Teachers, legalities and ‘it’s all good’

I want to thank the Supreme Court for their effort to try and assist teachers. But those who are celebrating need to stop and realize the problem still exists, which is nothing to cheer about. Teachers still have a problem but we made progress even though the court clearly and justifiably explained how the questions did not meet the test for a court decision and I agree with their decision. In the simplest of terms, we (Mr. Benavente and I) were in agreement that the board didn’t have a dispute; it was the selection of the Teacher Rep that was being disputed. It was established once and for all when I was elected that the Board of Education has nothing to do with the Teacher Rep appointment. We were trying to get the court to resolve a dispute among teachers and teachers’ dispute with the Governor, which we can’t do by law.

The admission that the Board and Teacher Rep were not in dispute over the Teacher Rep selection in essence disqualified the questions from being addressed because the primary issue was the Teacher Rep selection. There is also the fact that the Governor, the teacher group (ACT) was connected to the questions but they were not qualified petitioners. While the Governor could have been included in the dispute, we didn’t ask him to sign off on the petition, while the teacher group has no standing because ACT is not governed by Commonwealth officials and cannot be included in the certified questions to the Supreme Court. ACT cannot submit certified questions to generate a binding decision by the court nor could the court “bind” the governor to a decision when he never committed to the questions being submitted. There is also the fact that some of the questions need to be put to the Board by the teachers first with a formal response that is disputed by teachers for a legal dispute to be declared, which is why I’m resubmitting the questions to the Board and Governor. I learned a lot and I have no complaints because the court did an excellent job explaining their decision.

However, there is still hope for teachers, as the questions are legitimate and obviously need to be answered. To that end, I will now divide the questions between the Governor’s Office and the Board of Education for their legal opinions, which will still provide teachers, the Governor and the Board with answers and a solution. If the teachers are not happy with the opinions or lack of opinions from the Governor and Board, they will have established their justification to declare an official dispute through the Teacher Rep. I have listed the questions that I will submit for a resolution. The best thing teachers can do at this point is to find one HQ Teacher, not an administrator, to meet the qualifications. The teacher must meet the criteria established by the previous Governor, as it is the only official criteria established (PRAXIS-certified teacher, five years of teaching in the system and 50 signatures of support from teachers if there is more than one candidate for election purposes). If the Board and Governor truly care about teachers they will answer these hard questions for teachers:

[B]- Board of Education:[/B] The Constitutional Amendment requires an “exclusive bargaining representative of teachers.” What qualifies a group of teachers to be considered the “exclusive bargaining representative of teachers within PSS”?

[B]- Board of Education:[/B] In the absence of a non-profit organization with a majority of teachers as members or a union, will an exclusive bargaining group of teachers that have been selected by teachers at the school level to represent teachers at each school collectively fulfill the constitutional requirement to be recognized as a collective to constitute the exclusive bargaining representative of teachers within the Public School System?

[B]- Board of Education:[/B] Is the Board of Education required to bargain with the Teacher Representative?

[B]- Board of Education:[/B] Will an administrator have a conflict of interest representing teachers as the Board of Education Teacher Rep?

[B]- Governor:[/B] What is the Governor’s role in the selection process in the absence of a recognized exclusive bargaining representative of teachers within the Public School System?

[B]- Governor:[/B] Who is responsible for conducting the selection process in the absence of an exclusive bargaining representative of teachers?

[B]- Governor:[/B] Can the Election Commission be solicited by Executive Order to conduct an election for teachers until an exclusive bargaining representative of teachers within the Public School System can be established and recognized?

I was saving the best for last because there was still something good that came out of the court’s decision that I’m sure most people didn’t see because they only saw a rejection by the court. But something truly great did happen because we now have an established precedent for the BOE Teacher Rep and the Board of Education to submit their disputes through questions to the court. I don’t have to tell anyone how much this would have helped when I was fighting with the Board over teacher rights to bargain. In fact, the next BOE Teacher Rep will be in a position to follow up on the questions I submitted to the Board and to work with the Board should the Board refuse to respond or if the Board’s response is contested by teachers.

Teacher now have a legal method to remedy their disputes with the Board through their Teacher Representative. So it’s all good and all hope is not lost by any means, just delayed. But to achieve anything, teachers must come together and stay the course to bargain with PSS if teachers truly want to have a real voice in the educational system and have some say in their destiny as a PSS employee. I will continue to contest any administrator representing me as a teacher because I know it’s a direct conflict of interest. But for now, I have done all I can do to help teachers and the matter is now in the hands of teachers, the Board, and the Governor to “do the right thing.”

On a final note: I fully expected the celebration by ACT after the court’s decision but their response should be clear proof that the organization never wanted a proper and legal opinion to resolve this matter, which is what they feared most—doing the right thing. I also want to thank the [I]Saipan Tribune [/I]for printing my full response and to apologize to Chief Justice Demapan for the letter in the [I]Variety[/I] that I asked them not to print because I had received the court’s response but they published it anyway, using your name for the title, which was not my intent. I hope Your Honor will excuse their sensationalism.

[B]Ambrose M. Bennett[/B] [I]Former Teacher Representative[/I]