Special meetings intended for true ’emergencies’ only.
August 8, 2008
Keene Sentinel
People will meet Saturday to discuss a new teachers contract at Monadnock
After a Monadnock School Taxpayers Association-spurred hiccup, Saturday’s official-ballot first session to consider new teachers contracts will go forward.
The Monadnock district covers the towns of Fitzwilliam, Gilsum, Richmond, Roxbury, Sullivan, Swanzey and Troy.
At Saturday morning’s public forum, residents from these towns will have the chance to discuss a single warrant article — the four-year contract voters will consider at a special meeting in September.
But in his latest challenge to Sept. 9’s special meeting, taxpayers association president and Swanzey resident Richard E. Bauries tried to throw a monkey wrench into Saturday’s first session by asking Judge Brian T. Tucker to put an injunction against it.
Bauries has said numerous times that the scheduling of the September meeting is illegal but Tucker denied his motion Thursday.
Bauries has declined to say whether the taxpayers association will bring their case to the N.H. Supreme Court. But after receiving Tucker’s decision Thursday he reiterated that the group’s motion for injunction lays the groundwork.
Tucker’s Thursday ruling represents the third time he’s sided with the school district on the case — the first was when he ordered the special meeting and the second was when he denied Bauries’ request that he reconsider.
“I think the judge just delivered (taxpayers association members’) third strike,” Superintendent Kenneth R. Dassau said. “And I think they should recognize now that they are out.”
During an official-ballot first session, voters may amend what will appear on the ballot.
But in this case, any alterations could put a serious crimp in plans to put the article on the Sept. 9 warrant, because it would change the contract the teachers and district agreed on, according to district attorney Paul L. Apple.
“I will recommend to the body that they not amend” the contract, but instead simply allow it to go to a vote in September, Apple said.
Meanwhile, as the special meeting nears, an overarching question emerges: Will voters finally sign on to a teachers contract?
But they may also have some other questions in mind, among them: What exactly is in this new contract and how much does it really differ from the contract voters rejected in March?
Here are some answers:
1. Pay and Benefits
Both the new contract and the proposed contract that failed in March offer increases for pay and benefits over their four-year life spans, although these increases are generally higher in the new contract. This is primarily because of hikes in longevity benefits, a financial incentive for veteran teachers who stay in the district (see longevity box).
Like the failed March contract, the new contract offers a $680,306 increase in wages and benefits during the first year. And in the new contract, this is followed by a $423,800 increase in the second year, $426,064 in the third year and $396,254 in the fourth, as listed in the warrant.
But, the numbers that voters will see represent only the increase in pay and benefits from the previous year, as opposed to the total cost of these expenses.
In the first year of the contract, 2008-09, for example, the amount raised for pay and benefits would be $680,306 more than the amount raised in 2007-08. The second year would see an additional $423,800 increase over 2008-09 — which is a total increase of $1,104,106. The third year would see a $1,530,170 total increase, with a $1,926,424 increase, in total, by year four.
So where do these numbers come from? According to business manager Katherine E.L. Chambers, the first-year increase of $680,306 represents the rise in salaries, longevity, regular retirement and wage-driven benefits — from about $10.7 million in 2007-08 to $11.4 million in 2008-09 — offset by a roughly $18,000 drop in the amount the district will pay for health insurance due to teachers contributing more to this expense.
2. Early retirement
Both the rejected March contract and the one being considered phase out early retirement, a controversial benefit started in the 2000-01 contract that gives veteran teachers an incentive to retire early by giving them a portion of their salaries for a certain number of years.
The contract rejected in March would have phased out the benefit over three years, gradually reducing the number of employees eligible to participate and the length of time over which they can collect benefits. Under the original proposed contract, there would be no new participants in the program after June 30, 2011, but the district would have still had to pay a total of $2,207,465 before its commitment to those already taking early retirement would have ended, according Chambers.
The new contract ends new enrollment in early retirement more quickly, at the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year. The district will be obligated to pay less before its commitment ends — a total of $2,144,465.
If the new contract does not pass, early retirement will continue in full force. However, a pending case in Cheshire County Superior Court, brought forward by Sullivan selectmen, charges that the benefit was never legal in the first place. The lawsuit alleges residents were never sufficiently told about the benefit when they voted in favor of it as part of the 2000-01 contract, and says it should be discontinued until voters approve it properly.
Court proceedings for that case are scheduled to begin in September. Apple said if district voters approve the contract before that case gets under way, it could render the Sullivan lawsuit moot.
3. Longevity
The latest contract expands the pool of money used for longevity payments. This benefit offers a financial incentive for veteran teachers who stay in the district. The original contract rejected in March offered the following for longevity benefits: a total of $100,000 in the first year, $100,000 in the second year, $150,000 in the third year and $200,000 in the fourth.
The latest contract raises this to a total of $100,000 in the first year, $200,000 in the second year, $250,000 in the third year and $250,000 in the fourth year. These increases are reflected in the overall rise in pay and benefits listed in the warrant.
4. Evergreen clause
The new contract strikes the much-debated “evergreen clause” featured in the last contract, which would have allowed the terms of the agreement to continue until a new contract was successfully negotiated.
However, a bill recently signed into law by Gov. John H. Lynch could insert an evergreen clause into the new contract whether district voters want it or not.
House Bill 1436 requires an evergreen clause for all new contracts with public employees.
But does the Monadnock teachers contract count as “new?” Since it was negotiated by the school board and the teachers several months before the law took effect, but has yet to be approved by voters, district attorney Paul L. Apple couldn’t conclusively say. And, he added, the matter isn’t likely to be tested until after the next contract’s expiration.
5. Health insurance
Both contracts offer the same shift in health insurance cost-sharing, gradually placing a greater burden on teachers. Currently, teachers pay 10 percent of their health insurance. Under the new contract, this would increase to 12 percent in the first year, 16 percent in the second year, 18 percent in the third year and 20 percent by year four.
###
Taxpayers should demand that Judges FOLLOW THE LAW when it comes to allowing ‘special meetings’ which are supposed to accommodate true emergencies not raises or bonds that did not pass in a previous meeting.