[Originally Transmitted 4/10 on Elwood Community Network]
Introduction:
The school district’s fifth Budget Workshop proved to be another very long evening, beginning just after 7:30 PM, following the BOE’s return from a brief Executive Session, and not concluding until approximately 11:28 PM. There were 124 participants in the audience at its peak, including 6 or 7 administrators not on the dais, as well as several staff members, but by far most of the audience were residents. The Residents Remarks period, as scheduled, took place after announcements, presentations, and dialogue among the BOE trustees and District Administration. There were 24 sets of comments and/or questions, with 6 residents taking the opportunity to come to the microphone a second time, after all 18 residents who wanted to address the Board had their own chance to do so.
Truer Words Were Never Spoken:
At approximately 11:25 PM the 24th, and final, remarks of the evening came from a resident who described himself as a New York City Police Officer (whether current or recently retired was not clear) who has two children in Elwood schools. This gentleman, obviously reacting to the very disappointing proposal to the district from the teachers union, related that he had personally agreed to take a Zero increase in pay for three consecutive years so that the jobs of his brother and sister police officers could be preserved. He could not understand how so many young teachers could be allowed to lose their jobs.
Big Announcement of the Evening:
The Superintendent advised the audience that the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the teachers union for our district, had submitted a proposal for a partial (*, see Note below) deferment in salary, and that partial deferment would only be for approximately five months of the District’s full fiscal year. They also offered an actual freeze of the scheduled increase for stipends for extra-curricular activities and athletics (but this particular expense is merely a small factor in our budget).
However, in return for that partial deferment of the scheduled raise (but not deferment of Step increases), and for only a small part of the school year, the union was demanding that the Board of Education extend their labor agreement for an additional year, until June 30 of 2015. Moreover, they wanted a raise built into that extended year which would be based upon the Consumer Price Index, with a minimum of 1.75% and a maximum of 3%.
( * Note: A teacher’s salary is determined by a multi-part formula, combining a contracted percentage raise for a particular year, with a contacted percentage increase by virtue of a teacher being in the district for one additional year, usually known as “Step”; in addition, there are also increases related to the college degree(s) obtained, as well as additional credits earned subsequently, but those achievement-based criteria are not the subject of discussions about potential sacrifice by the teachers union, for 2011/12, in order to save jobs that would otherwise be lost. Furthermore, the mere delay of the scheduled raise for the teachers, instead of an actual freeze for the year, would mean that the higher level of pay would be reflected for pension purposes in a teacher's final average salary, and it also means that the full amount would be included in the base for which a higher salary level, in accordance with the amounts already in the contract, would be calculated for the 2012/13 school year. The structure of the teachers contract is so complex that, in a particular year one teacher might see a significantly higher raise than another, and the next year could see something of the opposite; therefore, the Board and District discuss and negotiate on the basis of averages for the teachers.)
Following the Superintendent’s synopsis, Board President Michael Kaszubski read the Board’s response to that “final” proposal from the teachers union, which began with appreciation for the union’s consideration of possibly participating in the sacrifices that will have to be made by students and taxpayers alike (not to mention the personal sacrifice already made by the Superintendent, and subsequently by other District administrators).
But, the Board’s letter also provided a very clear outline of why the union’s proposal was not only far short of the mark of making a substantial difference for our 2011/12 budget (given the rising expenses combined with the cut in State aid), but was also completely at odds with any specter of reasonability and even a great risk for the taxpayers of Elwood.
You may download a PDF copy of the full text of the Board’s letter to the union by going to this page on the District website (http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/newsdistrict_information/budgetfinancial_information) and then scrolling down to the last item in the section for the April 7th Workshop.
The BOE letter makes it very clear what the teachers are receiving, in terms of the annual negotiated raises and “Step” increases, so that when someone tells you that the teachers took a freeze in the 2009/10 school year, you will see that it was only a partial freeze (i.e, their salaries were actually increased an average of 2%, by virtue of Step increases), and the union also obtained an extension of the contract at a guaranteed rate of increases in both categories for the extended 2013/14 year of the contract. The Board’s letter also makes it clear that the one year extension, to 2014/15, demanded by the union as compensation for their partial freeze, for part of the year, would cost the District and its taxpayers additional increases between 4.55% and 5.80%.
The operative part of the Board’s letter is as follows:
“The ultimatum by the Executive Board of the bargaining unit is simply not acceptable. It fails to recognize the long-term systemic issues in public finance and would still result in the devastating loss of jobs and core education for next year and the years to follow. Furthermore, the BOE has heard from the community and is in no position to add additional years to the teachers contract.
They poignantly go on to say:
“The Board of Education is prepared to present the community with a budget that keeps all programs, that keeps all 28 teacher jobs intact, retains all sports, and retains all extra-curricular activities. These would occur in exchange for a complete freeze in increase and step for next year for each of your unit members. Even with the Board of Educations’ suggested proposal, we realize that a 7% tax increase may not be warmly received by all voters, but believe that we would, as a group, be saying to the community that we support our schools and our teachers.”
Mr. Kaszubski, and the Board, received a loud round of applause from a super-majority of the audience, at the conclusion of his reading of the letter.
Fifty Cent Version of the Logic Behind This Action:
Our school district has a certain amount of money available for employee compensation.
When there are raises built into labor agreements, as there are in Elwood's and other districts, and when revenue sources are reduced, you either have to get everyone in the current system to hold fast to current pay levels, or you have to lay off some of your workers so that you can pay higher amounts of money to those who will be left, after the layoffs.
Nobody is being asked to take an actual cut in their current pay.
Nobody is being asked to take on more classes or duties than they now have.
The school district has a binding contact with the union, so it cannot demand anything.
But, the union has it within its power to protect the jobs of younger teachers, merely by agreeing not to take the increase in pay for 2011/12 which the contract would otherwise require in terms of both the annual negotiated raise as well as "Step."
Basically, the teachers union has four days in which to reconsider, so that some very fine teachers -- their younger colleagues -- can be retained by our district rather than put on the streets at a time when it will be difficult for them to obtain a position in another district. Retaining these teachers will also ensure that our students do not end up with much higher class sizes, thereby enhancing educational opportunities, and it will enable us to retain programs that would otherwise have to be cut.
This is out of the hands of the Superintendent, and out of the hands of the Board of Education. It is totally in the hands of the Executive Board of the teachers union, which has been responsible for negotiations to this point in time.
Let’s hope that wiser, and more considerate, and cooler heads will prevail.
Other Issues and Comments:
These will be covered in Part Two, as soon as I can finish the analysis of my notes.
Jerry Hannon
Introduction:
The school district’s fifth Budget Workshop proved to be another very long evening, beginning just after 7:30 PM, following the BOE’s return from a brief Executive Session, and not concluding until approximately 11:28 PM. There were 124 participants in the audience at its peak, including 6 or 7 administrators not on the dais, as well as several staff members, but by far most of the audience were residents. The Residents Remarks period, as scheduled, took place after announcements, presentations, and dialogue among the BOE trustees and District Administration. There were 24 sets of comments and/or questions, with 6 residents taking the opportunity to come to the microphone a second time, after all 18 residents who wanted to address the Board had their own chance to do so.
Truer Words Were Never Spoken:
At approximately 11:25 PM the 24th, and final, remarks of the evening came from a resident who described himself as a New York City Police Officer (whether current or recently retired was not clear) who has two children in Elwood schools. This gentleman, obviously reacting to the very disappointing proposal to the district from the teachers union, related that he had personally agreed to take a Zero increase in pay for three consecutive years so that the jobs of his brother and sister police officers could be preserved. He could not understand how so many young teachers could be allowed to lose their jobs.
Big Announcement of the Evening:
The Superintendent advised the audience that the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the teachers union for our district, had submitted a proposal for a partial (*, see Note below) deferment in salary, and that partial deferment would only be for approximately five months of the District’s full fiscal year. They also offered an actual freeze of the scheduled increase for stipends for extra-curricular activities and athletics (but this particular expense is merely a small factor in our budget).
However, in return for that partial deferment of the scheduled raise (but not deferment of Step increases), and for only a small part of the school year, the union was demanding that the Board of Education extend their labor agreement for an additional year, until June 30 of 2015. Moreover, they wanted a raise built into that extended year which would be based upon the Consumer Price Index, with a minimum of 1.75% and a maximum of 3%.
( * Note: A teacher’s salary is determined by a multi-part formula, combining a contracted percentage raise for a particular year, with a contacted percentage increase by virtue of a teacher being in the district for one additional year, usually known as “Step”; in addition, there are also increases related to the college degree(s) obtained, as well as additional credits earned subsequently, but those achievement-based criteria are not the subject of discussions about potential sacrifice by the teachers union, for 2011/12, in order to save jobs that would otherwise be lost. Furthermore, the mere delay of the scheduled raise for the teachers, instead of an actual freeze for the year, would mean that the higher level of pay would be reflected for pension purposes in a teacher's final average salary, and it also means that the full amount would be included in the base for which a higher salary level, in accordance with the amounts already in the contract, would be calculated for the 2012/13 school year. The structure of the teachers contract is so complex that, in a particular year one teacher might see a significantly higher raise than another, and the next year could see something of the opposite; therefore, the Board and District discuss and negotiate on the basis of averages for the teachers.)
Following the Superintendent’s synopsis, Board President Michael Kaszubski read the Board’s response to that “final” proposal from the teachers union, which began with appreciation for the union’s consideration of possibly participating in the sacrifices that will have to be made by students and taxpayers alike (not to mention the personal sacrifice already made by the Superintendent, and subsequently by other District administrators).
But, the Board’s letter also provided a very clear outline of why the union’s proposal was not only far short of the mark of making a substantial difference for our 2011/12 budget (given the rising expenses combined with the cut in State aid), but was also completely at odds with any specter of reasonability and even a great risk for the taxpayers of Elwood.
You may download a PDF copy of the full text of the Board’s letter to the union by going to this page on the District website (http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/newsdistrict_information/budgetfinancial_information) and then scrolling down to the last item in the section for the April 7th Workshop.
The BOE letter makes it very clear what the teachers are receiving, in terms of the annual negotiated raises and “Step” increases, so that when someone tells you that the teachers took a freeze in the 2009/10 school year, you will see that it was only a partial freeze (i.e, their salaries were actually increased an average of 2%, by virtue of Step increases), and the union also obtained an extension of the contract at a guaranteed rate of increases in both categories for the extended 2013/14 year of the contract. The Board’s letter also makes it clear that the one year extension, to 2014/15, demanded by the union as compensation for their partial freeze, for part of the year, would cost the District and its taxpayers additional increases between 4.55% and 5.80%.
The operative part of the Board’s letter is as follows:
“The ultimatum by the Executive Board of the bargaining unit is simply not acceptable. It fails to recognize the long-term systemic issues in public finance and would still result in the devastating loss of jobs and core education for next year and the years to follow. Furthermore, the BOE has heard from the community and is in no position to add additional years to the teachers contract.
They poignantly go on to say:
“The Board of Education is prepared to present the community with a budget that keeps all programs, that keeps all 28 teacher jobs intact, retains all sports, and retains all extra-curricular activities. These would occur in exchange for a complete freeze in increase and step for next year for each of your unit members. Even with the Board of Educations’ suggested proposal, we realize that a 7% tax increase may not be warmly received by all voters, but believe that we would, as a group, be saying to the community that we support our schools and our teachers.”
Mr. Kaszubski, and the Board, received a loud round of applause from a super-majority of the audience, at the conclusion of his reading of the letter.
Fifty Cent Version of the Logic Behind This Action:
Our school district has a certain amount of money available for employee compensation.
When there are raises built into labor agreements, as there are in Elwood's and other districts, and when revenue sources are reduced, you either have to get everyone in the current system to hold fast to current pay levels, or you have to lay off some of your workers so that you can pay higher amounts of money to those who will be left, after the layoffs.
Nobody is being asked to take an actual cut in their current pay.
Nobody is being asked to take on more classes or duties than they now have.
The school district has a binding contact with the union, so it cannot demand anything.
But, the union has it within its power to protect the jobs of younger teachers, merely by agreeing not to take the increase in pay for 2011/12 which the contract would otherwise require in terms of both the annual negotiated raise as well as "Step."
Basically, the teachers union has four days in which to reconsider, so that some very fine teachers -- their younger colleagues -- can be retained by our district rather than put on the streets at a time when it will be difficult for them to obtain a position in another district. Retaining these teachers will also ensure that our students do not end up with much higher class sizes, thereby enhancing educational opportunities, and it will enable us to retain programs that would otherwise have to be cut.
This is out of the hands of the Superintendent, and out of the hands of the Board of Education. It is totally in the hands of the Executive Board of the teachers union, which has been responsible for negotiations to this point in time.
Let’s hope that wiser, and more considerate, and cooler heads will prevail.
Other Issues and Comments:
These will be covered in Part Two, as soon as I can finish the analysis of my notes.
Jerry Hannon
