Archive for the 'Teacher/Staff Contracts' Category

Thoughts on the Election Results

Published by Michael Hoefer on September 10, 2008 in Facility, Richmond, Swanzey, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments
  • Citizens of the MRSD care about the common good and knew about the vote
    • More voters turned out yesterday than in March 2008
    • By a 60/40 margin they supported a fair contract as negotiated by the School Board and Teachers Union
  • Swanzey Rising
    • Swanzey turnout was up by 231 voters. A 17% increase over March 2008
    • There is room for even more improvement as the Swanzey vote percentage is still 3% less than its ADM %
  • MSTA Influence Declining
    • Despite lies and exaggerations mailed to every home in the district, the MSTA advice was ignored
    • The contract nearly passed in Richmond despite being home to 3/5ths of the MSTA, two of whom (once again) went “renegade”, actively working against the decisions of the governance bodies to which they were elected
  • Successful Facility Bond Ratios well within reach
    • If this was a School Bond vote requiring a 60% approval it would have nearly passed the threshold (59.91% vs. 60%)
    • This is encouraging based on the dire facility improvements needed to support our desired educational outcomes
    • This should also remind us that we have more work to do to tell the story of Monadnock

There may be some changes to the KFM website in the coming weeks, be sure to sign up for our email list so we can keep you in the loop!

Fighting the Lies of the MSTPA

Published by admin on September 4, 2008 in Taxes, Teacher/Staff Contracts, Uncategorized and Voting. 0 Comments

Judy Clark says it all in a LTE today.

 To The Sentinel:

I am a resident of the Monadnock Regional School District.

I have been researching the issues regarding the special election to make an educated decision.

As part of my research I went to the Web site of the Monadnock School Taxpayers Association (MSTA) and was appalled by the lack of logical consistency, the half truths and the lies the group is promoting.

The group rails against early retirement. If the new contract passes, early retirement will no longer be offered after June 2009.

The budgetary obligation will then decrease each year until it is all gone in 2016. The group misrepresents the financial aspects of not approving the contract in regards to early retirement.

If the contract is passed, the district will save about $2 million. In other words, not passing the new contract will cost the district more money.

As regards the lawsuit by the town of Sullivan pertaining to the legality of early retirement, the MSTA Web states, “A provision in the new contract says that if the new contract passes, the lawsuit is moot.”

This provision does not exist, thus the statement by the MSTA is a lie. The bottom line: If the contract is defeated then early retirement will remain in effect

The MSTA has also stated its opposition to the so-called evergreen clause and the new state law requiring an evergreen clause in contracts with public employees.

As the contract was negotiated and ratified prior to the enacting of the law, the new law would not affect the proposed contract.

If this contract is defeated, the next contract would have to have an evergreen clause as mandated by the state.

In the past, the MSTA has been adamant that teachers pay more of their health care costs.

Currently teachers pay 10 percent of the cost of the insurance policy. If the contract is passed, then over the life of the contract the teacher contribution will increase to 20 percent — exactly what the MSTA has stated it wants.

If the contract is defeated, the teachers stay at 10 percent.

As far as changing insurance carriers, the MSTA fails to disclose that during the time it is talking about, the district saved several hundred thousand dollars by renegotiating the health care contracts.

It also fails to state that all five unions in the school administrative unit must agree to a change in carriers, it is not at the whim of Monadnock district teachers.

Also last March, the MSTA recommended approval of the support staff contract, which contains the same language as the teacher contract regarding changing carriers.

In summary, the MSTA has made clear in the past that to support a teacher contract the new contract must get rid of early retirement, not have an evergreen clause and teachers must shoulder more of the cost of health insurance. The new contract does these things. If the MSTA is successful in helping defeat the new contract, it ensures everything it is against stays in effect.

After reviewing all the data I could obtain, I recommend the voters of the Monadnock district ratify the new teacher contract, as it will benefit our students by helping ensure the district has an experienced, stable work force that knows and understands the needs of our students.

JUDY CLARK
95 Warmac Road
Swanzey

Deliberative Session

Published by admin on August 7, 2008 in Announcements, Meetings and Teacher/Staff Contracts. 0 Comments

This Saturday August 9th at 10am MRHS.

Your chance to show your support for a new vote on September 5th to give our Teachers the contract they deserve.

Please attend and make your voices of reason heard.

It’s time to say ‘yes’

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Accreditation, Facility, Letter to the Editor, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Friday, March 7, 2008]

To The Sentinel:

The Monadnock Regional School District Facilities Committee, along with the district’s project manager and business manager, have spent the last year working hard on the district’s facilities needs.

The committee has completed a master plan for the middle/high school, followed the school board bidding policies and have completed projects at each of our schools on time and on budget.

This March we are asking our voters to again support maintenance-related articles.

There is one for district-wide special maintenance projects for $400,000 and one for roof replacement for $123,000.

These articles will provide for much-needed maintenance to our schools through out the district.

The roof article will continue the work that was approved last year. Last year’s roof replacement will be started when the weather breaks.

These maintenance articles are a work in progress that starts months before the vote.

After many meetings and discussions with principals and contractors, the project manager and the facilities committee create these articles.

It is always difficult to balance the facilities needs in the district with the overall cost of the warrant.

This year, the maintenance articles have been adjusted to give the voter choices and respect the need for the approval of the operating budget and the teachers’ and support-staff contracts.

These articles as presented have been approved by the district’s budget committee and school board.

It is extremely important that articles 1, 3 and 4 are approved this year.

Everyone knows that our accreditation status at the middle/high school has moved from warnings to probation.

Although one of the biggest issues is the facilities, another major area is the approval of the operating budget and the teachers’ and support-staff contract.

This is the year for the approval of Articles 1, 3 and 4. This will pave the way for the district to accomplish part of the accreditation and will be a major step in helping us with any future building plans.
Continue reading ‘It’s time to say ‘yes’’

Being informed is vital

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Swanzey, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Saturday, March 8, 2008]

To The Sentinel:

I would like to take the opportunity to encourage the voters of the Monadnock Regional School District to support the teachers’ and support-staff contracts (articles 3 and 4).

I am currently a member of the budget committee and have just about completed my three-year term.

In the past, I have not always supported the support-staff and teachers’ contracts for various reasons (primarily health insurance and early retirement issues).

However, I do support both contracts this year. They were negotiated in good faith and have addressed both the early retirement and health insurance concerns.

Both sides have made compromises and thought about the interests of the district’s families to put together a contract that is beneficial to all.
Continue reading ‘Being informed is vital’

Voters should approve contract

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, Richmond and Teacher/Staff Contracts. 0 Comments

[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.
Continue reading ‘Voters should approve contract’

Articles will help our kids.

Published by admin on March 8, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page, Saturday, March 8, 2008]

To The Sentinel:

Many people in the Monadnock Regional School District are concerned about voting March 11.

As a Swanzey resident, I’d like to encourage voters to support warrant articles 1-13.

Personally, I feel it is important that we make the improvements that the warrant articles will make possible.

The improvements will make the schools safer, healthier and more serviceable.

I feel the result will be that future generations of students will be better prepared as fathers, mothers, doctors, nurses, ministers, teachers, community leaders, etc.

I hope residents will think of the many good benefits that will come as a result of voting “yes” for warrant articles 1-13.

DAVID PUTNAM JR.
753 Old Homestead Highway
Swanzey

Teacher contract criticism is incorrect and off-base

Published by admin on March 6, 2008 in Letter to the Editor and Teacher/Staff Contracts. 0 Comments

[From the Keene Sentinel Letters Page]

Neil Moriarty, in his letter of Feb. 26, asked a great question:

Wouldn’t I like raises forever?

I very much would. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing, and there’s no such offering in the teachers’ contract he and his cohorts in the Monadnock Taxpayers Association are warring against.

His protestations aside, there’s nothing new about the evergreen clause in this teachers contract, it only means the provisions of this contract remain in effect until a new one supersedes it.

There are no “raises forever.”

Teachers receive a yearly step raise until they reach the limit set by their level of education, and then they are done. Keep in mind that in education, there are only two ways to advance: Stay for a long time, and gain more education.

A brand-new teacher walks into the job in the same position he or she will hold when he or she retires.

In any other career, there would be a ladder to climb, new positions to advance to, and new pay to come with it. Not in teaching, it’s the perfect definition of a dead-end job, made more so when obstructionists lie about it.

On many other points Moriarty seems similarly confused, and seems to mistakenly be putting forth a great deal of misinformation.

Unfortunately, people who don’t know better might become equally confused and think it’s the truth.

For example, early retirement ends with this contract; it will be phased out in the only way it can be — so those individuals who retired under its provisions have what they were promised. Voting “yes” on this contract is the only way to remove early retirement — something the taxpayers association asked for and received in negotiations.

The Sullivan lawsuit alluded to has been halted until the voters can decide if they really want one. Again, Moriarty must have been confused.

Moriarty imagines a savings of $850,000 on health care, which would be very nice, but is, again, not possible.

Health insurance rates change often, and the district continues to request bids from insurance carriers. From the bidding process this year more than $500,000 was saved compared to previous years, and it was done by following established procedures.

There are a number of factors that go into choosing a carrier, and it’s not simple. I can understand why Mr. Moriarty is befuddled by the process.

The truth is, teachers are paying a larger share of their health insurance. I believe this is something the taxpayers association asked for and would want.

Voting “no” on the contract means teachers continue to have early retirement and pay less on insurance.

Mr. Moriarty would claim this contract jeopardizes future teacher raises.

The primary things that put future contracts at risk are his actions and the actions, half-truths, and deceptions of the Monadnock Taxpayers Association. The information is very public and very available: kidsfirstmonadnock.com publishes accurate information relating to the truth, and so does morecoffeeplease.com (more disclosure: This is my site, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt).

The simple, plain truth is this: The Monadnock Regional School District is starved for funding.

Teachers are leaving, experienced teachers cannot be hired and new teachers are frozen at their starting salary and below what other districts pay. I would love for The Keene Sentinel to do some real investigation and really look into what’s happening and report it.

The situation is muddled by individuals with ulterior agendas, and it will take more than quoting people to find the truth.

But here’s a fact: The March 11 vote is vital. Citizens in a democracy have the duty to find the truth and to vote. Both need to happen to start addressing the problems in the district.

ROBERT J. HALE
12 West St.
Keene

Contracts are fair to everyone

Published by admin on March 6, 2008 in Letter to the Editor, School budget, Teacher/Staff Contracts and Voting. 0 Comments

[From The Keene Sentinel Letters Page]

I am writing to ask the voters of the Monadnock Regional School District to support both the teachers and support staff contracts when they cast their votes on March 11.

During the past two years, I have served on the negotiations committee for the Monadnock Regional School Board.

It was an eye-opening and thought-provoking experience and I have a new appreciation for the negotiations process. It has been said that if both sides leave the table unsatisfied the negotiation has been successful.

If that’s the measure then we were successful — no one got everything he wanted.

However, we did, I believe, reach two fair contract proposals — fair to our teachers and support staff personnel, and fair to the the taxpayers of the district.

So what exactly is fair? I believe most would agree that a property tax system that bills someone living in Troy more for a $200,000 house than it does in Fitzwilliam for the same house is not a fair system.

Or, is it fair when the federal government tells us we must “include” students with special needs in our schools, and then fails to fund that program for more than 30 years, costing our district millions of dollars?

Is it fair that a young person graduating college is paid less simply because she chose to work in the public sector as a teacher rather than using the same degree elsewhere where the annual salary could be $10,000 to $20,000 more?

All of us who vote — we are the employers — and we can do something to remedy this third inequity.

As stated earlier, I feel we have negotiated a very fair contract with our teachers and support staff personnel. Both groups have been without a contract for the past two school years.

They have received no raises during that time period. Both contracts will put our employees back on their correct salary level (step) over the next two years.

There will be no retroactive pay. In other words, they will not receive an increase in pay for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008.

New teachers (bachelors degree; no experience) currently start at $30,000 a year.

This starting salary will increase as follows: $30,600 in 2008-2009; $31,850 in 2009-2010; $33,100 in 2010-2011; $34,600 in 2011-2012.

This will allow us to stay competitive with the other school districts in the region. First-year paraprofessionals (aides) currently begin at $8.50 an hour. This hourly rate increases to $8.67 an hour in 2008-2009; $8.84 in 2009-2010; and $9.02 in 2010-2011.

Early retirement will go away. This was an idea with good intentions but it didn’t work well.

Early retirement works best in the private sector, where it is used to lower the number of employees quickly and when replacement employees are not being hired.

Eligibility and benefits will decrease over each of the next three years, then disappear completely on July 1, 2011. Early retirement is in the teachers’ contract only. Support staff personnel never had this benefit.

Currently, both employee groups are contributing 10 percent of the cost to purchase the Blue Choice Point of Service health insurance plan. If the two contracts pass in March, employee participation for health insurance will increase to 20 percent over the next three to four years.

The teacher contract is a four-year agreement.

The estimated cost of this contact is 5.29 percent in year one; 2.34 percent in year two; 2.97 percent in year three; and 3.13 percent in year four.

The overall four-year average percentage increase of the contract is 3.6 percent.

The support staff contract is a three-year contract. The estimated cost of this contract is 5.83 percent in year one; 4.39 percent in year two; and 2.48 percent increase in year three.

This summary by no means lists all the changes to the two contracts as space limitations do not allow it here.

However, these are the big ticket items, and those that have tended to be the most controversial. A more detailed explanation appears on the district Web site: www.mrsd.org, or I’d be happy to e-mail, fax, or mail anyone a copy.

Please vote “yes” for warrant articles 4 and 5. Both warrant articles are supported by the school board and the budget committee.

Our employees deserve our support.
GENE WHITE
Swanzey School Board Member
Spring Street
Swanzey