Lakeville teachers have reached a tentative contract agreement with their school district, averting a strike that could have started as soon as May 10.

After a 12-hour mediation session on Monday, Education Minnesota Lakeville announced it had reached a new two-year employment contract with Lakeville Area Schools. The sides had struggled for months to reach an agreement in large part because of a dispute over job transfers.

Exact details of the contract won’t be available until the union communicates them to its membership, union representatives said in its announcement. Then membership will have to vote to approve it before the school board can ratify.

The union and district reached a tentative agreement in February. But in March, union members overwhelmingly rejected it. Talks had been in mediation since December.

“After the hardest fight for a fair contract our union has ever experienced, we’re so proud of the agreement we’ve reached with the district,” said Johannah Surma, the union’s lead negotiator.

In a news release, Lakeville schools officials said: “The tentative agreement supports our students, teachers, staff and school community as a whole. It also ensures continuity in our educational services.”

Details on the contract are still private, but teachers in the district wanted pay raises, benefit increases, and to continue having a say in whether the district can transfer them between teaching assignments.

A strike would shut down a school district serving around 12,000 students in Lakeville, as well as parts of Burnsville, Elko New Market, and other south Twin Cities suburbs.

Negotiations have been ongoing since July 2023, soon after the previous contract between the district and union expired. Lakeville schools officials say while the state increased education funding last year, it’s still facing budget shortfalls, making it difficult to accommodate teacher wage increase requests.

Teachers also wanted to stop the district from making changes that would allow administrators to transfer teachers between schools, grades and subject areas without teachers’ input.

Union representatives argue the so-called “forced transfer language” would upset stability in schools and disrupt relationships between teachers and students.

The district said it proposed “modest” changes to teaching assignment rules in order to help meet staffing needs at its schools.

Related Articles

Dakota County is looking to reduce water usage by making it a competition

Lakeville teachers authorize strike amid impasse over job transfers

Lakeville eyes new public safety training facility as it gets closer to funding goal

Lakeville dance teacher charged with sexually assaulting teen student

From Togo to Lakeville to MLS: Loic Mesanvi has been on a wild ride

By JESSE BEDAYN (Associated Press/Report for America)

DENVER (AP) — A bill to ban the sale and transfer of semi-automatic firearms was nixed in Colorado’s Democratic-controlled Legislature on Tuesday as lawmakers pressed forward with a slew of other gun control bills on the 25th anniversary year of the Columbine High School massacre.

The western state has a deep history with firearms that is pockmarked by some of the most high-profile mass shootings nationwide. Both factors loom large over gun control debates in the Legislature, complicating attempts at such bans that nine other Democratic-controlled states have in place, including California and New York.

The Colorado House passed the ban in a historic first, after roughly the same proposal was swiftly nixed last year. But some Senate Democrats are wary of the efficacy and breadth of the ban, which prohibits the sale, transfer and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms.

Colorado’s blue shift is evident in part by a number of successful gun control measures passed last year, including raising the buying age for a gun from 18 to 21. Some half-dozen proposals are nearing passage this year, including a bill to put a measure on the November 2024 ballot to tax sales of guns and ammunition.

The state’s purple roots have frustrated attempts at a broader ban.

In the face of Senate Democrats’ opposition, one of the bill’s sponsors asked that the legislation be put to rest at a brief and sparsely attended committee hearing Tuesday.

“After thoughtful conversations with my Senate colleagues, I decided that more conversations need to take place outside of the pressure cooker of the Capitol,” sponsor Democratic state Sen. Julie Gonzales said.

Gonzales said she’ll continue discussions with gun violence victims, responsible gun owners and advocates “committed to doing the work necessary to save lives — and an assault weapons ban will do just that.”

On that committee sat Democratic state Sen. Tom Sullivan, who would have been a “no” vote, along with Republican lawmakers who have decried the bill as an encroachment on Second Amendment rights.

Sullivan’s son, Alex, was one of 12 killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting at a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises.” The tragedy catapulted Sullivan into activism around gun control and then public office, where he has spearheaded many bills on the issue.

Sullivan said the weapons that the bill seeks to curtail are involved in only a small fraction of gun deaths and injuries. Those firearms include a long list of semi-automatic rifles, along with some pistols and shotguns, with certain characteristics, such as a threaded barrel or detachable stock.

Their prohibition wouldn’t make much of a dent in gun violence, Sullivan argued, and the proposal takes up immense political oxygen in the state capitol — energizing the opposition and detracting from more effective and less controversial gun control measures.

“The narrative is all wrong,” Sullivan said. “That’s what they want you to believe, that it’s assault weapons and schools. It’s not. … It’s suicides and it’s domestic violence.”

The proposal is expected to be revived next year.

Meanwhile, other bills nearing the governor’s desk include a proposal to give Colorado’s Bureau of Investigations more power to investigate gun sales that are already illegal. Another would require more rigorous safety training for someone seeking a concealed carry permit. And one would require firearm dealers to be permitted by the state, not just the federal government, giving regulators greater power to enforce state law.