AN INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD ISSUED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 288 OF NEVADA REVISED STATUTES ‘THE MATTER OF INTEREST ARBITRATION Between And | I 1 | ‘THE CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION | | | | | Before MARIO F. BOGNANNO, Labor Arbitrator FICS Case No. 160923-02846-6 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Hearing Site: Hearing Dates in 2017: Hearing Dates in 2018: Teleconference Dates: Brief Submission Date: Representing Las Vegas, Nevada June 21; August 21, 22, 23; September 13, 14, 15; October 31; November 1, 2; and December 21, 22. January 22, 23, 24. June 8, 2017; August 7, 2017; and January 17, 2018. Post-marked no later than February 28, 2018 ‘The Association: Joel A. D’Alba, Esq. & Matthew S. Jarka, Esq, Asher, Gittler & D’Alba, Ltd 200 W. Jackson Bivd., Ste. 1900 Chicago, iL 60606 The School District: Mark J. Ricciardi, Esq. & Whitney J. Selert, Esq. Fisher Phillips, LLP 300 S. Fourth St., Ste. 1500 Las Vegas, NV 89101Introduction and Jurisdiction The parties to the instant matter are Clark County Education Association (“CCEA” or “Union”) and Clark County School District (“CCSD" or “District”). CCEA is the exclusive bargaining agent for the “Teachers” bargaining unit. (CCSD, Tab 16, Article 2- 4) The CCEA represents 18,718 licensed professionals. (CCSD, Tab 17] Governed by a seven-member Board of School Trustees (“Trustees”), CCSD is Nevada's largest provider of public education services. During the July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 school year (hereafter “FY18”) enrollment averaged 321,973 students. (CCSD, Tab SO(A), p.6) The CCSD's students variously attended 223 elementary schools, 59 middle/junior high schools, 49 high schools, and 27 alternative schools and special schools. (CCSD, Tab 17) Moreover, in addition to teachers, CCSD employs 12,226 support staff, 1,372 administrators, 146 school police, 4,949 substitute teachers, and 4,931 other temporary/substitute employees.* (Id.) The parties are signatories to @ 2015-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) whose two-year term ended on June 30, 2017. (CCSD, Tab 16, Article 40) In November 2016, Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 288.180, in November 2016, the CCEA notified the CCSD of its intent to open FY18 CBA negotiations. (Tr., 1/22/18, p. 130) Thereafter, the parties met and negotiated on February 6, March 21, + When the CCEA and CCSD were in FY18 collective bargaining negotiations, the CCSD was also in negotiations with its other bargaining units, namely: Education Support Employees Association, Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees, Police Officers Association of the Clark County School District, and Police Administrators Association. (CCSD, Tab 50 (a), 15)March 27, April 3, April 20, April 24, May 1, and May 4, 2017.? Then, at their May 15, 2017 negotiating session, CCSD presented CCEA with a written declaration that FY18 CBA negotiations were at an “impasse.”® (CCEA, Tab 14, p. 116) NRS 288.217 describes the procedures governing resolution of a school district impasse. Inter alia, said impasse is to be submitted to [“interest”] arbitration (id., subsection 3); subsequent to a hearing(s) on the issues in dispute, each party is to provide the arbitrator with a “single written statement containing its final offer on each unresolved issue” (Id., subsection 8); and, ultimately, the arbitrator is to accept one of the party’s single written statement of final offers: The arbitrator's decision is final and binding (Id., subsection 9). In an e-mail dated February 22, 2017, the undersigned was advised that he had been selected by the parties as the Arbitrator charged with resolving the referenced impasse. Between June 2017 and January 2018, fifteen (15) evidentiary hearing days were convened and, during this period, three (3) telephonic conferences were held. The hearings commenced on June 8, 2017, via telephonic conference. At that time, it was agreed the hearing would continue on June 21, 22 and 23, 2017. (Tr., 6/8/17, p. 20) However, at the urging of the Arbitrator, during the June 21, 2017 * John Veltardita, Executive Director, CCEA, and Or. Edward Goldman, Associate Superintendent for Employee Management Relations, CCSD, were the parties’ FY18 Chief Negotiators, The record evidence includes testimony by Mr. Vellardita who stated that throughout the parties’ negotiations, the CCSO's position was that the CBA’s economic terms were "frozen;” however, the CCSD never offered a rationale’ for such a positon. (Tr., 12/22/17, pp.126-127} Mr. Goldman disagreed. For example, he testified that at one of the parties’ negotiating sessions he abserved that the "... legislature had not even adjourned yet, let alone pass any bills pertaining to finances .." (Tr. 1/22/18, p. 152) + This is not the first time the parties had a bargaining impasse. Before 2003, the parties had reached impasse at least twice. Tr, 1/22/18, p. 25) Since then, impasse was declared in FY12 and FY13, (CCEA, Tabs, 14 and 15) A negotiated settlement was reached in FY14 and FYIS-FY17 CBAS. Then, again, the parties reached impasse in FY18.hearing, the parties agreed to recess until August 21, 22 and 23, 2017. (Tr., 6/21/17, pp. 21-22) The purpose of the recess was to allow the parties to participate in mediator-assisted negotiations in hopes of reaching a FY18 CBA settlement and, thus, to obviate the need for further interest arbitration. (Tr., 6/21/17, p. 22) The parties’ mediator-assisted negotiation sessions were held on July 20, 21 and August 9, 2017, (Tr., 8/21/17, p. 5) The parties failed to reach a settlement. (Tr., 8/21/17, p. 6) Consequently, the August 21* and on all of the subsequent hearing days that are as listed on this Opinion and Award’s caption page, supra, were held A verbatim transcription of each day of hearing was prepared, sworn witness testimony was taken, and exhibits were admitted into the record. Post-hearing briefs were timely postmarked February 28, 2018, On that date, the undersigned took the evidentiary record and related arguments under consideration. The parties agreed that the Arbitrator must issue his Opinion and Award no later than March 30, 2018. (Tr., 1/24/18, p. 201) Parties’ Written Statements of Final Offers At the November 2, 2017 hearing, the parties stipulated that the CBA articles at impasse were as follows: © Article 26 ~ Professional Compensation; and © Article 28 ~ Teachers Health Trust (Tr., 11/2/17, p. 21} The CCEA’s single written statement of final offer on each of these issues appears in Exhibit A, and the CCSD’s is in Exhibit 8, infra. Further, on November 2, 2017, the parties stipulated that Article 40 — the CBA’s FY17 “Term of Agreement” ~ 4should be amended to show that the FY18 CBA’s term is “one-year.” (Tr., 11/2/17, p. 22) Hence, the language in Article 40-1 is hereby amended as follows: This Agreement shall become effective at the beginning of the 2015-2016 2017-2018 contracted school year and shall remain in effect until the beginning of the 2047-2018 2018-2019 contracted school year, and as limited by NRS 288.155, shall continue from year to year thereafter unless either of the parties shall give written notice to the other for school year 2017-2048 2018-2019 in the manner prescribed by the provisions of NRS. 288 of a desire to change, amend or modify the Agreement and until a successor agreement is reached. Still further, except for amending the language in Articles 26 and 28, and for the amended language in Article 40, supra, all other articles in the 2015-2017 CBA shall remain unchanged and are incorporated into the FY18 CBA. m Final Offer Packages & Cost of the Union’s Package ‘As noted, supra, the CBA language concerning the parties’ FY18 package of final salary and health insurance offers are in Exhibits A and 8. However, in summary form, the CCSD’s FY18 package of final offers includes: (1) an Article 26 “salary freeze” (ie, no step and/or no column advancements for licensed employees on the Professional Salary Table (“PST”) table}; and (2) deletion of the Article 28, Teachers Health Trust (“THT”) language, which is to be replaced by the CCSD's Health and Welfare Insurance Plan (a/k/a the Health Plan of Nevada (“HPN").) In contrast, the CCEA’s package of final offers includes: (1) a one-step move on the PST, effective June 1, 2018; and (2) an increase the CCSD’s contributions to the THT health insurance plan from $538.87 to $583.87 per enrolled participant per month, effective July 1, 2017.The total cost of the Union’s FY18's package of final offers is approximately $13.2 million.’ (See: CCEA Brief, p. 2 & note 2) w. CCSD’s FY18 Budgeting Process Nevada has 17 individual school districts each of which derives approximately 80% of its operating revenue via the State’s so-called Nevada Plan. Under this plan, the State collects a variety of taxes on property, sales, hotel rooms, slot machines, and marijuana, and it draws from the State’s General Fund. Thereafter, the State allocates the Nevada Plan funds to each school district on a per pupil basis, known as the Distributive School Account ("DSA"). The remaining 20% of a school district’s revenue derives mainly from State-collected motor vehicle tax, franchise tax and additional property taxes. (CCSD, Tab 44, p. 7, and Tab SOA), p. 7; Tr., 10/31/17, pp.174-176) FY18’s Tentative Budget. The CCSD began preparing its FY18 budget in January 2017. By statute, each school district must submit a balanced budget for each school year. (Tr., 1/22/18, p. 211) As of January 31, 2007, FY18’s DSA support per pupil, statewide, was $5,900. (CCSD, Tab 25) When multiplied by the CCSD’s historic “Apropos the salary issue, a one-step move on the PST is equivalent to a teacher salary increase of $1,350 per year, effective June 1, 2018, the last month in FY38, (CCSO, Tab 16, p. 16) Hence, for FYI8 each teacher would realize a salary increase of $112.50 (= $1,350 + 12). Multiplied by a3 fringe benefit, rate, each teacher’s FY18 salary plus fringe benefit increase will be $146.25. (CCSO, Tab 44, p. 11) Muitiplying $146.25 by the number of teachers (ie., 18,718) equals $2,737,507.50. Regarding the THT issue, to increase the District's weighted health insurance contribution per enrolled participant per month by $50.00, from $538.87 to $583.87, retroactive to July 1, 2027, will increase its costs by approximately $10,000,000. (Tr, 1/22/18, p. 143; CCSD, Tabs 23(8),p. § and 23(H]) Hence, based on the Lundersigned’s calculation, the total cost of the Union's FY38 package approximates $13 milion.adjustment ratio of .96, the District’s FY18 DAS allocation was estimated to be $5,664, which is $80 more per pupil than it was in FY17.5 (CCSD, Tab 44, p. 6; Tr., 1/22/18, p. 202 and p. 206) The District used the $5,664 estimate in preparing its Tentative Budget, which was submitted to the State by the April 15 deadline, as required by NRS 354,596. (CCSD, Tabs 19 and 44, p. 6) FY18’s Final Budget. On April 12, 2017, the Nevada Department of Education modified the CCSD’s FY18 DAS allocation, increasing it from $5,674 to $5,736: An increase of $152 per pupil relative to the District's FY17 DSA allocation of $5,574. (CCSD, Tabs 27, p. 2, and 28 p. 4; Tr., 1/22/18, p. 213) Thereafter, the District began preparing its Final Budget, which it submitted to the State on June 8, 2017, fulfilling NRS 354.598's submission deadline. (CCSD, Tab. 19, p.2; Tr., 1/22/18, p. 225) Final Budget preparations began with re-estimating FY18's General Operating Fund (“GOF"] revenue. In doing so, it used the modified basic support per pupil figure of $5,736. (CCSD, Tab 28, p. 2; CCSD, Tab 44, p. 7) Next, the District determined FY18’s expenses. Relative to the Tentative Budget, the District's Final Budget was $34 million higher due to the increase in DSA appropriation from FY17’s 5 C80, Tab 27, p. 2 shows that the District's FY27's DSA support per pupil was $5,574, Hence, ($5,664 $5,574) = $90, ® Vig the state’s so-called Basic Support template, in early February 2017, CCSD prepared an experimental budget analysis designed to estimate the amount of State funding it believed was necessary to “adequately fund" the District's FY18 educational needs. Given the State’s preliminary per pupil OSA allocation of $5,664, its estimate of revenues, its analysis also took into account anticipated Fevenue buildups from a variety of local revenue sources (e.g., GST and Ad Valorem Taxes). Next, ‘expenses were increased by $33.5 million, $26 million of which was money for licensed professionals Based on this madel, marginal expenses exceeded marginal revenues: A budget deficit. Hence, to balance its experimental budget, the District concluded it would need a DAS allocation of $5,754 per pupil or $90 (= $5754 - $5,664) more per pupil from the State which, overall, 's $180 per pupil more than FY17's level. (CCSD, Tab 26; Tr, 1/22/18, pp. 204-205 and p. 210)$90 to FY18’s $152. (CCSD, Tab 28, p.7) However, the Final Budget's estimate of Local School Support Taxes ("LSST”) was lower by $15 million. Inter-year GOF revenue increased by net $19 million. (CCSD, Tab 28, p. 7) The Final Budget’s Ending Fund Balance ("EFB”) was $47 million, with 1.75% of GOF revenue being “unassigned.” (Id., p. 16) Salaries and benefits constituted 87% of the Final Budget’s expenses, while spending on textbooks, supplies, utilities and so forth accounted for the remaining 13%. (Id., p. 8) FY18’s Amended Final Budget. However, during and soon after the District's Final Budget was prepared, a number of events transpired, necessitating preparation of a FY18 Amended Final Budget. Note the following: © First, on May 26, 2017, an arbitration award was issued, concerning Administrator salaries, Administrators were awarded retroactively payable salary increases for FY16 and FY17 that totaled $19.5 million, $13.5 million, more than the $6 million used when the District prepared its Final Budget. (CCSD, Tab 32, p. 2; and Tr., 1/22/18, p. 226 and p. 240) © Second, on June 6, 2017, the 79" session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned sine die. & few weeks before the State had issued Senate Bill ("SB") 544. > The EFB has four (4) components, namely: non-spendable; restricted; assigned; and unassigned. (CCSD, Tab 47) The assigned and unassigned components of the EF8 are flexible, implying they may be spent on different or new purposes, respectively. (Tr, 1/23/18, pp. 17-20) NAC 354.6501) requires the State to be notified if the budgeted EFB is less than 4% of GOF revenue; and NAC 354.650 requires the EFB to be at least 8.3% of total budgeted expenditures to be ".. subject to negotiations with other local governments or employee organizations.” (CCSD, Tab 20, p. 24) Further, the Trustees require notification if the unassigned portion of the EFB Is less than 2% of GOF revenue. (CCSD, Tab 20 p. 2; Tr., 1/22/18, p. 248) However, for FY18, the Trustees authorized an unassigned EFB or 1.75% of total revenues. (CCSD, Tab 31, p. 2} Generally, since 2009, the District's budgeted EFB has trended downward, reaching a FY18, Amended Final Budget low of approximately $23 million. (CCSD, Tab 28, p. 12, and Tab 50(A), p. 16) Since 2040, its unassigned portion of the EFB has never exceeded 1.75% of GOF revenue. (CCSD, Tab 28, p. 12)Therein, the District was notified that its ultimate FY18’s DSA allocation was being increased by $126 per pupil relative to FY17’s DSA allocation, and not by the $152 per pupil it used in preparing the Final Budget: An $8 million cut in revenues. (CCSD, Tab 30, p.1; and Tr., 1/22/18, p. 233 and p. 241) Finally, on March 27, 2017, Assembly Bill ("AB") 469 was enacted. (CCSD, Tab 22) Inter alia, that bill created an Advisory Committee charged with developing a plan for reorganizing the CCSD into local school precincts. As envisioned by AB 394, AB 469's reorganization plan required that each school district’s local school precinct operate as a semi-autonomous entity. (Id., p. 2) To enable such, a school district is required to transfer at least 80% of the total amount of its unrestricted money to local precincts in the first year, and 85% in the second year. (Id., p. 3) Further, pursuant to AB 469, school districts are responsible for paying for and carrying out a list of (a) through (t) functions, such as, CBA negotiations, transportation services, and payroll services. (Id., p. 2; CCSD, Tab 29) The Final Budget did not address the problems associated with the reorganization. For instance, how to transfer of 80% of GOF revenue, while retaining responsibility for AB 394’s list of functions that cost approximately $925 million or 41% of FY17’s GOF revenue, with only 20% of GOF revenue or $452 million: A funding disparity of $470 million? (Tr., 1/22/18, pp. 237-238; CCSD, Tabs 29 and 44, p. 18) Nevertheless, the CCSD managed to “... push down to the precinct level ..." 88% of its GOF revenue, and to “... only retain 12%." (Tr., 1/23/18, p. 59)‘Among the above bullet points, the first two (2) imply that the District's FY18 Final Budget was in deficit by $21 million. (Tr., 1/22/18, pp. 240-241) Further, the District’s FY18 Final Budget assumed a State allocation of $3.5 million for its Special Education Contingency Fund: A failed assumption that added to the Final Budget’s deficit position. (Id., pp. 249-250; CCSD, Tab 36) Still further, an actuary determined that the District's workers compensation and other risk-related liabili ies were higher than anticipated by $3.8 million. (Tr., 1/23/18, p. 90) Additionally, regarding a different funding problem, Senate Bill ("SB") 515 indicates that the State would be allocating $96.4 million to school districts to fund FY17's Full-Day Kindergarten. (CCSD, Tab 33, p. 3) In preparing its FY17 budget, the District assumed its share of the $96.4 million would be $64.8 million, which it expensed in its FY18 Final Budget. (id., p. 247) Ultimately, however, the State only allocated $79.3 million to the State’s school districts, with the District’s share being $51.5 million, meaning that its FY18's revenues were shorted approximately $14 million, (CCSD, Tab 34) By July 2017, it became apparent that the CCSD's FY18 Tentative Budget was, in deficit by 32.5 million. (Tr., 1/23/18, p. 91) Thus, as permitted by NRS 354.598005, it began to prepare an Amended Final Budget. (CCSD, Tab 19, pp. 3-4) However, by © Unanticipated expenses related to FY17: ‘© Administrators’ FY16 and FY17 salary arbitration award $11.2 million © Lower than projected Full-Day Kindergarten funding $140 milion ‘© Lower than projected Special Education Contingency funding for FV17, $3.5 milion © Higher than anticipated actuarially determined liability of risk-related claims $3.8 milion Total: $325 million (CCSD, Tab 42, p. 2) 10October 2017, as the budgeting process unfolded, the Tentative Budget’s deficit had ratcheted up to $52.5 million: An increase exclusively due to expenditures, such as, the arbitrated increase in FY16 and FY17 Administrator’ salaries that needed to be “annualized” or carried forward into FY18.° See fn. 8 and fn. 9. (CCSD, Tabs 40 and 44, p. 15) Jason Goudie, CCSD’s Chief Financial Officer, testified that with projections of increasing expenses and no prospects of increasing revenues, to achieve a balanced Amended Final Budget it was necessary for the District to reduce its Final Budget expenditures, while minimizing its adverse effect on the education of students. (Tr., 1/23/18, p. 94-95 and p. 97) The process of building the Amended Final Budget entailed three (3) rounds of expense reductions designed to accumulatively trim approximately at least $45 million in spending.*° (Id., p. 94) The District’s task of identifying cuts involved relying on the expertise of a committee comprised of school associate superintendents, principals, Central Service team managers and department heads. (Id., p. 95) Assuming that nearly any cut would have a detrimental effect on education, each team member was asked to rank specifically identified spending cuts on a scale of 1-to-5, with a 1 signifying the cut would have a limited adverse effect on educating students, and a5 the greatest adverse effect. (Id. p. 97 and p. 101) Each round of cuts followed this 5 Expenses related to FY18: ‘© Administrators’ arbitrated salary carried forward to FY18 $16.5 million ‘= Removal of the Special Education Contingency Fund from FY8's budget $3.5 milion Totak: $20.0 milion (CCSD, Tab 42, p. 2) © The Trustee-approved a first round of recommended cuts totaled $43.2 million (CCSD, Tab 41), the second round totaled $3.3 million (CCSD, Tab 45), and the third round totaled $2.6 million (CCSD, Tab 48). asame procedure. The set of budgeted items recommended for reduction were generally scored a 1 by each team member across each of the three rounds. (CCSD Tabs 41 and 46; Tr., 1/23/18, pp. 172-177) in December 2017, CCSD submitted its Amended Final Budget to Trustees for approval and, thereafter, it was forwarded to the State. By then, the District knew that FY17 GOF revenues were actually $2,193,665,324, and it estimated FY18 operating revenue to be $2,327,450,000: A FY17-to-FY18 (ie,, “inter-year”) increase in revenue of $133,784,676. (CCSD, Tab SO(A), p. 10) However, as Mr. Goudie testified, of the $133.8 million: © $68.5 million was FY17 State Grant Fund money allocated to the Full- Day Kindergarten program to pay the salaries and benefits of kindergarten teachers. in FY18 these monies were transferred to the General Operating Fund, where they continue to be used to pay (essentially the same) kindergarten teachers. (CCSD, Tab 50(A), p.10; Tr, 1/23/18, p. 157) Thus, the above-referenced $133.8 million increase in inter-year FY18 GOF revenue actually amounted to an increase of $65.3 million. $25 million was spent on annualizing the Support Staff's FY17 negotiated salary increase, which occurred while the Amended Final Budget was being prepared, (Id.; Tr., p. 158) This spending reduces the increase in inter-year FY18 GOF revenue from $65.3 million to $40.3 million.© $18.2 million of the District's FY17 allocation to local schools was not spent and, hence, was carried forward to its FY18 Amended Final Budget. In previous fiscal years, the District could budget such local school carry forward funds as “assigned” EFB school carryover resources that the Trustees could allocate to various uses. However, with the advent of AB 469, a local precinct’s carryover (i.e., unspent local school appropriations) must be allocated to and retained within the budgets of that individual school. (Id.; Tr., pp. 158-159 and p. 179) Hence, the District's lost use of local school carryover funds further reduces the increase in inter-year increase in FY18 GOF revenue from $40.3 million to $22.10 million © $16.4 million was budgeted to annualize the FY16 and FY17 salary increase that an arbitrator awarded Administrators. (Id.; Tr., p- 159) Thus, this spending reduces still further the inter-year increase in FY18 GOF revenue from $22.20 million to $5.70 million * $11.8 million was added to the $6.4 million that was the unassigned portion of FY17’s EFB (CCSD, Tab 40, p. 1) to equal a FY8 unassigned EFB of $18 million. Id., Tr., p. 160 ) The Trustees reduced the fraction of FY18 GOF revenue to be budgeted as unassigned EFB resources from 1.79% to .78%."* (Id.; Tr., p. 160) With this spending, the inter- 31 In FYI8's Amended Final Budget the GOF revenues are $2,396,449,485, GOF expenses are §2,373,495,495, and the EFB is $22,954,000, (CCSD, Tab S0(A), p. 16) At 78% of GOF revenues, the Trustees permitted an unassigned EFB of $18,692,206.06. FY18's EFB and unassigned EFB are both Byear increase in FY18 GOF revenue actually falls into a negative range, from $5.70 million to -$6.1 million © $34.8 million was targeted for spending on a list of other functions, such as, spending associated with the opening of new schools ($2.2 million), enroliment-based additions to staff ($11.1 million), higher utility bills ($2 million}, permanent additions to non-teaching staff ($7.9 million) and so forth, which the Trustees budgeted. (Id.; Tr. pp. 161-162) These budgeted expenses further increase the inter-year decrease in FY18 GOF revenue from -$6.1 million to -$40.9 million. Hence, to balance the FY18 Amended Final Budget, the District needed to cut spending from its FY18 Final Budget by $40.9 million. To do so, while doing minimal harra to the District's educational mission, the committee that was discussed, supra, made three (3) rounds of recommended cuts in budgeted items, totaling $40.9 million. (Tr., 1/23/18, p. 162) v “al ility to Pay” ‘The Trustees authorized $40.9 million in cuts. To also pay for the Union's sought-after $39 million in salary and benefits and in augmented THT financing would entail even more cuts."? (Id.) Mr. Goudie stated that to squeeze more spending out of less than 8.3% of GOF expenditures and, as such, both are protected from employee negotiations. (CCSD, Tab 20, p. 24; Tr., 1/23/18, p. 167) * As of May 2017, the CCSD estimated that CCEA’s economic demands would cost $95.5 milion. (CCSD, Tab 23(A), p. 2) On November 2, 2017, the Union scaled back its demands, reducing the cost of its economic demands to $39 million: $20 million to increase the CCSD's health insurance contribution per 14its FY18 Amended Final Budget could impair the District’s educational mission. The CCSD has endeavored “... to keep it spending cuts away from schools ...” (Id, pp. 162- 163) However, subsequent to reorganizing the CCSD, Central Services controlled only 12% of the District’s entire budget; thus, to impose more spending reduction would doubtlessly fall on local schools. (Id.) In a word, the CCDS lacked the “ability to pay.” Moreover, Mr. Goudie remarked, if the undersigned was to conclude that the CCSD has the “ability to pay” the Union’s ask, it would be irresponsible for the District to use its budgeted $18 million in unassigned FY18 EFB resources. (Id.) Said resources constitute a fund that will cover only three (3) days of CCSD operating expenses. Thus, if an emergency was to atise, then in the face of depleted unassigned FY18 EFB, the Trustees would have to make dramatic cuts, such as, staff reductions. (Id., p. 164) “Ability to Pay,” Statutory Criteria: Citing NRS 228.200(7){a), the CCSD convincingly observed that before judging the relative weight of the parties’ final offer packages, this Arbitrator must proceed as follows: first, determine whether the District has the “ability to pay” the Union's demands;"3 second, to determine whether the enrolled participant per month to $583.87; and $28.5 million to finance a one (1) step increase in the PST retroactive to July 1, 2027. The approximately $13.2 million the CCEA’s package of final issues would ultimately cost, as discussed, supra, represents the Union’s third round of scaling back. Significantly, the CCSD learned about the Union’s $13.2 million price tag after the evidentiary part of the arbitration proceeding had closed. In relevant part, NRS 228.200(7)(a) requires: A preliminary determination must be made as to the financial ability of the local government employer based on all existing available revenues ... with due regard for the obligation of the local ‘government employer to provide facilites and services guaranteeing the health, welfare and safety of the people residing within the political subdivision, (CSD, Tab 18, p. 13) 45District has the “ability to pay” depends solely on whether there are “... existing and available revenues as established by the school district within the limitations of NRS 354.6241;""4 and, third, even if “existing and available revenues” are identified, “.. due regard [must be given] for the obligation of the school district ... to provide an education to the children residing within the district ..”!5 Apropos the latter point, the question is whether granting available funds to the Union would negatively affect the CCSD’s overall mission to educate children. The “ability to pay” analytical framework discussed, supra, is inextricably augmented by NRS 354.6241(2). In part, this statute states: to the extent that the reserve of any fund ... exceeds the amount that is reasonable and necessary to carry out the purposes for which the fund was created, the reserve [i.e., “available money”] may be expended by the local government pursuant to the provisions of chapter 288 of NRS. (CCSD, Tab 19, p. 7; Note: bracketed terms added) The above-quoted use of the word “reserves” is interpreted to be a reference to “available money.” The italicized part of NRS 354.6241(3), infra, implicitly defines “available money,” as follows: For any local government other than a school district, for the purposes of chapter 288 of NRS, a budgeted ending fund balance of not more than 25 percent of the total budgeted expenditures, less capital outlay, for the general fund: (a) is not subject to negotiations with an employee organization; and (b) must not be considered by a fact finder or arbitrator in % More specifically, regarding school districts, per se, NRS 288.217(6) requires ‘A determination of the financial ability of a school district must be based on: (a) all existing and available revenue as established by the schoo! district or local school precinct and within the limitations set forth in NRS 354,6241 with due regard for the obligation of the school district or local schoo! precinct to provide an education to the children residing within the district or local school precinct. (id, p.27) = Wd) 16determining the financial ability of the local government to pay compensation or monetary benefits. (ld.; Italics added) Nevada's local government entities, with the exception of schoo! districts, may not treat any portion of a budgeted EFB that is less than 25% of total budgeted expenditures as “available money” for the purpose of making an “ability to. pay” determination. That is, while the sub-25% portion of a budgeted EFB revenue is not subject to negotiations, it also may not be considered by a fact finder or arbitrator charged with determining “ability to pay.” Significantly, this definition of “available money” does not apply to school districts. However, NAC 354.660’s definition of “available money” does apply to school districts. it states in full: A budgeted ending fund balance of not more than 8.3 percent of the total budgeted expenditures, less capital outlay, for general or special revenue funds which receive revenue from property taxes or the Local Government Tax Distribution Account is not subject to negotiations with other local governments or employee organization (CCSD, Tab 20, p. 17) As property tax and DSA recipients, school districts are covered by this statute. Read in conjunction with NRS 354.6241(2) and NRS 354.6241(3), NAC 354,660 is reasonably interpreted to mean that school districts may not treat a budgeted EFB that is less than 8.3% of total budgeted expenditures as “available money.” Further, that portion of budgeted EFB revenue that is less than 8.3% of total budgeted expenditures is not subject to negotiations, Based on the foregoing analysis of cited statutes, the following syllogism is, valid: (1) If the arbitrator determines that the CCSD has the “ability to pay” the Union's package of final offers; and (2) if the arbitrator determined that the Union’s package of 7final offers does not compromise the District’s mission to educate children; then (3) since nothing in the cited statutes, supra, indicate otherwise, the assigned and unassigned portions of the District’s EFB may be used to finance the Union’s package of final offers, provided that its case prevails at arbitration. It is in this sense that these portions of the District's EFB are not protected by statute. Discussion and Decision: The Union maintained that the District has the “ability to pay” its meager $13.2 million in negotiating demands: A sum that represents only .06% of its FY18’s GOF resources. It argued that Clark County's economy is doing well. Its population, labor force, median household income, and revenues from taxable sales, property tax, hotel room tax and so forth are all increasing. (CCEA, Book Il, Tab 57, pp. 75-78; Joint Exhibit 3, pp. 183-188) And, secularly, the State’s DSA allocation to the District has been steadily climbing since at least 2006. (CCSD, Tab 25, p. 5) Thus, the Nevada Plan’s structure and mechanics go far to insure that the District’s FY18's, GOF revenue would reach an all-time high, which it did. (CCEA, Book tt, Tab 57, p. 60) Also, the District’s FY17/FY18 inter-year increase in GOF revenues of $133.9 million is, that highest it has been since at least 2012. (CCEA, Book Il, Tab 57, p. 60) However, the District's favorable economic surrounds notwithstanding, the only criterion for determining the CCSD's “ability to pay” is its own “... existing and available revenues...” as spelled out in NRS 228.200(7){a). (See: fn. 13 and fn, 14) For this same reason, merely because the Nevada Department of Education's strategic plan called for a teacher/staff salary roll-up of 2%, and $10 million for enriched benefits, including health insurance is, while relevant, of no material consequence in 18determining the “ability to pay” question. (CCEA, Book V, Tab 15, pp. 25-26; Tr., 12/22/17, p. 110) Too, the record evidence is void of probative documentation showing that the District’s FY18’s funding is “restricted” (ie., requires a 2% salary roll. up and more spending on health insurance). (Tr., 1/23/18, p. 70) The Trustees determine how the District's FY18 revenues are spent, The Union questioned whether the District actually spent $68.5 million on Full-Day Kindergarten and, thus, reducing its FY17/FY18 inter-year increase in revenues from $133.8 million to $65.3 million. (CCSD, Tab SO(A), p. 10) The Union's analysis suggests that the money that was transferred from the State Grant Fund to General Operation Operating Fund, discussed, supra, actually netted a plus $53 million. However, the undersigned demurs. The Union correctly calculated the District's FY17's, GOF revenues for Full-Day Kindergarten as being $78,161.972. However, the Union failed to add to that sum, the State’s allocation to its State Grant Fund, which was also used to cover FY17 Full-Day Kindergarten expenses. The State Grant Fund’s FY17 revenues included an unreported base allocation plus two (2) FY17 supplemental allocations, the sum of which was at least $62.4 million. Therefore, the sum of FY17's General Operating Fund and State Grant Fund revenues total at least $140.5 million, which is greater than FY18's GOF’s $131 million: There is no approximately $53 million in added revenues hidden somewhere in the FY18 General Operating Fund's budget. The Union also indicated that the District received $34.1 million in Special Revenue Funds under SB 178’s Nevada Education Fund, (CCEA, Book Ill, Tab 42, p. 58) The revenue from this fund, the CCEA urged, ought to be treated like revenues in the 19GOF. That is, Special Revenue Funds, should be treated as “... existing [and] available revenue 2” under NRS 288 and NRS 354. Again, the undersigned must demure. The record is void of evidence in support of the Union’s urging, and the Union's arguments in support of such a rendering are skeletal. Next, the Union observed that NRS 354598005 permits budget appropriations to be transferred, provided: such a transfer does not increase the total appropriation for any fiscal year and is not in conflict with other statutory provision. (CCEA, Book Ill, Tab 19, p. 194) That is, without increasing total appropriations, funds may be transferred from an unspent or underspent function to a function in need of additional resources. Thus, except for its EFB, the entire FY18 Amended Final Budget constitutes “... existing [and] available revenue ...” Ms. Kohn-Cole testified at length about such “flexible budgeting,” commenting that the CCSD has a history of transferring funds between functions and between line items within functions. For example, the FY16 Revised Amended Final Budget had $2.3 billion in total funds. Of this amount, $1.268 billion was budgeted for the Instructional Service function and $962 million was budgeted for Support Services function. For the period beginning July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 there were multiple transfers between these two functions. As a consequence, by the end of the year, the amount appropriated for Instructional Service was revised upward, increasing to $1.296 billion An increase of $28 million. And, the amount appropriated for Support Services was revised downward, falling to $934 million: A decrease of $28 million. (Tr., 11/2/17, pp. 20126-128; CCEA, Book Ill, Tab 18, p. 192) Clearly, said inter-function transfers of funds did not affect the size of the total fund making up FY16's Amended Final Budget As the foregoing example demonstrates, the District has the flexibility to transfer money. If need be, it can move funds from a host of other functions to Instructional Services to finance the Union’s $13.2 million package of final offers. That this is true is undeniable: The CCSD does have the “ability to pay.” Budget flexibility (i.e., the District’s ability to make budgeted function/line transfers) sounds the “inability to pay” death knell The District would disagree, arguing that its FY'18's Amended Final Budget’s allocations, following three (3) rounds of spending cuts, are optimal. Hence, to compel the District to cut its chosen levels of budgeted functions/lines in order to transfer said funds to the budgeted functions/lines aligned with the Union’s spending priorities, would impair the CCSD’s obligation to educate children. That is, to exercise such budget flexibility would defy the “due regard” criterion referenced, supra, for determining the “ability to pay” question, (See: NSR 228.20(7)(a)} Generally, the District, supra, would hold, but not in this case. The District's FY18 Amended Final Budget includes a budgeted unassigned EFB of $18 million: A fund which had nothing to do with determining that the District has the “ability to pay” for the Union’s package of final offers. That decision was based solely on the District's ability to make inter-fund/line transfers, and the $18 million was not considered to be “available money.” (See: NRS 354.6241(3), CCSD, Tab 19, p. 7) Accordingly, if the Union prevails at arbitration, the District can use its FY18 budgeted unassigned EFB revenues 21to fund the Union’s package. In doing so there would be no need to transfer budgeted revenues among functions/lines and, thus, no need to put children’s education at risk = defying the “due regard” criterion. Moreover, subsequent to this use of the budgeted unassigned EFB, approximately $10 million in EFBs would remain, one-half (1/2) of which is unassigned, to cover financial exigencies. On its face, as Mr. Goudie would no doubt opine, such an EFB is “irresponsibly” low. Ina related vein, arbitral notice is made of the fact the Board of Trustees has opted to waive its regulation requiring the District to maintain an unassigned EFB of 2% of GOF revenue. That regulation has been waived twice: In FY18 it was only .78%. (Tr., 1/31/18; p. 163; CCSD, Tab 31, p. 2) The undersigned finds it difficult to believe that the Trustees are irresponsible risk-takers. On point, Ms. Kohn-Cole showed that between FY17 and FY18 the District budgeted nearly $23 million more in service and supplies. (CCEA, Book itl, Tab 45, p.1) This represents a 7% increase whereas 2017's CPI increased by 1.7%. In Ms. Kohn-Cole’s opinion, said increase, at least in part, reflects “over budgeting” by the District. (Tr., 12/21/17, pp. 203-204) This opinion is credible. Using inflation-adjusted terms, the District did not explain why it expected FY18’s budgeted service and supplies spending to increase by approximately $17 million. The credibility of Union’s remaining “ability to pay” arguments aside, the undersigned is persuaded that the Trustees, like he, is comfortable in knowing that the CCSD's relatively small FY18's EFB and unassigned EFB does not leave the District unprotected in the event of an emergency. The Arbitrator concludes that the District has the “ability to pay.” 22vl Article 26 - Professional Compensation As noted, supra, the Union's request for a one-step move on the PST, retroactive to June 1, 2018 will cost $2.7 million. The District expected the Union’s Article 26 final offer to be a one-step move on the PST, retroactive to July 1, 2017, costing approximately $28.5 million. Undoubtedly, the Union's 12" hour modification of its Article 26 position was strategically motivated to better leverage its goal of winning the inter-party competition between the two (2) fina-offer packages. Presumably, health insurance, Article 28, is the Union’s fighting issue in this case. The latter point aside, following the $145 million increase in economic benefits the Union received in FY16 and FY17, and given it perceived "inability to pay,” the CCSD probably would not have even accepted the Union’s modified $2.7 million salary position short of arbitration. Whereas, as discussed, infra, the Arbitrator accepts the Union’s final offer position on Article 26, Professional Compensation. It is reasonable. Discussion and Decision: During the term of their FY16/FY17, two (2) year CBA, the District and Union invested a great deal of time and money in transforming Article 26, which now includes a new merit-based Professional Salary Table (“PST”). The PST’s adoption was inspired by the parties’ newly implemented Professional Growth System ("PGS"), which invites teachers to achieve higher salaries through the 23successful completion of approved Professional Growth Plans ("PGP")!© In FY19, teachers may move to a higher-paying column on the PST by completing an approved PGP, among other requirements. But step increases in FY18 are permitted. ied the teachers “.. took a huge leap of faith Sandy Pontillas, Teacher, tes ”" when they bought into this new system.” (Tr., 12/22/17, pp. 200-201) Freezing FY18's step increase is causing teachers to question whether their on-going PGP work is worthwhile because they fear that FY19's column change may also be frozen. (Id.) Theo Small, Teacher, echoed a similar sentiment: Apparently skepticism abounds among teachers. (Id., pp. 173-174) Mr. Small testified that 13,500 teachers among approximately 17,000 have PGPs. (Id., p. 170) Ms. Pontillas testified that she knows The PGS is 2 new model created to provide teachers with the opportunity to undertake professional development activities aimed at elevating their teaching skills and, thereby, to increase theit student's level of achievement. Professional growth achievements translate into salary advancements. (CCEA, Book V, Tab 10, pp. 1-16) Regarding salaries, the parties created a market-competitive salary schedule: A schedule that abandoned K-12's dated step/lane salary model. (Compare: the CBA's FYI6's “old” salary schedule to FY17's “new” PST; CCSD, Tab 16, p. 49, and p. 52} Per the PGS-nspred PST, teachers continue to be paid on the basis of experience. That is, they continue to receive annual step increases. However, lane changes are no longer automatically granted solely because a teacher received an additional academic degrees and/or college credit hours. Rather, under the PGS, lane changes occur coniy upan the successful completion of one (1) or more approved PGPS. A PGP, which takes two (2) or three (3) years to complete, may or may not involve college. But if it does, all of the college courses taken must be targeted at the teachers areas of instructional concentration, the aim being to lectly impact student achievement. Further, the design of an approved PGP, which includes stipulated goals, is a collaborative teacher/principal effort. PGP's require documentation, including information about hours spent on professional development activities. The metric used to measure PGP accomplishment is 2 so-called contact unit ("CU") A minimum of 225 CUs is needed for a column movement. Each CU translates into 180 minutes (three (3) hours) of PGP work For decades, column moves on the salary schedule were automatically granted provided the teacher received a certain number of college course credits and/or a higher academic degree. (CCEA, B0ok I, Tab 10, p. 47) Effective FY19, with the completion of a two (2) or three (3) year professional development program, involving approved PGPs, and upon earned at least 225 contact units (Le, at least 675 hours of professional development activities), a teacher may earn a column move. 24teachers who have dropped their PGPs “... because they no longer have faith in the system.""8 (Id., p. 201) To have teachers dropping out of the parties’ new PGS because of threatened step/column freezes, however misguided such decisions may be, certainly does nothing to improve teacher retention, teacher recruitment, and academic staffing and student performance in at-risk schools. Therefore, granting a FY18 step increase, even a step increase that is effective only for the last month of the school year, may serve to thwart decisions to drop out of the PGS and, thus, over the intermediate-run improve teacher retention, recruitment and staffing in at-risk schools Only five (5) of the nation’s school districts have a student body enrollment of 300,000 or more, including the CCSD (321,973). Among the CCSD's set of comparable school districts are New York, New York (888,517), LA. Unified (653,826), Chicago Public School (396,641) and Miami-Dade Public Schools (370,656). (CCEA, Book V, Tab 38(B), p. 2) The salary ranges among all five (5) of these school districts are roughly comparable; however, the record evidence is void of information about weighted average teacher salaries, and about FY18 increases in the salary grid. Nevertheless, in all likelihood, the Union’s final offer step increase, effective June 1, 2018, will not disturb it salary relationship vis a vis the school districts listed, supra, % either scheme faces the risk of a District step and column freeze. Yet, Mr. Small and Ms, Pontillas testified that teachers are inclined to and are abandoning their PGPs in the face of a threatened column freeze. Is not such a decision akin to dropping a college course in the face of a column change freeze? in both cases, the decision to drop aut seems to be self-defeating, 25Finally, to impose an Article 26 FY18 freeze on step increases, as the District proposes, is not supported by contemporary data on inflation. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, January 12, 2018, news release, the CPI- U increases by 2.1% (unadjusted for seasonality) from December, 2016 to December, 2017. (CCEA, Book |, Tab 37(A), p. 1) Without food and energy, the CPI-U increased by 1.8% over this same December-to-December period. Critically, however, food's price index rose by 1.6%, and energy’s price index rose by 6.9%, which is to suggest that the urban family’s “cost of living” increased. (Id.)The Union's last increase in salary was received in August 2016; thus, in the interest of financial equity, FY18's salary increase should be made effective August 2017. In the present matter, the Union is not asking for CPI-U parity; rather, it is asking for a step increase effective June 1, 2018 that covers one-twelfth of FY18's school year. If granted, the resulting $146.25 salary and benefits received per teacher for the school year probably would not offset the inter-year increase in household expenses: CPI-U parity after all For the reasons discussed, supra, the weight of material evidence supports the Union's final offer on Article 26, Professional Compensation. During the parties last round of negotiations they brought the PGS idea to fruition through their creation of a PST, and by operationalizing the PGP system, which is designed to controls column- movements across the PST. The PGP system promises pecuniary reward to teachers who work at increasing their classroom effectiveness and, hence, their productivity, as reflected in elevated student performance. The Union showed that the PST’s salary 26range is competitive, relative to comparably sized school districts. Moreover, the Union's analysis suggests that the District’s salaries are competitive and, thus, recruitment enhancing In the opinion of the undersigned, the PGS idea or theory is sound. The PGS, through its operating parts, should enhance teacher recruitment, retention and should make the at-risk classrooms more rewarding places to work. Given that the vast majority of CCSD teachers have bought into this idea, it is a waste not to sustain their commitment to same by supporting its, admittedly tangential, PST step increase component: A much watered-down component that will increase the teacher's FY18 salary and benefits by $146.25. Clearly, a $146.25 increase in annual income is not ill- advised because it is excessive relative to the inter-year increase in living costs, which is a criterion often cited by arbitrators to evaluate competing wage and salary proposals. vit Article 28 - Teachers Health Trust Concerning health insurance, the District’s final offer is to delete the CBA language in Article 28, Health Insurance Trust. To do so, will terminate the THT — a teacher-controlled, private, nonprofit, self-insured and self-administered health and welfare trust, established by the parties in 1983 ~ as the provider of health insurance benefits for District teachers. (CCEA, Book IV, Tab 2) In its place, the District's final offer substitutes the Article 28, Group Health Insurance, language whose terms would become effective at 11:59 p.m., April 30, 2018. (See: Exhibit “B,” infra) The practical 7effect being that HPN ~ a publically traded, for-profit, fully insured insurance company ~ would be the teachers’ new health insurance provider. CCSD’s Arguments: The THT’s medical and dental insurance activities are neither regulated nor monitored by Nevada's Division of Health Insurance, and its practices are not subject to scrutiny by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). (CCSD, Tab 15(A)) These observations warrant notice. Since FY15 the CCSD has taken numerous complaints about the THT. Physicians and teachers alike have called and/or e-mailed messages to the District, complaining about the lagging unpaid claims, PCPs who refuse to treat teachers whose insurance carrier is THT, and PCPs who want to be paid in cash. (CCSD, Tab 13, p. 4 and pp. 6-7) To address this situation, the THT itself entered into an administrative services agreement with Welllealth Quality Care. (CCSD, Tab 5, p. 3) Under that agreement, in October, 2015, WellHealth contracted with Tristar Health Administrator of Nevada (“Tristar”) to be THT's Third Party Administrator (“TPA”). (Id., . 4) Tristar’s responsibilities included claims management and pre-authorizations, member services, member eligibility, utilization review/utilization ("UR/UM") management, internal auditing, subrogation, support services, including a phone system and up-to-date analytic software. (id., pp. 4-5) Tristar hired eleven (11) employees to do this work at an annual salaries and benefits cost of approximately $1 million. (Id., p. 4) As a self-administered plan THT had previously performed all of the administrative functions listed, supra, except for pre-authorizations and UR/UM. (Id., pp. 4-5) It employed a staff of 65, costing approximately $4.6 million in salaries, 28benefits and payroll taxes. (Id., pp. 3-4) By February 1, 2016, most of the THT employees had been terminated or had transferred to Tristar, which involved $750,000 in severance-related payments. (Id., p. 4) Under the above-referenced administrative services agreement, WellHealth launched Healthcare Advocates: A new THT service that assisted its participants to obtain referrals, select/change Primary Care Physicians ("PCP"), and schedule PCP appointments. (Id., p. 5) Tristar’s and Healthcare Advocates’ combined administrative service fees were $6.7 million in 2016, $7.4 million in 2017, and will be $7.6 million in 2018. (Id.) The undersigned estimates that WellHealth received between 75% and 85% of these aggregated fees. In addition, the THT and WellHealth entered into a uniquely separate consulting agreement that involved Network Management, Population Health Management (i.e., better health care through claims analysis and patient outreach), TeleHealth through MDLive, and Wellness Programs & Communications. (Id.) The TeleHealth through MDLive service was a new benefit under the THT health insurance plan. (Id.) For these services THT was contracted to pay WellHealth $4.6 million, $3.9 million and $4 million in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. (Id., p. 6) In addition to the above charges, to provide healthcare access to the THT’s participants who lived in relatively remote areas, effective October 1, 2016, the THT contracted with EMI Health to offer a “carve-out” health insurance plan that it administers. (Id.) Annual fees associated with this contract were $60 thousand, $214 thousand and $214 thousand for 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. (Id.) Finally, 29because the implementation of WellHealth’s newly-presented Patient Centered Medical Home ("PCMH") model created additional work for PCPs, THT’s administrative fees were incremented by $560 thousand in 2016. (Id.) Thus, the THT’s annualized administrative costs were approximately $5.2 million when it was a stand-alone. self-administrated plan versus the cost of THT’s contracted administrative services that approximate $13 million. (Id., p. 7) The THT now spends nearly $8 million more in annual administrative costs than it did before exiting self-administrative status. In late 2016 or early 2017, the CCSD hired Lockton Companies, a national health care consulting firm, to evaluate the THT’s financial health. (Tr., 8/21/17, p. 50) Two (2) Lockton consultants were assigned that task, namely, Tanna Prince, Sr. Vice President, and Matthew McCray, Actuary. To begin, Mr. McCray estimated THT's Incurred But Not Reported (“IBNR”) claims liability as of December 31, 2016: It was $18, million. (CCSD, Tab 4, p. 1) The number of claims the THT paid was 474 thousand, 469, thousand and 376 thousand during calendar year 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. As the number of paid claims declined, the THT’s IBNR claims liability increased from $11.5 million in 2014 to $18 million in 2016, as reported, supra. Similarly the average “lag” time in making claims payments was 1.18 months, 1.27 months and 1.66 months in 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. In contrast, the average lag time for Blue Cross, United, Cigna, and Aetna (“BUCA”) was only .90 months. (CCSD, Tab 4, p. 2 and p. 6) ‘The THT explained that this generally negative IBNR report was the result of having newly hired Tristar, effective January 1, 2016. Armed with limited data, Mr. 30McCray found no empirical support for this hypothesis. »,p. 6; Tr, 8/22/17, pp. 22- 23) However, his test was of limited value because he lacked 2017 claims data that were needed to conduct a more robust analysis. (Id., p. 47) Subsequent to Mr. McCray's analytical findings, Ms. Prince addressed several questions to THT management. On April 13, 2017, the THT provided answers to her questions, (CCSD, Tab 5, pp. 2-7) One of Ms. Prince’s questions was: “Does the THT have a plan to bring paid claims current?" (Id., p. 2) The THT’s answer was: The TPA was given a deadline of 3/31/17 to bring the lag days down to a minimum of 30 business days, per out provider contracts, or approximately 36 to 38 calendar days. As of today, the TPA has met the deadline defined in the needs and expectations analysis. As a result, the lag days are 34 calendar days, as of the end of March, 2017 (ld.) Moreover, during the first three (3) months of 2017, claim payments averaged $14 million, which is $5-to-$6 million more than the average of payments made during all of 2014, 2015 and 2016. (Id., p. 3) Yet, as Ms. Prince remarked, the $8 million of increased administration costs, discussed, supra, was bothersome. (CCSD, Tab 6) Regarding same, on April 13, 2017, the THT pointed to its new plan's added benefits/services, writing: Added benefits and services to the new plan: Telemedicine, more robust population health management (once it becomes fully operational], better coordination of participants’ care, a more advanced reporting (presently under development) and claims and phone systems. 31(ld., p. 5) However, “Lockton’s” response, or more accurately, Ms. Prince’s response was that “Lockton does not see the above added benefits and services equating to an $8 million increase in fixed costs.” (CCSD, Tab 6, p. 2; Tr., 4/21/17, p. 78) Further, Ms. Prince testified, she expected WellHealth to have emphasized the claims administration with its assumption of managerial responsibilities on January 1, 2016. In her experience, it takes two (2) to three (3) months to normalize claims. That is, for IBNR to reset to approximately $10 million in unpaid claims: That did not happen (CCSD, Tab 4, p. 2; Tr., 4/21/17, p. 93-94) Still further, by April 14, 2017, sixteen (16) months after WellHealth took control, the THT stated in writing that its "... more advanced reporting ... systems,” which included claims management was “... presently under development ...” (CCSD, Tab §, p. 7; Tr., 4/21/17, pp. 98-99) The District pointed out that reliance on WellHealth to stabilize the THT’s financing was a risky proposition. For example, WellHealth has never built a PCMH system (TR, 8/21/17, pp. 2-14); the THT Board of Directors failed to vet any prospective venders or even issue a RFP before agreeing to pay WellHealth more than $4 million to build the PCHM system (Tr., 9/13/17, p. 103); and Tristar’s selection as the THT’s TPA, which is costing several millions every year, was not based on a competitive or RFP selection process. (Tr., 1/24/18, p. 178) in 2015, the THT approached the District, requesting additional financial support. In addition to the $538.87 in health insurance contributions the District was making per enrolled participant, the THT asked for an additional $50 per employee per month for one (1) year, namely, 2016. Mr. Goldman testified that in addition to 22needing the additional contribution to improve the THT financial health, it was needed to bring WellHealth on board. (Tr., 10/31/17, p. 110) Yet, the District lamented, it is only two (2) years later, FY18, and the Union is again asking for more taxpayer money. But this time around, the Union wants additional CCSD contribution of $50 per employee per month each year into perpetuity. The CCSD argued, the District should be not be compelled to continue to pour money into a failed venture. Indeed, the District noted that from 2008 to 2017, the Union had not asked to have its insurance contributions increased and, further, the subject was not raised during the two (2) prior interest arbitrations. Rhetorically, the District asks, "Who's at the THT’s wheel?” (CCSD, Tab 12, p. 1) The Health Plan of Nevada ("HPN") is 2 more reasonable provider of teachers’ health insurance, the District urges. AM Best & Company gives HPN an “A” rating on financial strength, and it receives top scores on financial stability and on its long-term credit rating. (CCSD, Tab 9, p. 39 and p. 1) In contrast, the THT’s financial reliability is not rated. Further, the HPN is audited by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Nevada Division of Insurance, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance. And, as a fully insured, publically traded company, HPN’s claims payments are regulated by both federal and state agencies. (Tr., 9/15/17, p. 145) The District pointed out that HPN has a proactive “advocates” program to assist members in a variety of ways. At one extreme, HPN's advocates remind members to have an annual physical, and help members connect with their respective physician, while members can schedule fact-to-face meetings with their respective advocate to 33facilitate a more detailed discussion over medical bills, physician co-pays and the like (ld., pp. 148-150). It is significant to note that the HPN covers every employee of the District and their families except for teachers and, as Mr. Goldman testified, “... there has never been an issue with HPN ...” (Tr., 10/31/17, p. 132.) Further, insurance coverage for teachers under the HPN plan is substantially similar to the THT plan’s coverage. The THT and HPN networks of primary care providers/physicians (“PCP”) are nearly identical. Only 55 of the THT’s PCPs — out of 1,400 PCPs — are not in the HPN network.” Also, an HPN affiliate, Optium, owner of the esteemed Southwest Medical Associates, may well purchase WellHealth’s parent company. If that happens, concerns about non-overlapping PCP panels would be rendered moot. (Tr., 1/24/18, pp.141- 142) CCSD, Tab 10 compares, in detail, the current THT plan and the HPN. Regarding same, the District argued the following: (1) HPN offers five (5) different plans from which teachers may choose, while the THT’s plan offers one (1) plan, with two (2) benefits levels (CCSD, Tab 10); (2) the HPN and THT plans are characterized by an array of different deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket, and benefit provisions, some of which favor either plan (Id.); (3) while not exactly the same, the two (2) plans are generally comparable (Id.; Tr., 8/21/17, pp. 111-112); (4) the most inexpensive HPN plan being offered is a HMO, and the most inexpensive THT plan being offered is a % Ifthe HPN were to cover teachers: (1) continuity of care would be afforded any teacher whose PCP is not in the HPN network; (2) a concerted effort would be made to add the PCP to the HPN network; and (3) while 2 teacher could stay with his or her PCP, the teacher would have access to a uniquely new set ‘of PCPS, including the physicians at Southwest Medical Associates. (Tr., 9/15/17, pp. 163-171) 34PCP plan: A distinction without a difference (Tr., 8/21/17, pp. 114-115); and (5) the cost to teachers under the HPN’s basic insurance plan, and the THT plan is substantially the same: There are no out-of-pocket charges for teacher-only coverage, and for Employee +1” and “Employee + 2 (or more)” coverage, the inter-plan costs to the teacher are identical (CCSD, Tab 10). Further, the District urged that under the HPN, teachers will not be subject to unfair employee contributions. The District is experienced at procuring and managing fully insured plans for its employees. Indeed, one of the reasons the District’s Article 28's final offer calls for substituting the HPN plan for the THT plan is because of the latter's unaffordability and financial instability. Indeed, in the aggregate, the total cost of HPN coverage is less than the total cost of the THT plan. The FY18 total cost of the THT plan is $181 million, and the total cost of providing coverage through the fully insured HPN plan is $173 million. (CCSD, Tab 11) Still further, the District observed, pure folly is the Union’s claim that HPN would be overwhelmed if there was a sudden inclusion of 18,000 teachers and their families. The HPN has 784 PCPs on the THT panel, all but 55 of whom are also on the HPN’s panel. (CCSD, Tab 15 (1), pp. 32-33) This is to say that the healthcare of 93% of the teachers is already being provided by PCPs who are on the HPN panel. The District made two (2) closing arguments that warrant repeating, First, it would be a boon to the CCSO if all of its employees were insured by the HPN: A larger pool of covered employees, or even better, a District-wide health plan, will give the District significant market leverage when in selecting a TPA. Second, the CCEA offered 35no reason why it should continue to support the THT. The THT’s Board of Directors is made up of unpaid teachers, who are most likely inexperienced in the art of operating a self-insurance business. The THT’s Board is a failed general manager, having putting teachers at risk. Then, too, teachers’ health problems are not unique or dissimilar to the problems facing comparable groups. The time has come to provide health insurance for teachers through a reputable, fully-insured plan, namely, the Health Plan of Nevada. CCEA’s Arguments: A single phrase captures THT's essential purpose, namely, to create a health insurance plan “.. for teachers, run by teachers.” (See: CCEA, Book Il, Tab 2, p. 5) THT directors are unpaid teachers, who directly control the terms and coverage of its health insurance plan, which is designed to care for the unique health care needs of teachers. The District gave the THT a fiscal helping hand when it increased premium contributions to the plan by $50 per participant per month in 2016, as discussed, supra. The 2016 premium hike was the District's first since FYO9; and it came on the heels of the THT’s decision to partner with Tristar and WellHealth. (CCSD, Tab 12, p. 1) However, in response to the Union's FY18 proposal to make 2016's $50 increase permanent, the District essentially proposes that the THT be terminated. Except for the one (1) year ~2016 ~ the District’s contributions to teacher health insurance has been a “flat” $538.87 per participant per month since 2008. (Id.) Over these years, the “medical care commodities” and “medical care services” component of the CPI-U have increased. For example, for the 12 months ending May 362017, the latter components increased by 3.3% and 2.5%, respectively. (CCEA, Book 1, Tab 38, p. 232) Between 2011 and 2014, the THT’s revenues began lagging benefit- expenses, eating into “net assets:” The TNT was spending its reserves. (CCEA, Book Il, Tab 1) Net assets rose in 2015 because the THT and the Retiree Health Trust merged, and in 2016 net assets rose because of the District's $50 increase in insurance premium contributions. (Id.) Ina May 4, 2017 letter from Mr. Goldman to the CCEA’s bargaining team, he states that the District was proposing to terminate the Trust. In it, he also quotes from seven (7) e-mails of complaint that teachers had sent to the Trustees. (CCEA, Book V, Tab 18, pp. 250-251) Regarding the latter, the Union argued, one-half (1/2) of them are complaints about the collectively bargained changes made to the health insurance plan, and not complaints about the Trust. Of more significance, the Union argued, is that his letter received no discussion, the parties were at “impasse.” Dissolution of the Trust means that the Union will no longer have a seat at the bargaining table. Article 28 rights, such as, the Union's right to negotiate health insurance coverage, benefits and terms, or the Union’s right to co-determine teacher and District premium and contribution payments, respectively, and its Article 28, Section 28-1-2 right to negotiate benefit and other changes during the term of the CBA, for example, will all be lost. (CCSD, Tab 1, pp. 48-51) The District and its insurance provider will variously share control over these matters: Going forward, under the CCSD’s final offer, the Union’s right to bargain about health insurance matters would be effectively waived.Next, the Union argued, as it has under the CCSD/Support Staff Insurance Plan, the HPN may well reserve the right to change its schedule of premium rates. (CCEA, Book 1, Tab 43, p. 2) Hence, the net effect of a CCSD/CCEA negotiated wage increase is held hostage to HPN’s right to raise premium rates at any time. Ms. Prince acknowledged that HPN had increased support staff premiums during the CBA’s term. (Tr., 8/21/17, pp. 48-49) Sean Silva, Consultant, Milliman Company, testified that between January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2017, the HPN premiums paid by support staff enrolled in HMO-Plan 1, HMO-Plan 2, POS-Plan 1, POS-Plan 2, and in the PPO plan increased by 13%, 18.2%, 15.4%, 20% and 22%, respectively. (Tr., 8/23/17, p. 119) Finally, concerning its net effect argument, the CCEA showed that single employees and couples - both employed by the District - pay no premiums to participate in the THT, but under the HPN/Administrators’ PPO-Diamond Plan they would pay $1,518 and $1,698, respectively. There are 9,000 teachers under the single employee-only option, and there are 962 households with couples ~ that do not pay any premium charges. For the Employee +1 option, the increase would be from $2,420 to $5,506 (118%) and for the Employee +2 option, the increase would be from $5,280 to $10,128 (91.8%). Generally, these results are repeated across the HPN/Administrators’ POS-1, POS-2 and HMO-1 Plans. (CCEA, Book 1, Tab 39) However, premiums under the HPN/Administrators’ HMO-2 Plan are lower than the THT premiums. (CCEA, Book |, Tab 39) Ms. Prince testified, the THT premiums and the District's HPN/Teachers’ premiums under the HMO-1 Plan are identical. (Tr., 8/21/17, pp. 117-118) This,however, the Union argued, is a false comparison for the following reasons: (1) the District's HMO-1 Plan has a monthly premium charge of $838 and $1,334 for the Employee+1 and Employee+2 options, respectively, while the TNT offers these options for zero dollars (CCEA, Book |, Tab 39); (2) there is no reason to believe that teachers would opt into the HPN/Teachers’ HMO-1 Plan, as support staff presumably have, and there is every reason to believe that they would continue to choose the TNT's PCMH model over the HMO model even if more costly; (3) in 2017, as it turns out, only 34% of support staff actually chose the lower priced HPN/Support Staff HMO-1 Plan (CCEA, Book IV, Tab 6, p. 12}; and (4) inter-premium THT and HPN comparisons can be tricky: Article 28-3-1 of the District's proposed CBA language can be interpreted to strictly limit the CCSD’s premium contribution to $538.87 per employee per month, meaning that all HPN premium charges above the CCSD's contribution ceiling would be the responsibility of the individual teacher (CCSD, Tab 2, p. 4}. In calendar year 2016, the District increased its per participant contributions to the THT by $50 per month to help abate the THT secularly declining reserves. Too, beginning in August 2015, the parties began negotiating changes to the THT’s health insurance plan, including changes in participant's out-of-pocket charges. For example, effective January 1, 2016, for the first time in the history of the THT, deductibles were added to the plan, and new co-insurance as well as co-pay charges were added Approximately $10 million in plan expenses were shift onto teachers, angering many of, them, (Tr., 9/14/17, pp. 150-151; CCEA, Book Il, Tab 29 and 29(A)) Thus, the Union argued, to shutter the THT, on the heels of its “game changing” innovations with the 39introduction of Tristar and WellHealth, and to impose the HPN’s even higher premium charged on teachers would be unfair and would compound teachers’ ire. Further, as Ms. Prince testified, the District did not conduct a “disruption” analysis to determine how many teachers would be required to change PCPs under the CCSD's HPN plan. (Tr., 8/2/17, pp. 202-203) Kyle Clingo, Sr. Vice President for Operations, HPN, contended that HPN and THT panels overlap, with the exception of 55 PCPs. However, the District urged, Mr. Clingo’s finding is not based on an actual count of physicians whose name appears on each panel's list of providers The language in Article 28 of the CBA is the result of decades of bilateral negotiations over the course of several agreements. It represents the parties’ intent: A self-insured, self-administered THT. The District wishes to alter the “status quo.” It must do so at the bargaining table: The Union's only economic weapon. At stake is not merely a change in healthcare “vendors. David Tatlock, Teacher, testified that he prefers a not-for-profit health provider, one motivated to keeping patients’ healthy, rather than to maximize profits through high premiums. He remarked that under the PCMH model at WellHealth, each patient has a PCP who works in concert with other specialists in the home and, collectively, they address the patients specific health challenge(s). Patients do not need a referral to see a specialist. Once seen, said specialist may become the patient’s PCP. HPN does not offer the PCMH model. (Tr, 8/23/17, pp. 21-25) Christina Hollowood, Teacher, stated that she prefers the PCMH model because each member in her family may be placed under the care of a different home coordinator who, along 40with the home's specialist, collectively addresses each of her family member's unique health-related issue. There are no HMO-type “gatekeepers.” (Tr., 8.23/17, pp. 187- 189) Dennis Pumphrey, Teacher, testified that under the HPN, his monthly premium would increase from $400 to over $1,000, and even higher when co-pays and deductibles are added in. (Tr., 8/23/17, pp. 140-142) The District’s reasons for upsetting the “status quo” (i.e., substituting the HPN for the THT) was because (1) IBNR increased between 2014-2016, and (2) the THT was “burning” reserves. Felipe Danglapin, THT’s former COO, explained that the IBNR had increased was because in late 2015 the THT hired Tristar to be its TPA. He testified it that it took (6) months to bring fiber optic cable into the building, set-up a new computer system, install new software, upload claims/payments information, train software operators, train claims adjustors, to hire staff and more. (Tr., 01/24/18, pp. 169-170; CCSD, Tab 5, p. 2) Further, Tristar was given until March 31, 2017, to bring claim “lag” time to 34 calendar days, which it did. (CCSD, Tab 5, p. 2) In June, 2017, it ‘took Tristar only 31 calendar days to process claims. (CCEA, Book 2, Tab 22) Mr. Keltie testified that physicians rarely call anymore about lag time complaints. (Tr., 9/13/17, p. 73) Kim Phillips, Interim CEO, THT, testified that TriStar’s records show that provider and member complaints received in 2016 had fallen off significantly. (Tr., 9/13/17, p. 166 and p. 172) Regarding the THT’s chaotic FY16 and apparent burning of reserves, Darsi Casey, CPA, Casey Neilon, Inc., explained that the problem appeared to be worse than was in reality. She recast THT’s FY16 financial statements by removing income and a4expenses related to retirees, added six (6) months of additional $49.60 per month, removed expenses related to non-recurring TPA start-up and development expenses, doubled recurring TPA expenses and removed salaries, payroll taxes, and benefits paid for all terminated positions. After having done so, Ms. Casey reported that the Change in Net Assets Available for Plan Benefits increased by $3,226,540. (Tr., 8/22/17, pp. 147-186; CCEA, Book lI, p.1) Similarly, Ms. Casey recasted THT’s FY17 financial statements by removing income and expenses related to retirees and adding six (6) more months of additional $49.60 per month, per participant subsidy. Having done so, Ms. Casey pointed out that the Change in Net Assets Available for Plan Benefits increased by $2,585,886. (Id., p. 2) Generally, after controlling for the time-limited chaos associated with retaining TriStar and after consideration of the District's incremented contribution to the THT, the quantum of THT’s reserves are much improved, Similarly, Hobson Carroll, Actuarial Consultant, concluded that by May 2017 the backlog of unpaid claims will have been “flushed out.” (Tr., 8/22/17, p. 249) He also showed that if the Union and District had not instituted their 20% increase in co- insurance, the THT would have lost over $153 per member as opposed to have gained $6.86 per member. The THT’s business operations are now on track. TriStar is doing its job, as is WellHealth. Telemedicine is up and running. Teachers can now call a network provider for a variety of less serious medical issues or to get a prescription without having to see a doctor in-person. Said calls are noted in the teacher's medical record and a PCMH doctor will follow-up the call. Patients with chronic health issues (e.g., diabetes) a2cost the most. WellHealth’s Population Health Management program involves network managers who use data from claims and appointment information to isolate patients who are accessing the most care. Said managers then link up with PCMH physicians who follow-up with the identified patients to discern whether their care is working and, if not, why? After three (3) years this program should generate significant cost savings, as areTriStar’s much leaner staff. The CCEA urged the Arbitrator to reject the District’s HPN offer because it would change the status quo without meaningful bargaining. The District's proposal to eliminate the THT and replace it with the HPN was made at the parties’ final bargaining session. Palos Heights Fire Protection District & Palos Heights Professional Firefighters Union, Local 4245, ILRB Case No. S-MA-12-389 (Nielsen, Arb., 2013) On point, the CCEA opined, only the issues that hard bargaining failed to resolve ought to be considered by arbitrators. If not, the incentive to bargain suffers and, with it, the institution of collective bargaining. Further, it continued, absent an equivalent quid pro quo, the arbitrator ought not to reduce a benefit. City of Peoria and Peoria Police Benevolent Association, ILRB S-MS-13-144 (Perkovich, Arb., 2016) Indeed, to eliminate the THT, a 40-plus year institution, is a proposal to the Union probably would not have agreed to, at any price. For that reason, it is not the job of the arbitrator to force the issue. Sheriff of Will County and AFSCME Council 31, Local 2961, ILRB Case No. S-MA-88-9 (Nathan Arb., 1988) Last, the Union argued, the District did not prove that the current THT system is irreparable and that installation of the HCN would correct it. City of Springfield, IL, Case No. S-MA-16001 (Hill, Arb., 2017) 43Among the District’s final arguments are that Mr. Goldman breached the District's, fiduciary duty by failing to tell the Union anything about the HPN’s covered benefits and participant-cost features. The content of Mr, Goldman's May 4, 2017 letter and of the District’s proposed Article 28’s language reveal absolutely nothing about the HPN’s coverage and costs. (CCEA, Book V, Tab 18, pp. 249-255) Thus, based on his failure to disclose such basic information to the Union can only mean that he did not expect the Union to accept it. Mr. Goldman was not bargaining in good faith Discussion and De jon: In many states, including Nevada, certain job classifications of public sector employees have been granted the right to collectively bargain wages, hours and other conditions of employment. Public policy clearly prefers to have such employment terms reached bilaterally, through the give-and-take of negotiations. A bargained settlement is the product of the parties’ deliberations; it’s a manifestation of the parties’ joint interests; and, as such, its terms of employment are likely to be more durable, and more likely to be adhered to throughout the contracts duration, When the parties fail to reach a negotiated settlement, and when the strike and lock-out are prohibited by statute, the very last stage of dispute resolution is interest arbitration. Interest arbitration puts an end to the issues in dispute; however, the arbitrator-imposed terms of employment are generally considered to be “second best.” Interest arbitrated settlements usually are not a manifestation of the joint interest of the parties, which is particularly true when the arbitrator's decision must be a “winner takes all” outcome, as required under Nevada's final offer package model.When genuine negotiations do not precede interest arbitration, then the party wishing to alter the status quo ought not to prevail. To favor that party's final offer only serves to reinforce bad behavior: To achieving win-win results through collective bargaining negotiation is deemed to be less important. Consequently, the institution of collective bargaining is weakened. Both the CCEA and CCSD propose changing Article 28, but the District's proposed change is to deletion Article 28's every word. The CCEA proposes the District, carry a larger share of the THT plan's joint/total health insurance premium costs. The CCSD proposes that the THT ~ an employee-led trust that has met the health insurance needs of the CCSD’s teachers for more than two (2) decades ~ be dissolved and replaced by another health care insurer, one that is vender-led. Hence, it is the CCSD’s final offer that would most significantly alter the parties’ employment relationship (ie,, alters the status quo) The record shows that subsequent to the District’s proposal to substitute health insurance entities there were no follow-up negotiations. The specific terms of the HCN’s insurance plan (e.g., premium costs, deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket costs) were never discussed. Interest arbitrators are a conservative lot. They feel comfortable tweaking the “edges” of a contract, but not disturbing its core. Rhetorically speaking, this Arbitrator usually asks: “If the parties would have reached a settlement, would it have included language that in effect would substitute the HPN for the THT?” | cannot believe they would have negotiated such terms. To negotiate such a swap, the CCSDwould have had to offer the CCEA an employment term of equal or greater offsetting value: A quid pro quo exchange of this sort would have been a part of the bargain. In the instant case, as discussed, supra, there was no bargaining, and, further, there is nothing in the CCSD’s set of final positions that can be construed as a quid pro quo offer. The absence of bargaining, altering the status quo, and the absence of quid pro quo offers are among the criteria arbitrators use to decide interest cases. Based on the foregoing, the applications of said criteria do not favor the District. But the merits must be considered. On the merits, the undersigned concludes that the CCSD is asking for too much, too fast. The THT is making a genuine effort to regain financial stability. The THT’s “claims paid,” and “lag time” variables are much improved, and the record evidence suggests that having retaining Telstar as the THT’s TPA was a wise performance-based and financial-based move: Claims are being timely paid, and the THT’s payroll-related expenses are reduced. Concerning WellHealth’s contribution to financial stability, the latter should be reporting measurable results in another year or so. Last, there is some record evidence suggesting that the flow of physician and teacher complaints to the THT has slowed significantly. Yes, WellHealth’s $8 million price tag is worrisome, but it’s too early to make a definitive call The CCEA seeks $50 more per participant per month into perpetuity: A tally of $10 million more in annualized spending by the District on health insurance contributions to the THT. Interestingly, the Trustees approved such an amount, incalendar year 2016 on a one (1) time basis. The undersigned is of the opinion that said decision helped to coax teachers to increasing their share of health insurance payments to the THT: A FY17 sum that also cost $10 million, annualized. For the above-discussed reasons, the undersigned concludes that the Union’s Article 28 final offer is more reasonable than the District's Article 28 final offer. vill AWARD MADE PURSUANT TO NRS 288.217, SUBSECTION 9 The written statement of final offers proffered by the CCEA and appearing in Section IX, Exhibit “A,” infra, is awarded. Issued and Ordered on this 30" day of March, 2018, Mario F. Bognanno, Labor Arbitrator 3 Exhibits “A” and “B” “A ~ Union’s Final Offer: © Article 26 — Professional Compensation Article 26-2-7 Licensed personnel shall move one pay step on the Professional Salary Table (PST) effective June 1, 2018. There will be no pay step retroactivity prior to June 1, 2018 for pay step movement. © Article 28 ~ Teachers Health Trust Article 28-3 shall be amended as follows. Effective July 1, 2017, the weighted health insurance contribution per enrolled participant shall be $583.87. The remaining provisions of this section shall remain unchanged.Article 28-4 shall be amended by deleting the third paragraph that refers to the contribution shall revert, as follows: OnJanuary-1,2017, the contribution shall revert to $538.82, unless otherwise negotiated. Article 28-4 shall be amended in the second paragraph by deleting the reference to January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 and replacing it with, “Effective July 1, 2017,” as follows: The total payments by the District to the Trust under 28-3 and 28-4 shall be adjusted to a weighted average per employee for all participant employees of $583.87 effective January-t2016 through December 33,2036 effective July 1, 2017. The remaining provisions of the Section shall remain unchanged. Article 28-4 shall be amended in the fourth paragraph as follows: Effective January-12016,theught December 34,2046, Effective July 1, 2017, an additional $4.60 per employee, per month, shall be added to the weighted health insurance contribution per enrolled participant of $583.87, specifically to be used by the Teachers Health Trust to reduce the per paycheck contribution by approximately one hundred dollars ($100.00) per month for those employees who, as of December 2015, were enrolled in the Platinum plan as “employee plus two (2) dependents.” The dates July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 shall be deleted in the first sentence of Article 28-4... ‘The cost value of the Union’s proposal on health insurance is $588.47 per employee, per month, and this is the amount that the District is to submit to the ‘Teachers Health Trust per employee per month. Exhibit “B” — Employer's Final Offer: ARTICLE 26 PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION 26-1 ‘The following definition of terms shall apply to Article 26 and any other applicable portions of this Agreement. a. Professional Salary Table (PST): The salary table in effect from March 1, 2016, through end of the 2015-2016 school year (Table 1), and, subsequently, the salary table in effect for the 2016-2017 school year (Table 2), which contains a cost af living increase of 2.25% on each step. b. Salary Schedule (SS): The salary schedule in effect for the 2018-2016 school year (Table 4), 4826-2 ©. Transitional Salary Schedule (TSS): For the 2016-2017 school year only, Fthe transitional salary schedule (Table 3) which includes an additional new step on each column, the value of which is $1321.00 higher than the highest step in the same column. Other than the additional step, the TSS is the same table as the SS, d. For the 2016-2017 school year only, Gcontact units earned for participation in designated coursework or professional development, as follows: 1. One (1) contact unit shall be earned for each one hundred eighty (180) minutes of Participation outside the licensed employee's contracted work day and as approved by the principal/designee or appropriate administrator. 2, Five (5) contact units shall be earned for each college/university semester credit 3, Three and one half (3.5) contact units shall be eared for each college/university quarter credit 4, Five (8) contact units shall be earned for one CCSD Professional Development Education Unit, 5, Five (5) contact units shall be eared for one Continuing Education Unit (CEU). One (1) CEU = fifteen (1) contact hours. Professional Salary Table Column: On the PST the columns across which those who earn contact units advance. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall be no step and/or column advancement for any licensed employee. f. Professional Salary Table Step: On the PST the steps by which those who earn service credit advance. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall and/or column adv for any i employ 9. Joint Hearing Panel: The panel which will hear past and transitional disputes with regard to placement, i¢., steps as they relate to current placement on the salary schedule (8S), the transitional salary schedule (TSS), or the professional salary table (PST). h. Professional Salary Table Joint Committee (PST-JC): The committee of not less than four CCEA members and four CCSD appointed administrators representatives of CCSD and CCEA who shall meet twice a year to review the salary schedule and any emergent issues or implementation problems. |. NEPF: The Nevada Educator Performance Framework or any licensed personnel evaluation framework mandated by Nevada statute and/or CCSD policy (as applicable) for use during the time period of this Agreement. For the 2017-2018 school year, Llicensed personnel shall not move from one column to the rnext on the salary table in accordance with the provisions below. For purposes of this section, use of the term NEPF shall refer to the Nevada Educator Performance Framework or to any licensed personnel evaluation framework mandated for use during the time period of this agreement. 26-21 With the exception noted in Article 26-2-2, all licensed personnel shall only move from one column to the next column on the salary table once every three years, and such movement shall occur as follows Ee ch ar, there shall be_no_step and/or column advancement for_any_ li employee. a926-22 26-2-3 a. Licensed employees may not move across one column every three years regardless if the employee has completed 225 contact units in accordance with that individual's professional growth plan. b. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall_be_no_step and/or column advancement for any licensed employee. Movement to a new column on the salary schedule shall be to the next column and then one step, as part of regular step movement, down on the salary schedule, ie., move across and ‘one step down, No licensed employee will be eligible for more than one step movement per year, in total. ©. These provisions apply to Articles 26-2-1 and 26-2-2 d. The process for licensed employees to move across one column pursuant to this Article shall begin in the school year 2016-2017. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall be no rf for_an licensed employee. . Accumulated units may only be utilized to move across one column at a time; in other words, the same units may not be utilized as the basis for multiple column moves. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall be no step and/or column advancement for any licens 10) For the 2017-2018 school_year, there shall_be no step and/or column advancement for any licensed employee. For the term of this 2016 through 2017 agreement, licensed employees who are assigned to work in any designated Title 1, Tier 1, or Title 1, Tier 2, school for two consecutive school years, commencing with the 2016-2017 school year, and who are otherwise eligible to move across one column on the salary table may do so once every two school years, provided that: a. The licensed employee remains working in a Title 1, Tier 4, or Title |, Tier 2 school for the two years while completing 225 contact units and; b. Title 1, Tier 1, and Title 1, Tier 2, schools as utilized in this section mean schools identified as Title 1, Tier 1, or Title 1, Tier 2, as of January of the prior school year as determined by the Nevada Department of Education, and; ©. Ifthe licensed employee transfers to a school that is not a Title 1, Tier 1, or Title 1, Tier 2, school, then column movement will be implemented pursuant to Article 26-6, and the employee shall notify Human Resources that he/she is moving to the three-year track column movement, 4. If the employee elects to move from a Title 1, Tier 1, and Title 1, Tier 2 school to one that is not in that category, then the contact units accumulated during the two-year time period shall apply to a three-year track column movement. For the 2017-2018 school_year, there shall_be no step and/or column advancement for any licensed employes. ‘The “Professional Salary Table Joint Committee’ (PSTJC) shall prescribe terms for movement across columns for those who earn “Master Practitioner’ status, and such terms shall govern requirements for movement across no more than two columns within one four school-year time period upon achievement of Master 5026-2-4 Practitioner status. Such provisions shall provide the “Master Practitioner” licensed employee with the compensation equivalent of one column movement plus two steps, or not more than $7,926.00. 2017-2018 school_year, there shall_be no step _and/or_column advancement for any licensed employee. a, Terms shall be agreed to by no later than February 1, 2016, b. Once such terms are agreed to, they will be incorporated into the language above and become Article 26-2-3. c. Ifthe PSTJC cannot agree on terms, the Superintendent shall make the final determination. For_the 2017-20: . there shall_be _no_step_and/or_column advancement for anylicensed employee. Any dispute arising from a supervisor's denial of coursework and/or contact units toward column movement shall be handled in the following manner. a. The licensed employee shall seek informally to resolve the dispute by discussing the denial with his/her supervisor. . Ifthe dispute is not resolved at that level, the licensed employee shall submit a standard appeal form to the Joint Hearing Panel. The appeal form shall be developed by the Joint Hearing Panel and shall, at a minimum, include the following information from the licensed employee: description of professional learning opportunities, applicable NEPF standard to which the professional learning opportunities apply, and reason(s) for requesting approval. The appeal form shall also include the reason(s) from the supervisor regarding why the course was not approved. This process shall be completed within two (2) weeks from the date of the submitted appeal c. If the dispute is not resolved at that level, the appeal form shall be forwarded to the cabinet_ member who oversees that unitidivision for review and determination. This process shall be completed within (7) seven working days from the date of the cabinet member receiving the appeal. 4G. If the dispute is not resolved at that level, the appeal form shall be forwarded to the Office of the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall issue 2 decision within seven (7) working days of receiving the appeal, @, The decision of the Superintendent is fina {The Superintendent's decision is not subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of this Agreement. 9. Ifa licensed employee wishes to utiize the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement to dispute salary placement under this provision (26-2-4), the licensed employee may do so provided that: 26-2. 4 The employee provides notification on the appropriate grievance form utlizing the timelines prescribed under the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement. s126-3 26-25 26-26 26-2-4-2 The employee waives his/her option to utilize the Joint Hearing Panel Process described herein in Article 26-2-4 For the 2017-2018 school vear A a licensed employee shall not advance one (1) step on the professional salary table for each additional year during the term of this Agreement. Even if licensed employees move across to the next column in accordance with the provisions of Article 26-2-1, they are only eligible to move ‘one step for each school year. Fi 17-2018 _schi ,_there_shall nd/or_column advancement for any licensed employee. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, there are licensed positions which may be determined by the District to be critical needs positions. In an effort to encourage licensed employees to accept and then to remain in those positions, the parties may negotiate new terms related to this issue under Article 26-5 of this Agreement. Professional Growth System 26-3-1 26-3-3 For 17-201: M there shall_be_no_step_and/or_column advancement for any licensed employee. The CCSD and CCEA believe it is important to maintain a professional learning system which leads to improvement in student learning and educatorficensed professional practice. The PST shall recognize professional growth which promotes significant contributions to student learning and educatorilicensed professional practice, and is equally accessible by all members of the bargaining unit. The PST shall reward and encourage educators/licensed professionals to remain career-long learners in order to increase student leaning, enhance and update relevant skills, and have educatorsliicensed professionals be visible models as learners to thelr students and colleagues. Therefore, the Professional Growth System (‘PGS’) referenced in Article 26-3-3 herein shall encourage Professional Growth Plan (PGP) Proposals which use evidence of updated skills and measures of student Performance as the basis for column movement along the PST. 26-3-2 For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall be no step and/or column advancement for any licensed employee. The purpose of the PGS is as follows: a. Provide career options for licensed professionals who want to seek additional responsibilty without leaving the classroom; b. Recognize and reward licensed professionals who attain and demonstrate knowiedge and skils that improve instructional and professional practice, and; ¢. Recognize and reward improved licensed professional practices that are a factor in student learning and other student outcomes, For the 2017-2018 school _year, there shall_be_n umn advancement for_any licensed employee. Consistent with the Professional Growth System Memorandum of Agreement between the CCSD and CCEA, the process for developing and implementing a Professional Growth Pian shall be as, follows: a. Develop an Action Plan b. Design the PGP. 5226-4 c. Propose and receive authorization for the PGP. 4d. Maintain evidence of the PGP. e. Undergo a yearly review of the PGP. {Document accomplishments pertaining to the PGP. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall st C sAcement for any licensed employee. The Joint Hearing Panel comprised of three (3) CCSD designees and three (3) CCEA designees shall be established to review disputed educational attainment credits or placement concerns, i.e., steps as they relate to current placement on the salary schedule (SS), the transitional salary schedule (TSS), or the professional salary table (PST), 26-4-1 26-4-2 26-4-3 26-4-4 26-45 26-46 Employees who dispute their current stepicolumn placement on the salary schedule in effect at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year shall submit their dispute to the panel by January 29, 2016. The Joint Hearing Panel must make a determination of those issues by February 12, 2016. Employees who dispute their placement on the TSS shall have until March 15, 2016, to submit issues to the panel. The Joint Hearing Panel must make a determination of those issues by March 30, 2016. Determination of employee placement and transition to the (new) PST salary schedule shall be governed by the provisions set forth in the "Memorandum of Agreement for Transition of Current Licensed Staff to the New Professional Salary Table” and shall be finalized by February 15, 2016. CCSD and CCEA representatives shall meet on February 15, 2016, to review the placement and discuss any emergent issues. Employees shall be placed on the new salary schedule effective March 1, 2016. Hf the Joint Hearing Panel cannot reach agreement, the Superintendent shall make the final determination, and such decision is not subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this agreement. lf a licensed employee wishes to utilize the grievance and arbitration provisions Of this Agreement to dispute salary placement under this provision (26-4), the licensed employee may do s0 provided that: 26-4-4-1 The employee provides noiification on the appropriate grievance form utilizing the timelines prescribed in Article 26-4 and in the "Memorandum of Agreement for Transition of Current Licensed Staff to the New Professional Salary Table,” and; 26-4-4-2 The employee waives his/her option to utilize the Joint Hearing Panel Process described herein in Article 26-4 Only pay for the 2015-16 school year, and the associated transition to the PST, is, eligible for reconsideration of the Joint Hearing Panel. In other words, no retro pay for previous school years shall be provided, regardless of the decision of the Joint Hearing Panel It is acknowledged by each party that CCSD may require an adjusted timeline for the transition, should unanticipated difficulties arise, Should the timeline need to be adjusted, CCSD shall establish a new timeline, and the new timeline shall be ‘communicated to the CCEA. tives-of CCSD. i Salary PST ne calery eoriocule arid 5326-65 26-75 26-87 26.98 ‘mplementation_problems—and-by-mutual-consent-can-modify-the-terme-of Artcles-26-+ fiecal-years-budgel. For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall be no step andlor column advancement for any licensed employee. Recruiting and retaining qualified classroom teachers in at-risk schools (@s outlined in Article 26-2-2) is an important outcome of the new professional salary schedule, Employees in atrrisk schools as identified in Article 26-2-2, who are eligible for the two-year column movement track, shall move one column in the year following successful ‘completion of the two-year program as long as they remain in an at-risk school as defined by Article 26-2-2. Accordingly, the parties agree to monitor progress on achieving that outcome, and if needed, shall consider modifying this Agreement to ensure that placing and retaining qualified classroom teachers in atrisk schools is being accomplished If using college/university credits as part of the employee's Professional Growth Plan, only units as awarded in semester hours or the equivalent quarter hours secured after the requirements for the degree have been completed for the degree, in upper division or graduate courses recognized by the Commission on Professional Standards in Education, will be recognized for use in the Professional Growth Plan For the 2017-2018 school year, there shall be no step and/or column advancement for any licensed employee. Initial placement for licensed employees who are hired by the District, land who have no previous contracted licensed employee experience, shall be on Column 1, Step A. 26-87-1 A licensed employee hired after January 31, who has no previous teaching experience recognized by the District, shall not be eligible for advancement to the next step for the 2017-2018 school year unti-one-year-fom-the-beginning of the ensuing-scheet-year. Licensed employees hired after January 31 must also complete the New Teacher Induction Program by the-end ofthe third school year te-advance-te-the-next-step. If a licensed employee fails to complete the New Teacher Induction Program, the individual will remain at Step 8 for-the-eneuing ‘two-school-years-and.will nal-be-able-to-advance-to Step-C-untilthen, 26-87-2 — Allicensed employee who has no previous licensed experience recognized by the District, hired prior to February 1, must complete the New Teacher Induction Program by the end of the second school year. H-ar-individual fails-te-complete the-New-Teacher-Induetion-Program-by-the-end-of-the-second-school-year_the advance -to-Siep-C-untilthen. New Teacher Induction Program contact units may also be accumulated and utlized for column movement, but there will be no 3r any licensed employee for the 2017-2018 school yeer. Initial placement provisions for an experienced licensed employee new to the District who has been employed as a licensed employee within the last three years shall be as follows: 26-98-1 The licensed employee shall submit the employee's most recent licensed ‘employee contract to Human Resources. 26-08-2 Human Resources shall determine the licensed employee's base salary contract ‘amount from the employee's previous position. 26-88-3 Human Resources shall place the licensed employee on the Professional Salary Table (PST) in the following manner: 5426-109 2. Determine the value of the PST step closest to, but not less than, the licensed employee's previous licensed base salary. b. On the PST, place the employee on the closest corresponding step that is on the column farthest to the left, but no farther down the schedule than Step G. c. Inother words, no new licensed employee shall be placed on step H, | or J ‘An experienced licensed employee new to the District who has not been employed as a licensed employee within the previous three school years shall be placed on the PST as follows for the 2016-2017 and 2047-2048 school years. 26-409-4 26-499-2 26-409-3, 26-409-4 The District will utilize the experienced employee's accumulated credits and experience to piace the licensed employee on the Transitional Salary Schedule (TSS) in use for the 2015-2016 transition to the new Professional Salary Table (ST). The District will then move the licensed employee to the PST in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the Article 26 Transition Memorandum of ‘Agreement (MOA). Placement of an experienced licensed employee new to the District who has not been employed as a licensed employee within the previous three school years shall be discussed no later than November 30, 2017, for determination of placement processes in future years, When determining such placement, the following provisions shall be in effect: 26-409-4-1 In addition to complying with Nevada Revised Statutes for placement of licensed personnel with licensed experience in the state of Nevada, the District shall credit the licensed employee with professional growth credit for placement on the TSS for any course(s) taken that is related to: (a) The licensed employee's PK-20 related major or minor field of preparation, and for this section PK-20 is defined as a degree in the education of students at any of the following levels: K-14: Pre-School to Two-Year Degree K-16: Pre-School to Four-Year Degree K-18: Pre-School to Master's degree PK-20: Pre-School to Graduate Degree (b) The teacher's most recent licensed assignment, or (c)_ The licensed employee's present endorsements), excluding 2 substitute endorsement, or PK-20 related degree(s), or (d) Additional endorsement(s), excluding a _—_ substitute endorsement, being pursued by the licensed employee, or (e) Additional PK-20 related degree(s) being pursued by the licensed employee, (f) Professional development credits ONLY if such credits were received after @ Bachelor's degree and were required for an 5526-409-4.2 26-109-4-4 26-409-4-6 26-409-4-7 26-409-4.9 “alternative route to licensure” program leading to a standard teaching license in another state, "Most recent licensed assignment” is defined as the class or classes the employee was assigned or licensed to teach in the ‘most recent school year he/she worked or the class or classes the employee was notified would be taught in the subsequent schoo! year. "Related to" is defined as courses in the subject area taught at the secondary level and the basic core subjects such as, but not limited to, English, reading, math, and science at the elementary level. "Additional endorsement(s) being pursued! is defined as taking the ‘minimum number of courses which would qualify for an endorsement, or ten semester credit hours or the equivalent, approved by the Nevada Department of Education as meeting the requirements for an endorsement ‘Additional PK-20-related degrees) being pursued” is defined as enroliment in @ program leading to a PK-20-related degree, or other evidence which would indicate that the courses taken will lead to the awarding of a PK-20-related degree and which may be used for placement on the salary schedule in accordance with provisions of this Article. With the exception of Article 26-10-4-1 (f), specifically excluded are ‘courses which are not credit bearing toward a degree or in-service courses not offered by the District. In addition, the District may deny credit for courses which it deems are of a frivolous nature or which are not related to the established curriculum of the District The definition of frivolous shall be grievable. Only PK-20-related, advanced degrees awarded by an accredited institution recognized by the Commission on Professional Standards in Education in a field pertinent to the position and valid in their entirety for Nevada certification for level and subject taught will be recognized for advancement on the salary schedule Non-educational, “professional” degrees such as doctors of chiropractice, homeopathy, veterinary or other medicine, dentistry, divinity, juris doctor, business, MBA and similar degrees shall be awarded degree class placement on the licensed employees’ salary schedule only if substantively related to the licensed ‘employee's current assignment, Licensed personnel required to take CEUs to maintain a professional accreditation that is required by the appropriate agency as determined by that state’s licensing regulations shall be subject to the requirements and may use CEUs in lieu of professional growth, CEUs earned during the 2004-2005 school year and beyond may be used in lieu of professional growth credits at the rate of fifleen contact hours to one professional growth credit. CEUs must be eamed through an appropriate, accredited provider. 5626-4410 26-4211 26-4312 26-4413, 26-1514 26-4615 26-4716. 26-4817 The contracted salary of a licensed employee as specified in the schedules named in Article 26-1 shall be made in twenty-four (24) equal installments payable twice monthly, not to exceed twenty-four (24) payments per year. ROTC instructors/ROTC instructor assistants shall be placed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 26-9, and in accordance with the ROTC instructor's/assistant’s minimum instructor pay (MIP) in accordance with the applicable Defense Department regulations pertaining to minimum miltary instructor pay for ROTC instructors. In order to place newly hired licensed nurses on the PST, the licensed nurse shall first be placed on the TSS and then shall be placed on the PST in accordance with Article 26-10. On the TSS, the licensed nurse is eligible for placement on Class D at the Step the nurse would otherwise have been eligible for in accordance with the provisions of Article 26-10. Newly hired employees who possess an earned specialist degree will be placed first on the TSS and then wil transition to the PST in accordance with Article 26-10 and the following provisions: 26-1413-1 If the degree consists of no less than 65 credit hours after completion of a bachelor’s degree, the newly hired licensed employee shall be eligible for placement on Class F on the TSS. 26-413-2 Any school psychologist who completes an equivalent program as that of a specialist and who receives @ master’s degree in school psychology from a university whose program is accredited by the National School Psychology Certification System and who is certified as such by the National Association of ‘School Psychologists shall be eligible for placement in Class E on the TSS if the program consists of at least 49 credit hours after completion of the bachelor's degree and for placement in Class F on the TSS if the program consists of at least 65 credit hours after completion of the bachelor's degree. District support staff employees who are hired as licensed employees within one (1) year of resignation or retirement from service as a District support staff employee shall be placed in accordance with the provisions of Article 26-10, uilizing the support staff employee's previous base salary. Newly hired social studies teachers who possess a juris doctor degree shall first be placed on the TSS and then will transition to the PST in accordance with Article 26-10 and the following the juris doctor degree shall be applicable for payment at Class D on the TSS salary schedule. Those eligible for placement under this sub Article shall be eligible for placement in Classes E and F if the requirements for placement in those classes have been otherwise met, provided that such credits have not been previously utilized for placement in Classes A, 8, or Cand were earned after awarding of the juris doctor degree. Those licensed employees who, while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, went to formal instructor training and taught full-time in a military training program shall be placed in accordance with the provisions of Article 26-9 or Article 26-10, as applicable, utilizing the instructor's previous base salary. Licensed occupational teachers with an endorsement in business and industry assigned to teach a vocational subject at Southern Nevada Vocational Technical Center and Area Technical Trade Center or other non-comprehensive senior high schools or institutional programs where @ degree is not required, and physical therapists and occupational therapists shall first be placed on the TSS and then will transition to the PST in accordance with Article 26-10 and the following: The licensed employee will be intially placed on Class D, Step 3, of 726-1018 26-2019 the TSS salary schedule. This shall also apply to teachers in comprehensive high schools who are assigned to teach in nonacademic subjects which require a business and industry endorsement which endorsement is ineligible to be received on an educational elementary, secondary or special license. ‘The Superintendent or designee may, after consultation and agreement with the Association, recognize additional “service” credit for those covered under Articles 26-12 through Article 26-4918, ‘Shared Contracts / Half-Time Contracts ‘Any licensed employee who accepts a shared contract shall be entitled to only one-half of the contribution paid by the District for health insurance benefits. This is not to be construed as ‘an entitlement on the part of any licensed employee to a shared contract which may be conferred or renewed at the sole discretion of the District. ‘A shared contract shall consist of one full-time position at one school shared during one ‘school year by two licensed employees who have agreed to accept such a contract. Currently existing shared contracts will be allowed for the 2010-2011 school year. The status of establishing new shared contracts will be reviewed annually. A shared contract will be eliminated when one partner leaves the shared contract for any reason, when the schoo! decides to eliminate the shared contract, or when one partner in the shared contract falls below the surplus line If one partner leaves mid-year, (i.e. resigns, dismissed, LOA), the remaining pariner may request to assume the full contract or to resign. If one partner submits resignation effective the end of the school year, remaining partner must take the full contract for the ensuing school year or resign. If the schoo! decides to allow the shared contract to continue in the ensuing year and both partners are above the surplus line, both are allowed to remain in the shared contract, If one partner falls below the surplus line, the partner below the line is surplused, and the partner above the line must take the full contract or resign. If both partners fall below the surplus line, both are surplused, and their position becomes a vacancy. Ifthe shared contract will be eliminated at the end of the school year, the full contract shall be offered to both partners. If only one pariner wants the position, he/she gets it, and the other resigns. Hf neither wants the full contract, they both resign. If both want the position, the partner with more Districtwide seniority gets it, end the junior partner must be placed into a vacancy, or if there is no vacancy, be surplused, regardless of seniority (even if more senior than others on staf). ‘An employee in a shared contract cannot participate in Voluntary Transfer unless the schoo! decides that the shared contract will be eliminated or itis determined that itis possible the ‘employee will be surplused from the school. However, an employee in a shared contract may participate in the Second Voluntary Transfer after surplus, if one occurs, If an employee in a shared contract participates in Voluntary Transfer in anticipation of being surplused, and obtains a position, the employee is not entitled to return to his/her previous position even if it turns out that the employee would not have been surplused (ie., after Voluntary Transfer, school does not have to surplus anyone). In other words, once an ‘employee participates in Voluntary Transfer and obtains a position, that employee cannot return to his/her previous position. 5826-2420 ‘An employee who is surplused out of a shared contract: 1. May select a fulltime position in Involuntary Transfer (at the surplus meeting); and 2. Shall be treated as a full-time employee in the RIF process. ‘The District will continue to pay the entire health benefit contribution on behalf of half-time licensed employees. Half-Time Contract Rules: 2. May only seek a halftime position in Voluntary Transfer. b. May only select a half-time position in Involuntary Transfer. For the 2010-2011 school year, $155,459, which was money previously earmarked and designated for new hire orientation, shall be used for the new hire orientation and for reimbursement to the District under Article 17-1-1. The amount shall be increased by two percent (2%) annually for the duration of the contract 58ARTICLE 28 ‘TEACHER HEALTHTRUST GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE ‘THE FOLLOWING DELETION OF EXISTING SECTIONS 28-1 THROUGH 28-11 SHALL BE EFFECTIVE at 11:59 P.M., APRIL 30, 2018:6162‘THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTIONS 28-1 THROUGH 28-3 SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AT 12:00A.M., MAY 1, 2018: 28-4 ‘The CCSD Health and Welfare Insurance Program for District licensed employees (‘CCSD Program’) is hereby established, effective May 1, 2018) 28:2 In addition to contributing towar f the plan, the Schoo! District agrees to provide 2) tion for additional contributions and to provide such reasonable record keepin« and verification of employment as may be required by the insurance carrier 28:2-1 Within said payments. set forth in 28-3-1, the CCSD Pr ll provide health insurance and the following ancillary insurance benefits: ntal, The medical benefits package in the CCSD Proaram incl benefits Life Insurance. The medical benefits package in the CCSD Program includ insurance benefits. Long-Term Disability. The medical _benefits package in the CCSD Program includes long-term disability benefits. ‘Short-Term lity. _The_medical_benefits package in the CCSD Pr Includes voluntary short-term disability benefits. Vision. The medical in the CCSD Program includes vision benefits Retirees. The District will assure that retirees will be provided with a medical benefits package as mandaled by the Nevada Revised Statutes. 28-3 During the term of the Negotiated Agreement between the Clark County School District and the Clark C ion iation (2017-2018), the District will make no_contribution toward employee health benefits greater th tribution set forth in Article 28-3-1 of the 2017-2018 Negotiated Agreement. 28:3-1 Effective May 1, 2018, through June 30, 2018, th will contribute the amount of $538.87 per employee, per month, toward the insurance benefits package, 640-4 40-2 ARTICLE 40 ‘TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective at the beginning of the 2045-2036 2017-2018 contracted school year and shall remain in effect until the beginning of the 2047-2038 2018-2019 contracted school year, and as limited by NRS 288.155, shall continue from year to year thereafter unless either of the parties shall give written notice to the other for school year 2047-2048 2018-2019 in the manner prescribed by the provisions of NRS 288 of a desire to change, amend or modify the Agreement and until a successor agreement is reached. This Agreement shall immediately terminate in the event recognition is withdrawn and sustained after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted in accordance with NRS 288. 64