. Meetings of the Contract Writing Committee are only open to Committee
members.

12. No recording devices are allowed throughout the process.

13. The only spokespersons for the Program to the media are the presidents of
each team, and all communication will be in the form of joint releases or
meetings.

Facilitators

1. The Facilitators of the Program are:

2. The function of the Facilitators deals only_with the arrangements; the
interpretation of the Operating Rules, and group process.

3. The Facilitators have authority to recess the process.

4. The Facilitators are authorized to designate team observers to be present
during Steps 5, 6, 8, 9.

5.

The Facilitators have the right to add Operating Rules.

 

 

Step

 

10.

11.
12.

13.

157

STEPS IN THE

WIN-WIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS

Participants

Presidents of the Board of
Education and Association
meet with Facilitators

Each group meets separately
The Board of Education and

Teachers' Association meet
separately

Each group meets independently

Each group with their
consultants meet jointly

The groups meet jointly

Each Committee meeting

separately

The groups meet jointly

The groups meet jointly

.The Contract Writing

‘COmmittee-meets

The groups meet jointly

The group takes action
independently

The groups meet jointly

Outcomes

To develop Operating
Procedures. '

To adopt operating
Procedures.

To develop concerns or
questions.

To print each concern or

question on charts.

To discuss concerns or
questions.

To appoint individuals to
committees.

To reach agreements on
issues assigned to the
conmittees.

To come to an agreement.

To appoint a Contract
Writing Committee.

To write or revise the
contract.

To approve the contract.

To ratify the new
contract.

To sign the new contract.

 

 

CENTER FOR THE PRACTICE 158
OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

2451 Dnckell Avenue. Miami. Florida 33129 SOS/6563100 Irving Goldaber. PhD. Dimlc;

 

SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITY

for the

 

GOLDABER WIN WIN

“’._.-Wm--

 

 

 

Phase Participators Product
1. Presiding Officers of the two partici- Suggested Protocols governing
pating bodies, meeting together procedure.
2. . The two participating bodies, acting The Protocols.
separately.
3. The two participating bodies, meeting Statements of concern and ‘
separately and then together ’ « clarified questions. 1
l
"Communications '
Laboratory" i
Weekend 1 I
- l
4. All participants, meeting together Contract matter. And appoint-
ment of Contract Matter
Committees.
W
5. Contract Matter Committees, Suggested agreements on the
meeting separately contract matter.
W4
6. All participants, Weekend II Agreements on the contract
meeting together matter. And appointment of
Saturday only the Contract Writing Committee.

‘.—

 

\

7. Contract Writing Committee a Suggested contract.

8. All participants, meeting Recommendation for approval or
together ratification of the contract.

9. The two participating bodies, 'Approved or ratified contract.

I

acting separately

10. All participants, Signed contract.
meeting-together

 

  

CENTER FOR THE PRACTICE
OF CONFUCT MANAGEMENT 159

2451 Oridwll Avenue. Miami, Florida 3309 005/656-3100 Irving Goldaber. Ph.D. Director

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE WIN/WIN PROGRAM

Q. WHAT IS MEANT BY A ”WIN/WIN CONTRACT?”

A. A Win/Win outcome of a labor-management negotiation de-
scribes the provisions of a contract in which each side
obtains the results it desires. The Win/Win process
specifically avoids compromise, for compromise entails,
as a rule, the reluctant--or even anguished°-Ioss of
something prized in exchange for something, which may
or may not be prized, when that relinquishment is essen-
tial to satisfy the needs or demands of another party
or group.

In the Win/Win approach, both sides collaboratively ar-
rive at shared solutions, in which neither side has been
forced to give up its desired goals.

Q. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR.BOTH SIDES TO WIN?

A. First and foremost, both contending parties must come to
recognize that they are in a "family” relationship and
that the survival of the "family" is the overriding pri-
ority. In other words, the "family' 5" interests come
before those of either of the conflicting groups.

When both sides participate in the Win/Win process, the
conflict confronting them is stripped down to the essen—
tials of the disagreement. Then creative arrangements are
formulated--at that rock- bottom 1evel--through which the
needs of both sides are met. These outcomes may be found
when-~and only when-~both adversaries are looking for them.

In instances where the reality of the situation prevents

the formulation of creative solutions, each of the parties
will invariably willingly yield, not involun’tarily surren—
der, to those realities. «A willing yiel t oug not at-
ta1ning the end originally sought, cannot be equated with

a loss, since a loss involves an unwilling forced surrender.

   

 

160

WHAT IS THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THE WIN/WIN OUTCOME
IS ACHIEVED?

An equal number of participants representing each of
the two contending parties come together in a struc-
tured "Communications Laboratory” for the purpose of
educating each other on a number of crucial issues
and attitudes. Often, the attitudes of each toward
the other involve long histories of distrust.

The result of the dialogue and face-to-face inter-
change in this structured setting--during which, by
design, solutions are not actively sought, although
mythologies do tend to disappear—vis the recognition
of some critical understandings. These are: the two
parties are, indeed, in a "family" relationship; each
needs the other to solve the conflict; and feelings
of trgst, loyalty and support have been visibly gen-
erate .

After the ”Communications Laboratory," small committees
comprised of members of each side develop the provisions
of the contract, or come as close as possible to agree-
ment. At a reconvening of the total group of partici-
pants, the products of the various committees are
molded into a unified whole. This set of unified pro-
visions constitutes the basic material of the final
document and is then polished by a Contract Writing
Team, comprised, again, of members from both sides.‘

At no time in the Win/Win Contract Development Program

is there forced participation on the part of either
contending group or any of its individual members;
participation is always voluntary and withdrawal possible.

WHO DOES THE NEGOTIATING?

In this program, management and labor negotiate

directly with each other. There is no mediator or
"go-between.” An equal number of members--not to exceed
eleven for each side--are involved in the negotiation.
One or two expert resource persons, the number is the
same for both sides, are included in the teams.

5

 

iii-:3

. .
. PU!“
I" .-

 

Q.

AI

161

The guidelines for the selection of the individuals
involved in the negotiation, as well as the specifi-
cation of all arrangements in the Program, are set
forth in the Protocols of the Program. These Proto-
cols are developed jointly by the presiding officers

of each participating body and the Facilitator, as

a primary step at the inception of the Program. Once
agreement is reached by these three, the Protocols are
submitted by each presiding officer to his or her group

for approval.

\.

WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FACILITATOR?

When the initiation of the program is being considered,
the Fac111tator meets with representatives of each Side

to share with them information concerning all aSpects
of the approach, the process and the procedures. AS»
has been mentioned, with the two presiding officers,

the Facilitator develops the governing Protocols.

A11 during the Program, the Facilitator serves much as
the parliamentarian does, as the interpreter of the
Protocols. In a dispute, the Facilitator does not de-

cide which party is right or wrong. There is no right
or wrong; there is merely process to reach agreement.

In the first and last analysis, the set of Protocols to
which both parties have agreed is the gOVerning entity.

WHY ARE RESOURCE PERSONS PRESENT AS AIDES TO THE
NEGOTIATING TEAMS?

Resource persons, who are professionals in the negotia—
tions arena, are present as aides to the principals to
supply data as needed, to provide background and his-
torical information on items and issues under/discussion
and to bring a perspective based upon experience.in
other geographic areas.

 

 

162

WHAT TIME PERIOD IS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE
GOLDABER WIN/WIN CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM?

Unlike the traditional bargaining approach, the sequence
of the ten-phase Program--from inception to conclusion—-
is planned for the relatively short period of thirty
days. .

Essentially, it involves two weekends, sandwiching a
three week period for committee‘meetings. All parti-
cipants meet together during the weekend sessions. The
first weekend--an educational'dialogue--consists of a
Friday evening, the day, Saturday, and Sunday morning.
The second weekend--the "package"-crcation accomplish-
ment—~involves a Saturday only.

In contrast to the traditional bargaining process,
this compact arrangement is made possible by a unique
design. Customarily, in bargaining, a multi~layered
history of compounded distrust creates an impenetrable
wall preventing the two parties from dialoguing openly
and honestly with each other and dealing with the reali—
ties of their problems. The result is a long, drawn-
out series of maneuvers and counter-maneuvers on the
part of each adversary. In the Win/Win Program, trust
is achieved first, made possible by the recognition of
the interdependent existence in one "family,” and then
agreements are reached through a collaborative search,
eliminating the need for protracted hostilities.

WHERE HAS THE PROGRAM BEEN UTILIZED TO THIS DATE, (AUG-
UST 1984)?

The Program has been utilized in the following districts

* Wattsburg, PA
School Board/Education Association
(limited program)
1980

* Greater Latrobe, PA
School Board/Education Association
1982
* Manitowoc, WI
Handicapped Children Education Board/
Education Association

 

 

163

(limited program)
1982

* Chichester, PA
School Board/Education Association

1983

* Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA
Schools Office/Teachers Association
1983

* Conneaut, PA
School Board/Education Association
1983

* Conneaut, PA I
School Board/Administrators Association
(program creating Board policy)
1983

* Delaware County Community College, PA
College Board/Faculty Association
1984

* Riverside-Brookfield (HS District), IL
School Board/Education Association
1984

* 'Round Valley-(Covelo), CA
School Board/Education Association
1984

* Alhambra, CA
School Board/Education Association
1984

* Pekin, IL _
School Board/Education Association
1984

* Palos Hills, IL
School Board/Education Association
1984

* Wisconsin Rapids, WI
School Board/Education Association
"1984

In addition, as of September 1984, the Program is
scheduled for Wheeling, IL, San Mateo, CA and Urban-
dale, IA.

fli'.dfiiuuc::1? in azaaota '
notzaiuaaafl awadusaT\o:L310 afoodoa
x3e;

 

 

 

9.

10.

Q.

164

ISN'T THERE AN ADVANTAGE TO PURSUE THE TRADITIONAL
BARGAINING ROUTE AND SETTLE AT THE LAST MOMENT?

No. And there even may be a decided disadvantage not
to pursue the Win/Win approach. With the Win/Win ap—
proach, each side will not achieve less, and might
even obtain more, than is achieved through traditional
bargaining. This is because, in essence, there are no
real secrets in a ”family.” Six months before the
termination of a contract, the data which pertain--as
well as the data which will pertain six months later--
are known to all.

Further, when both parties are collaborating to find
answers, the chances are greater that they will find
solutions to the advantage of both that would not be

found in an antagonistic, hostile confrontation at
the last moment. '

WHAT HAVE BEEN THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AFTER-EFFECTS OF
PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM?

Participants in previous Programs, as a rule, have
reported satisfaction with the opportunity to engage
in a structured, cooperative, non—destructive venture.
Overwhelmingly, they report that the experience was
not only productive, but enjoyable.

‘ Perhaps the most invaluable outcome of this approach

is the establishment between the two parties of a

lasting, positive, cooperative relationship based
upon trust. ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF EDUCATION - GLERBARD TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 87

and the

GLENBARD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

April - May, 1987

 

#25

"'f‘: (1!!

-.

 

 

    

Eat amtyq, ct.settlement .pripr to, the end “of the. a »
Ear-mm .Iurie. I2'_ 1198.7... _ - 3”“5

\

 

m an minim

- “Iii HIE-”5'2 madam was 5 Mug (.2 ,7
an: sun-Ina. .22.: snolntm .922 ulna-39V): ‘2 ‘7‘
(22:22.22. 2:342:29: 5:5.- io 5:: 52d: :2: '.:.;'-..1 49:24.2 11222 .,

.n with

 

 

 

167 Page 2
II. PARTICIPANTS

The participating groups in the GLENBARD WIN—WIN MODEL
(Process) are the BOARD OF EDUCATION, GLENBARD TOWNSHIP HIGH
SCHOOL DIST? \ICT 87 (District) and the GLENBARD EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION (Association).

Each participating group consists of fourteen (14) members:
the seven members of the Glenbard Township High School Board
of Education; the nine members of the Glenbard Education
Association negotiating team; the president, vice—president,
secretary, and treasurer of the Glenbard Education Associa—
tion; six members of the Glenbard administration; one
resource person for the Glenbard Education Association; and
one resource person for the Board of Education.

The Facilitator will be present at the Process Workshop
Session, the Issues Session and the Closing Session. The
Facilitator ndoes not offer content input on any issue under
deliberatio The Facilitator deals only with the arrange-
ment, the interpretation of the Protocols and the group
process. The Fac cilitator has tr e authority to recess the
Session Jhen, in the :ac ‘ litator’ s judgment, the situation
warrants it.
Each participati
nated are not sub

1

g up names its own members. Those desig-
c to the approval of the other body.
Each participating group is to name its members by 5:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, March 25, 1987, and so inform the other parti-
cipating body.

 

7’ "aims: at:
.lnoinazzmezfi-l ‘1

. . .I-"IN
t ‘* .‘nnz q:::r '2iraqiolizlff
' - _. _2_- - .. -': .~ £21.22". havoc
-n..:aaub3

-.2 .'- .':-:r..‘:>oal£

_J;::Ififil
" .‘l-‘nl 3
'..-'."1

.\ -.—.
‘.‘I-

    

 

168 Page 3
III. PROCESS WORKSHOP SESSION

The purpose of this workshop is for the participants of the
negotiations process to receive an introduction into group
dynamics.

This workshop will be conducted during the week prior to the
weekend which negotiation would begin.

The Process Workshop Session will be conducted by a Facili~
tator who has been mutually selected, and all members of the
participating groups are expected to be present.

The meeting room for this session shall be mutually agreed
upon by the President of the Board and the President of the
Association. There shall be no smoking during this session.

.13.: a: min new ad: ennui: 39.935322 2:2 2:2: .-..;w

._‘rn: I '-.".- -. 1.1;.22'..'.JI‘.P‘.-3

_.

 

 

169 Page 4
IV. ISSUES SESSION

The participants in this session are the same individuals who
participated in the Process Workshop Session. The Facilita~
tor will act as moderator during the Issues Session.

The GOAL of the Issues Session is an open and free exchange
of ideas, attitudes, and feelings about any and all issues
and/or problems perceived by the Board and by the Associa—
tion. In order to reach that goal, the Board and the
Association will prepare questions for group discussion.
During the Issues Session, participants will comment on the
questions raised. Resource persons will not participate in
this discussion.

At the beginning of the Issues Session, the Board and the
Association will present their respective issues written on
charts to the Facilitator who will post the charts on the
wall. No additional issues may be introduced Other than
those stated in the Issues Session.

The Facilitator will lead discussion on the issues alterna—
ting between the Board's issues and the Association's
issues.

The participating groups may, by common consent, move to a
new topic of discussion. They may also agree to a time limit
for the discussion of an issue or empower the Facilitator to
move to a new issue when discussion falters.

During this session, participants do not have access to
reference material or to computer facilities. They may,
however, bring and use notes. .

If, at any time, the number of participants on either side,
the Board-administration or the Association,'falls to seven
or less, the session is temporarily recessed unless a
majority of each participating group agrees to continue.

The Issues Session will start at 8 A.i. and will continue
until all issues have been discussed. Every effort wil- be
made to end the session the same day.

This Issues Session will proceed without caucuses.

There will be no smoking during the Issues Session. Partici-
pants may freely enter or leave the room at any time.

The meeting room for the Issues Session will be mutually
agreed upon by the President of the Board and the President
of the Association. Refreshments may be served during the
Issues Session.

 

170
Page 5

v. DISPOSITION SESSIQE

The purpose of this session is for a committee to dispose of
the issues raised at the Issues Session into various cate—
gories.

The various categories are:
1. issues to be discussed at the table;

2. issues for administrative action which will not be
discussed at the table, but a timeline for definite
action will be set (If this timeline cannot be met, the
Superintendent will provide a rationale to the Glenbard
Education Association Executive Board.);

3. issues for joint administrative/association action whic.
will not be discussed at the table, but a timeline for
definite action will be set (If this timeline cannot be
met, the Superintendent and Glenbard Education Associa-
tion Executive Board will provide a rationale to the
Glenbard Education Association membership.);

4. issues that were dropped or withdrawn.

NOTE: Any issue no: assigned to a category will automati-
cally be included in Category 1.

The disposition ccmmi tee would consist of the chief negotia—

'tor, the president, and one at—large member of the Glenbard

Education Association; and the Board president, the Assistant
Superintendent for Personnel and one administrator.

The disposition committee would prepare a schedule of
meetings and issues to be discussed for the remainder of the
negotiations.

The meeting room and time for the Disposition Session will be
mutually agreed upon by the participants in the session. The
participants may not change during this session. No outside
observers will be permitted during this session.

Caucuses may be permitted during the Disposition Session.

 

 

A.

 

171 Page 6

VI . WORKING SESSIONS

All participants and resource persons, except for the Facili~
tator, present at the Issues Session may participate in the
Working Sessions.

Each side may use the services of other resource persons to
advise on contract matters.

The Board and the Association will alternate in choosing a
Moderator for each of the Working Sessions. The person so
selected will facilitate discussion.

The GOAL of each Working Session is, through open discussion,
to summarize previous discussion on the issue, to define the
problem clearly, to explore possible solutions to that probw
lem, and to seek to find a mutually satisfactory solution.
The specific objective of each session is to arrive at agree-
ment so that, at the end of the session, contract language
can result. Any agreements reached at a given session will
be prepared by the two resource persons working together and
will be presented in contract language arm at the beginning
of the neXt Working Session. '

Each side may call for caucuses during Working Sessions.
All issues that cannot be resolved in the preceding Working
Sessions will come before the participants for final agree"

ment during a Closing Session.

Special committees may be established to handle technical
issues, such as finance, insurance, appendices, etc.

It is intended that the Moderators for the Working Sessions
be the President of the Board and the President of the Asso~
ciation.

Participants in the Working Sessions are free to bring any
resource material to the sessions.

Only the Moderators or their designees have the authority to
TA items.

The meeting room for the Working Sessions will be mutually
agreed upon by the Moderators.

There shall be no smoking during the Working Sessions.

H

172 Page 7
VII . CLOSING SESSION

All participants and resource persons present at the Issues
Session should participate in the Closing Session.

The Facilitator will present all issues which have been
agreed upon. The Facilitator will also present those issues
which were not resolved during the Working Sessions. All
attempts to resolve these issues will be undertaken.

As a means to expedite the process, side bar sessions may be
permitted during the Closing Session. Participants in side
bar sessions will be named by the respective Moderator. The
Facilitator may or may not be included in the side bar
sessions.

Once agreement is reached on the remaining items, the session
will be recessed while the two resource persons put the
agreements into contract language. When the drafting is
complete, the session will resume.

Each side may call for caucuses during the Closing Session.

At the end of the Closing Session, all issues will have been
agreed upon and given enthusiastic endorsement by all parti-
cipants.

The Process can only be terminated during the Closing Session
if either or both of the Moderators inform the Facilitator of
a desire to terminate.

 

 

173
Page 8

VIII. GENERAL GUIDELINES

Only the Moderators will be the spokespersons to the media
and all communication with the media will be in the form of
joint releases or joint meetings.

The press will not be permitted to attend any session of the
negotiations process.

No electronic recording, including video taping, will be
permitted during any of the sessions.

The Moderator may, upon mutual consent, add any Protocols not
included in this list.

All costs pertaining to the WIN-WIN Model will be shared
equally by the Board and the Association.

All items agreed upon will be inserted in the Professional
Agreement. The revised Professional Agreement will be
reviewed by the Chief Negotiator and reSource person for the
Association and the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel
and the resource person for the Board.

 

 

174

Ix. Emma

Proposed timelines are:

A.

B.

Workshop Session - Thursday, April 9
(6 P.M. - 10 P.M.)

Issues Session - Saturday, April 11
(8 A.M. - ?)

Disposition Session - Sunday, April 12
(Noon - 4 P.M.)

Working Sessions (As needed)

1. Tuesdays - April 14, 21, 28; May 5,
(6 P.M. - 10 P.M.)

2. Thursdays - April 16, 23, 30; May 7,
(6 P.M. - 10 P.M.)

3. Saturdays - April 25; May 2, 9
(8 A.M. - 5 P.M.)

Closing Session - Saturday, May 16
(8 A.M. - ?)

12

14

Page 9

175 Page 10

X. ACCEPTANCE OF MODEL

Date
Barbara Smith, Board of Education, Glenbard Township High School
District 87

 

Date
Jackie DeFazio, Glenbard Education Association

Date
Facilitator

 

 

     
 

"A. Participant:

   

a; Fatiids' . "an! =.".1I-. x'YI-J I

1

 

APPENDIX B ‘ , ' '

 

 

 

II.

Guidelines for Discussion

INTEGRATFD NEGOTIATIONS CONCEPT (INC)

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

PROCESS GUIDELINES

A.

8.

Participants
Facilitator Selection/Role
Process Workshop

1 Purpose

2 Timing/Length (2—4 hours)
3. Participants (Background)
4 Workshop Site

Communication Laboratory (Issues Identification)

1. Purpose
2. Timing/Length (1 day?)
3 Participants/Roles

a. Board—Teachers

b. Resource Persons
4. Procedures/Process
Caucuses?
6. Laboratory Site?

\J"

Issue Disposition

Purpose

Definition of source of resolution

Participants '

Caucuses?

Length of Session (2—4 hours)

Determination of Meeting Schedule/Issues Agenda

ONWDMNH
......

Negotiations Sessions

Process Description

Participants

Moderator37/Role

Caucuses

UuLsido resources (in addition to Attorney and Uniserv Rep.)
Length (2—3 hours?)

U‘WL‘WNi—J
. . . . . .

Closing Session (Wrap—up)

Purpose

Participants

Caucuses? Side Bars?
Length (1 day)

Role of Resource Persons
Role of LaciliLaEOI?

Omb‘leL-J
......

176

 

 

 

   

r '..gg: -.

    
 
 

’65.: Ehéfi‘ing of“ Costs
D. Items Ratified (to be included in BD-GEEA Agreement)

 

 

 

 

   

 
 

to arr at I
tell! and l!) enhwt'c cum-u. '<:I!.um 3mg
Cinnamon! 'a-hisz-h 1‘ not.-.m-'--:..-.'z.~l

I" ur." -.

INTEGRATED NEGOTIATIONS CONCEPT ’(INC):

Processz Proceduresz and Protocols

Board of Education
and
Glen Ellyn Education Association
School District No. 41
Glen Ellyn, Illinois

 
 
  

 

 

 

II.

III.

IV.

179
INTEGRATED NEGOTIATIONS CONCEPT (INC)

Statement of Purpose

The Glen Ellyn Education Association and the District No. 41 Board of
Education aspire to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of contract
terms and to enhance communication among the parties involved within an
environment which is non—adversarial.

Process Outline

The negotiations process to be employed will include the following
components:

Process Workshop Session
Communication Laboratory
Integrative Negotiations
Negotiations "Wrap—Up” Session

003329

Facilitator Involvement

A group process Facilitator, who has been mutually selected, will assist
participants and guide group interaction during the Process Workshop
Session, Communication Laboratory, and Negotiations "Wrap—Up" Session.
The facilitator will deal with process issues that arise during inter—
group communication, but will not be involved in resolution of
negotiations content issues.

Process Workshop Session

A. Purpose: To provide participants in the INC with knowledge and
experience regarding group dynamics and communication processes
appropriate for involvement in contract negotiations intended to be
collaborative, integrative, and non—adversarial.

B. Participants: Each participating group will consist of up to ten
(10) members. Participants representing the Board of Education will
include the seven (7) members of the District No. 41 Board of
Education, their legal counsel, the Superintendent of Schools, and
the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance. Glen Ellyn
Education Association participants will include the negotirfing team,
their IEA UniServe resource person, and other GEEA representatives.

C. Site: A neutral location, that is mutuall/ iqreed upon, will be
selected for the conduct of this session.

D. Date/Time: The Workshop Session will occur on Friday, March 20, 1987
between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. unless altered by
participants after consultation with the process Facilitator.

Communication Laboratory

A. Purposes: To openly exchange information and present points of view

_2_

 

 

VI.

180
regarding the issues each group feels should be introduced as topics

of discussion and/or negotiation, and to seek mutual understanding of
the matters addressed.

Participants: The participants shall be those individuals defined in
Section IV.B.; however, the Board's legal counsel and the IEA
UniServe representative will be involved as observers only, unless
called upon for clarification of issues presented.

Procedures:

1. At the beginning of the Communications Laboratory, the Board and
the Association will prepare their respective issues on sheets of
newsprint and present them to the Facilitator for posting around
the meeting room. All issues which participants wish to be
considered must be presented at the time of the Lab. Groups will
be restricted from introducing new content after the close of
this session.

2. The Facilitator will guide discussion upon each issue,
alternating between the Board and the Association. The
Facilitator will suggest additional interaction guidelines to be
employed.

3. Caucuses will not be permitted.

Issues Disposition: Prior to adjournment of the Communications Lab
participants will arrive at consensus relative to the disposition of
issues presented. A determination will be made as to those matters
which will be subjected to the negotiation process; these to be
referred to a representative task force; those matters to be
referred to the administration for study and/or action; those
matters to be referred to GEEA for study and/or action; and those

. matters to be dropped or withdrawn.

Site: The same site as that selected for the Process Workshop will
be utilized for this session. '

Dates/Time: The Lab will be conducted on Saturday, March 21, 1987
from 9:00 a.m. until that time agreed for adjournment by the
Facilitator and participants, and, if necessary, on Sunday, March 22,
1987, from leO p.m. until Lab processes are completed.

Negotiations Sessions

A.

Participants: Participants representing the Board of Education will
include tWJ (Zl Board members, the Board's legal counsel, the
Superintend H; of Schools, and the Assistant Superintendent for
Business and Finance. Glen Ellyn Education Association participants
will include their negotiating team and the IEA UniServe
Representative. Sessions will be closed to all other individuals
except those who participated in Workshop and Laboratory processes.
Workshop and Laboratory participants may attend sessions as observers
of the negotiaticr process.

 

 

VII.

Negotiations ”Wrap-Up

A.

181

Preparation of session minutes: A secretary will be provided for the
purpose of recording session outcomes. Minutes will be shared with
all participants and with those who were involved in Workshop and Lab
Processes. Minutes are confidential and shall not be distributed
beyond these individuals.

Process Description: Participants will openly discuss issues for
negotiation and seek agreement through an integrative problem—solving
process. A multiple spokesperson format will be employed, and
although caucuses will be permitted, utilization of this procedure,
on a frequent basis, will be discouraged.

It will be the goal of each session to arrive at agreement on those
matters scheduled for discussion. Tentative contract language will
be prepared by legal counsel and the Association's IEA representative
following agreement on specific matters and will be presented to
participants at the start of the next negotiations session.

At the beginning of each session, minutes of the preceding session
will be reviewed for accuracy.

Moderators: Each group will designate an individual who will serve
as moderators for negotiating sessions. The role of the moderators
will be to coordinate the scheduling of sessions, assist participants
in determining session agendas, and serve as the individuals
empowered to initial matters upon which tentative agreement is
reached.

Outside Resources: In addition to legal counsel and the IEA UniServe
representative, resource persons on specific subjects may be invited

to negotiation sessions by mutual consent of the participants.

Length of Sessions: Negotiations sessions will be conducted within a

‘ two (2) hour time frame and will not be extended beyond that limit

unless by mutual consent of participants.

Site: The meeting room to be employed for negotiation sessions will
be mutually agreed upon by participants.

” Session

Purpose: To summarize tentat_ve agreements reached during
negotiation sessions and to reach agreement upon those issues which
have not been previously resolved.

Participants: ‘Wrep—Up” Session participants will include all those
individua s irvolved in Workshop and Laboratory processes.

Process Description: The Facilitator will assist participants with
articulation of their respective positions regarding unresolved
issues and will attempt to create an atmosphere for communication
which will be conducive to problem—solving and concensus decision—
making. Caucuses will be permitted during this session. When
agreement is rtacn=i, legal counsel and the Association's IEA

-4-

 

VIII.

D.

E.

182

UniServe representative will draft required contract language.

Site: A neutral location that is mutually acceptable will be
selected for the conduct of this session.

Date/Time: The "Wrap-Up” session will occur on Saturday, May 2,
1987. This session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will continue until
agreement between the parties is reached.

General Guidelines

A.

Media Information: During these negotiations, communication with the
media regarding the progress of negotiations will be jointly
released.

Protocol Modification: Revision of or additions to the protocols
delineated herein may occur upon mutual consent of participants.

Meeting Access: All sessions pertaining to implementation of the INC
will be closed to the media, the general public, and all other
individuals not included in Workshop and Lab processes.

Sharing of Costs: All costs pertaining to the implementation of the
Integrated Negotiations Concept (INC), except those incurred by the
Board or Association as a result of their decision to employ resource
persons, will be shared equally by the Board and the Association.

Contract Development: All agreements ratified by the District No. 41
Board of Education and the Glen Ellyn Education Association will
become a part of the contractual agreement which exists between the

two parties.

 

 

 

183

GLEN ELLYN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 41
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS

Negotiations Process Facilitator
Interview Guide

Facilitator Name: Date:

The following is provided as a guideline for our interaction and as a
means of standardizing the input received through the interview process. Ad—
ditional areas of inquiry may be explored as desired by interview participants.

I. A copy of the description of the negotiations process we intend to
implement has been provided to you and our intentions briefly reviewed in
our telephone conversation. Given this background information, can you
share with us why you are interested in serving as our facilitator?

II. Given the knowledge that we desire a training experience regarding group
dynamics and communication processes which will prepare participants for
integrative negotiations, how would you suggest the Process Workshop
Session be structured in order that we achieve this outcome?

 

 

IV.

 

Describe those past experiences which you have had which you feel are
similar to the expectations we have for our Integrated Negotiations
Concept and describe those events in the process which caused you to feel
that there were either "break-throughs" or "break-downs” in the group's
ability to reach agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

VI. How do you see your skills enhancing our having a successful experience
and why do you feel you should be chosen as our facilitator?

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII. If we were to contact previous clients, what would they say to us about
you and the services you performed?

 

 

 

 

 

     

This Jun-n. 3r. --- - - - - Q .51“, Kittie
menu the -.-.:.-.-:. r ' -. --_ - _ - - ~ . us .- un' -
p-r-z-vrh’. _nr'_1.-' - -\-'

 

 

 

 

 

188
Facilitator Minutes

SUMMARY OF MARCH 12 MEETING ON INTEGRATED NEGOTIATIONS CONCEPT
WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF GLEN ELLYN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, SCHOOL
DISTRICT Al BOARD OF EDUCATION AND SUPERINTENDENT 0F SCHOOLS

This summary, prepared from the facilitator's notes, supple—
ments the underlying Process, Procedures and Protocols statement
approved earlier by the parties to the Integrated Negotiations

Concept.

Friday March 20 Session

4:30 p.m. Buffet supper at workshop site
5:15 p.m. Begin workshop
10:00 p.m. or earlier. Conclude Workshop

The Process Workshop Session will provide opportunities for
participants to:

1. Get to know each other better and build trust;

2. Briefly explore the nature of conflict, the ways we tend
to respond to it and why;

3. Identify, discuss and practice skills and techniques of
collaborative (joint problem solving) negotiations;

4. Identify and practice productive negotiating behaviors
and identify unproductive ones;

5. Have some fun exploring new behaviors in a friendly non-
threatening environment;

The process workshop will involve the active participation
of the participants and will include mini-lecture, discussion, a
written instrument, simulations, group discussions, small-group
activity and handouts.

Saturday March 212 Session

Prior to the session the parties will list their issues, by
subject, in large print, on newsprint; out or ‘wo issues will be
listed on each sheet. The parties also wi.1 have a printed or
typewritten list of their issues in sufficient quantity to dis-
tribute a copy to each participant. The typewritten list may

include subcategories of issues that do not fit on the newsprint.

8:00 a.m. Two representatives of each party will meet with
the facilitator to exchange and post lists.

9:00 a.m. The session will take place at tables arranged in
a circle or oval. Participants will be asked to sit next to a
member of the other party.

One party, to be determined, will open the session by offer—
ing for discussion one issue from its own list. Upon completion
of the opening presentation by that party, the other party will
have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions and continue the
discussion on that issue. When the exchange is completed, the
parties will jointly determine the future handling of that issue
in accordance with the Issues Disposition section of the proto—
col. The other party will then select an issue for discussion _
from its list and the process will continue until all issues have
been disposed of.

In the interest of productivity and efficiency, the parties
may jointly decide to suspend consideration of an issue and post—
pone further discussion until later in the session. Either party
may, at its discretion, remove an issue from its list.

While discussion of some issues may lead to a statement of
positions and even a modification of positions, it is not the
purpose of this session to negotiate issues or attempt to bring
them to resolution. Other forums have been designated in the
protocol for that process.

The board's attorney and union's representative are serving

as resource persons and their participation will be limited to
that role.

To encourage openness and candor, the discussions are confi—
dential; what is said in the room, stays in the room. Parties
may be speaking for themselves or for their group.

Each party will maintain a record of the disposition of each
issue. Disposition also will be noted on the newsprint list. At
conclusion of the session, each issue and its disposition will be
reviewed.

Fifteen—minute breaks will Le taken at approximately 10:15
a.m. and 2:15 p.m. A 45—minute break for lunch will start at
about 11:30 a.m. Lunch will be served in the atrium adjacent to
the meeting room. Saturday's session is scheduled to end at 5:00
p.m., except that it may be extended until 6:00 p.m. if there is
consensus that important progress may occur during that hour. If a
subsequent and final session is needed, it will begin at 1:00
p.m. Sunday, March 22 and continue until all business is completed.

Protocols for the May 2 Negotiations Wrap-Up Session will be

reviewed for possible changes or additions sometime after March
22.

.. . .2 j . A '5': .
m1 6W”! cm ”in” b “DJ-.7

00' 4392 noljfnmgcill nun-r: on

 

    

   

9‘ 1.1
.' v1; . .v.

1 1:2,...

 

    
 

 

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

190

7
S8
W9
el
N
n4
Y
1V.
1r
Ea
u
nr
eb
le
GF

7.2.... :3: :3 3.5.11.3...

3 1.3 2... n: 3. 3.1.3.3....
... .1. on 3... n23... .1.. .3 A ...:
3n 32.33:: 332.31.23.33
an... :3 .23.: 3...... 33:223.:
...... .3332 32.5.... $13.53..
.3 3.7.33... £113.. .1: 31...]...
.3__m. 43w. 3333.: 3. 7:...
... 5.1.71.1. ... ...: .. ... 3.1:... ....
.>...>:_ 3...»...131 .1: n. 3.1.3::
5... .3 1.33.... 3:... 3... .3...
015..
t< 333.3. .. 3.1.333 3.3.11.3:
:. 3m: 5... .15 11...... :3....::_...:
9.2.1.0.. Ah; ...3 3:33 .4. n33...
._ 5.2.3.4332. ......coxfii...
Es... 3:... 13...: ...». .3...
.323 3..on 3. ......3 «1:33....

 

:5: 3o: 3. 393.3 o: o. :_ m:o_

.1:...3n ...... :3. 32.... n:..........._...
.213 a n. 33.5....» 3.95:: ...:1:
4.3.33.3... .4... ...... 9.37. :3:
...3...._.1..n.n< 3.3333. .1:...
:3... .1: .3 3.1135 .11.... .....33
3. 3.1.1.5.... 2.3.... ...:E .1: 3
..>_...n.... 3. .43.... .3123 3.3....
353:2...3311.11... ...::::,n
31...... a... 5.33.... ......._._.... 3.
313... 33:231.... :.....<. $3.1
.2... :. :3... .12.... .A.._........:n
.....3 i=5. 2...... >... ......3332
.....3 ...3... c... 33.31:“... ...:3.
:3. 3 33.2.3.1? ”1.1.3:... :>._.....
.5... ......::..3 I... r1... .... :
has: .... 3.33.1.3 3...:
a .n. 1.3... ._ 3:5 ... 3.32.13.
...... 3.. n...1.3....... 3.1.1.1.... .../....
.2... :35 ....z. 2.1.3.313: ...:
:33: ....s :.1.. :5... 3.3:; n...._.

53.... x... 3......» ....C. 32.1...
...: .... ......1:7. .. 3. 1.21... >.._..n.>
7.. 7. 7...: fl n3 £0.4— u: ...:z: T...
___s.:....1.:.1.. 3:21.311. ...:1...
...: 11:21: ......3 .3: :3. 33:54
ext... 5.: ...»... 3. .1. 1...

...:7435
.3 ...:s. n. _. ......z: ..
...—1:: 1.1.14.2... 1.... .. /....._...._..:
.1:—11.... 1. ......Z... 3. 5:33;...
...... ...-9.27:. .29;— 41:_ .71....1
:_ 3.33.... 5.... 2:33.: :3? r...
...._.=........__:.. .....__...,..: :27 r...
.. 13:11:: .....s .1:. ...n :33: 1.
3.3.... .... 5 i=3.» .::.1..:=..::_:..
...; ....... 3. E1: 3...: :3. ...
....._...._.1.x.. ......2 .: n....i......:...
.........._:.:c..q........1.. .332: :. 1
...... .1:.33... ........___..s. .1: ....s.
2.1.5.35 2.11:: 3 .1:... .. ....3

 

 

_ luvs—v

 

: 11:1: .1: .3.
zoom 93...: 3:1." 3333.. m :3.
£2.38. 33 ...:s 1323.32.33
.233 3. 333.3333 5. 3:33..
.3 ...—:1... :. 33:139.: 9:15...
... MEX .. 3. 353.3. m:_..33.
E.. :2. :3 .. no. :33“. mm. 1 ac.
...mE 3. Ease... .mo: .5... :32...
Manonfgm: 38:3: 3.1. a...
.32: 1.1.5.3 33 n. :33.
a... .3 32.1.8... .953... >2.
3:2. 3...... .....m..a.:39
...... 3. .52.. 33 3...... :33:
...aaE. 3.33: a 9:1. :33...
1.8.1.” 3.3:: .... 3. .3. 5:21:
.:3.. 33.53 .33.... 2.5.3. on ...3
313.35.. 33:: "33...: .1. ...3
a... £1.23 33.... ".513. .1. ...3
e3 ...... m. man :33: oz. .3: 2......
.:.1.a_.3wo: ..3. 3: MEE «.333
some 3:... :3 .:oEEoo 3. u:.
...:s was .35.. ..3: 3:2. $.33:
£353.33. 3.33.03.33.33
5...... 2... .3 11% 1.. :.
.. 8:. 25: .19...

..s: 91:... :< ...33._...:_....33T.
1.5 .2133 .23: C...__..
.... 55:13:... 3:. ....1: 3:
51.... ......3 3....
...n.__2._..:.:1....._u::...1..3..£x.
11......3.1.2.1.3.... 331.7211;
1...... 1:73... .1:. 3.3.53 .1: .3...
17:331....2. 3 .3 3:333»: ...:
.... ,s .....1: .39.... 533.13.. ...:
:_ I3 .23. .1:: ... 3......» 33.5...
.1:. ...n a ......3. .3333»... .3
’._....r... ...... ...... .33.. 33.11... a
.........u... 3.11... 3. 253.3. .: ......3
.1:. ......ia» n. .33.. ......s ...:3.
£3.13 1:11.13 71.1.3 .33.. ...
:37... ... 1......1... ....os ...S 2.2....
...—...... $51.21.... ......
....__.:::.__::.a
:3... 11...: .1131... .... 113......
......::_... :3 n. ,r 3.38.. ...:

 

...>.

   

... .3335... v... :. 3: .3... mm 23..
3.1%.... 11:33.. a... :. 33......
3. 9:3: .12.... 31.23.3333
:5... .1:... £9.23. .3: .3 .25....
.33. 5.3% .2... m:...: 0.... 33
...... 7.3.3515... ... £11... .63.
3.5 833 ...33: u:....o.:3m
ME»... 3. .1... 3. :2... 3.3.5
.93 3.8.. 3. 63:35 a 8.3
3. w:.__.3 .1 0:31.53 .3: U333
:33 Eng... 2...... 50>: Emma:
13... .3 .3: o... :23“. .23.:
.3... 9:2. .33.“... 5:35.583...
u... .133. .3... ._ .3... :33: m5
..omE. 2:3 3...... ,2 ... ...motmm
.53.: :n... 5...... £31.. .1.
2:: 39.38 .... 3:2. 3: .....3...
...... out“... 32.3.3. 3... 3: ::<

.....mnsca 2:35.33:
misfits: o... C.:... 333
3.2:: 3:3 2... ._ 3:213
...: >....$ ...33 0.53 4.3.... one... 3
.35.: 3 3: 3. .1:: .....x. ....>.o>>..

5.23:... 33...:

.92.:— ...3.._ E3: €935.13...

.1:: 3:... .0933... 31:139.:
....3..:>>. n.:......c_3.J 1:3...
:3 3.7.3.. 334.... :3... ._.$..:u...:....
.. 2.33.12... 22.3.3232
3.13.211... .x. ...3 ......» 1... .13.
.1: .3... 1.22.5: mi. 35.9:
.1:
3:1... 3 .5 9.3.3:...» :3 ......2.
.3 3.1.31.5... 326.26... 3...
.52.: .15. 33.... .../.3 635.5...
3. 9.3.: 3 :.

.1:: a... 3.. 5...... u:..a.3w..:
3... 3. 33:3: 33:3... n: .3.
1.1333... n. ... .9: 5...”... :0...

133.27.13.39 9:2
ZZ<EL=Z 2.82.22)... ....

3.1.1.1333: toning:

1.33:... 2. ...3.
1.3:. .1: .93. ”.51.... 1...... :3
3...." 3. .3: 3.3.3 .39.. “:5: 3:...
3...: £552.... .... 3. “1.3.1.9...

3:332

 

Glen Ellyn News
1987

March 25,

191

.32 E 3:53.";
312:... m ....m :32? £2.23.
5...... :20 3.5.x... mm woe». =3
: ...:::.&3 a... .... .mm :3 m8...
.833 1.. ...E :3 ..w... :3: .m::3..
:.mm .22.... E3... :38... 3. ......»
7.... ...: ......E 3.. .m:3..1.3m ....
w:.....c. ...:: to... 552.353..
...: ...... 2:513:32... $28.:
...... 3.85159... 91.53.. .... cow:
:9. :51}... o... ..e. 1:... ......
1mm 3. ”3...; ......3 .....m :9...
3:38.... 5.3.85.4. 5...”. :20
:5. v...:.... ..< .:..:::.:....:..3m
.23.. .38.... 55:: .53..
.... .... :3...» 5533:1353 1::

 

C...— .m~ 2.33:).

$83.: E... :53: ...... FEE:
:3... 3:? ...... .3135...
:..::..: ...: 1.13 :23: ..E:
.1::3v. a... .1... ..u1c:.. >3...ch
3:3 $2.5: 1.39.33: 3.. ....3:
.:1v. :5. 23:3.mm 5.33.... .... ::
..3::....v. 5.1. :5. moE: ......85.
3.5!: w... :.....3 91.3.. .3
>3 3.1.31.2. :33: :35... 31.3.:
w::.~:cua: 33.33: 3:: ...:
....:::.... 223.332 .....Eme.
.5 w... ..c. 38.33 3...... ...:
mm... 2... .23: 71.3.2.3... :.

v3.1.2... :33». .... m...
...:1. .... w.::E::13:. ...: Em...
3. 3:53 :3..m:1:m. ... :53». w...
...w: .3... 8.3.5.30 u:..a:.E32
o... .313... cm 3. 3.3
.3: 3: 3:? 33:35.0 1.332.:
.3: m. .. 32:31:... ... :33.
a... .... u:.::1. :. 8.8.8:.
::o>.:: .... 3.553.: .::..m.: m m.
3.6.9.3 9....EE30 ..u13..._<
...:33U «......
......am. ....3...=.m.. m.:.m..
.5252... :3. ..33m....u... ....:>..Z
..o... .:¢_: .w:.o. ..mvm.acq
.3313:an 3:55 ......81...
.5363: £5.33 :32. ..:.3:
¢<_Ea:w_<.§1§.é.:§:3:z
2......» .. _:m: 4.2.3.3.;

\‘.||

1‘

33.—.31.... knife...
..ch :>.. e... ..3 ..cm .3 63.3.:
.3332 5.2.2.». 3:...E
.Ecu m... .3 5253.5 2.. 3......
35:3: :32? :.m:.::a: :33».
a .... :39: m3... :5. ... .1. :52:
...w macs. 3:3 .3 5581:”. .3
:33». 2.7.3. u:.::1. :. 8.8....
...E. .1. EH... 3...... ::3..:<

CG...»—

£333:
...... a... o. «.233... 50:53.:
.3 3.1.. 3:: 33.... .18.... :5 .3...
Yamaha :5. .::...:::m.:.. :32...
8.2.11.8 BEE... .2 .83...
.... :3 ... 53:35.: .3 ......E3:
.3. 3: u. :3... .3... ::m ..3>....::::
:mm.........:3: m m. ::...EE::
e... .3... :os.mm....E: .eufiwz
3.13m ... :13.
332...... ...:3 ...:c ....3 :..:...:
:3: ...... 3...... :...3:.. :3... ......m.
...m.:::3.v. :m ... :33. a... ....
...33 c. ”......5. .... :ca .13.... a ma
3:7,... w... .3 133...... .....a .... c.
3.3.138: w: ...... cm... :33... 3:.
.1551... .1: 5.3.3.). 3. u:.:....:
.:< 13:35:53: 32...... :>...m
3. ”3...... :EW .89. 3.31m... a
12.8.: o... 33:91.... :8... :c:
7...... .m .3. .:...m.: a... .3 3.37....
m 33...: w 6.... .3 E39». ... ....

3...: 23.1.3.3 < :...E.v. 3......
w... u..::E:.3..... Eu... 2....
.91.. £5 :53.
o... :3 ..1 .335: $128.; 3....
:1. __: o. m..~c_c:a. u:..¢om
3.1.5:: .... ...B m.:..E:E :13:
....:3E ......1. o... MEIR. ...:m: 2:
1130 e... E3... 3.3.3:... ::3 :5.
33358.38 2... ....3 3:7...
.1: :. 8:3 ..33..:w :3. o... ...
1:3 :8... 8213:8332 ::>:m
.3 :ongo: m. 3......E30 .1...
...mmwoo... 1:335: e... .312...
23...... 31:31.. :3... ...2.
3. 3:3 :3 ::a ....mom .32.:m
w... .3. w:.::=.. .3. 35:531..
.2 3»... 22... o... .8E SEES:
:3 238.. 2.. :.1w 8.5: 3. Eu?
:3 ...—3.33. m. $391.. .10 ....
....1EE3: o... .3. ...33:E3.. w...
3: 3.183 :3 5.8.3.... .25...
:8... ... .. 352...... 33.2...
a.m...mm 5.5.9.0 83.5.8:
....v ..mfi. 3.1.:v. ... ......
.83.”. .3 :33. o... :3 86:89.
1:83:33: 3.1.313 .3 .23..
e... :3 8a... :5... 3.1% 3.: 5:...
5 .655: EL .. .23 2.. ..
..1 .3. w. $13.13... ”3.31.352
2.... .3353. :33. .oo..:w
..3 5:00.: m...e..Ew>3Z .1:: ....
$33 a... u:...:w ....wE 1:33....
35.85 .E: s. ...... .. .13
.... $33.50 3:35:82 E...
.m:1:m .3 ...aom $52.5 2....

.1o::c..v..rr_3.. $597..
z<E:=mzm::=h<1..

.3: :03... o. to m:o_.m_.om:: ELSEH

2V :_ Ew13m 33:35.: :33. .33.:m

1987

Glen Ellyn News

May 20,

5.13.12.31.21...
c: 3:..n 1.: an. 1.. 3:1:
...:1 3. 53...: :31: 3... ......3
......3: 1. 51:13 53:3: 3...
33.5. 3. 33:35» 3.. «1:33.:
3.33.? 1 3313.11.33... :1:
.1151. .3. .3m:1... 1.11:1..3...
3 ....3 331.13... :53: .5335...

192

...._3< .1... .13:1...1..3:1r.
.1:.n.nn< :1: 513.. .2
1.333.

:5... 1: .13.. wc...1n3. .3...
1.3,... :1: 3x333... 1. 33......35
71. 1.1.3.1 ....u:_:33..3m13..:
m: :3...3_3:.:..3

3.1.31... 13.13 .... :1: ._
2.3.532 13...... :33: 1. 8.33....

:33132: 1a.: 231.133.
.nw...:_.1.. 331% 13 51:13 £1.
313: ...33 .33.. 3. 3.1.... .3 13..
13...... 1.3.11 3.... .3. 23:33....
:1 :3>3.::3 :1: 53133.13
5:213... .3. .111? 13:11.35
.3. 3 .:3:: 3. :33... :33:
35 £53.. 13...... ......1 ...

.. 3:3: 53.. .n... ......3 1. .31
13.1 35 3.. .311: m... .1... 131.:
3. .31 n. 11.: x... 31%.. .3... 1:5
.3325... :53: .3En_1... 1::
:1: £533.: 3... ....3 >111; >...>

:11 .2213... 15> 3.33 €31.33.

35 .1... :3.......1:.33 .<........
.3 33:23.: .31.... :33: : .131
33...... ...... .1 :13 ..5 31......

51.13.1133: 2.5533531. :3.
.... ...... ”.331 113.: 1. 3:... .n...
35. ... 3:2 53.. .3. 3.11.5.7...
41.1.1... 1.3.13.5..5 32.73:
15> 1 m1... .. .33. ... £123.35:

.1... .3 1.1.1.1351... :22...
:..::.:. ....3 1.2.1:: 3.1....
...:x : :33: :11 12.1.7.1...—

..1 :17. ......1...>3 .3 13:19.1.
...: ..5 .........3 5.5.5.1. 3.1..
..::.13. ._ .331... 3.1.1.151...

3. 5...... .5232: 3131.35 ...: .
... ......n .31.... ...... .1..:._....._..:.:/.

..:3....:.. 5.3.1.3232
“5.1.1.5... ...: .3 21.5.3.7.
:93 CA «34‘523 _:.::.c.a..u:.

....1... 1. :5: :3531. ...: ......
.31. ...: 1.. 1.7.13... 7...: ..........7
313......1: ...... 31:35::
........1n
.1. .3 13... 3... ... 2.3.1331. 3...:

1.1.1.... .n... :11 £131... ....
1...... 1.. 13:11:... 1 .x. ......
3.35 ....._.1...n.:_:.:< 3... .3...

C351... .... 5:31.... 3.11.15:
...... :1... .1173... :3n33...:. 3.1.5

 

_. 2.5 .v.. .1: 7:33.: .2: :—
.. . .1... 71.35525 ....»
... f. 1.5/13...... .... ...s 1......»
.73. .5 ...............u.. ...... 3. “.1...
1...... 1:33.124 13:131....—
:..... ...: ... .3335:
_ ..x. 1:13.... 5:. .11... 2.31.1...
:12 3:13.31. 5.... ...:
... :11 .1: ......13. .3151... ......
., . ............ .13....5. 3....
.. ......z. ... ...x... 11.1.12 7...;
1......111. :33. .21.... .w 7,...

.x. .

 

 

 

 

 

...3....::r3..:.. 5.3.4
7.47::7. 2......2P41 1..

5:513. 55:3. .531 3:3:3 E. 5:55

 

WPZm—U 3 3.2:..—

wZOF—Um—m mum—12h .2.

whmfizab Zia—(a.m.:xz .1:—...

 

...... 1...»...

£323.: .Z>._._H 23.—.1.

.... .37 231.1%.— :27)

 

 

 

.,, ...HH

at 13,

Z<>.—Jm— 2343 3:... :24.

Ha ...

...-’34:... . .. n... .
ball. {If}? .
l 19...... .. _

I Ill-IFS...
1 ‘..-u...

g _.
i Q: .. .

.4 at a

...-...? ..

 

 

 

Communications Lab Issuesgg— Teachers

1 Since teachers are encouraged to grow
professionally year round on their own time and at
their own expense. shouldn’t they be allowed

mid-year movement on the salary schedule?

——————.—1——————~—

2 To facilitate professional growth and

participation. shouldn’t each teacher receive $50

 

annually to apply towards professional

organization membership or Journals?

 

3 Shouldn’t a person’s teaching skills in
summer be compensated at a rate equal to the

compensation paid during the regular school year?

F‘__"_—‘_‘—‘—_—‘“’—""‘———"——————rr‘——~—~——-—-—-—————————k

4 Shouldn’t teachers with Master’s degrees who
have devoted their professional careers to '
District :41 be rewarded with a monetary bonus at

years 20. 25, 30 instead of being frozen?

5 Why isn’t the placement on the salary

 

scheduie for newly hired teacners'experience

applied uniformly throughout :he District?

 

“r m tion? In. unit
have!“ a: 196-: :moiuoefi .

..‘i'uL'f'u'u'J .' 15...:

-u'-'.‘ no an

 

 

194

6 In order for teachers to meet individual

classroom needs. shouldn’t the $15 be raised to a

more reasonable 350?

7 Since the Board pays a portion of some
professional employees’ retirement. shouldn’t this
standard be applied universally for all

professional employees?

 

8 Shouldn’t the Board make a commitment to make

our salaries equitable with District #87?

 

__4_______;________d__.

 

9‘ Shouldn’t teachers who are required to travel

between buildings be compensated for providing

their own transportation?

 

10 Since the cost of professional growth can no
longer be deducted from income taxes, and is a
factor in teacher evaluation. shouldn’t the
district provide a stipend to encourage teachers

to continue their professional growth at

accredited institutions?

 

.5. I'

“n cumin in an in: :

 

v:- waste”

2. . '311531!

 

 

195

11 Wouldn’t it be more educationally sound to
figure class size ratios at each grade level
rather than at the primary. intermediate and Jr.

high levels?

12 Shouldn’t a consistant procedure for handling

parental complaints against teachers be devised?

 

13 Shouldn’t all decisions about program changes
be discussed with the professional staff in time

to allow for input before final decisions are

made?

 

14 Don’t teachers deserve uninterrupted planning

periods during the school day each day?

 

15 Shouldn’t clerical aides be supplied to those

teachers with excessive paperwork demands?-

 

16 Shouldn’t separate lounge facilities be

established for smokers and non-smokers?

 

196

17 Couldn’t some system of committee assignment

be devised?

18 Due to scheduling conflicts of professional
duties, shouldn’t the frequency and length of

building meetings be regulated and reasonable?

 

 

19 Shouldn’t District #41 provide improved
personal facilities. in the form of increased
staff washrooms, refrigerated drinking fountains
in all buildings. and general improved lounge

facilities?

 

 

'_i

20 Shouldn’t teachers be supplied with desks or

drawers capable of being locked?

 

 

—i

21 Shouldn’t referral hall duty at the Junior

high be a paid position?

 

22 Shouldn’t the Safety Patrol Position. when

taken by a teacher. be a paid position?

 

 

 

 

197

23 Shouldn’t all professional educators have

access to a phone they can use in privacy?

24 Since other professions are entrusted with
determining the necessary time needed to fulfill
their professional obligations. shouldn’t teachers
have the same right (beyond the regularly

scheduled student school day)?

 

 

25 Shouldn’t the district promote a management
style that would create a positive. supportive and

humane teaching environment?

 

 

26 Shouldn’t there be a policy involving
teachers’ input on involuntary movement of

certificated personnel?

 

27 Shouldn’t we clarify the meaning of Article

VI - Reduction in Force. in the present contract?

 

 

 

 

198

28 Wouldn’t it be a positive and supportive
gesture for the district to provide retirement

counseling to the retiree — early or otherwise?

 

29 Since group term life insurance is less
costly than other types. wouldn’t it be a very
inexpensive reward for the district to give the

retiring teacher $50,000 of life insurance until

age 65?

 

30 Wouldn’t it benefit the district to encourage
early retirement by paying the retirees medical

insurance to age 65?

 

'31 Wouldn’t it benefit the district’s budget to
pay 100% of the Teachers Retirement payment for
teachers eligible for early retirement and
therefore allow the hiring of teachers lower on

the salary schedule?

 

32 Can the following modifications be made to

contract section 7.7?

 

 

(dilute! nl'

9931219610 10 glans - 99113.1

 

acct? sent!

M: vim

 

 

' 199

-Eliminate the last sentence that begins, "A
refusal to grant such leave will not be subject to

challenge through the grievance procedure."

 

 

33 Could the following modifications of the
contract section 7.6. Maternal Leave. be made:
-that it be retitled: Maternity and Parental
Leave, thus identifying male faculty as being,
eligible for this provision.
—that its purpose, thereby.be for "child
care“ rather than "child-bearing".

—that length of maternity leave be extended.

 

34 Can each teacher receive notification of
total sick days and personal leave days available

to him/her at the start of each school year?

 

 

 

35 Don’t you think teachers should help pay

costs required to represent them?

36 Don’t yOu think that new teachers should be

formally advised of district procedures. policies.

committee system. fringe benefits. annuities. etc?

 

 

 

200

39 Why couldn’t all personal leave requests

before/after holidays be granted without

qualification?

 

40 Shouldn’t the Board’s expectations of staff
responsibilities and working conditions be defined
in writing for off—site residential programs. for

purposes of clarity?

 

41 Wouldn’t it seem that the district would want
to provide dignity and privacy for its employees
and let them file insurance claims directly with_

the company?

 

42 Don’t you think employees work more

productively for a supervisor they have helped to

select?

43 Since medical insurance costs continue to
rise, wouldn’t it be advantageous for the district

to consider other companies and the option of an

HMO plan?

 

:r:--”. 9311 1 ‘1.

    

mama
. ..5‘
1:": e-nlaiw Ill

.-".‘. beet-Q1311

 

 

201

44 Would it be feasible to consider a "cafeteria
plan'I for those insurance plans (dental,
eye-glasses, etc) that are a continued concern and

need for employees?

45 Wouldn’t it be inexpensive and beneficial for
the district to provide $60,000 of term life

insurance for each employee?

 

46 With all of the annuity plans available
wouldn’t it be an inexpensive service to offer

more options to employees if a given nember of

people apply?

 

47 Public law 94-142 has placed such tremendous
demands on special education teachers’ time for
clerical responsibilities. wouldn’t it provide
more time for kids and save money if record

keeping was computerized or given clerical help?

 

 

——————J———————.—_i

48 If it becomes necessary for a class size to

exceed recomme.ded number for safety and adequate

 

 

-l - .-,-w a;

 

 

202

individual instruction, then shouldn’t an

instructional aide and clerical aide be provided?

——_____—_————____________‘____77___77————‘*———————————-————fi————————__________

49 Since insurance continues to be an iSSue. and
since it is already addressed in our contract,

wouldn’t it be advisable to follow those

guidelines and have an on—going insurance

committee?

 

50 In order to allow for more consistent

instruction. shouldn’t institute days be scheduled

in conJuction with weekends?

 

51 If special services and special programs (TAG
Integrated Arts) are to be provided. then

shouldn’t adequate teaching space for these

programs be provided?

52 Since the teachers and the administration
have worked so closely in developing the
evaluation procedure. don’t you think it should be

included in the contract?

 

 

 

 

203

53 In order to provide optimum education for
children, shouldn’t lower class ratios be a
primary consideration for split classes, special

education classes, and special services personnel?

 

 

54. Why not put the Job-sharing policy in the

contract. since it describes a working condition?

 

55. Could each Monday before report card issuance

be designated as a one-half records day?

 

56 Since insurance policies are often difficult

to interpret and understand. shouldn’t the
district provide a yearly seminar or in-servlce on

the policy, its coverage, etc.?

 

 

57 Since the majority of the teachers in
District #41 have dedicated many years of service.
wouldn’t it seem supportive for the Board to pay

100% of the medical insurance costs?

 

204

58 What is your rationale for denying requests

for additional special services personnel?

 

59 Since it’s been stated that CAPS does not

deal with "building issues", what is the proper
procedure to follow with unresolved building

concerns?

 

60 ' Why doesn’t the district offer a wellness
stipend for the unused sick-leave days a retiree

has accumulated?

 

 

 

205

Communications Lab Issues --
Administration / Board

CONFIDENTIAL

GLEN ELLYN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 41
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS

Statement of Negotiation Interests

I. FINANCE/COST CONTAINMENT

Objectives:

 

A. To provide an overview of district finances and to
increase awareness of budgeting processes.
Presenters: Dave Studebaker and Jim Aellig

B. To contain cost of medical insurance
Presenter: Russ Killion

C. To contain cost of early retirement by limiting the
number of requests to be granted on an annual basis.

Presenter: Cynthia Woods

- II. PROFESSIONALISM
Objectives:
A. To maintain, improve, and enhance public perception of
teachers as professionals.
Presenter: Art Jones
1. To pursue means whereby teacher discretion
reiarfling the use of personal days might be
assured.

Presenter: Genie Ramsey

P ii'iilH'Jr" 3? 1'1““ 7W J .'J “JR
=36 = . i‘" ‘ “WHIP.
' --' - - . . J' - '.'i

 

 

206

2. To explore means whereby teacher responsiveness to
parent requests for evening conferences might be
assured.

Presenter: Carolyn Strayer

3. To pursue means whereby teacher discretion might be
employed regarding out of school use of planning/
free time during school hours.

Presenter: Dean Clark

III. CONTRACT TERM/LANGUAGE

Objectiyeg

A.

To reach agreement upon a multi—year contract

Presenter: Joy Talsma

To clarify definition of "certificated employee" as

used in Article V. Paragraphs 5.1A, 5.18 and 5.1C

Presenter: Dave Studebaker

To clarify Article VI language pertaining to Reduction

in Teachers

Presenter: Art Jones

207

Disposition of Issues

MATTERS FOR NEGOTIATION

Mid—year Movement on Schedule - Non—degree (#1)

Summer School Pay at School Year Rate #3)

Bonus for MA teachers at 20, 25, and 30 years (#4)

Teacher Supply Reimbursement at $15 to $50 (#6)

Board Contribution to TRS (#7)

Salary Equity with No. 87 [Phase-in] (#8)

Supplemental Pay — Referral Hall - Safety Petrol (#21 and 22)

Professional Membership/Journal $50/Teacher (#2)

Insurance Cost Containment

Board pay 10 % Insurance Costs (#57)

Payment of Medical Insurance to Age 65 (#30)

Cafeteria Plan for dental/eye glasses et.al (#44)

Term Life $60,000/employee (#45)

Term Life for Retirees to Age 65 (#29)

Board pay 100% of Teacher Contribution - Early Retirement (#31)
Tuition Reimbursement (#10)

Payment for Unused Sick Leave at Retirement (#60)

Changes to Section 7.6 (#33) — Maternal Leave to Parental Leave
Child bearing to Child care
Extension of length

Evaluation procedure included in contract (#52)

Personal leave before/after holidys (#39)

Limitation of Access to Early Retirement

Multi-Year Contract

Article V: Definition of ”Certificated Employee (5.1A—C)

Clarification of Article VI Reduction in Teachers

Drop last Sentence re: Refusal to Grant...[Appeal] (#32)

Job Sharing Policy to Contract (#54)
Procedures re: Involuntary Transfer (#26)
Fair Share (#35)

 

L)? 1

Mill! may: RG1 2113"!"

-:- w: -.

" no
' i“: ‘2‘?

‘ -'-.'"'-r.-.-'.p.1 H

    

w? “aqua
:Lsdninofl
' . -Lup3 21.112
-.~. .'.-.~-.afz:m.se

 

208
Disposition of Issues

MATTERS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION/RESPONSE

Notification of sick days and personal days with first paycheck: J. Aellig
Locked teacher desks as replaced: J. Aellig

Examination of feasibility - smoking and non-smoking lounge, and improved
personal facilities (#16 and 19)

Scheduling of Institute Days with weekends (#50)
Filing of insurance claims by individual: J. Aellig (#41)

Concern re: Management Style - Sensitivity/Support (#25: Specific principal
- A. Jones

Staff Consultation - Program Change Hadley (#13): A. Jones
Clerical Assistance — Paperwork (L.A. - Hadley and elem.) #15

Length, scheduling and frequency of building meetings (#18) [General and
Specific School]

Monitoring of Teacher Hours at Specific School: A. Jones

One-half day records day prior to report cards (Calendar Issue)

 

 

 

209

Disposition of Issues

MATTERS FOR STUDY BY REPRESENTATIVE TASK FORCE

Enhancement of perception of teachers as professionals
Teacher discretion re: Use of personal days (CAPS)
Development of system for committee assignment (#17)

New teacher orientation to include explanation of insurance policy
(#36 and 56)

Planning/Study re: Scheduling of evening conferences
Insurance Study HMO/Cost Containment (#43)

Development of Job Description for Grade 5 teachers at Arboretum (#40)

 

': ..'..'- Jan-r - . .~-.u.--- :-.. r': :I-uaz'ueh, Ade-.21.

I- .-. .=_- 9'?! Is

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ]

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ary, Donald; Jacobs, Lucy Chester; and Razavieh, Asghar.
Introduction to Research in Education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972.

Augenstein, John J. A Collaborative Approach to Personnel
Relations: A Modal Process for Justice in the
Catholic School Community of Faith. Bethesda, MD:
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 195035, 1980.

Baruch, Steven, and Callaway, Rolland. Focusing Case Study
Research: Can We Reason Together? Chicago: American
Educational Research Association, April 1985.

Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981.

Bohannon, Randy; Gates, Jerry; and Namit, Chuck. Checking
Your Negotiations Style: The Situational Approach to
Bargaining. Olympia, WA: Washington State School
Directors' Association, 1985.

Buidens, Wayne; Marten, Margaret; and Jones, Arthur E.
"Collective Gaining: A Bargaining Alternative." Phi
Delta Kappan, December 1981, pp. 244-245.

Cohen—Rosenthal, Edward, and Burton, Cynthia E. Mutual
Gains: A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation. New
York: Praeger Publishers, 1987.

Fisher, Roger, and Ury, William. Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981.

Gilbert, V. K. The Case Study as a Research Methodology:
Difficulties and Advantages of Integrating the
Positivistic, Phenomenological and Grounded Theory

Approaches. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Institute
of Education, June 1981.

Goldaber, Irving. The Goldaber WIN/WIN Contract Development

Program: A Thirty-Day Program. Schaumburg, IL:
Northwest Educational Cooperative, 1984.

210

"' 'E'EIG
TH“. Ming 1 ..

 

. 1 .1:-:91”:

 

 

211

. Transforming Conflict into a 'WIN-WIN' Outcome.
Salem, OR: Confederation of Oregon School
Administrators, 1982.

Guba, Egon G. Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry
in Educational Evaluation. Los Angeles: UCLA Center
for the Study of Evaluation, 1978.

Hogler, Raymond L., and Thompson, Mary J. "Collective
Negotiations in Education and the Public Interest: A
Proposed Method of Impasse Resolution." Journal of
Law and Education 14 (July 1985): 443-469.

Holmes, Michael R. "Reduce hostility: Use teacher
negotiations to solve mutual problems." American
School Board Journal, August 1981, pp. 28—29.

Hunsaker, Johanna 8.; Hunsaker, Phillip L.; and Chase,

Nancy. "Guidelines for Productive Negotiating
Relationships." Personnel Administrator, March 1981,
pp. 37-40.

Jandt, Fred E. WIN-WIN Negotiating: Turning Conflict into
Agreement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1985.

Jones, Arthur E. Collective Gaining: A Collective
Bargaining Alternative. Schaumburg, IL: Northwest
Educational Cooperative Conference, March 3, 1984.

Jones, William J. School Labor Strife: Rebuilding the
Team: Communications Alert. Arlington, VA: National
School Public Relations Association, 1982.

Kerchner, Charles T., and Mitchell, Douglas. The Dynamics
of Public School Collective Bargaining and Its Impacts
on Governance, Administration and Teaching.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education,
March 1983.

Kolar, Jeanne; Croce, Leo R.; and Bardellini, Justin M.
"Integrative Bargaining in One California School
District." Phi Delta Kappan, December 1981, pp.
246—247.

LaCugna, Charles S. A Plan to Reduce Arbitration and
Negotiation Impasses. Olympia, WA: Washington State
School Directors' Association, 1985.

Mitchell, Douglas E.; Kerchner, Charles T.; Erck, Wayne; and
Pryor, Gabrielle. "The Impact of Collective
Bargaining on School Management and Policy." American
Journal of Education 89 (February 1981): 147—185.

 

I . -----

212

Moriarty, Karen M. Win-Win Bargaining: Thirty Days to a
Contract. Clearwater Beach, FL: Annual Meeting of
the Association of Negotiators and Contract
Administrators, November 7-9, 1984.

Moriarty, Robert V. "Trustees and Collective Bargaining."
New Directions for Community Colleges 13 (September
1985): 75—80.

Pheasant, Marilyn. "Theory Z Bargaining Works: Teachers

and Administrators in Two School Districts Replace
Hostility with Trust." OSSC Bulletin 28 (March 1985):

1-28.

Pope, Theresa Ann. "An Alternative Approach to Collective
Bargaining: The Communications Laboratory in the
Greater Latrobe School District." Ph. D.

dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1983.

Stake, Robert E. Recommendations for Those Considering the
Support of Naturalistic Case—Study Research.
Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Center
for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation,
June 1980.

Talmage, Harriet, and Rasher, Sue Pinzer. Quantizing
Qualitative Data: The Best of Both Worlds. Los

Angeles: American Education Research Association,
April 1981.
Tracy, Lane, and Peterson, Richard B. "Tackling Problems

through Negotiations.

Human Resource Management,
Summer 1979, pp. 14-23. ‘

Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research:
An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1979.

Vandermyn, Gaye. "Learning the Negotiations Game."

Compact, July/August 1974, pp. 9-10.

Welch, Wayne W., ed. Case Study Methodology in Educational
Evaluation: Proceedings of the Minnesota Evaluation
Conference. Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and
Evaluation Center, May 1981.

Wynn, Richard. Collective Gaining: An Alternative to
Conventional Bargaining: Fastback 185. Bloomington,
IN: Phi Delta Kappa, 1983.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES

UHI Tl H

31293005583913