Chariho School Parents’ Forum

October 28, 2009

Chariho teacher contract

Filed under: contract negotiations,Unions — Editor @ 10:34 pm

From our friends in Richmond

 

Teacher Contract Ratification Scheduled

 

The Chariho School Committee is scheduled to meet this Thursday (10/29), 6PM, Middle School Library, to ratify the teacher’s contract.

 

I didn’t hear it but I’m told by others that there was an expectation that the “ground rules” made accommodation for the secret negotiations by having the contract available for public review for 30 days before the ratification vote. It appears that this will not occur. As it stands now, your only opportunity to hear about the new contract and make your feeling known will be at this meeting.

 

I’ve probably heard the same rumors you have on what will be in the new contract – – many of them the same we have seen in other contacts this year in other towns  – increased co-pays (lets hope we get them to the private sector range of 25-35%) – – very small or no “raises” (lets hope they deal with the real raises – the steps) — changes in longevity (good if they go as far as Hopkinton in eliminating them – although we did replace them with a couple of steps) — and will they follow East Providence and propose merit pay. 

 

Of course, the devil is in the details, so a 30 day review would have been nice 

 

 

July 23, 2009

Sometimes timing is everything

Filed under: contract negotiations,Hopkinton,pension,Police,Unions — Editor @ 10:22 pm

Having just gotten back from a trip I got caught up here, then started reading the papers and blogs. First on the list is Anchorrising and Justin’s post on pensions is as timely as ever and brings in another persepective on our pension issue.

We  have been talking about the difference between defined contribution and defined benefit plans as a matter of liability — How much is owned. This article helps to understand the difficulty in paying for it.

As Gene and Lois have said, our private sector 401 k’s are now 201 k’s as a result of the failing market. But public sector pensions also rely on investment income. 

The  AR post is pasted in full below because it’s so darn good (and did I mention timely).

 

Pensions and Politics

Katherine Gregg’s Providence Journal article on Rhode Island’s pension fund losses has an interesting frame. Toward the beginning (emphasis added):

Despite this recent run of losses, state officials say there is no immediate danger for state and local employees and teachers whose retirement checks are drawn from the pension fund, which is made up of a mix of investment earnings, taxpayer contributions and employee contributions. These retired public employees are guaranteed pension payments for life, regardless of the stock market’s performance.

And the final word is given to Stephen Laffey, who (Gregg notes) is “weigh[ing] a return to politics”:

“I have said many times that the only way to save the pension system is to end it and give everyone their money and go to a 401(k) plan … like the people in the private sector,” Laffey said in an e-mail.

The question — over which the unions will shed blood, if necessary (although probably figuratively) — is who bears the risk. When the market shrinks beyond reserves, or simply does not live up to the excessive requirement of more than 8% growth, either retirees manage on less income or the state attempts to tighten the tax vice on a population that already feels overtaxed (with ample justification). Moral considerations aside, the latter option is simply not functional; folks working in the private sector are not going to idly watch their money flow to retirees, many of whom are taking home more than they are, and employers are not going to accept the escalating costs associated with operations in Rhode Island.

Probably the most important point to emerge from the article is that inadequate half-measures aren’t going to cut it:

But the market losses have already eliminated any possibility of taxpayer savings this year from state lawmakers’ decision to curb annual cost-of-living increases and institute a minimum retirement age for all state pensioners. As state budget officer Rosemary Gallogly explained Wednesday: “The rate of payroll determined for FY2010 will not change as a result of pension fund performance.”

Mr. Laffey, in other words, is absolutely correct: The two possibilities are (1) drastic changes or (2) the collapse of the pension system, bringing the state with it.

 

You can comment directly on the  AR blog HERE.

Then there is the ProJo piece on Providence giving us a glimpse of the future (h/t Gene).

This is a concern for Providence since the city is already drawing nearly 62 percent of its obligation to pensioners from its yearly contribution to the system, meaning it is putting money into the system almost as fast as it is being paid out.

And our  baby boomers are just starting to retire – things are going to get worse quickly.

All the writing is on the wall. The only reason the state isn’t in more pain right now is because we put $226m of stimulus money to plug the budget – we still increased spending 12%. Next year we can expect things to be worse. Drastic change is needed and Hopkinton is as good as place as any to start.

figuring it out

Filed under: contract negotiations,Police,Unions — Editor @ 8:27 pm

Lois Buck is a very brave person. Tom, her husband, HTC prez, and a friend, crafted the police contract with DeLibero and she has been defending him here courageously, especially considering the overall tenor of people who post comments here. (Tom is not a internet user)

Everything I talk about here I’ve spoken with Tom personally, as well as most of the council, so there are no secrets. And to a person (sans Bev who I haven’t spoken much about these things) I believe they know that the perfect world would be where public sector workers are paid the same as private sector – no better, no worse. And we can all agree it used to be much worse for the public labor, but now it is much better – the pendulum has swung to apex.

Lois, Tom et. al., disagree with me that drastic change can occur quickly and support incremental changes. I say we can’t afford those anymore because the decisions we make today,  such as the pensions, lock us into unreasonable costs that we wont be able to afford in the future – when they come due.

But Lois’ inquisition brings out the best in my neuroses. She was not comfortable with my admittedly gross estimates. So, I am compelled to provide such proof as asked.

But we have to make some estimates. So how about this:

The payroll I got from the town hall had a typo (linked int he first pension post below). What was listed as “other longevity” is the clothing allowance.  Longevity is built into the salary so I don’t know what last years base was. But I do have a list of the employees and what year of service they are in. I can apply the pay according to the rank and year.

That gives us this grid for the first two years of the contract (which is what I happened to have on a spreadsheet now but can add the rest when I get to the office but I doubt it will change it much).

Calculated Hourly   Jul-09   Jul-10   Jul-11   2yr raise total
Name/Badge yrs hourly 37.5X52            
Ch. Scuncio 1 11 $43.29 $84,419.75 $44.16 $86,108.15 $45.48 $88,691.39 *1 5.1%
Patton 9 9 $29.83 $58,168.50 31.16 $60,762.00 32.09 $62,575.50 *4 7.6%
Ahearn 6 5 $27.71 $54,034.50 28.26 $55,107.00 29.11 $56,764.50 *5 5.1%
Cole 17 7 $27.71 $54,034.50 28.26 $55,107.00 29.11 $56,764.50 *7 5.1%
Dufault 18 7 $21.14 $41,223.00 21.56 $42,042.00 22.21 $43,309.50 *8 5.1%
Kenyon 10 7 $27.71 $54,034.50 28.26 $55,107.00 29.11 $56,764.50 *10 5.1%
Nutting 16 1 $21.14 $41,223.00 24.21 $47,209.50 26.49 $51,655.50 *11 25.3%
Percivil 11 5 $27.71 $54,034.50 28.26 $55,107.00 29.11 $56,764.50 *12 5.1%
Quartella 15 11 $30.54 $59,553.00 31.15 $60,742.50 32.09 $62,575.50 *13 5.1%
Whewell 8 8 $27.71 $54,034.50 28.26 $55,107.00 31.34 $61,113.00 *14 13.1%
Forbes 14 1 $21.14 $41,223.00 24.21 $47,209.50 26.49 $51,655.50 *11 25.3%
Sgt. Lyman  5 19 $33.09 $64,525.50 33.09 $64,525.50 36.19 $70,570.50 *3 9.4%
Det. Macdonald 7 20 $31.25 $60,937.50 32.6 $63,570.00 33.58 $65,481.00 *15 7.5%
Altimari 12  20 $31.25 $60,937.50 32.6 $63,570.00 33.58 $65,481.00 *6 7.5%
Lt. Baruti 2 20 $34.80 $67,862.30 $35.50 $69,219.55 $36.56 $71,296.13 *2 5.1%
new recruit 0 $19.14 $37,323.00 21.56 $42,042.00 24.94 $48,633.00 *16 30.3%
*1 no step changes, just 2  & 3%       two yr avg plus 1yr  
*2 moves to 21+ chart ??? But already above so just added 3%   10.40% 5.20%  
*3  goes from <20 to 21+ = 34.45 yr 1, 35.14 yr 2, 36.19 yr 3        
*4 30.54 + 2% yr 2 (31.16), 31.16 + 3% yr 3(32.09)         
*5 27.71 + 2% = 28.26 yr 2, 28.26 + 3% = 29.11 YR 3        
*6 goes to 21+ in yr 2- 31.96+2%=32.60, + 3% yr 3=33.58         
*7 27.71 + 2% = 28.26 yr 2, 28.26 + 3% = 29.11 YR 3        
*8 21.14+2%=21.56 yr 2. 21.56+3%=22.21 yr 3          
*9 33.84+2%=34.52 yr 2, 34.52+3%=35.55 yr 3          
*10 27.71 + 2% = 28.26 yr 2, 28.26 + 3% = 29.11 YR 3        
*11 23.74+2%=24.21 yr 2 – yr3 step 3 25.21+2%=25.71- +3%=26.49      
*12 27.71 + 2% = 28.26 yr 2, 28.26 + 3% = 29.11 YR 3        
*13 30.54+2%=31.15 yr2, 31.15+3%=32.09 yr 3          
*14 27.71 + 2% = 28.26 yr 2, yr3step 10 29.83+2%=30.43 + 3%=31.34      
*15 goes to 21+ in yr 2- 31.96+2%=32.60, + 3% yr 3=33.58         
*16 21.14+2%=21.56 yr2, yr3 step2-23.74+2%=24.21 +3%=24.94      
  new recruit same as above            
                   

That gives us an average raise of 5.2% per year (which is good compared to the last contract and most others that are around 7%).  So if I extend the salaries out the appropriate years to when they would retire, based on increases of 5.2% per year, that would give us a final salary at retirement. We still won’t have the holiday pay but that’s going to be small potatoes compared to the rest.

I would be happy to do that spreadsheet if you think those assumptions are good. Sound ok?

July 19, 2009

HPD Salary and pension info

Filed under: contract negotiations,Hopkinton,Police,Unions — Editor @ 4:32 pm

The police salary spreadsheet is posted HERE (pdf) and HERE (excel). I’m a bit confused on a couple of points which I asked for clarification of and will post the response when in.

First item I don’t get is the “other longevity.”  The HPD contract states that longevity will be paid as follows:

Five years of service through the tenth year of service, 5 percent of annual salary; after completion of ten years of service through the fifteenth year of service, 7 1/2 percent of annual salary; after completion of fifteen years of service through the twentieth year of service, 10 percent of annual salary; after completion of twenty years of service, 12 1/2 percent of annual salary.

But as you see on the spreadsheet, all longevity is listed at $650. Officer Baruti, as an example, has 20+ yrs of service and a base salary of  $69,166.19, so his longevity would be $8,645.75.  Of course the contract says “annual salary” so I just hope that means base.

I’m also very surprised about the amount of overtime paid. Officer Lyman, who does the negotiations for the union has $19,136 in overtime. The most is $21,746 for one officer who went from $59,709 to $82,286 – an increase over the base pay of  38%. And this is different from “detail” payments which can be reimbursed.

I’m also unsure why Chief Scunzio is listed as paid by “salary” – we see he not only got paid for some overtime but he also has 550 hours of accumulated “comp” time that he will be paid for in one lump sum (@ his $43 hr that equals $23,650 – let’s hope this doesn’t get included in his pension, which already includes longevity and holiday pay!!!).  Ironically, our chief, who receives a pension from the taxpayers for previous employment, will retire with his 2 pensions to Exeter, a town without a police department.

As I get the pension comparison ready to post I thought you might like to see the most current Muni Employee’s Retirement System Actuarial Valuation Report.  I’ll have the comparison posted soon.

June 29, 2009

Perpetually unconstitutional

Filed under: contract negotiations,funding formula,Unions — Editor @ 12:21 pm

Those of you following S713 and H5762 (the bill to allow never-ending teacher contracts) will be interested in the following OpEd in the ProJo and accompanying policy brief. Printable pdf and word versions of the policy brief are available on the OSPRI website (follow the link for policy brief above).

Legislature assaults local democracy

 

01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, June 27, 2009

 

  

It is a foundational tenet of the American political system that a sitting legislature cannot bind a future legislature. This concept is the very basis of our electoral system. Elections would have little meaning if the actions of former legislators could not be dislodged by their successors.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has articulated this common-law principle as meaning: “any contract made by a governmental authority involving the performance of a governmental function that extends beyond the unexpired terms of the governmental officials executing the contract is void because such an agreement improperly ties the hands of subsequent officials.”

How does this limit come into play with teacher contracts, which represent the single largest expenditure for cities and towns as they balance their budgets in the wake of cuts in local aid?

The legislature itself has recognized the role of local elections in the shaping of teacher contracts and has specifically limited their term by statute to three years. Even this policy might be subject to constitutional challenge, in cases in which school committees are elected for two-year terms.

Our legislature has recently proposed to make public teacher contracts perpetual. This is suspect from the perspective of both constitutional law and policy.

Unfortunately, very few lawmakers see the danger of this approach. Continuing the terms of an existing contract until it is replaced by a new contract, they believe, simply confirms a longstanding custom which insures continuity of service. In practice, however, such a device turns public labor contracts into perpetual one-way ratchets. Salaries and benefits can go up, but they can never go down.

The last three generations of Americans, including Rhode Islanders, were blessed in experiencing a growing economy (and productivity) that, at its weakest, did not create a sustained downward pressure on wages. It was a time when the battle cry of public-sector unions was to maintain parity with opportunities in the private sector.

It should raise some suspicion that the sudden rush to enact a statute locking the terms of old contracts in place comes when the private sector is, for the first time in recent memory, experiencing reductions in wages and benefits. Suddenly the argument for parity with the private sector has gone silent. The new paradigm being pushed is that public employees should always be entitled to at least the status quo.

And there is no mistaking the specific context of this legislative effort. These bills were filed shortly after the East Providence School Committee, between an economic rock and hard place, determined it would not continue the provisions of its expired contract and unilaterally cut pay and instituted a health insurance contribution as a deficit-reduction measure.

There is precedent for this action in labor law, but it is not an outcome we have been used to seeing in Rhode Island. Often, by mutual agreement, contracts made in previous elective cycles have been continued during an impasse in negotiations with newly elected officials. But mandating this outcome is quite different than sitting officials’ agreeing to it.

The cities and towns are the laboratories of democracy in Rhode Island.

To undercut the prerogatives of local elected officials in the name of maintaining friendly labor negotiations is to violate the very purpose of our electoral system. School budgets represent the vast majority of local spending, and teachers’ salaries the lion’s share of those budgets. Altering local officials’ ability to control those costs relegates local elections to doing little more than changing the names on town welcome signs.

By the same token that current school committees cannot be bound by the actions of their predecessors, the legislature is not bound by its own decision that three years is a proper teacher contract horizon. It seems certain, though, that adopting perpetual contracts, even in the name of smoothing labor disputes and improving government functioning, is constitutionally prohibited.

Perhaps one could make the case that it is the constitutional rule that is inappropriate, but that would require demonstrating that previous experiments at perpetual contracts have been effective and harmonious.

The firefighters in Providence have shown what to expect. The legislature enacted binding arbitration for these public-safety workers. Thus, their contract is effectively continuous and its terms will be decided through arbitration if the parties cannot agree within 30 days of commencing negotiation.

This may come as a surprise to those familiar with the signs that have adorned public streets near Providence firehouses complaining how many days the firefighters have worked without a contract. What those signs actually count is the number of days Mayor Cicilline has refused to accede to the wishes of the fire fighters for a generous contract without arbitration.

The delay in the arbitration process lets the firefighters claim they don’t have a contract, even when the history of arbitration shows they will be quite reasonably treated by the outcome and are working under mutual legal obligation with the city. If their behavior at the U.S. Mayors’ Conference is the “labor peace” that is being bought with perpetual contracts, it might be time to reconsider whether that tree is really bearing fruit.

It goes without saying that, absent serious economic justification, any school committee or council that effectively locked out its teachers would face serious political consequences. That may well be why the last 50 years hasn’t produced a handful of such events, while every year we are treated to the news of teacher strikes.

The teachers shouldn’t be blamed for aggressively standing their ground. Rather, the blame falls on politicians who refuse to fight fire with fire —and worse, on state legislators who now seem poised, absent a public outcry, to tip the scales even more in favor of the teachers unions.

Brian Bishop directs the Founders Project at the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, studying the application to public policy of foundational principles of the U.S. and Rhode Island constitutions. (Susan Carcieri, the governor’s wife, is a member of the Board of Directors of OSPRI but does not review or approve publication submissions.)

 

 

Good for your Constitution – notes from the Founders Project
A Policy Brief from the Ocean State Policy Research Institute
June 26, 2009
Perpetual Contracts push Constitutional Envelope

 

 

It is a foundational tenet of the American political system that a sitting legislature cannot bind a future legislature. This concept is the very basis of our electoral system. Elections would have little meaning if the actions of former legislators could not be dislodged by their successors.

The RI Supreme Court has articulated this common-law principle as meaning: “any contract made by a governmental authority involving the performance of a governmental function that extends beyond the unexpired terms of the governmental officials executing the contract is void because such an agreement improperly ties the hands of subsequent officials.”1

As is often the case, one needs to refer to another case on how this limitation on “governmental function” applies to running public schools. The Supreme Court subsequently said unequivocally: “It is our opinion that the operation and the maintenance of a public school is a governmental function and not a proprietary one.”2

In “proprietary” areas, political actors can contract for periods normal to similar private transactions without regard to elective terms. Proprietary functions, according to the court, are those: “not so intertwined with governing that the government is obligated to perform it only by its own agents or employees”.3

Ironically, the Ocean State Policy Research Institute has argued forcefully that public education ought to be viewed more as a proprietary function — not so fully dependent upon government run schools or so fully funded by government resources. To date, we have not prevailed in making this case and absent such a clear change in public policy the Court has definitively limited contracts with public school teachers.

In apparent recognition of this paradigm, the legislature has limited teacher contracts to 3 years. But this year, they have proposed making public teacher contracts perpetual.
Of course the same principle at issue here means that the present legislature is not bound by the previous legislative determination that 3 years is a proper contract horizon.

Although this proposed legislation seems to confirm the custom of keeping the old contract in force while negotiating a new one, such an enactment would be constitutionally suspect.

Often, by mutual agreement, contracts made in previous elective cycles have been continued during an impasse in negotiations with newly elected officials. But mandating this outcome is quite different than sitting school committee members endorsing it.

The cities and towns are the laboratories of democracy in Rhode Island. School budgets represent the vast majority of local spending, and teachers’ salaries the lion’s share of those budgets. Altering local officials’ ability to control those costs relegates local elections to doing little more than changing the names on town welcome signs.

It seems certain that adopting perpetual contracts, even in the name of smoothing labor disputes and improving government functioning, is constitutionally prohibited.
________________
1 R.I. Student Loan Auth. v. Nels, Inc., 550 A.2d 624, 626
2 Chakuroff v. Boyle, 667 A. 2d 1256, 1258
3 Lepore v. Rhode Island Public Transit Auth., 524 A.2d 574, 575

Brian Bishop directs the Founders Project at the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, studying the application of the constitutional principles of the United States and Rhode Island to public policy.

Working to increase contract understanding

Sylvia makes the best point towards the end of the article (emphasis added) –

From the Westerly Sun:

Union contracts up for vote next week
Hopkinton councilors weigh pacts with police, department heads and clerical workers.
     
By VICTORIA GOFF / Sun Staff Writer
HOPKINTON — The Town Council is expected to consider approving contracts for three unions next week after the existing pacts expire tomorrow.

The council will likely vote on the pacts for the unions — police, clerical and “professional and technical” (department heads) — on July 6, said former Town Manager William A. DiLibero and Council President Thomas E. Buck, who have been in private talks with the unions.

The police union has approved its contract. The council has not yet seen final versions of the other two contracts, and it is awaiting approval by the unions, said DiLibero, whose last day as town manager was Friday.

The council has not publicly offered details on what is contained in the new pacts, despite earlier this year supporting a bill that would have required municipalities and school districts to release a proposed contract and an accompanying fiscal impact statement 30 days before ratifying it.

The proposal to release the contracts prior to ratification was part of the governor’s budget-repair plan to close a multi-million dollar state deficit by June 30. It was later eliminated from the plan passed by state lawmakers.

In January, the council passed 4-1 a resolution that said the bill, along with three other measures proposed by the governor, would “improve the management and operations of the Chariho regional school system.” The council also supported other proposals included in the governor’s plan, saying they would lower municipal costs.

Councilor Beverly P. Kenney was the sole dissenter.

But since that vote, two councilors have changed their minds.

“I’m going to recant my vote on that,” Buck said Thursday. “That was one that was added to [the resolution] at the last minute. I didn’t have chance to review it.”

Asked why he doesn’t support releasing a contract to the public for review before it is ratified, Buck said, “It’s not the right way to do it. I was elected by the townspeople to negotiate their contracts.”

“Too many things come up, too many issues come up,” he said. “Too many things change in contract negotiations. As you get down the road, you trade off something for something else.”

Buck cut short the phone interview with The Sun Thursday because he said he was on another phone line with someone else. He did not respond to messages left at his home Friday and Saturday.

Councilor Sylvia K. Thompson had first suggested that the council endorse releasing contracts early, but recently said she no longer supports the measure.

As a member of the public, she said she would think: “You’re all done [with negotiations], you’re not going to do anything, so what good is that?”

“I could see where it could just irritate the taxpayer because what are you doing this for and shouldn’t you have done it before?” she added.

Instead, Thompson said she would support meeting with the public before negotiations start, like Chariho Regional School District officials did in December before they started talks with the teacher’s union. The council would give an overview of the current contract and its fiscal impact, she said, and then it would ask the public for its opinion on a new contract.

After a contract is ratified, she said the council should explain its “ins and outs” and financial effects.

Councilor William J. Felkner, an advocate for open contract negotiations, said he hopes that is an action the council will take.

“It’s the people’s money,” he said. “We’re spending their money. I think they should know what deal we just signed them up for the next three years.”

Councilor Barbara A. Capalbo said, “I don’t think that the majority of the people care about the intricacies [of a contract], but I do think that in general terms it must be discussed.” General terms, she said, would be “salaries, benefits.”

Capalbo said contract talks should occur privately “so people can be as clear and forthright as they want to be,” but noted she would support releasing a contract to the public once it is “clear” with the negotiating parties before ratification.

“We obviously can’t change everything at one time but I think it is good for the public to be aware of the changes in the contract,” she said.

Kenney said contract talks should always take place privately.

“I believe contract negotiations are a give and take, and working to get the best deal for the town is easier to do when it is in closed session,” she said.

But Thompson said she hopes state lawmakers would eventually pass a law to require contract talks to be held publicly to benefit municipalities, as she says unions currently have an advantage.

“They’re the ones that fundraise and many of them have a huge war chest in the bank for arbitration,” she said.

Another potential benefit, Thompson noted: “More people in town would be interested and take an active role in what these contracts really mean.”

While Thompson supports open negotiations, she doesn’t want to be the first community to lead the charge, if state law does not mandate public talks.

“It comes to picking your battles,” she said.

June 23, 2009

Rubber Rooms

Filed under: contract negotiations,Unions — Editor @ 7:26 pm

You’ve heard me mention them before – “Rubber Rooms” – those are the places they put teachers who, for one reason or another, are still employed by the school system but don’t actually do anything.

Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that’s what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its “rubber rooms” — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.
Follow link above for the entire article – it came out today.

June 12, 2009

The “One-Way Rachett” or “Never Ending Contracts”

Filed under: Unions — Editor @ 10:50 pm

There is an insidious piece of legislation that just  passed through the Senate – it’s bill S-0713.

This bill says that if a new contract can’t be agreed upon then the old contract stays in effect. Think of how that can be used by the unions. The deals they have now is the worst it will ever be. All they have to do is refuse to agree and they will never go backwards.

Here are the votes – the Senators covering this area were split. Senator Frank Maher voted no, Senator Algiere voted yes. Considering Maher is a freshman senator I think he showed tremendous strength to be one of 2 no votes. Senator Algiere should be ashamed of himself – why would he want to tilt the negotiation scale so heavily in the union’s favor?

2009-S 713

BY Perry

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS –

CERTIFIED SCHOOL TEACHERS ARBITRATION

Committee on Labor recommends passage.

Senator Ruggerio moves passage, seconded by Senators Perry, Goodwin, McCaffrey, DeVall, Sheehan,

Lynch, Maselli and Metts.Senators Perry, Maher, Picard, O’Neill Ciccone, DeVall and Sheehan discuss the act.

The act is read and passed, by unanimous consent, upon a roll call vote with 32 Senators voting in the

affirmative and 2 Senators voting in the negative and 1 Senator abstaining as follows:

YEAS- 32: The Honorable President Paiva Weed and Senators Algiere, Bates, Blaise, Ciccone, Connors,

Cote, Crowley, DaPonte, Devall, DiPalma, Doyle, Felag, Gallo, Goodwin, Jabour, Lenihan, Levesque,

Lynch, Maselli, McBurney, McCaffrey, Metts, Miller, O’Neill, Perry, Raptakis, Ruggerio, Sheehan,

Sosnowski, Tassoni, Walaska.

NAYS- 2: SenatorsMaher,Pinga

ABSTAINED- 1: Senator Picard

March 20, 2009

EPSC vs EPEA

Filed under: contract negotiations,Unions — Editor @ 12:24 am

If you haven’t been following the East Providence School Committee’s fight against the East Providence Education Association (NEA) you have missed a lot in the last two weeks.

March 5, 2009: Press Release: THE SCORE IS IN – THE STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS BIASED TOWARDS LABOR… WANT TO LEARN MORE? GO TO OSPRI’S NEW WEBSITE!

March 11, 2009: John DePetro Radio Show: Listen to OSPRI president talk about the LRB Watch website (6:40)

March 14, 2009: Channel 10 News: OSPRI stands with EP taxpayers to defend against LRB bias

March 18, 2009: OSPRI press release: 33 SECOND “INVESTIGATIONS” BELIE SLRB CLAIM OF OPEN MEETING EXCLUSION

March 18, 2009: ProJo 24/7 Blog: E. Providence mayor says study shows labor board bias

March 19, 2009: Providence Journal article: Labor Board to hear teachers’ case

March 19, 2009: OSPRI commentary on Anchorrising: Is the SLRB biased? You betcha!

March 19, 2009: OSPRI press release: UNION MAKES COMMITTEE’S CASE AT SLRB

February 10, 2009

Just a warning

Filed under: Charter Schools,Unions — Editor @ 9:12 pm

One of the breakthroughs for education in RI last year included opening the door to other charter schools and a representative of the KIPP schools come to the State House commenting on those opportunities.  But reading the following gives one something to watch out for as we move forward.  Exchanging one badly run organization (because of union shackles) for another is no solution. Lets hope KIPP can keep them out.

KIPP. Knowledge is indeed power, but the push by a few teachers to organize this model school seems to have been discounted until it was too late. Now KIPP is fighting back, and the union effort may end up in arbitration if not accepted by Thursday. What KIPP needs to do is remind its teachers and families that its success with students – the point of it all – is accomplished by individual teachers executing a unique program, and not the result of union rules.

Next Page »