Teachers’ Contract Clears Final Hurdle

By Larissa Lytwyn &          Jan Howard

The Legislative Council has not challenged the three-year teachers’ contract negotiated and approved by the school board during an executive session in early October, making it likely for the pact to go into effect in July.

Since the Legislative Council made no motion to modify the proposal during its November 5 meeting, the contract will automatically pass by the end of the month.

While offering some of the most competitive salaries in the state, teachers will be paying more for insurance.

According to a letter to Superintendent of Schools Evan Pitkoff written by attorney Frederick Dorsey of the law firm of Siegel, O’ Connor, Zangari, O’ Donnell & Beck, the insurance premium offered is “better than the average in either Fairfield County or the state as a whole.”

The average teachers’ premium share for Fairfield County teacher contracts is approximately 9.5 percent. On a statewide basis, the average is ten percent. Newtown’s 2004–05 contract raises premium shares paid by teachers from ten percent, capped at fixed rates, to an uncapped 11 percent next year, 12 percent for 2005–06, and 14 percent for 2006–07.

“This would obviously put Newtown ahead of the average and is consistent with what I have seen in the few settlements occurring this year,” Mr Dorsey wrote.

Revisions to Section 28.1.1.1 allow the school board more latitude in selecting alternative insurance carriers for its health insurance coverage. “It reduces the standard from ‘equal’ to ‘substantially equal’ coverage,” explained Superintendent of Schools Evan Pitkoff. The change, he said, allows the board the ability to seek competitive bids, attracting a variety of insurance packages for teachers.

Salaries will be raised 2.25, 2.55, and 2.75 over the next three years. First year teachers with a bachelor’s degree currently earn $37,600. Next year’s 2.25 percent increase will raise the 2004–05 salary for teachers with the same qualifications to $38,446. First year teachers equipped with master’s degrees currently earn $40,600. Next year’s counterparts will earn $41,514.

The net annual cost of the contract, including the established schedule of teacher salary adjustments for educational credits and degrees, and coaching and activity assignments, is 4.36 percent for the first year, 4.34 percent for the second year, and 4.1 percent for the third year of the contract.

“Most of the changes in this year’s contract were of a housekeeping nature,” said Dr Pitkoff. “There isn’t a whole lot of difference from our last contract.”

In addition to its clauses regarding salary and insurance, the contract addresses issues ranging from expectations regarding leaves of absence to a parent-teacher relations clause. All teachers are granted 15 fully paid sick days in each year. Maternity leaves are treated as a temporary disability and provided “in accordance with state and federal laws.” Teachers on disability leave can receive full pay for up to six months.

Teachers are also required to familiarize themselves with pupils’ academic records and freely be able to consult with former teachers of their pupils and the pupils’ parents. They are also required to participate in district-instituted parent-teacher conferences.

Some of the nuances of the language, he continued, were altered slightly. Section 15.1, for example, was modified to allow the administration more flexibility in scheduling investigative and disciplinary meetings in matters involving “sensitive” allegations against teaching personnel.

In his letter to Dr Pitkoff, Mr Dorsey summarized, “The major components of the board’s proposed settlement with its teachers would result in costs that would be lower than one would [typically] anticipate as a result of an arbitration hearing.”

Financial Review

At the Wednesday night meeting of the Legislative Council, Board of Finance chairman John Kortze reported his board had unanimously approved it and recommended that the council adopt it. The contract is adopted if the Legislative Council takes no action to reject it within 30 days of when it was filed with the town clerk.

A rejection by the Legislative Council would require mandatory arbitration.

“In the Board of Finance’s opinion, we got a good contract here,” Mr Kortze said, noting the increased co-pay teachers would pay on insurance to offset costs.

Mr Kortze said the Legislative Council set an important precedent in referring the contract to the Board of Finance.

“This is the single largest issue of impact on the budget,” he said. A state statute requires that the Board of Education seek input 30 days prior to negotiations from the financial body of the town, he noted, for additional analysis and examination of costs, but this was not done.

He said this would lead to more public awareness, comparison with other towns, and increased analysis.

Mr Kortze noted his board did not receive an invitation from the Board of Education to participate until some issues had already been decided. “Our goal was to provide intense analysis and to set a precedent,” he said, and to establish a game plan.

He said arbitration is not necessarily a bad thing, noting the council should not be afraid to investigate it.

Council member Joseph DiCandido questioned why the teachers have a higher rate increase in bad times than in good times. He noted the contract is lucrative for teachers and “not so good for taxpayers. These are pretty lucrative raises.”

Mr Kortze said certain areas of the contract appear more lucrative than others. “Historically there are areas that look more lucrative.”

To Mr DiCandido’s concern that the contract raises are “very substantial, more than the private sector,” Mr Kortze said, “It’s hard to argue built in increases. They are consistent and in the realm of our peers.”

Ms Dent noted the tension that exists during contract negotiations, adding that the Board of Education is responsible for excellent education for children but must provide an education budget that would be passed and at the same time provide salaries that are competitive.

“The board constantly deals with this tension,” she said, noting that the school system is not competing with the private sector but is in step with other public sector towns in its ERG (Economic Reference Group).

She said it would not be to the town’s benefit to go to arbitration. “To get givebacks is a difficult thing to do.”

Mr DiCandido said there is a “shift in the wind” on binding arbitration. “Maybe this is the right time to test the waters and show we’re not afraid of it. It’s just a thought.”

Mr Rosenthal said, however, that once a contract is settled, it is viewed differently by arbitrators. “It doesn’t mean you’ll lose, but the teachers have the right to come back with different numbers, and language.” He said in most cases arbitration takes place when the “clock ran out” on negotiations.

Ms Dent noted that it is inconceivable the town would get better numbers from arbitration, plus hold on to the additional co-pays.