11-02-2025
School Board accepts union petition to negotiate on behalf of non-teachers, rejecting attorney advice
Feb. 10—GRAND FORKS — Grand Forks School Board members voted Monday to accept a petition from a teachers union to negotiate on behalf of both classroom and non-classroom professionals.
That means this spring, the Grand Forks Education Association will represent classroom teachers as well as school counselors, librarians, psychologists and speech pathologists when it sits down to hammer out a new two-year contract with the board.
Following nearly an hour of discussion behind closed doors, the School Board approved the GFEA petition 8-1.
"We've got work to do, but it feels like both sides are willing to do the work," said School Board President Dave Berger.
In voting to accept the GFEA's petition, the board maintained a more than two-decades-old practice of negotiating with the union on behalf of licensed school staff (administrators have their own bargaining groups) and rejected a lawyer's recommendation to refuse to negotiate in light of a state Supreme Court ruling that found non-classroom staff do not meet the statutory definition of "teacher."
Rachel Bruner, an attorney with Pearce Durick PLLC retained by the school district, had
recommended the School Board reject the GFEA's petition
following the high court's ruling in Fargo Education Association v. Fargo Public Schools last November.
The court had determined that school psychologists employed by that district were not considered teachers under state law, meaning school districts were not obligated to engage in collective bargaining with them or other licensed staff who did not primarily work in a classroom.
According to the latest state Employee Compensation Report, Grand Forks Public Schools employed 75 licensed staff who were not teachers last school year, including counselors, psychologists, library media specialists and speech pathologists.
Bruner's recommendation was met with outrage by union members, who packed Monday's School Board meeting ahead of the board's verdict on the GFEA petition.
More than 50 members crowded the board's main conference room as well as an overflow room.
Current and former members of GFEA leadership raised concerns about members losing their bargaining rights and other protections under the negotiated agreement.
"We know everyone who works with a student in our district, whether in a classroom or not, is an educator," said Dawn Mord, a teacher and member of GFEA's negotiations team.
In forceful remarks, former GFEA president and fellow negotiator Melissa Buchhop lamented union members' deteriorating trust in the school district and warned the board that rejecting the union's petition would lead to a "hostile and adversarial" atmosphere at the negotiating table this spring.
"If you think there is language that needs to be changed, then you bring the proposal to the negotiating table," she said. "You don't reject our proposal that has already-agreed upon language and try to negotiate new language outside of negotiations."
Following public comment, board members entered executive session to discuss the GFEA's petition among themselves and with Bruner, who Berger said called into the meeting.
Board members ultimately sided with the GFEA over their attorney's recommendation, but left the door open for the bargaining rights question to come up again.
Berger said he was looking forward to sitting down at the negotiating table with the GFEA this fall. He emphasized that union representation of non-teachers was not a settled matter, however.
"We're talking about this board's decision for this bargaining unit for this round of negotiations," he said, adding, "there's no telling what a board two years from now will do, or would do."
Past School Board President Amber Flynn also backed the GFEA petition, but asked for both sides to take a closer look at non-classroom staff during negotiations and said the school district needed more "flexibility" to hire for certain positions.
Board member Eric Lunn also said he has concerns about the district losing personnel with medical training to private employers offering higher salaries; Berger alluded to similar circumstances in a Friday conversation with the Herald.
Sherryl Houdek was the sole board member to vote against the GFEA's petition.
She raised a complaint about what she perceives as a lack of communication on the Fargo decision by state education associations like teachers' union North Dakota United, the North Dakota School Boards Association and the North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders.
Houdek also took the GFEA to task, questioning how well the group represented all of its members' interests.
"There are teachers that do not believe in what GFEA, or North Dakota United, does represent," she said.
She later told the Herald she was referring to the union's ability to represent the non-teaching staff whose bargaining rights had come into question.
In a text message, Buchhop wrote it was "unclear" what specific issues Houdek was referring to but that the GFEA remained committed to advocating for all staff covered under its agreement with the district.
Representatives from the NDSBA and the NDCEL have both told the Herald in recent days that they have been in communication with school districts about the Fargo decision, though neither reported communicating directly with Grand Forks.
NDSBA Executive Director Amy De Kok said the Fargo decision had been discussed in a negotiations seminar held by the school board association last week.
Berger told the Herald Friday that as far as he was aware, no Grand Forks School Board members had attended the seminar.
De Kok said the NDSBA has been encouraging school boards to discuss the Fargo decision with their bargaining units before attempting to change negotiations rules.
"It's fair to say we are encouraging districts to have open discussions with their staff," said De Kok.
Mike Geiermann, North Dakota United's general counsel, told the Herald on Monday afternoon that North Dakota United, NDSBA and NDCEL have shared the same messaging around the Fargo decision.
"There are a couple of lawyers who disagree with that, and one of them is Rachel Bruner," Geiermann asserted.
Bruner did not respond to a Monday afternoon voicemail left by the Herald.
