Proposed Owner/Operator Offer Left On The Table—

Nonunion School Staff

Get 3% Increases

By John Voket

Less than a month after the school board revealed a $300,000-plus surplus in its 2009-10 budget, the superintendent of schools has confirmed that three percent increases for nonunion district staff were incorporated into the 2010-11 budget. But those increases were apparently not identified as such in the Board of Education’s budget documents, nor discussed in any public school board meetings through the end of the last fiscal year.

In addition, The Bee learned that school officials ended negotiations without an agreement with local school bus owner/operators after representatives of those self-employed contractors said they collectively offered between $400,000 and nearly $1.2 million in additional givebacks that could have been applied as savings in school budgets over the next two to five years.

Following a routine inquiry to Superintendent Janet Robinson July 8 about whether or not nonunion district workers would have a wage freeze through the current (2010-11) fiscal year, Dr Robinson replied in an email.

“I gave the nonunion secretaries a three percent raise, which is slightly less than the union people are getting, and we eliminated three nonunion positions,” she wrote, adding, “District administrators have received no raise again. The budget was built with the anticipated increase in salaries in it. It is part of the non-certified line.”

Documentation provided by Dr Robinson July 14 indicates the net cost of the action is $22,099 with the largest increases going to the director of information technology ($3,348), superintendent of buildings and grounds ($2,878), and the director of security ($1,979).

The balance of the raises, which were awarded to 13 nonunion district workers according to Dr Robinson’s list, ranged from around $1,000 up to $1,924 for a staff accountant.

In addition, the Board of Education July 13 approved a one percent increase for Assistant Superintendent of Schools Linda Gejda, and all principals received raises as stipulated in their administrative contracts.

Dr Robinson received no increase in the coming year, but was provided two additional weeks of vacation beyond her current contract. And district Business Manager Ron Bienkowski’s contract was continued for three months, at which time it would be subject to review and further consideration.

The decision on the part of the superintendent to award the raises without specific school board action is in direct contrast to one year ago, when plans for salary hikes were presented, discussed, and unanimously endorsed before the end of the fiscal year.

In 2009, 24 nonunion workers received a 1.5 percent increase, and the school board also approved six other motions involving increases, stipends, car allowances, annuities, and contract extensions.

Bus Operator Givebacks

In other end of fiscal year news, Board of Education Vice Chairman Kathryn Fetchick told The Bee that school officials were offered $400,000 in givebacks by local school bus owner/operators, but the board’s lead representative, David Nanavaty, walked away from negotiations with the contractors leaving that offer on the table.

The issue came up while Ms Fetchick was reviewing a number of projected savings presented by local Republicans during a May press conference, and the outcome of the district’s budget process. Ms Fetchick said, “We didn’t even take advantage of savings offered by owner/operators which would have realized [an additional] $400,000 in savings over two years.”

Ms Fetchick said if the district agreed to accept the owner/operators’ collective giveback, it would have locked down a contract with these bus operators, and “extended that contract to serve the community until the end of the 2014 school year.”

The school board vice chair’s comments, and remarks Mr Nanavaty made following an initial response to The Bee for comment on the matter, were the subject of spirited discourse between Ms Fetchick and Mr Nanavaty during this week’s regular board meeting. (See separate story).

Following inquiries made to representatives of a seven-member owner/operators contract committee — who collectively retained legal council for the first time to assist the district contractors during negotiations — it was learned that an earlier offer by the owner/operators was also ignored or rejected.

One of those representatives, Carey Schierloh, said that offer constituted a freeze at the owner/operators’ 2009-10 rate, and would have provided up to $1,189,132 in savings, provided the district agreed to a three-year contract extension. Ms Schierloh added that combined with an existing giveback that was already factored into the 2009-10 fiscal cycle, the owner/operators’ offered savings would have totaled $1,311,258.

Mr Nanavaty indicated in the May 18 school board minutes that negotiations with the owner/operators broke down and had ended. In the absence of a contract buyout, and since neither side ever reconvened, that meant the existing contract would remain in place for two more years of service.

In minutes from that same meeting, however, Chairman Lillian Bittman is quoted as saying she would remain open to other offers from the owner/operators if the contractors wanted to reopen negotiations. And a May 24 letter from the district’s attorney to the owner/operators reiterates the district’s willingness to entertain further counteroffers from the contractors.

District Demanded Changes

According to documentation provided by Ms Schierloh, when her committee entered the final stage of negotiations with Mr Nanavaty before the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year, the talks were supposed to be limited to bus rates only.

“They came to the table with not only rate decreases, but many changes to the contract,” Ms Schierloh said.

She added that the district’s original offer requested owner/operators match MTM’s rates despite the fact that MTM was contracted for smaller buses, plus pay for fuel, and park in a central lot when MTM does neither.

Ms Schierloh said the district also demanded owner/operators increase their work day to seven hours and 45 minutes before overtime when MTM receives overtime after six hours, and that owner/operators provide a flat five-year rate for kindergarten transportation, “well below MTM, and increased penalties on the cameras from $250 to $5,000.”

The latter point refers to a penalty applied to the drivers by the district if video surveillance systems on a bus malfunctions or is inoperative.

Ms Schierloh said the final offer to local bus contractors from the district was $348 a day for 2010-11 and 2011-12, then dropping to $328 for last three years, including a flat $60 per day rate for all five years of kindergarten runs.

“It was also conditional on the owner/operators having to pay for fuel, parking in a central lot, and the different standard for overtime,” she said. “But if the owner/operators agreed to that offer from the district we would be earning less than MTM.”

While all of these changes proposed by the district to the owner/operators were tendered, Mr Nanavaty is quoted in school board meeting minutes from May 18 criticizing the contractors for returning to the table with counter proposals, “changing everything that has been negotiated up to that point. They made a proposal that was different from other proposals and they would not consider any changes in the terms we had agreed on.”

Mr Nanavaty told The Bee July 14 that any true savings are only calculable in the current fiscal year. As a result, only $173,000 in savings was lost by rejecting the owner/operators’ last offer.

Referring to the balance of the $400,000 in savings both Ms Fetchick and the owner/operators say was left on the table in the second year of the contract offer, Mr Nanavaty said, “The $206,000 does not represent savings in year two. The only way to save money in year two is if the [corresponding] day rate was dropped.”

He added that. “there are no [year two] savings because the budget doesn’t exist yet.”

Several days earlier, following an initial request for comment on the issue, Mr Nanavaty replied in an email, saying, “I hope that this is not an attempt on the part of the [owner/operators] to negotiate in the press what they rejected during the negotiation process.”