--------------American School in Japan -----------------ASIJ Teachers' Union---Protecting Our Rights

4th DANKO -- Feb 27, 2003
Home
Previous Home Page
Letter to Board November 29, 2004
Letter to Board (proposal) May 27, 2004
5th Arbitration --May 20, 2004
4th Arbitration -- April 20, 2004
3rd Arbitration--March 8, 2004
Q & A from March 8 Arbitration
Letter to the Board--January 2004
History of Situation to Board--January 2004
Comments from Former Administrators--posted Jan 2004
Unofficial Viewpoint of the Board--June 2003
Concerns to the Board June 2003
4th DANKO -- Feb 27, 2003
Jan 25 Reply to our questions of Dec 15 -- Updated February 2003
3rd DANKO - November 2002
2nd DANKO--September 2002
1st DANKO-- May 2002
Examples of Past Practice -- March 2003
Our Concerns --May 2002
History of the Situation -- Updated April 2005
Letter of Agreement--April 27, 2005
Letter to Board President, April 2, 2005
Retirement Policies at ASIJ
We Get Letters -- Updated February 2003
Letters written by Union Members -- September 2002
Age Discrimination -- May 2002
FSCC Final Statement on This Issue -- May 2002
Union letter to School -- April 2002
Letters to Faculty/Staff -- April 2002
Letter sent to the Board -- March 2002
Some ASIJ Teacher Statistics (Some 2002 hires not included) -- May 2002
ASIJ Policies with adoption and revision dates -- May 2002
Information About the Union -- May 2002
Laws of Japan -- March 2003

4th Danko Meeting   February 27, 2003 at the temple

 

Attendance:  Fukuyama-san, Kumata-san, Ron Dirkse, Bill Jacobsson, Marguerite Arnote, Mid Squier, John Hohenthaner, Noda-san, Tim Ilse, Tim Thornton

 

 

 

The following is not necessarily a word for word transcription, but will try to give adequate coverage to all the discussions.

 

The following four main areas of discussion: 

                                                  Non-filing of policies in Mitaka Labor Board

                                                  Results of survey from Ad Hoc Committee

                                                  Meaning of rejuvenation of faculty

                                                  Admin responses to our seven questions.

 

Fukuyama-san:  We would like to begin with the personnel policies.  When will the school submit the policies to the Mitaka Labor Office?

 

Tim Ilse:  I think one of the questions was who would sign off for the faculty and we would like to know your position on how we should go about selecting a person to sign off for the faculty. 

 

Fukuyama-san:  This union does not organize as a majority so we are not involved in the selection process.

 

Tim Ilse:  So that should be done by the faculty in a democratic fashion.

 

Fukuyama-san:  The experience of the school recently with the selecting of a person with the Japanese staff should be a useable guide.

 

Tim Ilse:  Is a straight vote okay?

 

Fukuyama-san:  Yes

 

Tim Ilse:  We were unclear in the union's role in this process.

 

Fukuyama-san:  The union has the authority to present their views on this situation but the selecting of the person to represent the faculty is a different issue.  The Mitaka Labor Office must have already advised the school how to do this.

 

Noda-san:  The school has received this advice and we will follow their instructions.

 

Fukuyama-san:  The question is when will the school hear the opinion of the person who represents the majority of the workers?

 

Tim Ilse:  I think there is some reluctance for a selected person to sign off because they anticipate that they will be dragged into some legal conflict.  Is there some assurance that they will not be caught in some legal issue between the school and the union?  I think there is a very real concern that this may happen.

 

Fukuyama-san:  It has been 10 years since the school was told by the Mitaka Labor Office and you still have not submitted them. The question is when will this be done?

 

Tim Ilse: Its difficult for people to understand if they are afraid to be the person to sign off.  How do we do that in a way that they do not fall into a difficult position on a personal basis?

 

Fukuyama-san:  As a union we can only say that the representative should be selected in a democratic way. 

 

Tim Thornton:  I think anyone can sign their comments to the document no matter who the representative is.

 

Fukuyama-san:  Before he writes his comments he needs to obtain the feelings of the rest of the faculty.  The point is that ASIJ is in the state of an illegal situation

 

Tim Ilse:  Next week we will be talking with the FSCC to gain their input in how this process should be carried out.

 

Fukuyama-san:  The procedure of selecting the representative should be made known and the feelings of the union should be represented.

 

Ron Dirkse:  The person who signs is selected by the majority.  We in the past have said the FSCC President would probably be the person selected to sign.  They are supposed to be representing the majority feeling on this.  And for 10 years the school has not been doing this.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  I think this is a question for the Mitaka Labor Board and not an issue for this group.

 

Ron Dirkse:  The Mitaka Labor Board has guidelines for this

 

Tim Thornton:  You would have no problem with us going to the FSCC and saying you have to do this and they choose the method?

 

Ron Dirkse:  We would suspect that the FSCC is the logical place.

 

Mid Squier:  The policies are on the web, right?  Can't there just be a notice that all faculty look at the Personnel Polices and let the FSCC know how they feel.

 

Tim Thornton:  Remember that we as administration are not to get involved, so the FSCC will have to do this.

 

Marguerite Arnote: Remember that at the beginning of this year the FSCC asked for printed copies of the policies to see if the policies on the web are the current versions.

 

Tim Thornton:  FSCC meets next week and I will ask them to check the policies and select this person.

 

Tim Ilse:  Is that okay?

 

Fukuyama-san:  Japanese law says that the representative should be by a vote or raising of hands, not just a selecting of an individual.  The point is that the non-regular contract was introduced without those affected having had the chance to have input on this before it was approved.  The reason why this is an issue is that you gave us a letter of June last year that you have revised the personnel policies 12 times in the past and the faculty was not consulted on any of these.  Recently the Personnel policies were revised in March this year.  At the last danko meeting it was clarified that the non-regular working hours would be the same at reduced pay.  We feel that this is unreasonable.

 

Tim Thornton:  I think I have explained this last year and I will say the same thing again.  Retirement is at 60 and from 60 onward a person goes to a non-regular contract. It is their choice whether to choose that contract or not.  The benefits for a non-regular contract are different from a regular contract.  It is the option of the person to accept these conditions or not.

 

Fukuyama-san:  We would like to repeat that this is unreasonable.  Mr. Ilse asked last time why does minority union represent the staff. In the US a majority union represents the staff.  But in Japan there is a trade Union.  That is why these people have organized a union and changes in working conditions should be arrived at through the process of negotiation on an equal footing.  That is why we have asked about the Personnel policies, because they contain the working conditions and as a union we have the right to negotiate these.  UNESCO and ILO state that salaries and working conditions for teachers should be determined through negotiations between teacher organizations and the employers.

 

Tim Ilse: I think I understand that but in the past the question was should the union have the right to supersede the other 145 people in their view.  And I would still ask that question.

 

Fukuyama-san:  This union will not represent the majority or the opinions of the majority.

 

Tim Ilse:  Exactly.  I have a different interpretation that in negotiations it is with a majority group.

 

Fukuyama-san: In Japan, only the Union has the right to negotiate with the administration. It is guaranteed by law.  The union has the right to reflect the views of the members.  They believe that the changing in the policies was unreasonable.  The reason why we ask these questions is that, in Japan, in disadvantageous revisions of polices, trade union opinions should be heard by the administration.  It is the law in Japan.

 

Tim Ilse: My point is that do you think that point has been heard by the representatives of the Board?  Have we heard that point?

 

Fukuyama-san:  You have not answered our question.

 

Tim Ilse:  It is our job to hear the Union's position, is that not accurate?

 

Fukuyama-san:  You have heard our opinion but you have not answered our questions.

 

Tim Ilse: I think we have heard your opinion, but our interpretation is different.

 

Fukuyama-san: We think it is not a difference of opinion.

 

Tim Ilse:  We have had this discussion several times and when the policies go to the Mitaka Labor Board the union's view will be noted as a comment on these policies.

 

Fukuyama-san:  The union does not write comments. The representative will.  The union is a minority.

 

Noda-san:  The union will bring their views to the representative and the representative may write those views

 

Fukuyama-san:  We have heard that the FSCC and the administration composed an Ad Hoc Committee to study the non-regular contract.  They did a survey.  Is it a possibility that the result of this survey will be made known to the faculty?

 

Tim Thornton:  Yes, next week we will post these on a web site either tomorrow or Monday and there will be a meeting next Friday

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Will all of the responses be made available?

 

Tim Thornton:  Yes, with maybe some names deleted.  This will go out as soon as the web site can be set up.

 

Fukuyama-san:  Mr. Dirkse would now like to ask some questions.

 

Ron Dirkse:  I don't have any questions specifically related to the survey.  But I came across the FASST web site and the notes of Patty Butz.  I came across the ERIP and the following words. "The request that the classified staff be included in the ERIP.  We will not include the classified staff in the ERIP because we neither need nor want rejuvenation of classified staff. It is not in the best interest of the school."  It just struck me as a very strange thing because we are talking about rejuvenation and the reason you are getting rid of teachers and here it says that we neither need nor want rejuvenation of classified staff--it is not in the best interests of the school.  So what is happening there that is not happening with faculty?  These are Patty Butz's notes.  In the R.T. it was rejuvenation of the staff.  That's why we have these new policies and here it is--we neither need nor want rejuvenation of classified staff.  It is not in the best interests of the school. And it just struck we as WOW. Where is this coming from?  This is Admin stuff?

 

Tim Ilse:  I think it stands on its own. Those specific jobs are much different than a teaching position.  I think that was an accurate summary of the discussion.

 

Ron Dirkse:  I think there is also a question here.  What does the word rejuvenation mean to the administration?

 

Tim Ilse:  You'd be asking me to speak for myself and represent the views of others--I'd be pretty hesitant.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  But that is what you have letters to do.

 

Ron Dirkse:  But you are representatives of the Board. Mr. Thornton has repeated that on many occasions.

 

Tim Ilse:  That's right.

 

Ron Dirkse: So from the Board's position, the Administration's position, what does the word rejuvenation mean?

 

Tim Ilse:  I don't think I'm ready to answer this.  It is irrelevant to what we are talking about--tangentially relevant.

 

Ron Dirkse: Its not irrelevant because it is one of the three main things that come up why we have to have this new thing.  Its partially financial, partially rejuvenation of the faculty.  And you are not going to tell us what rejuvenation means for the administration?

 

Tim Ilse:  I think that rejuvenation means...I don't have a dictionary in front of me.  But I think the definition in the dictionary would be accurate.   You are asking me to interpret what a dictionary could answer very clearly for you.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  This union asked you a question, #2 about rejuvenation, which you answered.  And in the response here it says, "in order to have a balanced education, it is more ideal to have teachers ages in different age levels.  Presently, and also the future perspective is that the ages are getting older.  We think that should be corrected.  We cannot reveal detailed numbers."  This question was asked to you formally by the union for a response.  And now you are telling us that you can't respond because you don't know what rejuvenation is.  When will we get that response?

 

Tim Ilse:  If you want, we can get a dictionary and read off the response for rejuvenation.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Websters Dictionary defines rejuvenation as "to make young, stimulate to renewed activity, give new vigor to."

 

Tim Ilse:  I would say that that is a very accurate definition. 

 

Bill Jacobsson: We copied that out of the dictionary.

 

Tim Ilse:  Unless I have that in front of me, I hesitate to say exactly what rejuvenation is because that will be turned against me and that will be misrepresented.  So I would defer completely to that definition.

 

Ron Dirkse:  But from what your response is on this note and the classified staff, it seems like rejuvenation is nothing more than just turnover. And if it is turnover than just call it turnover.  Don't call it rejuvenation.  Rejuvenation has a lot of different meanings.  A lot of people think it means rejuvenating yourself, making yourself more active, more involved, raising your standards, going to professional meetings, becoming a better teacher, continuing the spark and the burn. That's rejuvenation.  But it doesn't seem like that is what the rejuvenation is. Because it says in answer to the question that  "in order to have a balanced education it is more ideal to have teachers ages in different age levels".  That is the reply as to why we need rejuvenation. And that has nothing to do with what is the normal interpretation of rejuvenation.  If rejuvenation means turnover, then just call it turnover.

 

Tim Ilse:  I think that is a piece of it.  [rather faint on the tape] I think the retirement plan is a part of a total rejuvenation plan.

 

Ron Dirkse:  From day one, we have said that our main concern is unilateral change of policy and especially disadvantageous revision of those policies in a unilateral fashion.  Now along with that is age discrimination, but that is a different type of aspect.  But this unilateral changing of policies, well on the web, FSCC, this is not us,  Jan 16 minutes, submitted by Linda Hayakawa.  And I see over and over and over again from the FSCC these same concerns: "We were not asked if we felt...Is this unilateral, too...We need consistency...The decision making process creates these problems.Made from the top down....There is no transparency....There is no asking about what do you think....We were not asked for input...Suggestions were not posted...There is concern about the history of these....The administration continues to make other decisions in a unilateral way...There is a problem with the emphasis on confidentiality....They are not allowed to share.The FSCC was claimed to be involved with decision making.  That is incorrect. One or two people do not represent the FSCC or the faculty...We need to make a new decision-making model that is more open and transparent. " And this is FSCC talking.  And these are the same things that we have been concerned with from the beginning.  That these changes have taken place unilaterally and they have not followed past practices and interpretations.  That has been our concern and now I see it is definitely a very big concern of FSCC as well.

 

Tim Ilse:  I understand what you are saying.  What decisions were they referencing?

 

Ron Dirkse:  Oh, they were talking about all kinds of things...they were talking about surveys, calendars, evaluation, the RIF policy, retirement, professional development, class size, ERIP, decision making process.  This is on the web, there's no secret about this.  These are the same concerns that caused us to be upset as to why we have this non-regular contract.  Because we were hauled into Peter's office and told something that a very unilateral decision was made.  And it continues, and it gets worse.  And that is why we are here--to stop that unilateral aspect of what's taking place.

 

Tim Ilse:  In dealing with statistics with your expertise in that area--you've seen the survey that went out to the faculty.  Do you see flaws in that survey?

 

Ron Dirkse:  You weren't at the meeting in the High School?  You can listen to my comments on the tape.  I told them point-blank, I said it was garbage--that's the word I used.  And that's another example of this unilateral thing.  How is the Ad Hoc committee set up?  We are in a discussion process here and all of a sudden the Ad Hoc is set up.  We didn't even know about it.  The Ad Hoc committee is meeting and nobody from the union is asked to go to the Ad Hoc committee for input.  I was not asked from a statistical point for input.  We go to the meeting upstairs in the high school and we find out that, as we are meeting, this document is being emailed to the whole faculty before we even have time to discuss it.  And in the discussion there were flaws pointed out, but it was too late because it had already been zapped to the whole faculty.  After the meeting, if the Union wanted to reply to that as we had to do for the first Ad Hoc thing --the Ad Hoc sent out a background history which was full of errors and half-truths that we had to reply to--but if we had come out of that meeting at 4:45 and had wanted to present a Union perspective, the people would have been reading their email and come to the Ad Hoc email first and possibly voted on it and sent it away before getting to our email which would have been lower in their email boxes.  It's another case of just unilaterally going ahead and doing their thing.  Don't have any discussion with people who are concerned about it.  Then after that, they come to interview us.  What kind of a unilateral way is that?  And the survey is just totally garbage.  You could vote for a 1 and mean two different things.  I personally could vote for a 5 meaning that it is better than what is now and I could also vote a 1 that it is totally unacceptable.  What does a vote for 1 or 5 mean? I told them in the meeting it was garbage, but it was too late to change anything because it had already been emailed out.  Unilaterally zap, zap, zap.  Where is the discussion about these things?  Why didn't they interview John, Mid, and the rest of us while the Ad Hoc was in process?  Why did they set up the Ad Hoc with these limited parameters?  It's unilateral over and over and over again?

 

Tim Ilse:  Did you have an opportunity to provide input to that group?

 

Ron Dirkse:  Never.  After the session was done last week they come around and interview us.  Not anything in the preparing of the whole process or setting parameters of the meeting. And the whole Ad Hoc thing by itself was a unilateral decision by somebody.  Let's set up the Ad Hoc Committee.  We have a discussion forum going right here, but the discussion session here doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so let's set up an Ad Hoc committee.  But let's not ask anything of the union people while we are doing this Ad Hoc Committee. And while we set up this Ad Hoc Committee, let's send out to the whole faculty a background history and let's not check with anybody else whether this is true or not, let's just send it out and then the union people will have to respond to it and correct all the errors that are in it.  Its just totally off the wall.

 

Tim Ilse:  But there was a chance for input at the meeting.

 

Ron Dirkse: Oh, we put in a lot of input at the meeting and in our interviews.

 

Mid Squier:  But that was after the fact.

 

Ron Dirkse:  We walk into that meeting and one of the first things they said was that between 4 and 4:30 an email was being sent to the faculty and this is what will be in it.  And we look at it and see all the things that are wrong with it, but it is too late to change anything.

 

Tim Ilse:  There are going to be differences of opinions.  I look at the minutes of these meetings and I sometimes wonder at my interpretation of the meeting.

 

  [Discussion concerning minutes of 1st and 2nd dankos that were summaries, while the 3rd danko is mostly word for word]. 

 

Ron Dirkse:  If the Ad Hoc is being set up to look at this issue and they totally ignore the people most concerned, something doesn't seem right.  I told this to Karen in my interview.  And I told her I would not have joined the Ad Hoc committee with such limited parameters.  But that is her choice and her right.

 

Tim Ilse:  I think you already agree that FSCC represents a representative sample of the whole school.  And now you are suggesting that that group should be focused on a union perspective and I don't see that that is right either.

 

Ron Dirkse:  I think the FSCC should be concerned that something illegal was done.  They looked on it as a chance to upgrade the non-regular contract, which they felt was already in place.  We do not agree that the non-regular contracts are a done deal and we will continue to fight them.  I have said enough.  Bill has some things to say.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Since we are talking about rejuvenation and # 2, maybe we can do that right now.  The response to the Union from the Board's representatives states that ...age seems to be sticking out here and we cannot reveal detailed numbers.  A moment ago I went over Webster's dictionary definition of rejuvenation that defines it as to make young or stimulate renewed activity or give new vigor to.  Your answer implies to us that rejuvenation is only staff turnover when others look at rejuvenation as self-improvement and professional

 

Tim Ilse:  Bill I need to interrupt..

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Let me finish my sentence ...improvement through professional growth and experience, and as maintaining the burn or desire to excel in teaching.  This of course was stated and implied by our soon to be Headmaster, Tim Carr.  Please give me the right to speak through a sentence.

 

Tim Ilse:  No, because you have already told me what I implied with my answer.  You already got done telling me that.  That's unfair.  That's wrong.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  I have the right

 

Tim Ilse:  That's why I didn't want to reply in the first place, Bill.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  I told you in this, and I'll re-read the sentence again because you were interrupting me as I read it

 

Tim Ilse:  Start from the beginning

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Webster's dictionary defines rejuvenation as: to make young; stimulate to renewed activity; give new vigor to.  Your answer implies, to us, that rejuvenation is only staff turnover, where others look at rejuvenation as self- improvement through professional growth and experience, and as maintaining the burn or desire to excel in teaching.  This of course was stated and implied by our soon to be Headmaster, Tim Carr.

 

  I am not talking to Tim Ilse, the person.  I am talking to Tim Ilse, the Board representative and nowhere have we ever tried to come down to a personal nature of things.  In fact, Dr. Thornton has asked us not to make this personal.  I'm a little bit insulted that you would take that as a personal insult and I think it came out because you were interrupting the sentence.

 

Tim Ilse:  Bill.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  I will try to break off at the end of a paragraph--they are rather short paragraphs.  Allow me to finish a sentence.

 

Tim Ilse:  Okay, so now you have had your say and again you are telling us your interpretation by making implications and you're telling us what you were thinking.  I think that is your interpretation of that comment.  And I say, fine.  You may interpret it as you wish.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  I think I said that.  I said, to us this implies.  And probably to the Webster family, too. 

 

Bill Jacobsson then continued to read the following notes in response to the Administration's response (very limited in the Union's view) to the seven written questions asked of them in December.  The original  seven questions and the responses are located on the side bar.

 

1. Partially Financial

If financial issues are partially a concern and evaluation is now NOT a concern of the school, we ask you to specifically identify issues that are of concern and describe the degree of involvement they play in your desire of establishing a new interpretation of the retirement policy.

 

Note: Retirement Policy adjustments were made during record enrollments over the past 4 school years.  Your expressed financial concerns were not cited until after some people received the notice of termination of employment.  The first mention of financial concerns was, to my recollection, at the Town meeting that Lee Daniels & other Board members and Peter Cooper attended in the Ricketson Theater.  No substantiation of these concerns has been given to the Union.  We cannot, therefore, recognize this as a reason for us to agree to any loss of wages or salary reduction to help the fiscal stability of the school. Will you provide this information so we can understand why we should accept any thing less than full salary and benefits?

 

2. Rejuvenation.

Websters dictionary defines rejuvenation as: to make young; stimulate to  renewed activity; give new vigor to.  Your answer implies, to us, that rejuvenation is only staff turnover, where others look at rejuvenation as self- improvement through professional growth and experience, and as maintaining the burn or desire to excel in teaching.  This of course was stated and implied by our soon to be Headmaster, Tim Carr.

 

Your answer failed to show the parameters (percentages, other models, etc.) of your picture of an ideal faculty age-distribution.  Share this information with us now.

 

We have different age levels now in our school.  Does your answer mean LOWER AGE LEVELS?

 

Does rejuvenation refer to total faculty as a group throughout the entire ASIJ school system, school by school, or is it age blocks (5-year group, 10-year groups), or some other formula?

 

Is there an implied desired age difference between teachers and students?

 

Your answer fails to provide statistical documentation of current and next year's staff as requested in our question to you.  Does this information exist?  Share the data with us.  What is the age-distribution of the faculty this school year?  Next school year?  5 years from now?  Are you planning for future staff needs?  Provide us this information now.

 

We know this information was shared with non-administrators during the past 12 months.  It, therefore, cannot be considered confidential and kept from official groups such as this Union representing ASIJ teachers and their rights of employment.  Share this information now.

 

Again, we ask in the school's opinion: What constitutes rejuvenation in the school?

 

 

3. Evaluation not part of recent negotiations on the Non-Regular contract.

You have chosen NOT to answer this question.  Yet in each Danko and in Town Meetings, evaluation has been mentioned as a Board/Admin concern.  Are you now telling us that this will remain the case in the years to come? Months? Weeks? Days? Minutes?

 

 

4. Managerial

Clarify healthy state.  Provide documentation for what you are saying

 

 

5. Forced to retire solely because they reached age of 60.

Without mentioning names, how many people have been forced to retire solely because they reached the age of 60 in the past 5 years? 10 years?  15 years?  20 years? 30 years?

 

IF not answered:  Your zest for confidentiality is remarkable.  Given all the people who have left ASIJ and, if after 30 years, there are so few people on the list that their confidentiality will be divulged, it must mean that there are only 3, 2, 1 or (since we know those people who have left ASIJ) no people having been in this situation except Mike Bjornholm.

 

We request that Mr. Daniels attest to the exact number of people who have been discharged from ASIJ solely as a result of reaching the age of 60.  We will consider his written and signed response as valid evidence that the ASIJ retirement policy has indeed been interpreted and implemented as you are trying to lead people to believe.  This would go a long way in alleviating our concerns.  With your permission, we will contact Mr. Daniels asking him to maintain your desired level of confidentiality but, yet, provide us with the number of such people and his affirmation that he, himself, has seen and attested to the validity of the list provided to him.

 

Tim Ilse:  In reference to the question about Mr. Daniels, he has designated us as the people who come to these meetings.  I would think that that would be going outside of the relationships that are in place for these meetings.  And it would seem to be out of line for us to go around him and talking with individual union members and I think the same would be true for members to talk with Mr. Daniels.

 

Ron Dirkse:  But yet you will not provide us with that information.  And yet you say that the implementation of this policy is no different than in the past.  Show us some examples from the past.  You hide behind the confidentiality, which the FSCC mentioned.  You say it is the same policy, you say it is being implemented the same as in the past.  We say show us where and you say, oh we can't do that because its confidential.  We are giving you a way to show us that through Lee Daniels and we will believe him.

 

Tim Ilse:  I think those are privacy issues.

 

Ron Dirkse:  If those are privacy issues then we say, there isn't a case in the past where it has ever been based upon you turn 60 therefore you are out.  And you say this is the same policy.  Show us a case.  We have been here for 30 years, you've been here for five years.

 

Mid Squier:  I can recall a couple examples where the people have been asked to leave, but they were hired after the age of 60 and worked for a few years.  I don't think it would be fair to include them as examples.

 

Bill Jacobsson: I don't understand you have a problem reaching Lee Daniels, would you feel more comfortable going to ask Mr. Daniels to provide that information for us?

 

Mr. Ilse:  This gets to be a circular thing because there are some things we can provide information for and others we cannot.  Ultimately though this isn't going to be a major break in this for the schools process anyway.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  This is a major point.

 

Ron Dirkse:  A very major point.  That is the Japanese laws that we have formed our Union around. 

 

Bill Jacobsson:  The interpretation and implementation of the policy is the whole crux of the issue.  That's major to me.  Is it major to you?

 

Tim Ilse:  The specific thing we are talking about is a conflict where we are not necessarily able to provide that information. There is privacy involved.  If you are absolutely certain that no one has been terminated under these things, then I would say that that is information you have.

 

Ron Dirkse:  We are absolutely certain. And that's why we look at the new policy as a change in the interpretation and implementation of the policy.  And under Japanese law that cannot be done without our agreement.

 

Tim Ilse:  And that is the crux of our disagreement.

 

Ron Dirkse:  And yet you say you cannot provide us with information concerning previous implementation of the policy.

 

Tim Thornton:  We say that the administration has always had the right to offer a waiver or not based on basically anyone past the age of 60.  Your interpretation is that people have the right to stay on.

 

Ron Dirkse:  Never said that and those words keep getting put into our mouth.  The implementation of the policy has never been that, "Oh you're turning 60 so this will be your last year."

 

Tim Thornton:  The headmaster has always had the discretion to decide who stays past 60

 

Ron Dirkse:  On page one of our website we agree to all of those things, but past implementation of this policy has never been.....

 

Tim Thornton: If you agree the headmaster/admin have the right to decide then what is the issue?  You have lost me.

 

Ron Dirkse: The issue is that the implementation has always been that if people wanted to stay and if they handed in the request and if they were good teachers they were allowed to stay.

 

Tim Thornton:  But if you agree that the administration has the right to extend or not any person whether they turned in a letter or not or whether 63 or 67 or 60. It is the same principle. 

 

Ron Dirkse:  But the implementation of that policy was never done in that fashion and that's where Japanese law comes in where, forget what the black and white says, it is past precedent and implementation of the policy.  It is precedence over black and white.

 

Tim Ilse: I understand what you say.  We disagree on the interpretation. 

 

Bill Jacobsson:  If you go into the Labor book they say that the implementation of  policy under Bill Ricketson and Ray Downs and Peter Cooper the way that I was hired under and worked under that policy, I have a right to expect that it will be interpreted for me in the same way.

 

Tim Thornton:  Which is what?  Retirement is at 60, and then based on a headmaster choice, you could apply for it but it was the headmaster choice.  If it was automatic, why would you even have retirement?

 

Ron Dirkse:  That's how it was implemented and that's why when the Japanese government raised the retirement age to 60--the policy was written in 1964 when retirement age was 55--there was not any thought by anyone that there was a need to update that policy, because the implementation of it for all of these years was, if I want to stay another year or two there is no problem.  That was the implementation we have lived with for over 30 years.  And then suddenly I get hauled in to Peter's office and told that because you turn 60 next year, therefore you are out.

 

Tim Thornton:  In the short time that I have been here this has been an issue for the FSCC and Personnel Committee and that was three years ago

 

Ron Dirkse:  Because of Mid being told..

 

Tim Thornton:  Well, the point is that this has been an issue before you were hauled in, as you say, to Peter's office.  We can go round and round on this and we will never settle this.

 

Ron Dirkse:  Do you want this to go to court?

 

Tim Thornton:  I certainly don't, but I don't think we can solve it.  You say it is illegal, we say it is not.  You can't prove it to us and we can't prove it to you.  So I really don't see what other options we might have.  This is not a personal issue.  You have your right to your beliefs and we have ours.  From the admin side we do not see this as illegal.  We don't want to go to court and you probably don't either, but maybe the only road to go is for someone from the legal side to decide this.

 

Ron Dirkse:  Show us that in the past this was the past implementation of the policy.  But you say you cannot because its confidential.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Have you researched this issue for the past say 30 years?

 

Tim Thornton:  That is what I will do.  I will go back to Peter and the Board.  I can't give you an answer tonight.  If we propose it, Lee Daniels will be the one that does it.  I cannot promise you anything but I will take it back to Peter when he comes back.

 

Ron Dirkse:  Mid, John you got any questions?  Marguerite? 

 

Fukuyama-san:  We would like to emphasize that the union would like to have information that they have demanded.   Mr. Thornton seems to feel that he wants to move this issue to the court, but we want to solve it here.

 

Tim Thornton:  No, I didn't say I wanted to, but if it is a legal issue we cannot agree to.

 

Fukuyama-san: We will review the discussion made tonight and get back to you with some possible questions.

 

Tim Ilse:  Are these new questions?

 

Fukuyama-san:  You have said you will consult with FSCC about the representative and the results of the Ad Hoc committee will be available.

 

Tim Thornton:  I will talk with the FSCC on Monday and if they can select a representative then we can file the policies the next day.  Well, we have to translate the comments also so that may take a little time..

 

Mid Squier:  But not years.

 

Tim Thornton:  At least not 10 years

 

Tim Ilse:  I'd also like to apologize to Bill for taking those remarks personally by stating that when you said 'you ' I thought he was referencing my comments that had taken place less than 5 minutes prior.  I'm sorry once again.

 

Bill Jacobsson:  Accepted.