Trending
Way back in late July, the Jersey Shore School Board approved a new contract with its teachers. Attached to the agenda was a "Tentative Agreement Summary" of the Articles where changes had been made. When asked during "Public Comment" if the board had a projected cost for the new contract, the Board President responded that any cost projections would not be accurate and that when executed by both parties, the contract would be posted on the district's website, where the average citizen could read it themselves. So, if no cost analysis was developed, on what basis did Mrs. Thomas and 4 other members cast their votes to affirm the new agreement? Obviously not quantitatively, which clearly demonstrates that this board did not make any attempt to determine how much the district's taxpayers could afford.
A cost projection is essentially equivalent to a common business plan. The business manager had ALREADY developed a spreadsheet during the previous contract negotiations, when several board members (Doebler, Grant, Kinley, Petrosky, Stemler and President Thomas), were also serving. So, if all these current members WERE ALREADY AWARE that the business manager had a cost projection tool, why did lead negotiator choose NOT to utilize it? The biggest "tell" might be when one of the members who voted "NO", described that the business manager had reservations about the financial impact of the new agreement. Could it be that the Business Manager continued to use the existing cost projection tool for his own purposes, but the negotiations chair -- Mrs. Thomas -- simply was, in my opinion, not interested in the financial impact on taxpayers. Why listen to your business manager? After all, his primary role is to understand and advise the board and superintendent regarding short-term and long-term finances, right? He is the de facto chief financial officer for the district.
The next question might be "Why not take Mr. Kinley's advice?" one of four who voted in opposition? After all, he's the ONLY certified public accountant on the board. I believe that two other "NO Votes", Grant and Stemler, also have either undergraduate business degrees or significant experience in business operations and management. So, how do the credentials of the YES votes match up? Well, none hold a CPA.
So, given the fact that Mrs. Thomas has still not provided any "plain language" details to the public, I took the time to read and compare the previous and current contracts, with attention to those changes that were included in the "contract summary" attachment to July's agenda. By my count, there appear to be 14 changes, with 12 of them being beneficial for the teachers. The wage increases are more than double the previous agreement that had been recommended by an independent "Fact-Finder" (appointed by the state labor board). There was also a significant change for child-bearing/child-rearing leaves (components of FMLA), which effectively DOUBLES the prior agreement from 18 weeks to 36 weeks of job protection and 36 weeks of paying a substitute, if you can find one. How many district taxpayers and residents get 36 weeks of FMLA for any purpose? I'm guessing you get 12-13 weeks for the birth or adoption of a child. Other changes were not as impactful as wages and the "child-related" leaves.
What I did not see, were ANY changes to the new agreement that were directly targeted toward learning loss or mental health issues that are so prevalent in the post-COVID schools across the nation. Why not? So, exactly what benefits did our elected board members achieve for students and taxpayers? Looking at 12 of 14 contract changes being beneficial for employees, you have to ask what were the expectations the board that are normally passed "across the table" at one of the initial meetings? ... It appears that the question asked was... "Well, what sounds good to the teachers?" and without much thought to "what is academically beneficial to students and financially fair for our taxpayers?"
Another common theme during "public comments" have been claims that several school board members have close or immediate family connections to members of the collective bargaining unit.
On several occasion during my 16 years on school board and multiple terms (six years) as president, board members in similar circumstances have asked me whether voting on a employee contract would be allowed and I have actually encouraged those individuals that they were allowed to vote on any matter not does not violate school code/law, even though several of these "conflicted" members would have not been allowed to actively participate in the direct negotiations phase, according to advice from the district's solicitor. This is not to say that board members should not consider these relationships before casting their vote because the "public perception" belongs to the PUBLIC regardless of whether it is "allowed" by school code. The public can have any perception, even if it is incorrect. As an example, one gentleman made repeated "public comments" that as board president, I could not serve concurrently as negotiations chair. Funny that I never heard any similar criticisms of Mrs. Thomas serving in those exact same roles. Given that this contract leans heavily toward teachers, it makes it harder to defend similar public perceptions of whether you "may vote," vs. whether you "should vote."
I would also point out that the previous contract was approved by a unanimous 9-0 vote, while the new contract was passed by a 1-vote majority of 5-4, so if any of the members with "perceived" conflicts would have even abstained, the contract would not have passed. I must commend Mrs. Stemler, in that she now has a family member that is newly employed by the district, but she voted against an agreement that would clearly be a benefit to her family member (once hired). KUDOS!
In closing, while I personally disagree with several terms of the new contract, congratulations appear to be well deserved to the teachers' negotiators. Before everybody gets wound up, you need to keep in mind that it is the obligation of the teachers' representatives to negotiate for the best possible contract terms of their next renewal, which is typically 3-5 years. This is what their dues pays for, so these teachers and PSEA (state organization) performed their primary duty to their membership. Once the contract is executed, the teachers can get back to work improving the academic success of our students. I gladly admit that we have some great teachers throughout the district. Are they ALL great? Well maybe not, but many are exceptional -- that's true in any organization. Given the 12 of 14 ratio mentioned previously, I can't say as much for our board's performance as I review the new agreement. In fact, the school board members and the negotiating team, were clearly split as evidenced by district negotiators Kinley and Stemler speaking clearly in opposition and voting "NO," along with two other members.
Craig Allen is a former president of the Jersey Shore Area School Board.