Once again the district has thrown away taxpayers' money by first denying a full time faculty member summer session work and then taking the grievance filed by UPM through costly arbitration.

On September 26, 2009 the Arbitrator in the grievance UPM filed against the district for arbitrarily denying a full time English department faculty an assignment to teach during the summer session of 2008 found that " The District violated Article 8.16 of the parties' Agreement" and ordered the district to pay the professor for the class he was not assigned. The Arbitrator further ordered the district "to cease and desist any future implementation of a six (6) unit intersession limit". 

The outcome of this arbitration once again re-enforces the observation that the district is trying its best to re-write the contract (by ignoring present language and inventing new procedures) without negotiating. UPM and the district have been negotiating a new contract for 30 months with very little to show for it. The district appears willing to force an imposed contract or strike situation with its position of many contract take-away's for no increase in wages.

It is important to note that the same attorney the district employed for this losing arbitration is the same attorney that the district employs as their chief negotiator. It is hard not to wonder how this is not a conflict of interest. It certainly does not appear to be the best way to spend the taxpayers' money. The lawyer continues to get his fee agreement or not.

An earlier grievance filed by UPM against the district in November, 2008, an Arbitrator found the district had violated the contract by denying faculty work. The same attorney represented the district in that arbitration. UPM believes this is another example of misdirected taxpayers' money.