I just watched a partial replay of this week's School Committee meeting -- with my hand clamped firmly on the Fast-Forward button until I got to the SEA guest appearance at the final Public Forum!!
I'm not sure where to start.
Karen Stapleton, the union spokesperson that night is actually one of the District's great teachers. I've had three kids in her classroom and all have benefited from her hard work, preparation, life experiences, and patient teaching style. She is the kind of teacher who does a great job and in the Private Sector should be well-compensated based on her performance --- not on a fixed union scale. This is definitely a case of "Like the Messenger -- Hate the Message". (I am also one of many folks who hopes she will soon become President of the SEA and bring some sanity back to the process!)
The mechanics of the negotiation process have been that the School Committee discusses goals and objectives and appoints a negotiating team to meet with the Union's team to hammer out a preliminary agreement based on those objectives. In the past, there have been three SC members on the negotiating team. This year, due to various conflicts, there are only two. The SC team then returns to discuss the preliminary proposal with the full Committee, as well as a member of the Board of Selectmen, who is required by Mass. Law to have a vote on any collective bargaining agreement. The full Committee then accepts it, rejects it, or issues counter proposals which their negotiating Team takes back to the Union.
That being said ....
It was interesting that the Union President mentioned that Kangas was present for a "handshake" agreement on a proposed contract. Based on recent on-camera comments from Andrea Killion, the second member of the negotiating team, it is obvious that she never agreed to any union proposal. Could Carlyle's "handshake agreement" have been made solely with Kangas (Who, when asked about her financial experience last year, proudly proclaimed "I got nuthin'".)?
Since when can one School Committee member authorize a union contract?
Growing up, my mother has another phrase for this sort of situation -- she would have called it "A Big Fat Lie" !!
Speaking of Big Fat Lies, it was also stated that the Union offered to take 0% in December of 2009. What wasn't said was for how many months they actually offered to take that 0% OR what "other considerations" they demanded in exchange for that freeze period! Suffice it to say, the School Committee was never presented any realistic wage freeze proposal in December of 2009.
I have my own phrase for that comment -- a Giant Load of Crap!!
One of the Ground Rules of the negotiating process has been that all negotiations are done in Executive Session -- not in the press. After 20+ years on the School Committee, I would have expected that the current Chairperson would be familiar with this rule. Particularly since she sat with the past two Chairmen of the School Committee as they raised this issue and ruled the union president out of order when she has attempted to stage "union performances" during School Committee meetings. (I'm starting to think all negotiations should be televised -- but that's another story!)
Finally, the premise that the union performance was triggered by the Committee approving next year's budget with no budgeted COLA wage increases (although it does contain budgeted step, lane and longevity pay increases) is bogus. This year's budget was also approved with no COLA increases -- the union must have forgotten to complain about that! The Bigger Picture on this issue, is that the Superintendent built, and the Committee passed, a budget based on a bottom line value designated by the Board of Selectmen. The Committee is still very able to negotiate wage increases --- it just has to decide how many teachers will be terminated in order to fund them.
At the risk of being cynical, you don't suppose the latest performance was just an ill-fated attempt to give an appearance of separation between the Union and the Committee members they helped elect?
Nah !!
12 comments:
Bob: As you know, the school budget is a public document. A draft copy has been in circulation for months. Copies are pro-actively delivered to the School Committee and the Teacher’s Union leadership.
The salary line item has not changed since draft #1. Dr. Johnson publicly on camera announced more than once that there were no monies budgeted for contractual increases. You and I and many others have repeatedly pointed this important fact out to many teachers and taxpayers on this blog and elsewhere. And, its certainly not the only worrisome aspect of this budget.
Now the Union and some School Committee members are suggesting that they did not realize this? The only conclusion taxpayers and parents can draw is: That the teachers union leadership and select school committee members either did not read or could not understand the budget and the public budget hearings they participated in.
Maybe Dr. Johnson could let the union leaders and school committee members participate in our school’s literacy program so that they can finally begin to understand what they’re reading? Gee - maybe there is some value to that literacy thing after all?
I watched the meeting and I also know the teacher who spoke is a good one -- but she looked like she was making a hostage video. She was obviously very uncomfortable and appeared to be reading from a script that appeared to have been written by someone else.
Teachers have to get control of their union leaders. Far too many good teachers are being smeared by the actions of their own union president and her henchmen.
Thank you Bob for this article. The short one in this weeks Enterprise had nothing to add to the issue. The reference to the "handshake" agreement is telling. Ms. Kangas is not authorized to act on behalf of the School Committee to be sure. That she is even on the negotiations committee as a newcomer with no background in anything related and as a former School employee is unbelievable. The current leadership of the School Committee, though well meaning, needs some guidence. As everyone keeps pointing out it seems without a doubt almost every decision made since last May spells disaster for the schools and the town as a whole.
Standby for another round of SEA retaliations ...
a comment was made that the current leadership of the school committee was "well meaning" but in need of guidance. You could call Mrs Marshall a lot of things, and god knows we do, but well meaning is not one of them!!!!!!
Conniving and Devious = Sherry Marshall
Descriptions of the other four dwarfs Dopey, Grumpy, and Sleepy
and their in charge of 30 Million Dollars, our childrens education and great teachers.
Can someone explain how we got to this dreadful point?
First, I think you're giving Shari way too much credit calling her "devious" !! I like the Dopey, Grumpy, Sleepy labels!
Second, we got to this point because nobody paid any attention to anything other than their own little tiny worlds.
8:33 Your two points are dead on, None of them are smart enough to be devious, but Connivers they all fit that description.
In one word to encapsulate the past 9 months:
Conniving: to cooperate secretly in an illegal or wrongful action; collude.
To Scheme to plot, to feign ignorance of or fail to take measures against a wrong, thus implying tacit encouragement or consent.
Secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed.
As Augustine pointed out, at that time of Stapleton's presentation, the SC was doing nothing wrong. The SEA was breaking one the FIRST agreed upon ground rules at virtually EVERY negotiation....we will discuss any matter concerning negotiations in private. If it were me sitting on the SC I would have let Stapleton go on and on and on
8:46 -- I agree the union violated the negotiation ground rules. But, the Committee was wrong to give the SEA a soapbox to climb up on to spread more misinformation.
It appears that the union never offered a 0%, and never had any agreement about anything (except maybe between Laura & Marie!)
Mrs. Stapleton is a first rate teacher but she reminded me of Linehan during her first year in office. Remember how Looneyhan would start reading her "union propoganda speech" from flash cards and as soon as someone interrupted her or asked a question, she'd lose her footing, stammer, not answer anything and go right back to reading the speech. It was painfully obvious that someone else had written it for her and that she was not prepared to answer questions because she didn't even know what she had just read. Sending the lamb to the slaughter (Stapleton the lamb; Laura the sender) was a classic move on Carlysle's part. Sherry for her part knew after 20 years on the SC that you simply cannot discuss negotiations at the table. What nonsense -- do they really believe that the public thinks the SC is not union-friendly based on that little drama!
Shaun tried, as he has done time and time again since May, to do the right thing but the chair just didn't know what to do. Leadership is just not there. I guess having a majority really is meaningless on so many levels that count.
Post a Comment