Ledger-Dispatch

By Raheem Hosseini (editor@ledger-dispatch.com= )=20

Attendees of the Amador County Unified = School=20 District Board of Trustees meeting Wednesday night saw the delay = of school=20 calendars.

Photo by: Raheem=20 Hosseini
For the second straight meeting,=20 frustrated school board trustees delayed adoption of calendars for the = next=20 three school years, saying they were unwilling to take a chance on = tentative=20 agreements reached with only two of four employee bargaining = units.

The=20 remaining hold-outs are two teachers' groups from the county Office of=20 Education, which haven't put the schedules up for votes before their=20 memberships. Members of the Amador County Teachers Association and CSEA = No. 239,=20 both from the Amador County Unified School District, voted in approval = of the=20 schedules, which have garnered criticism from teachers and parents = unhappy about=20 the loss of the week-long October break in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 = school=20 years.

"It's not the perfect calendar. It's not the one we = wanted," said=20 Michael Delaney, president of the teachers association. "But this isn't = a=20 perfect world."

Initially, school board trustees seemed willing = to take=20 the leap with "a partial product," as Trustee P.J. Karnaze termed it, = with=20 Rosalie McProuty, executive director of personnel and employee = relations, saying=20 she had "no reason to believe we won't reach an agreement" with the = remaining=20 groups. She also assured the board that it could adopt the calendars for = the=20 district now and the ones for the office of education = later.

"There's no=20 doubt that it's very awkward," McProuty acknowledged.

"I'm just = wondering=20 why we're taking a vote on half rather than the whole," said Karnaze, = who had=20 prepared to vote in favor of the agreement until "feeling blindsided" = minutes=20 earlier when he learned that not all the memberships had voted. "My = concern is=20 not with the best case scenario, but with the worse case scenario - that = we have=20 blockage."

Clerk Karl Knobelauch was at the last bargaining = session, when=20 representatives from the four groups met with district staff and school = board=20 members. At that December meeting, he said he came away with the = impression that=20 all four groups had tentatively agreed to the calendars, something = McProuty=20 echoed repeatedly.

What was problematic about the December = meeting,=20 according to McProuty, was that it took place so close to the winter = break,=20 making it difficult for all the bargaining units to corral their members = for=20 up-or-down votes. The parties left that bargaining session with verbal=20 agreements, but no formal ones, something the board asked the groups to = shore up=20 last month.

The fact that two of the groups had done what the = board=20 "emphatically asked them to do at the last meeting" seemed like reason = enough to=20 approve the district calendars and allow teachers and parents to begin = planning=20 their vacations, Knobelauch said. But he admitted feeling "caught in the = horns=20 of dilemma as to the two competing issues," which was reflected in the = board's=20 3-2 vote in favor of the district calendars. That vote failed without a = fourth=20 person in favor - board President Mary Walser and Trustee Chuck Anderson = were=20 absent - leading to a second motion from Porray and Karnaze. Under that = motion,=20 the calendars were again delayed until the Feb. 27 meeting, with the = promise to=20 make a decision then, whether all the bargaining units have voted or=20 not.

That motion passed 5-0, though no one seemed happy about=20 it.

"It seems like we've been down this road," said Trustee David = Dutra=20 shortly before the second vote. "Now we're at the end of February with = no=20 calendar?"

Raheem = Hosseini