Catégorie : Tribune-Express (Hawkesbury)

After a complicated few weeks, STEO is optimistic that students will be hopping on their big yellow buses to get to school come September 5.

Student Transportation of Eastern Ontario (STEO), a not-for-profit consortium that provides bus service for more than 30,000 students in the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (CDSBEO) and the Upper Canada District School Board (UCDSB), and the Eastern Ontario Bus Operators Association (EOBOA) have reached a tentative agreetosecure transportation services for the next four years.

On August 21, STEO released a statement warning of a likely disruption to school bus services come the start of classes. STEO released another statement four days later on August 25, informing parents that the consortium went forward with an « emergency limited tendering for routes that may require service. » Existing and other school bus companies can bid for the one-year contracts which include a 13-per-cent funding increase in addition to « continued protection against fuel increases and incentives. »

While some operators were procured, STEO said it was “uncertain about what transportation may look like at the start of the school year.”

As Monday evening, August 28, STEO and the bus operators have come to a tentative agreement. The statement from STEO said the deal offers operators, students and their families more long-term certainty.

“We are delighted to have reached an agreement with the school bus companies and to continue the positive relationships we have built over many years, for the foreseeable future,” stated STEO general manager Janet Murray.

“This has been a long process, but I know our drivers will be happy they will be out on the first day of school, greeting familiar faces and playing such an important role for kids across our communities,” added Frank Healey, president of Healey Transportation and spokesperson for the Eastern Ontario Bus Operators Association.

Negotiating since March

STEO and the bus operators have been negotiating a new agreement for nearly six months, since March 2023.

According to past communications from STEO, an offer of an additional $19 million over five years, part of a multi-year offer “that exceeded the rate of inflation”, was rejected by the bus companies on August 19. Operators countered with $40 million over the five-year period.

STEO claimed that its initial offer surpassed driver recruitment and retention bonuses, but the operators’ counterproposal far exceed the funding available to school boards for transportation.

No details have been released of the new four-year agreement.

Further details on bus operators access to transportation information will be shared once the agreement has been accepted and bus routes have been finalized, according to STEO.

The OSSTF is considering an arbitration agreement with the Ontario government, but three other teachers unions have rejected it outright.

The Ontario Secondary School Teacher’s Federation (OSSTF) is considering an arbitration agreement with the Ontario government that would bring students back to class without the threat of a strike. If it’s ratified, negotiations would continue with a new deadline of October 27, after which a third party would step in to resolve any outstanding issues.

Minister of Education Stephen Lecce issued a statement on August 25, “…inviting all outstanding teacher unions to meet with the government as early as Monday to also enter into a tentative deal ahead of the start of school. Let’s get these deals done and let kids get back to learning in peace and with confidence.”

The OSSTF released its own statement, which said that its bargaining unit presidents and chief negotiators voted “overwhelmingly” to enter the process. The OSSTF is preparing to hold a vote for its 60,000 members through September on entering the process.

“Today represents a critical point in this round of bargaining,” OSSTF President Karen Littlewood stated in a news release.

However, three other teachers unions have stepped forward to say that an arbitration agreement isn’t an option for them. In a joint statement issued later that same day, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) and the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontarien (AEFO) said it’s not something they can consider at the moment.

“Entering into binding arbitration at this juncture would not support the students we serve in elementary and secondary schools, as binding arbitration would all but guarantee that the key issues we have brought forward at our respective bargaining tables, which are critical to learning and working conditions in our schools, would not be addressed,” the joint statement said. “Furthermore, the decision to enter into binding arbitration now impacts the opportunity for meaningful local bargaining on key local issues.”

The OSSTF, ETFO, and OECTA all announced they were considering strike votes in autumn, owing to the slow pace of negotiations. AEFO also voiced concerns, but hasn’t yet announced plans for a vote.

“The Ford Conservative government has continually refused to engage in substantive discussions with our unions, despite our many attempts to make progress at our respective bargaining tables,” the joint statement said. “We once again call on the government to respect our right to free and fair collective bargaining, and come to our bargaining tables prepared to engage in meaningful discussions about critical issues facing publicly funded education in Ontario. Issues such as increased violence in schools, resources and supports for student mental health, teachers’ use of professional judgement, and addressing the teacher shortage.”

Lecce has not yet responded to this announcement.

“My ongoing commitment to Ontario families is to use every available tool and pursue every path that keeps students in school,” stated Lecce in his previous announcement. “Doing so will mean students are in classrooms learning what matters most: reading, writing and math skills.”

A resident from Russell Township drafted a presentation to outline possible strategies for clearer communication from the UCPR.

During the regular meeting on August 24, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell (UCPR) council received a virtual presentation from Russell resident Rhonda Bradley. Bradley and some of her neighbors were surprised by a change to the land use outlined in the updated official plan, as they felt they were inadequately engaged. As such Bradley, who has more than 20 years of experience in strategic planning, communications, and public relations, prepared a presentation on ways the UCPR can enhance its communication and engagement.

In her presentation, Bradley stated that there are several barriers to civic engagement in rural communities, including distance, spotty internet access, seasonal priorities, fewer news sources, and the presence of bedroom communities, which refers to the practice of commuting to another city for work and only returning home to sleep. In addition, she stated that officials must carefully tailor their involvement to be genuine, and to avoid common pitfalls that lead to ineffective or combative leadership processes. Bradley outlined three states of engagement: citizen power, tokenism, and nonparticipation.

Citizen power is the state of true collaboration and engagement with the community, where citizens can exercise direct control over government processes through delegations or partnership. Tokenism is when governments try to make citizens feel like they’re included without actually ceding any authority or control, usually through providing information and collecting public opinion but not taking those opinions into account. Nonparticipation is the state of least engagement, whereby a government will disregard its citizens entirely.

“How are people going to get information, and where are the gaps where information may be missed or misunderstood?” Bradley asked rhetorically. “The mechanisms for communication need to be expanded beyond print media and in-person. Those are the main sources of communication in the official plan process.”

Bradley went on to outline a strategy for making communication more meaningful and effective throughout the UCPR. These best practices are essential to establishing a sense of trust between a municipal government and its community, she said, and they can also decrease frustration or outrage at seemingly baseless decisions that were just not communicated well.

These best practices range from the simple, like being consistent in the information communicated, facilitating two-way communication, and offering more methods of communication, like publishing clear and concise roadmaps for large-scale projects, utilizing multiple smaller-scale channels, and taking context into account when drafting communications. At the end of her presentation, Bradley urged the UCPR council to undertake a review of its communication strategy to identify potential avenues for growth.

Mayor Genevieve Lajoie of Casselman, responded to Bradley by saying that all council processes are available through the UCPR and municipal websites. Council meetings are livestreamed over YouTube or Facebook, she said, and council members are available through phone and email if any resident has a concern. Lajoie asked where the breakdown in communication was coming up, and what Bradley felt she needed to understand things better.

Bradley said that the UCPR’s responsibility for land use planning and how it impacts local townships isn’t well understood, and so residents don’t always know where to look for explanations regarding those decisions. That and other barriers have resulted in the lower participation rate noted by the UCPR.

Louis Prévost, director of planning and forestry, said all the emails that Bradley had sent were shared with council. UCPR Warden Normand Riopel noted that the planning departments of individual municipalities are also responsible for projects in the region, not just the UCPR, so concerned residents should contact them as well as the UCPR for the full picture.

Russell Mayor Pierre Leroux said that engagement and communication is a two-way street, and that residents must be willing to put in the effort to open a dialogue. He reiterated that there are multiple ways for residents to get in touch with councillors and mayors to make their concerns known, including the Walk with the Mayor sessions Leroux himself holds at the Russell Sportsdome every week. He also said that Bradley had turned down a planning and infrastructure meeting that the previous Russell Township CAO had offered, and he also noted that just because feedback is received from residents, doesn’t mean that it will result in a change of plans. Resident feedback is a factor that is considered in the decision-making process, but it isn’t the only thing that must be considered.

Bradley said that she didn’t turn down the offer of a meeting outright, but that she and other concerned residents wanted to receive answers to some of their questions prior to meeting in-person with staff so they could process the information and be better informed during the meeting. She also said that she and other residents received a letter from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks stating that there have been problems with public consultation and that there is a stop to all processes to the work that the Environmental Assessment Act and its addendum were meant to cover.

Bradley finished by saying that the point of her presentation was to point out that there are gaps in the communication strategy of the UCPR and municipalities, and to offer suggestions on how to bridge those gaps. Lajoie stated that the presentation felt more accusatory than constructive, and that she’s willing to meet personally with Bradley to help her engage council with a communication plan.

The presentation was acknowledged and received.