040694 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING of Bedford Central School District Board

SCHOOLS

BHES

BVES

FOX LANE HIGH SCHOOL

FLMS

MKES

PRES

SCANDALS

The Public Schools of Westchester County New York

BEDFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Fox Lane Campus - P. 0. Box 180
Mount Kisco, New York 10549

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Wednesday, April 6, 1994 Fox Lane High School

A Special Meeting of the Board of Education of the Bedford Central School District was held in the cafeteria of the Fox Lane High School on Wednesday, April 6, 1994. The meeting was called to order at 8:56 p.m..

Present were: Mr. Wayne Engle, President; Mrs. Karen akst Schecter, Vice-President; Ms. Betsy Hauck; Mr. Joe Letersky; Mr. James J. Markowski; Mr. Burt Solomon; Mrs. Deborah Timberlake.

Also present were: Dr. Bruce L. Dennis, Superintendent of Schools; Mr. Mark Betz, Assistant Superintendent for Business; Dr. Marjorie Castro, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; Mr. Donald Slater, Assistant to the Superintendent for Human Resources; Dr. Susanne Abbott, Director of Special Services; Mrs. Ann Schillinger, Clerk of the Board of Education; and about 70 visitors.

Mr. Engle apologized for the delay in starting the meeting. Mrs. Scbecter explained that the Board had been 'clarifying certain points of certain contract modifications' that would be presented tonight.

1. The Superintendent announced that the district had held its first annual dinner to honor students who been selected for the All-County Orchestra. He also reported that all 7th graders had taken the New York State mathematics examination and the top five students had had their scores submitted to the state; the middle school finished 7th in New York State out of 331 participating school districts. Two students, Michael Bannon and Ellen Syracuse, placed in the top 25 out of 1655 pupils who competed.

2. To advance election procedures, the Superintendent recommended that a motion appointing members to the Board of Registration be passed. Ms. Schillinger explained that these were district employees who registered voters during school hours for the school budget vote and Board election. They were not additionally compensated. The intent was to appoint them to the Board annually.

Mrs. Schecter moved and Mr. Letersky seconded the motion that the Board of Education approve the resolution providing for the appointment of members of the Board of Registration, as listed in the attached.

Yes 7

No 0 Motion carried

Dr. Dennis commented that the district would realize $131,000 from the profits of the sale of a BOCES facility in Putnam County to another school district. Bedford was the largest component district and this amount was predicated on the number of our students who had used those services over the years. The sale was in everyone's interest and would free BOCES from responsibility for maintaining the property. The vote on April 12 in Fox Lane High school would be run by BOCES and would be at no cost to the district. The Clerk added that paper ballots would be used and there would be no registration or absentee ballots involved.

3. In presenting the Board's final budget proposal tonight, a reflection of lengthy discussions and different components, Dr. Dennis was delighted to announce that the BTA and the CSEA membership had ratified proposals which would give back a substantial portion of their negotiated salary increases. This was an unprecedented move in our district, and a highly unusual one anywhere in our state and nation.' It demonstrated that school employees, many of them residents in the district, were aware and sympathetic to the financial plight of so many in the community. This concession followed closely on the negotiation of contracts which both parties considered fair and reasonable. They were not a 'quid pro quo" for the restoration of positions, which bad already been restored in the proposal which he had submitted to the Board two weeks before.

The Superintendent now outlined the details of the agreement. teachers would forego 1.8% of their 3.8%raise in 1994-95, for a giveback amounting to $358,479. That contract would be extended for two additional years, through 1997-98. For 1996-97, the salary increase would be predicated on the CPI, or the median increase for a group of districts to be agreed upon, whichever is higher, plus .05%, with a floor of 2.9% and a ceiling of 5.7%. in 1997-98 the agreement would be essentially the same, but with a ceiling of 5.9% Retirees during this extended contract would be protected against loss of dollars due to the giveback.

The agreement was similar for the Civil Service employees. They would forego 1.8% of their 4% raise next year, a amounting to $119,479. Their contract was also extended for two years, through 1996-97. In 1995-96, their salary increase would be CPI or median, whichever was higher, plus .05%, with a floor of 3% and a cap of 5.5% in 1996-97, their increase would be the same with a floor of 3% and a cap of 5.7%. Similar protection would be extended retiring employees during the life of this contract.

Because these unions saw these concessions as expressing partnership with the citizens of the school district, their givebacks were applicable only through the May 11 vote. If the budget failed to pass on that date, salaries in both organizations would revert to the original dollar amounts.

Mrs. Schecter now moved and Mr. Solomon seconded the motion that the Board of Education approve the agreement reached between the Board and members of the Bedford Teachers Association according to the terms that had been outlined.

Kenneth Kurzweil, president of the BTA, now read a statement on behalf of all teachers. Be pointed out that the givebacks came one rear after salary increases had been negotiated in an agreement characterized as fair by both sides, that included significant concessions on the part of the BTA which had gotten 'buried in the ensuing debate.' Those concessions included financial settlements below the median increase in the area, contributions to health care costs for the first time, and a lengthened school year. Teachers had been troubled that the public's perceptions of the timing of the contract last year might have played a part in the defeats of the 1993-94 budgets, and perceived that it might still have an effect on this year's budget process.

The original budget proposal for 1994-95 contained cuts that would have a severe impact on the children's education, but the new proposal had been responsive to the outcry by parents and made 'almost complete restoration' of cut positions. He emphasized that the BTA's giveback would probably not be used in any significant way to restore any teaching positions. But the union wanted its effort to be recognized as a partnership with the Board and community, intended to refocus attention on education in Bedford and to let the parents know that teachers cared deeply about its quality, about property values in the district, and about the future of education for its children.

Mr. Kurzweil acknowledged that some residents would continue to oppose the contract and work against the budget, perhaps using some of the same Questionable tactics' that they used last year, excluding the misrepresentation of costs in the district and the 'demeaning distribution' of the salaries of ail employees. However, the reduction in the salary of each teacher next year would be many times greater than the tax increase paid by each resident: many teachers were residents themselves and would pay those taxes. They were making this sacrifice because they wished to lend support to the many residents and Board members who were working to pass this school budget, to elect Board members who would fight for quality education, and to preserve Bedford's reputation as one of the premier school districts in the state.

There was prolonged applause after this statement.

This giveback is only valid if the budget passes. What about the years down the line? (Derek Brooks)

Dennis: In 1995-96, the raises will be those published in the contract now, which is due to expire on June 30, 1996. In the extended contract, succeeding the expiration of this contract, that is in 1996-97 and 1997-98, teachers will receive the CPI or median in the districts to which we usually compared ourselves, whichever is higher, plus .5%. All other provisions remain the same. The only piece to be affected by this

extension would be the salary schedule.

- What do you decide is the cost of living increase - how do you figure it out? (Charles Huebner)

Dennis: Local and national CPI figures are published by the government. We use the regional figures at an agreed-upon cutoff date there is a rolling average with a 12-month figure), agreed to by both parties. The comparative districts will also be agreed upon.

- The bottom line on the cap of this is 5.7% the first year and 5.9% the second. Does that include the .5% (Mike Matures)

Dennis: Correct. Those figures are the outer limit with the half percent in. The CSEA is the same, except the figures are 5.5% and 5.7%.

- would the increase in 1995 be based on the reduced increase in 1994, or would it be made whole to 1995? If they cut back 1.8% in 1994, would that increase go back into the 1995 budget? They only have a one-year reduction in salary increase, and you've extended the contract for two years? (Rocco Mondo )

Dennis: That's correct.

- So the next will be a such higher increase, because of the giveback, than it would have been if there had been no giveback.

Dennis: That year, they get the same salary that has already been negotiated.

- I think that's a very good point that you should make clear. Are you saying that the 1.8% then goes back in for the budget in 1995? (Materaso)

Dennis: Yes.

- What we're saying then is that the difference between the 1996 and 1995 budget is not 5.7% on the top side, but there's another 1.8% included in that? (Materaso)

Schecter: No. This coming year they will give us 1.8% in dollars. The following year, they were due to get a salary increase based on this year's salary. That salary increase will be the same as if they had not given us these dollars back, but they are not actually going to be given $1500 back. That $1500 is money in our pocket.

- But in actual dollars, then, the percentage increase over this year's budget that we're talking about now, most certainly will be greater thaw 5.7%. (Materaso)

Solomon: They are giving back money for this year. For the salary in the second year, the raise will be calculated as though there were no giveback. This is not 'a gift that keeps on giving.'

- I am disturbed by the tone of this discussion. We're looking at a half-million-dollar giveback to the taxpayers and still keep the great teachers that we have. (Bob Giordano)

Engle: I agree, but everyone must have a chance to express their opinion.

- So in 1995 you'll have a substantial increase in the budget of almost $500,000, because you have to give back this $358 thousand. (Mondo)

Timberlake: No, we'll only be calculating the increase from that amount, not giving back the dollars themselves.

- The budget is reduced by about $500,000 in 1994, but you can't take for granted that it will be reduced in 1995 by that amount. It will be back in the 1995 budget. (Mondo)

Timberlake: The increase in Salary will not reflect the lower amount, but they are not getting the dollars back; we are using that as a means of calculating something.

Markowski: Next year the amount of the increase will be reduced. The following year, the scheduling will be as if there were no negotiated giveback for this year. Arithmetically it will look like a large jump, but that jump would have been there no matter what.

- This has been an excellent discussion because it brings up an important issue. Everything keeps escalating even though it looks like something has been given back. There's a lot of euphoria going around here, but I want to know the extent and sizing of those two out years. What is our risk? what have we committed ourselves to three years out? It is sheer lunacy to commit ourselves to a five-year plan in these economic times and undermines the efficacy of the whole contract process. Also, I don't think it's fair to ask this -there must be arm-twisting a little to get them to do this. We're asking an awful lot of the teachers. we should not ram this through just in a presentation tonight, but give ourselves a week to look at it. This budget looks like a lot more next time; we say have trouble selling it next year. Please look at the real, long-range impact of the contract, not just the now.

(David Stallman)

Schecter: We have looked at that for a while, and are not just doing this in a presentation tonight. It's a risk to some extent- hoping the economy will Improve.

One thing unions do well is protect - they're not giving anything away. There are a lot of people in high places advising our union. (STALLMAN)

Timberlake: It is not an illusion that they are giving something back. That's my perception of what you said. The teachers are giving cash back out of their pockets. Compare their $1200 apiece giveback with what the taxpayers get back as a result of this change in budget. The union acted .in good faith in coming forth and negotiating with us. No one's pretending that there's anything other than a give-back this year.

I laud the teachers. But we're asking an awful lot from them. I can't understand why they're doing it. ~Stallman

Engle: If you are lauding them the term "twisting arms' is totally inappropriate.

Hauck: This is not solution - it contributes to the on-going process.

- The teachers are not the culprits they're made out to be. Their high salaries are not their fault. Their give-backs are subject to the passage of the budget, right? And they can do with increases when you negotiate a contract. Once this ball is set in motion, you can't stop it. Michael Carbone,

Dennis: I will attempt to make this clear. Without renegotiating the contract, there would be a 3.8% rise this year and a 3.5% rise next year. In return for the concession from the BTA, we've extended the agreement Out, and in return receive a going-rate raise plus .5%. If there is an argument that our teachers have been overcompensated compared to other districts, then this locks them in to the median, plus .5%. The 1995-96 budget will be higher, but no higher than it would be if no money were returned. The loss to teachers is a real loss. The fact that we benefit from the giveback next year should not get lost in this discourse.

- A spread sheet should include test scores, the colleges our kids get into, the lives they lead. We should make sure they get what they need to go on down the line with their lives and education, and we must spend a little more in anticipation. These are uncertain times, as Mr. Stallman says. But the negotiated settlement between the teachers and the Board speaks for itself. (Herbert Nieberg)

My family has been hard hit (my husband is an architects, but I see that the economy is on the road to recovery, even in the building trades. Nobody 'twisted our arms' to make this giveback; we know that financial trauma is everywhere in our communities. Let's get back to education and a vision or education, as Peggy Stallman said. This agreement allows us to do that without going back into this fight over increases. if times are bad, teachers won't do so great, since they are finally tied into the cost of living index - an incredibly fair way to do things. But the business of education was gotten lost. (Toni Nagel-Smith)

- You might have overlooked a question about how important negotiations every three years are, with people's questions getting aired. You must let people into that process, and if they feel shut out because of a quick decision, you are doing a great disservice to the democratic process by by-passing it. I propose that you get a legal opinion. (Joseph Whalen)

Markowski: Under Education Law, the maximum contract permitted is for five years; but thereare no procedures to follow.

Timberlake: Participation of the public in negotiations is not permitted. You can give input in the form of comments regarding teachers.

I can't believe you've by-passed this with one hour's discussion when people didn't even know it was on the agenda. (Joe Whalen)

- I agree with Mrs. Nagel-Smith. Something is going on in the community that troubles me - a feeling that individuals, among them myself, who raise questions about the cost of education are anti-education. I have two children in the school district - I am offended that anyone questions my commitment to educating my children because I question the cost. I am not opposed to education, and I hope people can separate the facts. I want to have an honest dialogue about what it costs to educate a population. I do not believe that paying more dollars will guarantee better education, or cutting costs will necessarily lead to poorer education. (Chuck Conn)

- I've been listening to the comments tonight. There is an attempt to villainize people - the teachers, the Board - as though the district's education rests on the teacher giveback instead of this being a gift to the community. We should recognize that it was done out of concern for education, not manipulatively, as some have implied. (Marvin Markowitz)

- We're giving back with our hearts to help the district and our children. People don't seem to think so. (Gabriella)

- With 1.8% committed for years 2 and 3, we're worried about years 4 and 5. There will be 28% left over - not that difficult to figure out. Do you know how far that 28% can go, with whatever increases in the CPI in that period? (Nick Cafagno)

- I have something to present to the Board, but before I do I have a question. The public hearing on April 13 is another opportunity for everybody in the community to come forth again and voice their opinions about this budget. For the past six weeks we've been having public bearings on this issue every Wednesday - we've had time to examine this. From those who talked about cuts, cuts, cuts here, I never heard a single meaningful recommendation for excellence in education instead of dollars. They say it when they talk to me privately, but I challenge them to get up here and make such meaningful recommendations. There seems to be a hidden agenda here based on money. I'd love to have a debate about the language program, the modified education program. Once we agree on those issues in education, we look at the dollars. First, in any business, you must have an objective, and then you establish the budget to achieve your objective.

We all want productive use of our educational dollars. For me, the changes in medical benefits are examples of this. And how can the same individual say on the one hand, that he can't understand why the teachers are giving up $1200 per person, and in the next breath, say that the unions are giving up nothing? When I hear contradictory information like that, those individuals are not credible to me.

We have over half a million dollars of hard cash dollars in the budget. I would be more comfortable if the people who talked about cuts at least acknowledged that giveback, and then talked about quality education. (Jeff Hazlitt)

(Carbone)Attempts to debate, but is repeatedly ruled out of order.

- These were the kind of tactics we saw in last year's election: deceptive and inaccurate information was submitted. All voters should inform themselves about investigative reports of what is going on with the educational movement in this country. I would like to submit petitions to the Board from the People for Public Education, asking for a restoration of the level of excellence, with concern over the jeopardy from the cuts in the original budget. Some have been restored, some not. Some of us would like to see still more restored. It's a compromise budget. You've done your job effectively. Here are 402 petitions in support of the budget you will be voting on tonight.

Mr. Engle now asked the Clerk to poll the Board on Mrs. Schecter's motion to the floor to approve the agreement with the BTA.

Mr. Solomon: Yes.

Mr. Letersky: Yes. I don't favor the long-term contract, but this gives us the opportunity to get back to the business of education. The negotiations were done in good faith.

Mrs. Schecter: Yes.

Mr. Engle: Yes, with admiration and respect for the staff.

Mrs. Timberlake: Yes. We asked the faculty to contribute; it came forth and did it. It took on the burden and should be applauded, not criticized. There are critical issues before us in education, not just a budget.

Mr. Markowski: This glitch shows that the Board should not make decisions at 2 a.m.. The obvious obstruction to this agreement is the extension of the contract. If this works, we'll look like geniuses, and if not, we'll be embarrassed and disappointed. It is a calculated risk for the short term. $350 thousand is not a magic solution, but a major step in dealing with the immediate problem. (Gives data on the rate of inflation] Fundamental. changes in the cost of education will not result from negotiating fine points in contracts but from political changes tenure renewal, etc.;.

Yes. I suggest we look at the quality of education at the next Board meeting, not just at money spent (it is naive to look at that alone), but at what we want to accomplish, the criteria we want to use, how we measure results. we could look at test scores, where kids go to college, where they end up in life and establish defined criteria of how they're performing. I think people would probably not have any reluctance to pay top dollar if they feel comfortable that there is a top-quality product with an objective set of criteria they feel comfortable with.

Ms. Hauck: Yes, wholeheartedly. on the motion, this signified:

Yes 7

No 0 Motion carried

Mrs. Schecter now moved and Ms. Hauck seconded the motion that the Board of Education approve the agreement reached between the Board and members of the Civil Service Employees Association, according to the terms outlined.

Jane Salvia, president of the CSEA, now read a statement on behalf of its members. These were difficult times, but there was a real need to maintain educational quality. The members of the CSEA, mostly custodians, bus drivers, and teacher aides, after spending a great deal of time in serious discussion and deliberation, had ratified the agreement by a more than 2/3 vote. It hoped that the community would join with it in pursuing quality education by approving the upcoming budget for its schools.

There was lengthy applause after this statement. Mrs. Schecter remarked that it was clear from what happened tonight with both the BTA and the CSEA that we do have the best people.'

- I am an Instructional Assistant who is being let go, a certified ESL teacher with a Master's degree. whoever takes my place in Mt. Kisco next year may not even be certified in ESL. Can the Board do anything about this? (Donna Nemsick)

- I compliment the CSEA - they don't sake much money, and deserve a lot of credit. (Sue Coan)

- In addition to the giveback, the district will realize savings of 8% from not paying Social Security taxes. (Phil Christe)

Mr. Engle asked the Clerk to poll the Board on this motion.

Mr. Solomon: Abstain. My wife is a member of CSEA so I don't vote on issues that relate to its financial decisions.

Mr. Letersky: Abstain. My wife is also a Civil Service employee and I take the same position. Both Bert and I share a lot of input into the process.

Mrs. Schecter: Yes, with thanks.

Mr. Eagle: Yes, with admiration for the gift.

Mrs. Timberlake: Yes. I applaud the major sacrifice in these economic times.

Mr. Markowski: Yes.

Ms. Hauck: Yes, echoing the sentiments above. On the motion, this signified:

Yes 5

Abstentions 2 (Solomon, Letersky) No 0 Motion carried