Proposal Passes

Last night (Wednesday) at a special meeting of the Board, we held a vote on what is technically called a "Basis for the Agreement" on the teachers' contract. This is a formal document that is a step under that known as "Tentative Agreement", which contains all of the proposed contract stipulations requiring a vote.

This meeting was scheduled because Mr. Wiederman's removal from his wife's insurance did not free him to vote until Oct. 1st.

This "Basis for the Agreement" included exactly the same salary demands that I listed in an earlier post: a $200 "signing bonus" to be added to the base before the 3% general increase was applied in the first year; then a $300 stipend added to the base - again - before the 3% general increase was calculated.

This method thus results in a general increase of 3.7% the first year, and 4.1% in the second year. At the risk of repeating myself, all amounts added to the base salary become an integral part of that base, and therefore are carried forward ad infinitum. Forever.

After the motion was made to accept this document and seconded, Dennis Heban asked if there was any further discussion on the matter? Jeff Michael had a prepared statement to read. In it, he referred to having been spit upon by a teacher, and also the verbal threats he had received from another, as well as a couple of other parents. His characterization of those and similar acts as "sickening" was apt.

I had also prepared a statement to read. My goal was to let those in our audience know that this Board was UNITED - that we were united in our distaste of the document before us; that we were united in our understanding of the consequences if the measure should pass, and if the measure should fail.

Among other things, I said:
***
This is the decision before us tonight. On one hand, IF the proposal is rejected, we face a certain strike by our teaching staff and support staff, plus an additional expenditure of our tax dollars to pay for substitute teachers. Not a good thing. On the other hand, IF the proposal passes, we face a definite and large deficit in just a few short years – which will be even worse if the income tax levy does not pass. Again – not a good thing.

Dennis has characterized our situation as being forced to sacrifice our future for the present. I agree with him. We ALL agree with him.

I just wanted everyone in the audience to understand that each Board member up here has done his or her homework, and we all know exactly what is at stake, should this proposal stand – or fail. While only our individual votes will show each person’s opinion on what he/she feels is the best course of action in these circumstances, we are UNITED in our despair at the rock and hard place we are now between.

***
Dennis Heban, Mona Dyke, and Mike Wiederman also said a few, unscripted words. The mood was somber.

The vote was taken: 3 "yes" 2 "no". Motion carried.

Pay Attention

As our district goes through this difficult time, I want you to notice something.

This Board is not fighting within its ranks. Normally when there is a situation where a vote from a board of education is split, there is also public wrangling - name calling - and other childish behavior from those board members. (all we have to do is look eastward to Toledo for an example of such behavior)

But pay attention: this Board is not fighting!

Although certain members of the general public have evidenced juvenile behavior, by hollering at some of us, spitting at some of us, throwing their drinks at some of us, and menacing some of us by word or deed, the members of this school board are not fighting each other.

Last week we had a split vote. But while there was an obvious disagreement as to what is the best course of action to take for our district at this time, there was no rancor between us.

There is a reason for that. First of all, we are all adults and choose to act as such. Obviously that doesn't mean that we always agree on every jot and tittle of every issue, or that no one ever loses their temper - only that our disagreements are most always handled properly and with respect for those who hold a different opinion from our own.

Secondly, we are united in our opinion of what that TA would have done - and we are united in our opinion that its consequences, while extremely good for teachers, were extremely bad for our school district.

In an earlier post, I told you that - while the language the SEA used to write that TA was intentionally deceptive - the failed TA included a demand for 3.7% general increase this year, and 4.1% increase next year, something this district simply cannot afford. This Board is united in that opinion.

A few parents have written (or shouted) that they do not want us to reduce the income tax levy. Had more of them been in attendance at our board meetings when this was discussed, they would have heard us explain that we need the revenue of an income tax levy - not more property taxes, which are a killer for those on fixed incomes. While the former levy passed, it did so by only a very few votes - the count was excruciatingly close.

This district needs an income tax levy, but we need one that will be passed by the voting residents of our district. We simply cannot afford to have the income tax levy fail, and our decision was to place it on the ballot in a year with the largest voter turnout, at a level that we felt would give a positive outcome. This decision had absolutely nothing to do with contract negotiations, as some have suggested. It had everything to do with trying to secure a steady stream of income for the district.

At any rate, I want you to notice how Swanton School Board members conduct themselves. Although all 5 of us strongly agree that the former TA was unbelievably awful for our district, when we ended up with a split vote, there were no harsh words between us. We treat each other with respect. And we will continue to do our collective best for this district.

Mistaken Notions

The school board negotiating team held a mediation with the SEA team this morning at 9 o'clock. At this mediation, we offered a proposal that included a 3% general increase for each of the next two years. This is the percentage our treasurer had budgeted for, and this is what the SEA has been publicly stating that they wanted to have.

The SEA team refused to consider our proposal. The mediation ended.

I have not spoken directly with any of the SEA bargaining team members, but I can only assume that they read the Saturday edition of the Blade where Mike Wiederman was quoted as saying "It's going to cost us more to drag things out than to accept what was offered," he said. "If we have a meeting next week, it will be resolved."
And Mr. Wiederman was also quoted on the radio this morning as having said he was now able to "break the deadlock".

(side note: although Mr. Wiederman stated that a board member "challenged his right to vote on the contract", this statement was false - while some members of the community had done so, NO BOARD MEMBER had made that challenge, so I think he was misquoted)

Apparently, the SEA bargaining team holds a mistaken notion from Mr. Wiederman's comments. Although he has removed himself from his wife's insurance so that he may legally vote on the teachers' contract, that doesn't mean that he was planning to have the failed Tentative Agreement brought back for a second vote. It only means that the next time we have a TA before us, all 5 Board members will have a vote on the matter.

I should also tell you that Mr. Wiederman sent me a personal email just a couple of days ago, that categorically opposed what the media would have us to believe. In that email, he referred to the failed TA as "dead in the water", and not able to be brought back. He also stated that he was eager to now get the SEA back to the negotiation table so that a united board could vote together on a new, and fair agreement.

This Board was optimistic that a contract decision agreeable to both sides of the table would be obtained this morning - well within the strike deadline of Oct. 6th.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wiederman's quoted remarks have now set this effort back at least several days - and possibly permanently.

But - all is not lost. There is a Special Meeting scheduled for tonight at the high school auditorium at 7:30 p.m. Perhaps at this meeting, Mr. Wiederman will have a chance to clear up these misunderstandings so that our district may move forward and get this contract settled before any strike occurs, and before any taxpayer money is spent unnecessarily.

Econ 101

I have refrained from blogging for quite a while, as it seemed to be angering the SEA - making a difficult situation only worse. At our regular September board meeting, board president Dennis Heban asked for a media blackout while both sides went back to the table. I agreed publicly to comply. I think circumstances this week require me to break silence - we are in a crisis in this district, as you all know.

This past Wednesday, the Tentative Agreement was rejected by the board with a split vote. I cast one of those "no" votes. Let me share just a little bit of my reasoning.

Have you seen the news lately? Our nation is in financial distress. This did not happen overnight. It took decades of people in power choosing to vote on a personal agenda for re-election as a priority instead of voting to do the right thing when it needed to be done. Today we are reaping the consequences of their failure to act in the best interests of the United States, with banks failing almost daily and the stock market plummeting.

When our district teetered on the edge of bankruptcy several years ago, it wasn't because of any one thing or one year of a bizarre and uncontrolled spending spree. No - it was because former members of the board had made short-sighted decisions, choosing to placate the "now" at the expense of the future. Bad choices made year after year continued to compound on top of each other until our school district was in "fiscal caution" - close to being taken over by the state of Ohio. Drastic measures had to be taken: 20+ teachers laid off; programs slashed; a $1.6 million loan obtained; and one year when no general increase was given to those teachers who remained (although the salary steps increases were still awarded - meaning that there was no "pay freeze" then nor at any other time).

It was a terrible time in our district's history, but we got through it together.

Today we have a hard choice before us. The national economy is imploding. Our local economy is also suffering, with unemployment at 10%. The future is uncertain.

The offer we had given to our teaching staff was for a 2.5% increase for each of the next two years, plus a one-time signing bonus. Although we voted unanimously to improve their health insurance plan, we did not include a request for an increase in their premiums. This was the offer that the SEA deemed to be "unworthy of a vote".

In a written letter, the SEA then asked for "binding arbitration" - but in the next sentence they severely limited exactly what the arbitrator could rule on. On the advice of our attorney, we declined this particular "binding arbitration" as we did not want to set precedent on such a limited scope. Please understand: this request was not for a "fact finding" arbitration. In addition, our current contract does not include binding arbitration of any kind, although perhaps that could be a part of negotiations in the future.

The Tentative Agreement demanded by the SEA was for an effective 3.7% general increase the first year and 4.1% the second year, among other things. These percentage amounts are the result of adding signing bonuses and other stipends to the base salary before adding on the general increase. (to help put that into perspective, several schools in Fulton County have recently finished contract negotiations - and have given a 2% raise to their teachers)

At our meeting Wednesday night, Cheryl (our treasurer) handed out copies of a spreadsheet she had prepared that incorporated these numbers. She also included in her calculations the $7.3 million carryover, and the assumption that the income tax levy would pass. She also had removed certain figures. She took out the wages and benefit costs of 2 teachers who are planning to retire, because we wouldn't be able to afford to replace them. She also removed money for programs we had hoped to restore, trying to help this district afford the TA as presented.

Her spreadsheet showed that the TA would put this district into deficit spending by 2011 by almost a half million dollars, and worse each successive year thereafter.

The mood in the room that night was grim. Not one person at the table was pleased with what we saw before us in cold, hard numbers. We talked for around 2 hours, trying to figure out ways we could make it work. But those numbers kept staring us in the face.

Do our teachers deserve a raise? Of course they do! We have many great teachers, and this board wants to give them a fair raise. Was our offer what they wanted? No - but was our offer unfair?? I think the facts show that it clearly was not unfair, nor was it unreasonable.

However - the SEA has issued a strike notice. We now have 5 working days left to hammer out a compromise, as the strike is scheduled to begin Oct. 6th. Both sides are willing to negotiate again. Yet - only the SEA can call off the strike.

Given all of the facts before us, I think it is totally irresponsible for them to hold this district hostage to a wage hike that our district simply cannot afford at this time. But that doesn't mean they should get nothing - only that we need to get back to the table together to find a solution that is fair for both sides.

At a meeting in Memorial Park last night, it was mentioned that parents had hoped for certain programs and staff positions to be brought back. The board would like the same, and we have discussed ways to do so. But we have only a set number of dollars that we can work with, and those dollars need to be used in the best interest of the entire district. I am certain that we can make it happen - but a true compromise requires concessions by both parties.

Please feel free to write or call your school board members. I also encourage you to contact the members of the SEA negotiating team, to let them know your desire that a fair compromise be reached that is in the best interest of our kids and our district. Here are their names and email addresses:

Judi Teague ~ swa_aca_jt@nwoca.org (VicePresident SEA)

Deisa Thielman ~ swa_aca_dt@nwoca.org (lead negotiator)

Darla Omey ~ swa_aca_do@nwoca.org (President SEA)

Renee Gothke ~ swa_aca_rgo@nwoca.org
(yes, it is "rgo" as there are multiple "rg's" requiring the need for the "o")

Denise Brehmer ~ swa_aca_db@nwoca.org

We have faced hard times together before - we can do it again. With all of us working together, we can reach a fair compromise and get back to the business of educating our children.

Agreed !

Board member, Mona Dyke, shared some things with me that have value in our discussion of the issue before us. Below are her comments, slightly abridged:

There are arguments to be made for both sides, but as we continue the debate, the kids are suffering. Teachers are working to the contract, nothing more, & they are preoccupied with this.

There is a lot we agree on! We all agree that the teachers are not SOLELY responsible for low OAT scores. As Jeff, “IT’S TIME FOR ALL OF US TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF OUR DISTRICT!” We need to stand up and be the first to be accountable.

We agree that the teachers of Swanton deserve a fair contract.
-->What is “fair” is the disagreement
We both say we want to avoid a strike
We agree that we need to treat each other with respect.
We agree that teachers are not solely to blame for low OAT scores.
We agree that most teachers get into teaching, and continue teaching, for the students.

Other facts that we agree on are:
The current base pay of a starting teacher is low compared to other Fulton Co. schools.
We have a budget carryover of $7.2M.

This is NOT the Board from 2003-04!

In 2005, when school board elections were held, the incumbent was voted out and the top vote getter was Jeff Michael. The community sent a pretty strong message that they wanted things to be done differently. Last year, Cindy and I ran unopposed and replaced the last of the school board members that were seated in 2003-04. We don’t know what promises were made by people who are no longer here. Those promises don’t seem to have been put in writing. As to promises that were documented, I went back through levy documents and found the following:

Jan, 2004 1.25% income tax flyer: After several paragraphs about the deficit and the cuts that were made, then, “the Board continues to look for ways to reduce expenses and remains dedicated to the education of our children. If the March 2 levy passes, (the School Board) will examine the areas that most affect students as they decide what teaching positions can be filled, if any.”

Flyer for the Operating Levy renewal in Nov. 04 talked about the concessions the teachers and support staff made in the 04-05 contract and stated “the new treasurer and school board continue to look for savings and fiscal restraint.”

A 2007 Letter from the District to residents about the operating levy renewal said “Our school district needs the programs and services being funded by this levy to maintain the educational progress being made by our students. We also continue to be dedicated to fiscal responsibility. We offered contracts to our teachers and staff that gave them an increase yet is well within our budget. It is critical to our continued improvement and to the overall environment of the school that we are competitive with area districts and are able to attract and keep quality teachers and staff.” This point was reiterated in a flyer that was distributed.

These promises have been consistent: dedication to fiscal responsibility, to the education of the children in Swanton and an understanding that we must be competitive in the salaries we offer our employees, within our budget. Our offer to the teachers in August would put us in the middle salary range of Fulton Co. schools.

Our plan for the Budget Carryover

We might be able to afford the SEA’s request in the short term, but it will be at the expense of additional positions, programs and advisors, and the risk of returning our district to the serious financial situation we were in 5 years ago. The School Board’s plan has been to slowly build back programs and positions, as needed and as we can sustain them. Much has been done to bring back the programs and some of the positions that were cut. Does it make sense to hire good teachers, only to have to lay them off in a few years if we have to make cuts again?

We stated in the Board Bulletin, “The District has been slowly adding back programs and positions that were cut in 2003. However, the Board has no intention of going back to the spending levels that got us into trouble, nor do we intend to maintain this high carryover balance every year. According to the most recent draft of the 5 year forecast, in 2013 our carryover will have decreased to approximately $990,000, which is less than one month’s operating budget.”
**************
Many of you know Mona personally, as she has been a very active participant in our school district for many years. She is known and respected by our teachers, as well as our community at large. She has earned this respect by doing her best to see both sides of a given issue before giving an opinion.

As she has stated above, the question before the Board and our teachers is: how do you define "fair" ? The offer we presented would place our base salary range squarely in the middle of Fulton County schools, and included an increase in benefits without an increase in cost to our teachers. Yet - the salary increase we offered is not quite as high as that asked of us by the SEA negotiating team.

So . . . what is "fair"? That is the decision that must be made by both sides of the table.