As one of the Tiverton residents at the January 26 school committee meeting who presented “a ‘bust the union’ political strategy,” according to Deborah Pallasch’s recent letter to you, I feel obliged to provide some context for your readers. I don’t agree that looking to the school district’s — and town’s — largest line item to cover the bulk of the projected budgetary shortfall is “extreme.”
On January 27, 2009, the school committee approved a largely retroactive contract for teachers that ate up about $300,000 of that year’s budget, added approximately $150,000 to the current year’s, and is contributing more than that to the $600,000-plus increase in salaries and benefits budgeted for the next fiscal year. At a November 2008 meeting, Ms. Pallasch argued for approval, saying, “Let’s start working on the new one, and give ourselves a little bit of room to refocus on the classroom and away from the adults.” The argument was that we should resolve the running dispute while there was still time to negotiate the subsequent contract amicably.
At the time, I spoke up to predict that the union would not negotiate. Rather, it would wait out the recession based on the obvious reasoning that it could avoid concessions during hard economic times and — as we’ve taught its members to expect — receive retroactive raises when times improved. I also handed out a chart showing that there had been no abatement of the increases in teacher salaries and benefits in the past decade. Indeed, the per-pupil dollar amount had gone up more (54%) than the same number for the state as a whole (40%). Over the same period, the chart showed that most other expenditures had hardly moved.
Well, negotiations did not resume with an amicable tone. Indeed, in August, the union pointed out a clause in the contract extending it for another year. The school committee had somehow missed the trick that it was supposed to notify the union of its intention to negotiate the next contract a full month before the previous one was actually approved. Changes in healthcare copayments for which the committee had budgeted went out the window. So did negotiations.
Now, a year after its ill-considered vote, the school committee is talking about cutting supplies and classroom technology. They’re approaching the town’s budget committee with numbers that will require double-digit tax increases. ‘And here’s Deb Pallasch: “Let’s realize that we’re all in this together …Let’s work through the process that we have, which is collective bargaining. Let’s go to mediation. If we need to go to arbitration, let’s go to arbitration.”
By way of reply: First, a hard line, including zero probability of retroactive raises, must be part of the collective bargaining process if a reasonable balance is to be struck. Second, Pallasch’s assertion, in her letter, that I’m suggesting “$750,000 or more of cuts in salaries and benefits” is simply not true. Most of the amount necessary to close projected deficits could be achieved simply by freezing salaries and benefits at their current rate. It wouldn’t even be a “concession,” because the union currently has no contract. (Again, why would they negotiate if the committee behaves as if there’s a contract in place regardless?)
Third, Pallasch’s accusation that my suggestion would incur legal fees is a silly ploy in light of her willingness to go through the processes of mediation and arbitration, which also require lawyers. In the meantime, our students are suffering by their lack of proficiency in math and science and by the ever decreasing amount of programs and resources available to them, even as well-paid adults reap rewards at a pace with no correlation with the economy.
Loading ...