Many thanks to a NewsOverCoffee reader who emailed notes from last night's meeting to me. You can also read coverage of this meeting from WFMZ (read it here) and the Morning Call (read it here).
There were less than 30 total in attendance plus a half dozen children. Those in attendance included representatives from the Nazareth Area Education Association (NAEA) - president, president elect, negotiator, a couple of NAEA IT guys and several teachers. Press included Arlene Martinez from the Morning Call, a rep. from the Express-Times (this article did not come up in a search this morning), and WFMZ-TV, channel 69.
Opening statement was made by NAEA president Dan Ifkowitz, who gave as he called it the "readers digest" version of the negotiations. The process began in the summer of 2004. In 2005 a survey was sent around to the NAEA members to list "what you want to see in the next contract". The four "biggies" were Salary, Benefits, Meetings, and Prep Time.
Of these salary was the top item. Teachers felt underpaid compared to surronding districts. It was noted that the recently released School District numbers were from alot of distrcits to the north and not really representative of Nazareth. NAEA noted the District has wanted to compact salary structure so that it have 16 steps to get to the top pay as compared to the current 21 years (steps). Comment was made that it's not accurate to compare Nazareth's step 5 to other districts step 5 because of compaction (A current level 9 would go to a level 5 so you would be comparing a teacher w/ 9 years vs a teacher of another district with 5 years).
This issue has been very confusing to those outside the district. If what is stated here by the teachers is accurate, Nazareth currently has one year of service per step, but would move to a system where steps would not correspond to experience and as a result you couldn't compare steps from district to district you'd have to compare teacher's experience in terms of years.
The teachers put out their own sheet showing salaries in Nazareth (Masters grade only-current salary, not board proposed) as compared to other districts (Allentown-2007, East Penn-2007, IU-current, Parkland-2007, Q-town-2006, Salisbury-2009, S. Lehigh-2009, Whitehall-2009).
Again, it seems the comparison is off in a different way than the one the district presented, because the NAEA is using the expired contract figures to compare to other future district amounts (some as far out as 2009).
Ifkowitz said, "moneywise, we are not that far apart" (presumably referring to the proposed board offer that currently provides about a 4% increase per year for five years).
Benefits were discussed after salary. The negotiator from PSEA said that he's reviewed alot of packages in the PA schools and that Nazareth's is the worst he's ever seen. "They've gutted it".
According to him the average district in PA pays $15K/employee for health care coverage. He said Nazareth pays $5K/employee (by comparison the District has stated they pay $8K/yr so again, we have conflicting 'facts'). What wasn't clarified was how the expenditure per employee translates into quality of coverage.
It was noted that the Dental plan was "okay", but orthodontia wasn't covered. An audience member stated that orthodontia was added in the new contract per the districts' website and NAEA corrected themselves.
Mammograms were brought up by an audience member as something that wasn't covered, but this statement was corrected to reflect that mammograms were indeed covered for women over 40 or for anyone that had a history of breast cancer in their family.
The teacher who is leaving for Parkland was brought up again by another teacher that was present.
Several references were made as to the board "hiding money" and that they lacked fiscal management. As an example the pool situation was brought up - how the board authorized a study w/o knowing the cost (ultimately $250K).
The teachers are putting together a website. It's not ready yet, they said give it a week or so. The address is:
www.nazteacher.com
Again, I was not at the meeting last night, but I very much appreciate the individual sending these notes (which I did rewrite a tiny bit to keep it anonymous). There is a lot to discuss within what has been reported here. If you were at the meeting and have something to add please comment or email me. If you'd like to comment on what was stated, by all means get to it and enjoy sipping newsovercoffee!
18 comments:
As far as comparing steps between districts, there is much confusion. I asked for a clarification on this during the meeting.
The NAEA position is that you cannot compare teachers from Nazareth because of the compaction. A level 9 teacher (9 yrs experience) would go down to a level 5 so you would in essence be comparing a 9 year teacher to a 5 year teacher.
HOWEVER, this only applies to current teachers and comparing current teachers to other districts.
The point of the compaction as stated by the NAEA last night was to reduce the time it took for a Nazareth teacher to reach the top pay grade. The compaction means it would take 16 years (1 year per step) to reach the top.
Based on this, you'll have teachers maxed out on their salary (and resultant pensions) before they turn 40.
BUT, any NEW teacher coming into the district would definitely be comparable to the corresponding steps of other districts.
It would seem there ought to be a "before" and "after" comparison.
The before would be the current salary and schedule (21 steps) against other districts for the 2005-2006 school year to see where we were.
Then compare where we would be under the new system. BUT, if you were at the top step 21 and are now at top step 16, don't compare to step 16 of another district, compare to the top step. Do the same with the starting step.
It appears from what is being said that these may be the only steps we are able to easily compare.
In addition to this rather confusing issue, did anyone else think the PSEA rep from the state did more damage than good by stating the district "gutted" the medical coverage? I didn't see any benefits being taken away, only added to the package. Was this in fact what he was referring to? The note I received as well as at least one of the media articles I read quoted it this way, but it doesn't seem anyone identified any benefit being removed from the package.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment!
The information on the benefits did seem a little confusing. However, one point is that the benefits are reviewed every year. And according to the union, slowly the quality of coverage has been 'gutted'. For example, teachers can take their children to the doctor to get their shots, the shots, by law, are covered, but the doctor's visit is not. We all know that can cost anywhere from $50 to $95 a visit. Also, diagnostic check ups and lab tests are only covered if something is 'wrong'.
One point I would like to make is this: the school board reports to us, the taxpayers. We are their bosses. If we want this issue settled, we must show up to the board meetings and let the board know that they must return to the negotiating table and continue talking. This should not drag on until there is irreparable harm done to this community.
I guess in essence "well visits" are out of pocket, but illness and vaccinations are covered is how the plan now exists (yes?).
Seems if the plan is reveiwed/modified every year they ought to get a clause or protection from changes between contracts, but I don't know if that is possible.
If benefits have changed in this fashion you can see where they'd be upset. I still don't think they could go so far as to say the package is "awful, gutted, or the worst in the Lehigh Valley".
Regarding your other point, we are the boss in the sense that we select who sits on the School Board. Unfortunately, once they are on, it is up to themselves to determine how they will act (by that I mean with will of people, best interest, or personal interests) and there is virtually nothing that can be done until the next election rolls around if you don't like how they conduct themselves.
I do think they can be pressured to find a resolution, but I think more important right now is that the people need to pressure both sides into getting the issues down to agreed upon facts.
It seems to me that the district popped alot of information out that looked good, then once it is looked at misrepresentations are found. This goes both ways.
Right now we are caught in a PR battle between the two who are attempting to sway people by "facts" and emotions.
The creation of a teachers' web site to balance the districts' site would seem to be an indication that this is going to continue (but I applaud the effort I think it is important - of course they could have used NewsOverCoffee!)
I was actually wondering today how the "days" are determined for the current process. If it is calendar days then we are nearing the end of week 3 (21 days) out of the 40 allowed.
Thanks again,
From what I understood last night, the 40 days for the fact-finding does not begin until a fact finder is named. That has not happened yet, but will occur shortly.
They can still negotiate during this time.
The board must follow a code of ethics which can be found on the district web site. From what I have seen and heard, I believe some of them have forgotten this. I hope to attend the board meeting on Monday to remind the board how they should conduct themselves and what their priorities should be based on the code of ethics they agreed to when they became board members.
Wow - so let's say the person is appointed end of next week (10/20/06) they will have until 11/29/06 (40 days). A strike at that point could run December into January.
Seems the two sides ought to be at the table once a week to head this off.
Another point that was made last night was emailed to me:
"According to the PSEA negotiator, the district is "obligated" (his words) to provide a different healthcare plan. According to him, it's a "cadillac-BlueCross/BlueShield" type plan. Apparently, they have not been providing this to the teachers for some time (since 1987 when they went to the trust fund type funding system). According to him, the board will lose this part of the argument when it goes to fact finding. Their price tag on
this is an $8M dollar hit to the district, which in his words would
"bankrupt the district". He and the NAEA was quick to point out that they do not want this to happen (that they have sacrificed alot in terms of salary already) and that they only want a more equitable (fair?) healthcare plan (not the "cadillac" plan they are apparently entitled to).
When asked to clarify this, stated it wasn't the healthcare plan part of the cyclical contracts they had been agreeing to and did not get a clear answer.
Anyone able to speak to this (yet another seemingly confusing issue)?
Thanks again for the added insight and comments from the meeting.
One thing I found out is the code of ethics on the boards' part with their commitment following up with taxpapers and parents concerns basically is not to address the issues at all with any kind of replies. Ignore them and they will sweep the issues under the carpet, it has been the way of nasd over the years for some of the board members let their positions inflate their ego to bring about a state of arrogance with a tyrant rule and finally the taxpayers are seeing this. I was at last night meeting and I can see where and how the teachers and public would be doubtful on the side of what the district presented. Even for a district, I found the words on the webpage addressing the nego to be let us say hostile. Dr Lesky was sure to add to this one side view at the Shafer PTA meeting. We do need, in all fairness, sides or no sides, hear what the teachers say. This district has become very top heavy with admin getting it all and then some. Also, the buddy system and power struggles within have caused them(the board and admin) to lose sight of the best practices when educating our kids. Again it is the teachers who teach the kids, somehow I would like to see them get the respect they deserve, the board has been truly not presenting all facts straight forward. The teachers certainly have a points worth listening too as I found out last night. They cannot involve the child to bring home hand outs but teachers can still picket during the fact finders time. I would like to all the taxpapers get the handouts on the teachers' side since the school district has led you to believe their info is the only info. It is not a good situation and I think with morale down teachers all going to move elsewhere.
The school board and admin has gotten out of control and we need parents to show up at meetings throughout the year and question their policies.
I'd be more than happy to post them here if someone forwards them along.
Send them to editor@newsovercoffee.com
I would like to clarify the issue of mammograms being covered by the teachers medical insurance. What I understood was that a mammogram was covered at the age of 40. If a mammogram was required prior to the age of 40 it is not covered no matter what the circumstance. This is what I was told by a teacher and I also heard the representative from the PSEA confirm.
First of all, let me state that both sides share some amount of culpability that this matter has become what it is now.
Both sides are not being completely honest with their facts and figures. For example, I ran the numbers from the school boards salary comparison... For most of the salary grade levels, the pay raise calculated over the entire 5 year contract is what the district says... HOWEVER, for some of the higher paying grades, they run into a $1500 hit at the upper grades. The district doesn't use this number when they state the max salary. For example, the district has Bachelors 16L at $84,623 when (if I read it correctly) would actually be $1500 less or $83,123. Given that Nazareth is a pretty top heavy district in terms of teacher tenure, I can see where this might upset NAEA members.
The NAEA cannot in turn, compare "old" salaries to other districts future salaries (in some cases as far out as 2009).
I'm still not entirely sure about the "cadillac" type healthcare coverage that the district is somehow "obligated" to provide. Are not the healthcare benefits negotiated during each successive contract cycle? If so, how/why did the teachers let it get as bad as they say it is? (considering they made this change in 1987 and therefore several contracts have been negotiated since then) I would also like to see a comparison of the benefits offered to other school districts to see if in fact "this is the worst in PA".
Again, this situation is ugly and getting uglier. Blind loyalty to one side or another is not helping matters. We, as parents, taxpayers, teachers, concerned citizens (whatever) need to get this negotiated (which means give and take on BOTH sides) and put to rest so we can move on and get to what's really important - the education of our children.
As for mammograms... this is where something is said/heard that may or not be true and it runs like wildfire.
From page 35 of the benefits package is the following:
Benefits are provided for one (1) screening mammography per Calendar Year for females
forty (40) years of age and older. For females under age forty (40), all Physicianrecommended
mammograms are covered.
So, if there's a history of breast cancer in the family, those would undoubtedly be covered.
I wish everyone would get all the information before jumping to conclusions...
I think it is time for the Board and NAEA to stop spreading their "publicity" out to the public. Sit down and negotiate!!
The board and the NAEA are both saying that they have tried to meet and negotiate out a contract. Obviously both sides are failing….My suggestion, negotiate this contract in front of the public and let the public vote. I bet both sides would be fearful of that option, because I feel that both sides are not being honest when they speak about what is happening.
If both sides are so confident that that they are being honest and fair in the negotiation process, let the public view the next negotiation meeting! Then we as taxpayers can decide the best contract for the district.
If we cannot have a say in the contract, at least those of us that are really interested can hear what each side is "truly" offering.
It seems to me that the reason the NAEA has been so slow to put out information regarding their demands is that they don't really want to make them public. They realize that their health care and pension benefits are far superior to what most working people can expect.
They are upset because their health care premiums will go up from their current $500+ per year? I have to pay $359 per MONTH, for a higher deductible ($25).
They get to retire on 75% of their top salary? My company scrapped their pension benefits years ago. Most people these days are on their own (with 401-K/IRA).
I appreciate good teachers. May they get whatever they can negotiate. But there's a reason why they are not putting out the whole story. They would be foolish to publicize what they have and what they are asking for. I guess they figure they can have more success by bashing the board.
Some have questioned the accountability of the school board. The fact is that the school board are the ONLY ones that are truly accountable to the community. At least we can vote them out. What accountability does the NAEA have to taxpayers or parents? None - they are only accountable to the teachers.
You can vote out a board member. What can you do about a bad teacher with tenure? Absolutely nothing.
NAEA arguments which play on emotional themes such as "respect" or "caring about the children" are disingenuous and, in my view, reprehensible. They are calculated to sway public opinion on emotion rather than facts.
From what I can see, the current offer stands up pretty well in relation to other comparable districts. Let's see some actual information from the NAEA if they can prove otherwise.
www.nazteacher.com now has so info on their site. The school board and admin only seems to be accountable to the community when everything looks good, the want to hear nothing of any issues or concerns that would question their policies.
Check out the NAEA website. These numbers seem to be the same that were posted here and apparently handed out at the informational meeting.
As for the numbers, the NAEA is comparing their current salaries to other district 2009 future salaries. Take a look. If I'm a teacher in Whitehall, I'm feeling a little jealous that Nazareth teachers are currently making equal to what I will make in 3+ years!!!
Which brings up a good point that I haven't seen discussed that much. Nazareth is a great community. For the most part, quiet, rural, affluent, etc. I'm just guessing, but I would bet that teachers in Nazareth probably do not have as many problems/issues at the their schools as compared to teachers from Allentown or south side Bethlehem. That's not to say Nazareth is without it's problems. But ask yourself this: Would you rather be a teacher at Shafer Elementary or Calypso Elementary?
Wow, what can I say? There is not enough correct information getting out to the public. Has anyone checked in with the teachers to find out exactly what they spend or the supplies that they are lacking? How many of you need to spend your own money on the items you NEED to do your job. Most teachers spend seveal hundred dollars a year on the basics, not to mention more money on the "extra" things that they do for our kids. I know of teachers in this district who have received thousands of dollars in items that they never asked for and that were not needed. All of this, while items that were needed (such as books!) were taken off of the budget. Ask your child's teacher how well his/her room is "equipped" and ask him/her just what things in his/her room have been paid for out of his/her own pocket. You may be as shocked as I am!!!
I have to assume you've got a good handle on what items and amounts your talking about. Could you give us specifics?
Thanks!
Ross
Post a Comment