The emerging position of chief negotiator in the public school superintendency

• Main Author: Eastman, Robert L.
• Other Authors: Strom, Merle T.
• Format: Others
• Published: 2011
• Subjects: Negotiation.; Teacher-administrator relationships.; School superintendents.
• Online Access: http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/handle/175991; http://liblink.bsu.edu/uhtbin/catkey/414699

The purpose of the study was to determine working relationships between full-time chief negotiators in selected school districts throughout the United States and the superintendents of schools, members of the negotiating team, and school boards during the period of collective negotiations. Secondary purposes of the study were to: (1) identify the composition of board negotiation teams and to discover the special responsibilities borne by various members of the negotiation team; (2) investigate the process of internal communications carried on between the full-time chief negotiator, the superintendent, and the board during negotiations; and (3) secure opinions of the full-time chief negotiator, superintendent, and board president relative to the positive or negative effect of the negotiation process on the school district.The population of the study was comprised of eighteen responding urban school corporations throughout the United States which have an established position of full-time chief negotiator as a function of the superintendency. Data secured from the negotiators, superintendents, and school board presidents of participating school corporations were used as the basis for the study.The major findings from the study were:1. Full-time chief negotiators have, with few exceptions, reported directly to the superintendent of schools.2. School board negotiation teams have usually included, in addition to the full-time chief negotiator, at least one member with major responsibility for instructional and/or personnel matters within the school system. The negotiating team members representative of business management and/or finance areas were reported for fewer than half of the school systems included in the study.3. The full-time chief negotiator, with few exceptions, has been chairman of the board negotiating team and has been charged with responsibilities for setting strategy and directing the progress of negotiations.4. The full-time chief negotiator has ordinarily served as the only spokesman for the administration and school board during negotiation sessions. On some occasions other team members may serve as a spokesman depending upon matters being discussed and expertise of the team member. The fulltime chief negotiator has served as spokesman during all crucial periods.5. The superintendent of schools has not been an active participant in actual negotiations proceedings.6. Although the superintendent of schools has not been an active participant in negotiating sessions he has been closely involved behind the scenes. All reports indicate that the superintendent has not been "by passed" in any way.7. The superintendent and full-time chief negotiator as a general rule were reported as attending all school board executive sessions dealing with negotiations matters.8. The person or persons making negotiation recommendations to the board was, as a general rule, the superintendent and the chief negotiator, but there was some conflict here in the responses of the chief negotiator, superintendent, and president of the board. There was noticeable conflict in the situations where the chief negotiator reported to someone other than the superintendent.9. Board presidents felt that board involvement on noneconomic matters was the same as economic. Most chief negotiators felt board involvement on non-economic matters was substantially less than on economic matters. The superintendents were more inclined to agree with the board opinion.10. The overall effect of negotiations as reported by all three groups surveyed were predominately positive. The responses of the full-time chief negotiator were almost all positive, with a lesser number of superintendents responding in the positive and even a lesser number of presidents of the school board.11. Most superintendents felt the establishment of the position of full-time chief negotiator to have been beneficial and essential to the functioning of their school system after the advent of negotiations with employee groups.Major conclusions included:1. More and more school systems will move to employ a full-time chief negotiator in the future.2. The establishment of the position of chief negotiator, reporting to the superintendent of schools has not resulted in any relinquishment of authority, status or influence of the superintendent.3. The person performing the task of chairman of the school board negotiation team should be an employee of the school system with knowledge in all areas of the school system he represents.4. The full-time chief negotiator should be close to the superintendent and identified with him in order to have maximum effectiveness in the negotiation process.5. The full-time chief negotiator must have intimate contact with the school board in regular and executive sessions in order to know the attitudes and desires of the board that he represents.6. The establishment of the position of chief negotiator as a function of the superintendency is generally considered to be desirable and essential.7. The establishment of the position of chief negotiator does not change or depreciate the relationship of the superintendent with the school board in the negotiation process so long as the chief negotiator reports directly to the superintendent of schools. If the chief negotiator reports to someone other than the superintendent, there is likely to be confusion, conflict and impairment of effective relationships.