[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Saturday, March 8, 2008]
To The Sentinel:
I would like to respond to Mr. Neil Moriarity’s letter to the editor on Feb. 26.
I am not only a taxpayer in the Monadnock Regional School District, but I am also a teacher at Monadnock Regional High School.
Mr. Moriarity’s letter did not say that not only is he a taxpayer in the district, but he is also chairman of the budget committee.
Though Mr. Moriarity has the right and the obligation to bring up his concerns at the committee meetings, once the committee has voted (in a democratic matter), it is the obligation of all committee members to help implement the decisions of the committee.
I might point out that Mr. Moriarty was the only member of the budget committee who did not support the contract. Thus, in writing his letter to the editor Mr. Moriarity has abrogated his duties as a member and the chairman of the budget committee.
Mr. Moriarity rails against the evergreen clause and states it gives teachers a raise every year. The evergreen clause, which would allow step increases even if there is no new contract, only affects the 40 percent of the teachers who are not at the top of the pay scale.
As the evergreen clause in the last contract was ruled unenforceable, when the contract passes, the increase in salary will be higher the first year because the state requires all teachers to be on the correct step if the district wants to hire new people at the correct step.
One could also argue that without an evergreen clause, the school board would have no incentive to bargain. It could freeze the teachers’ pay until they give in to the board’s demands.
It is in the best interest of both the teachers and the district to have a contract. The evergreen clause benefits the district by protecting it from a sudden jump in salary expenditures and helps in attracting and retaining quality teachers.
Mr. Moriarity’s other group, the Monadnock School Taxpayer’s Association (he did not mention this affiliation in his letter either), has stated that any new contract needs to sunset early retirement. The proposed contract does meet this requirement. If the contract is not ratified, the old contract will stay in effect, meaning early retirement will continue.
If you calculate the expenditures for ending early retirement and reopening longevity under the new contract versus the cost of continuing early retirement under the old contract, you see the new contract will save the district more than $2 million by 2015.
Finally, regarding health insurance, Mr. Moriarity is correct, the new contract does not allow the district to abruptly change insurance carriers. As a matter of fact, all the unions in School Administrative Unit 38 had to agree to the switch (none of the unions agreed).
However, neither the new contract nor the old contract allows the teachers to pick the insurance carrier; changes are made by mutual agreement.
Finally, he failed to mention that the district saved ,more than $500,000 in health insurance last year just due to competitive bidding. He cannot comment on any saving for 2008 - 2009 because the rates have not been set.
The facts boil down the following:
- If the contract is not ratified early retirement continues. 2) If the contract is not ratified teachers continue to pay 10 percent of their health-care premium.
- If the contract is approved by the voters early retirement is phased out and the taxpayers will save more than $2 million by 2015 and another $640,000 a year after that, even taking into account longevity payments.
- If the contract is approved by the voters, teachers will, in a step-wise fashion, ultimately pay 20-percent of their health-care premiums, thus saving the district money.
- If the contract is approved by the voters, the teachers will not have the ability to choose the health insurance carrier.
- If the contract is not ratified the cost of bringing the teachers up to scale when a new contract is approved will be much higher than it will be this year.
DR. ELLIOT KAPLAN
P.O. Box 7
Gilsum

0 Responses to “Voters should approve contract”