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.
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.
