 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
In the past several months Lancaster teachers have attended three Lancaster Central School District (LCSD) Board of Education (BOE) meetings to address the board and /or support Lancaster Teacher Association (LTA) president Eric Przykuta in getting a fair contract considering they “had a good year.”
Wearing their red shirts, and appearing in strength between 25 and 75 members at the meetings, teachers speak on how they “go above and beyond what is required of them in their jobs.” Considering teachers will receive an automatic step salary increase of 3.4 percent, the public has to wonder what the sticking points are in reaching a fair contract agreement.
Considering a BOE meeting will be held with the LTA on Monday evening to reach agreement, should a contract not be forthcoming, what the BOE is offering the union will be made public.
BOE member Ken Graber took exception to remarks made by union president Przykuta and voiced, “To come here and act like we are starving your children is certainly a slap in the face to everyone in this community.” Przykuta responded that he differed with Graber’s viewpoint.
BOE member Joseph Maciejewski commented that while the teachers deserve a fair contract, they have to act in the best interest of the taxpaying public as well. “We are trusted with the funds for this school district provided by the taxpayer.”
It is difficult to believe that teachers are unaware of what takes place at the BOE/LTA meetings and what’s being negotiated as was intimated at Monday evening’s meeting. Why aren’t they part of the process?
As a taxpayer who has addressed the BOE at numerous meetings on spending irresponsibility, it is heartening to see the BOE take a stand to reach a contract that is fair not only to the teachers, but to the taxpayer as well.
This is the appropriate course to take considering the economic crisis at hand and the threatened mid-year state aid cuts to school districts proposed by Governor David Patterson.
September BOE meeting report bears repeating
Taxpayers who were present at a September 2009 BOE meeting, have to wonder whether Eric Przykuta, president of the Lancaster Teachers Association, was serious then, and now, when addressing the board to assure them the union’s intent was to support the education system even though a contract that is being negotiated is not in place. “We will do as much as possible for the students.”
Addressing an audience of approximately 200 individuals at that School Board meeting, Lancaster Central School District (LCSD) Superintendent Edward Myszka made a PowerPoint presentation on what cuts would have been necessitated for the 2009-10 calendar year had the district not received $3.6 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act federal stimulus money.
When thanking the President and Congress for making such funds available, Superintendent Myszka made it clear that the report he gave would be sent to federal and state authorities to apprise them on how the stimulus funding was spent to prevent the cutbacks that would have necessitated for the current school year.
Declaring that the district has always acted first and foremost in cutting “things” from the budget rather than people, Superintendent Myszka went on to say that because of a $4 million shortfall in expected State aid funding this past year, the $3.6 federal stimulus aid package prevented cuts that would have had dire ‘across the board impacts’. “The stimulus money was used to retain teachers, programs, administrative and support staff.” After citing a host of “things” that could be cut, Superintendent Myszka added, “there would be only one way to cut $3.6 million from a School District Budget, namely, cutting staff as well.”
Closing Central Avenue School and cutting a total of 32 staff would only release $1.3 million of budget appropriation. Adding that to the $600,000 cuts in “things”, there would still have been the need to cut $1.7 million from the 2009-10 budget. Superintendent Myszka went on to list all the other cuts in staff that would be required and which would move 9 period days at the high and middle schools to 8 period days (detailed information will be posted on the LCSD web site). “Lancaster schools would be a lot different place.”
In summary, the following cuts would have had to be considered for the 2009-10 year:
• Things – Materials, supplies, programs, development programs, buildings/grounds/, enrichment programs, service industry, etc.
• 47.1 Teachers
• 4 Administrators
• 16.75 Support Staff
Included in the necessitated cut backs were the high school and middle school SRO officers.
Myszka closed that meeting by thanking the federal government for the funding which allowed the school district to keep the staff on board and to maintain the programs in place. He cautioned that the funding was but a two-year commitment by the federal government and that the school district does not know what next year’s allocation will be. “Will it be $3.6 million, or less? We don’t know.”
Comments
Not being privy to what is being requested by the teachers union or offered by the LCSD Board of Education (BOE), it is not possible to ascertain whether the current contract negotiation status is reasonable in today’s economic climate and or serves the best interests of the entire community – teachers, students and taxpayers.
Lancaster teachers and their union rep declare they deserve a contract better than their last one because of their 2008-09 school year performance. Lancaster taxpayers who have seen the LCSD budget increase by over 30% in the past five years have to question whether the improved performance was a result of teacher individual performance or an increase in staff that was warranted when the school district was placed on the NYS Contract for Excellence program and was required to spend more money to get state aid for improving its performance status; which it did by hiring more teachers. In the years when Lancaster regressed in ranking, did teachers take a cut in pay?
Hopefully during these contract negotiations both sides are considering the taxpayer. You know, that group of people made up of the following:
• Families with members losing jobs, pensions and health care benefits;
• Low income families that are struggling to make ends meet and are expected to pay for others receiving health care benefits and retirement packages that they can only dream of;
• Seniors/retirees who will not receive an increase in Social Security in the next two years, but are expected to pay more in their own health care programs and for others as well.
• Retirees who have lost savings in the market, getting low returns on bank savings (if they have some) and have no retirement funds and/or health care plans with vision and dental coverage.
The Lancaster Board of Education should keep in mind that Town employee contracts called for no more than 2.75% salary increases and higher prescription/doctor visits/emergency visit co-pays. When taken to task by a union rep at a Town Board work session for the way negotiations were handled and settled, Supervisor Robert Giza retorted that in today’s economic climate the contract should be considered more than fair. Unfortunately, the town had just negotiated four employee contracts that still were more than generous in today’s economic climate.
If teachers at the lower end of the pay scale are dissatisfied with wages, they should challenge the manner in which allotted revenues are distributed by tenure. It doesn’t seem fair that it takes 10 years for a starting MA teacher to increase wages by $11,200 (from $37,300 to $48,500) while teacher salaries increase by $32,300 over the next 11 years (from $48,500 to $80,800). The Taylor Law dictates that all teachers receive a minimum 3.3% salary increase. Where the remainder of the pot of money garnered through contract negotiation goes is determined by the teacher’s negotiation team. The BOE can request the money be equally distributed, but they have no actual say in the matter. Some teachers fair much better than others, and that issue should be resolved between them and their negotiating team. And, please don’t dare tell this individual that by experience one teacher is more qualified or committed to educating and serving student needs.
By the school districts own presentation they should have gotten a wakeup call that they have to start controlling spending because the golden goose may be dead after next year. In the past six years, the budget has increased from $63 million to $84.7 million, a 34.4% increase. Teachers are respected for what they do and deserve a fair contract; fair based on what’s taking place in today’s economic climate. The Board of Education is there to ensure fiscal responsibility is in place. Should the BOE waffle and act inappropriately during the contract negotiations, they can expect to hear from the taxpaying fiscal watchdogs at the next budget hearings. It would behoove the BOE at some point to make known what the sticking point(s) is. Taxpayers have the right to know that their best interests are also being considered in the negotiation process.
Lastly, kudos for the comments made by BOE members Graber and Maciejewski at Monday evening’s meeting.
© Copyright 2023 - Speakupwny.com
hosted by Online Media, Inc
Buffalo Web Design and Web Hosting
Top of Page
|
|
|
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|
Buffalo Web hosting and Buffalo Web Design By OnLineMedia, Inc
www.olm1.com
Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com
|