The president of the Norwalk Federation of Teachers is calling the recent labor complaint filed by the Board of Education "frivolous" and a "distraction."
On Friday, the BOE filed a complaint with the State of Connecticut Board of Labor Relations alleging that NFT violated an agreement to keep contract negotiations between the two parties confidential. In particular, the BOE claims that by holding a rally on September 1, at Brien McMahon high school that was attended by 600 teachers the union breached a "Ground Rules for Negotiations" agreement that was entered into prior to the start of contract negotiations.
The NFT which represents 900 teachers and the BOE have been in heated negotiations over a teachers' contract since June. The current contract expires in August 2010.
In a recent interview with NorwalkNet, Bruce LeVine Mellion, President of the NFT said that the provisions of the agreement specifically allow him to report about the negotiations to his constituents which is what he was doing at the meeting at Brien McMahon. Mr. Mellion says he is not sure how the press was informed about the rally.
"I did nothing improper," said Mr. Mellion. "I will continue to report to my membership. We want to negotiate a contract."
William Connon, the attorney representing the BOE in the contract negotiations said the BOE disagrees with the union's interpretation. He called the rally and subsequent press coverage unproductive and a breach of good faith bargaining.
"Negotiations are not resolved in the court of public opinion," said Mr. Connon. "They are resolved by an arbitrator. This is not American Idol."
Clearly the union held a rally to expose the general public to what it has called "draconian" and "retrograde" proposals by the BOE. Public opinion won't have a direct impact on the negotiations however this is an election year in Norwalk in which half of the BOE board seats are being contested, a fact not lost on Mr. Mellion.
"The citizens of Norwalk are not going to stand for this kind of treatment of its teachers," he said. "We could see a flip in this BOE from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority."
Mr. Connon retorted that the union is "playing politics."
During the interview with NorwalkNet, Mr. Mellion used the words "economic devastation" repeatedly to describe the teacher contract proposals made by the BOE. He highlighted the elimination of the "longevity schedule," which determines the compensation of teachers on the basis of seniority.
"This will drive out veteran teachers," said Mr. Mellion. "They will ask why do I want to stay in Norwalk? It will force teachers to resign and move to other districts. We will not be able to compete with neighboring towns. Norwalk will end up a wasteland."
Mr. Mellion said that his members are not indifferent to the current economic situation but he believes that Norwalk is in very good financial shape. He pointed to what he described as $2 billion in new construction being undertaken in the city.
"The teachers of this town understand economic tempering, but we do not understand economic devastation," he said.
Mr. Mellion would not discuss concessions that the union is prepared to make in order to arrive at an agreement with the BOE.
Since the two parties have not been able to agree on a contract during the negotiation period,
they will be entering into a binding arbitration process during which a state appointed arbitrator will hear the last and final offers from each side and make decisions about the contract which are considered final. This process could take several months.
Laurie G. Cain, a Simsbury attorney, has been selected as the arbitrator and an initial meeting between the two parties will take place next Thursday. Ms. Cain has served on the State Department of Education Panel representing the public interest since 1993.
In addition, as a result of the labor complaint, the State will send a Labor Agent to investigate the claim made by the BOE within the next month. According to Mr. Connon, most parties reach a resolution in a preliminary conference which may include a monetary settlement. However, if no resolution is agreed to the two parties go to a hearing in front of a Labor Board. This process, which can also take several months to resolve, runs in parallel to the arbitration process.
Mr. Mellion criticized the BOE's actions. He said both the filing of the labor complaint and earbitration are "expensive" and "an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money".
Steve Colarossi, a Republican candidate for the BOE agrees. He points to the fact that the BOE has set aside nearly $400,000 in its budget to cover legal expenses.
"This is a blank check, and a colossal waste of money," said Colarossi, who is also an attorney. "Having this much money allocated for legal fees makes for bad decisions."
The BOE's attorney Mr. Connon countered that for school districts the size of Norwalk the legal fees associated with arbitration is not excessive. "It's insignificant given what's at stake economically," he said.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Whatever the merits of this case, my money is with Bruce Mellion. Like him or not, he is a very effective negotiator and he is too shrewd to make a move that would put his bargaining unit at a competitive disadvantage. The board of education, on the other hand, lacks sophistication and good judgment.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked Atty. Connon to explain to the taxpayers how much was charged by him to prepare the press release that sent his labor complaint to the press and how those services will benefit Norwalk's taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteIn short, as long as the majority on the Board of Education gives over $400,000 to fund outside legal services, and as long as the majority refuses to impose more stringent controls over how legal services are used, it will continue to be the students and taxpayers who lose when frivolous lawsuits are initiated or when parents of Special Needs students are forced to sue for basic services.
This is a blatant waste of taxpayer money. Money that could be going towards educating our children. Counting down to election day...
ReplyDeleteIf true, a proposal to eliminate longevities, even at the start of negotiations, is an insult to every single teacher in the city. Nobody in their right mind would work in a system that did not have them.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a new teacher thinking about accepting a job in Norwalk, and heard that the local BOE had proposed -- even as a bargaining chip -- to get rid of longevities, I would definitely look elsewhere.
What are longevities? Does that mean that a teacher, regardless of whatever or how well they do, gets a raise based on how long they have been there? What other jobs do that, does anyone know?
ReplyDeleteEvery teacher gets the same raise every year, set by the NFT contract, by virtue of 'seat time.' An outstanding master teacher (and there are so many) who gives 150% gets the same raise as the marginal teacher who calls in sick Mondays & Fridays and does the minimal to get by. This goes year by year up to, I think, 10 or 12 years. Then after that, there are longer increments and that is when the term 'longevity' is used. The poster before me said it well - where else does that happen? Lifelong Teacher
ReplyDeleteLongevities are not that simple.
ReplyDeleteIn most school systems, traditional "steps" stop after a certain number of years. For instance, in NYC, where I work, salaries do not increase on a yearly basis after eight years. However, teachers do receive increases after 10, 12, 15, 18, 20 and 22 years.
A NYC teacher who has 23 years of experience would thus be paid on the salary scale under 8 + L22 (which equals the salary at step 8 plus all the longevities).
Longevities, essentially, are modified steps, and they are usually structured to provide teachers with incentives to remain in the system.
If, as reported, the Norwalk BOE proposed the elimination of longevities -- without replacing them with traditional steps -- it would amount to a rather large pay cut for teachers. Such a proposal, by the way, would be laughed out of the room by any arbitrator.
Bruce, you must be thanking the powers that be that you are not involved in any way with this mess. When you resigned, I thought it was a bit too reactive, but since then....well, let's just say, you saw the iceberg and steered clear. Good for you!
ReplyDeleteMr Kimmel you say that longevities are incentives keeping teachers in a system but what about those teachers the other poster mentions, like the ones who just skim by doing the least they can. You can see why teachers would like this, and see why great teachers deserve it, but how about the ones who are just riding it out or who are just ok and there are quite a few? does that help kids
ReplyDeleteThe real issue isn't the longevities; it is the failure of administrators and boards of education to use the evaluation system to rid schools of inferior, even toxic, teachers. The same is true of administrators who are not doing the job that needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteI agree: The real issue is not the longevities -- which should never have been introduced as a bargaining chip -- but the administrators who allow personnel to slide by, doing the minimum, at most.
ReplyDeleteBuilding administrators hire teachers and are supposed to evaluate them. They also have the power to remove them if they can't cut it.
And it is Central Office personnel and the BOE who hire the building administrators. There may be myriad problems at the bottom, but let's not forget that these problems start at the top.
Yes, there is a system in Norwalk to remove poorly performing teachers.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a system for removing poorly performing teachers or administrators, but how often is it employed to do just that? It is a very unusual event when an educator is fired. Some of them make 6-figure incomes, which I don't resent if they are good teachers, but even bad teachers can get that much.
ReplyDeleteHow is it that some administrators continue to get by, also receiving high salaries, while not doing the work that needs to be done to improve the schools? Some of them work very hard -- but doing the wrong things.
Firing someone, teacher, administrator is almost unheard of unless the persons a pedophile or something. It's not just about getting rid of the bad teachers or principals, why do the just OK ones get automatic raises too just for not leaving.
ReplyDeleteThis is a national problem and will undoubtedly change in the near future. In binary evaluation systems, in which teachers receive either satisfactory or unsatisfactory ratings, 97% of all teachers nationally receive satisfactory ratings. In more complex systems, I believe it is 94%.
ReplyDeleteI should note, again, that teachers and their unions are not the ones doing the evaluations. If inept administrators continue to do sloppy evaluations and are thus forced to confer tenure on inept teachers, unions -- by law -- will continue to defend the rights of those teachers.
One of the reasons Norwalk has not been able to apply for federal Race to the Top funds is that we do not have an evaluation system that somehow links student performance to teacher evaluations. Same goes for New York City.
If teachers want to be thought of as professionals then it seems like they and their unions should take some responsiblity for allowing inept people to remain on the job and quit just blaming it on some higher ups.
ReplyDeletePrincipals are afraid to get caught up in the mess involved in the firing of a bad teacher. The Union makes it very time consuming for the principal.
ReplyDeleteBTW, one assumes that the principal recognizes good practices when evaluating a teacher. Some principals only recognize teachers who manage the classroom, keep students from being sent to the office...and they especially reward teachers who speak well of their principal...
Anyone who is afraid to do his job shouldn't have the job. Any principal who is incapable of recognizing and duly documenting ineffective instruction is a poor excuse for a principal. Conversely, any principal who makes it his/her mission to antagonize, nitpick and harass teachers who are trying to do their jobs should be fired.
ReplyDeleteThis board lacks the wisdom and courage to do the right thing.