School boards entering the 2024–25 academic year are facing perhaps the most significant fiscal headwinds since the Great Recession. Addressing these challenges will require strong board leadership and a close partnership with employee bargaining units. That means negotiating.

Negotiating in the current economic climate is difficult. Emotions and rhetoric are ratcheted up, and the increased public interest creates a veritable minefield for board members both inside and outside their meetings. These difficulties are doubled for newer board members, who are often learning California’s complicated negotiating rules at the same time.

Nevertheless, these issues can be navigated successfully. And, while there are many skills that are helpful in doing so, few, if any, serve boards better than a focus on effective communication. Effective communication — with the negotiating team, the public and employees — is the foundation upon which successful negotiations are built. The following are communication tips for boards to keep in mind as negotiations heat up.

To communicate effectively with their negotiating teams, boards must recognize their role in negotiations. As the governing authority for their districts, boards are vested with enormous responsibility in the negotiating process, but they cannot do everything. Ultimately, boards must share responsibility with their negotiating teams, which typically conduct the day-to-day negotiating.

Boards should outline their negotiating standards, goals, concerns and general positions for their negotiating teams not only at the outset of negotiations, but throughout the process. While this may sound daunting, board members should remember that they are free to discuss most negotiation-related issues with their teams without complying with the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements. Boards should take frequent advantage of this exception, which will allow them to better trust their teams at the table. This, in turn, allows boards to let their team do the work of reaching an agreement, and avoid wading too far into the negotiating weeds. Boards’ focus should instead be on higher level strategic work, such as providing direction to administrators regarding employee and public messaging.

It is equally important for board members to manage communication with members of their bargaining units. But board members must communicate within the confines of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). Specifically, the EERA prohibits bypassing the union to deal directly with its members. To avoid this pitfall, boards (and their negotiating teams) should ensure that all bargaining proposals are presented to the union before any employee-facing communications regarding the proposal are released. The EERA likewise bars boards from making promises or threats to advance its negotiating position. However, prohibited threats and promises can sometimes be difficult to spot. For example, most boards avoid obvious violations, such as promising a desirable transfer to a unit member if they agree to support a proposal, or threatening to demote a unit member if they refuse. But boards must also avoid less obvious threats or promises, such as stating that layoffs may be necessary if employees fail to ratify a tentative agreement.

Finally, boards must communicate effectively with the public — and that communication should begin should begin before negotiations. Doing so allows boards to frame the narrative surrounding the eventual negotiations, and to prime the public’s understanding of key issues that are likely to come up. This is particularly important with financial issues. School finance is a complex topic, and it is better to educate the public on its nuances before negotiations start.

Of course, public communication during negotiations is equally vital. However, boards must be mindful of what they say. The EERA requires that public communications be factual, and that boards honestly portray both district and union bargaining proposals. This can prove exceptionally difficult, especially when boards feel the union has presented district proposals or positions inaccurately. Sticking to the facts will avoid legal disputes and build credibility with the community.

Boards must also be mindful of community relations and political considerations. For example, not all board members will agree on the same bargaining strategy. While these differences of opinion are vital for productive debate, it is better for these disagreements to take place behind closed doors. Open disagreement — whether between board members or with the district’s bargaining team — could undermine the board’s negotiating position and confuse public messaging. Instead, boards should strive to present a united front, with consistent messaging from both the board and the negotiating team.

So much of negotiations depends upon effective communication between boards and their teams, their employees and the public. Poor communication can hamstring a board, forcing it to spend its time and messaging defusing legal or political controversy. On the other hand, boards that prioritize an effective communication strategy will find themselves better able to control the narrative surrounding negotiations, and to focus their attention on crafting the best agreement for their district and its students.