on 09-16-2009 02:51 
|
By DONNA KENNY KIRWAN
PAWTUCKET — Despite pleas from a half dozen speakers and a public call from the mayor to reconsider, the School Committee voted 4 to 3 Tuesday night to ratify a new three-year teachers’ contract.
The new agreement will provide no salary increases (except for step increases) for the current fiscal year and will require health insurance co-pays of 5 percent. In year two, there will be a salary increase of 1.5 percent for the first 11 paychecks of the year, and an additional increase on the subsequent 10 paychecks, with a required health insurance co-pay of 6 percent. In year three, there is a straight 3 percent salary increase and a required health insurance co-pay of 9 percent.
The media center at Jenks Junior High, mostly filled with teachers, erupted in loud applause when the vote was announced. Voting in favor of the contract were School Committee members James Chellel, Nicole Nordquist, Joanne Bonollo and Amy Breault-Zolt, while those opposed were Joseph Knight, Raymond Noonan and Chairman David Coughlin.
The 4 to 3 tally to approve the contract turned out to be the same as the previous vote that had taken place in executive session that served to move the contract forward for consideration by the teachers’ union. The Pawtucket Teachers Alliance had given a “near-unanimous” okay to the proposal at a meeting last Tuesday, said Charleen Christy, union president.
Thomas Conlon, business manager for the School department, said that in the first year of the new contract, there will be a savings of $2.1 million, the simple savings over the three years of the contract will be $1.2 million, and the cumulative effect of the contract, taking into consideration other factors such as prescription drug savings, will net the school department some $5.1 million in savings.
Yet, the fact that the school department is reportedly facing an $8.5 million deficit in the coming year had several taxpayers and some School Committee members harshly criticizing the new agreement for not doing enough to cut costs.
The idea of the teachers getting raises in years two and three did not sit well with some, along with health insurance co-pays that are still considered far lower than what many are paying in the private sector.
Connie Chesebrough, who said she moved from Providence to Pawtucket five years ago to escape the high taxes, noted that she has gone without a raise for several years now and that her 15 percent health insurance co-pay was just increased to 20 percent. Addressing the audience, she said, “I can’t believe you’re living in the 21st century with me. Pawtucket must be a city of gold!”
Lester Olson of Hughes Avenue noted the deficit situation at the city, state, and national levels, and said that “to raise the costs to the taxpayers by even a penny is unconscionable, irresponsible, and unsustainable.”
Harold Gibson of Chandler Avenue said that considering the $8.5 million deficit, more must be done to cut costs. “Level funding is not a help. There must be more give-backs.” He suggested that “sweeping changes” need to be made in the way that teachers are compensated “or the city of Pawtucket will be taxed into oblivion.”
Steve Kapalka of Vineyard Avenue pointed to various cost-saving measures being done in other communities and suggested that Pawtucket adopt some of them. He said he considers the teachers “lucky to have a job” given the current high rate of unemployment and suggested that only the first year of the contract with the wage freeze be approved at this time.
Committeeman Joseph Knight also said he did not support the contract because it does not go far enough to reduce the deficit. He said that, despite the savings, there is still a $6 million deficit for the coming year which will increase the burden on taxpayers. “This contract will lead to layoffs and potentially lead to closing a school,” he added.
Chairman David Coughlin also had blistering criticism for the new contract, calling it “ludicrous” in the current economy. He noted that in fiscal year 2010, the School Committee will likely again be considering a Caruolo action, and told the teachers, “I haven’t heard how we’re going to pay for your services in years two and three.”
However, four other School Committee members were lavish in their praise for the city’s teachers and thanked the union members for their willingness to renegotiate a contract that had a year remaining.
Committeewoman Nicole Nordquist noted that while the police and fire unions have been praised by city officials for offering savings of some $2.1 million over four years, she said the new teachers’ contract offers that same amount in its first year. Plus, she said that the teachers are not guaranteed lifetime health insurance benefits upon retirement as public safety personnel are.
Committeeman James Chellel, who chaired the labor sub-committee, noted that out of the projected $8.5 million deficit, the school board can only control the $4.2 million that comes from salaries. He added that the new contract provides a savings of half of that amount. “We can’t expect them to fix the entire economic problem we have,” he stated, of the school department deficit.
Chellel said he was proud to support the teachers union, and called the new pact “fair and just.” He acknowledged, however, that the main problem lies with the state’s education formula and said this needs to be addressed.
Committeewoman Joanne Bonollo noted that Pawtucket is a poor community which does not receive the funding it should because of the lack of an equitable state funding formula. She noted that the teachers typically buy their own supplies and that they “give it back in so many ways.”
Committeewoman Amy Breault-Zolt simply said “ditto, ditto, ditto” to what Nordquist, Chellel and Bonollo had stated about the city’s teachers, adding that she, too, was in favor of the new contract.
|
|
|
