Our Greatest Deficit

Below is a letter sent by TC Vice President Laura Flanagan to all the members of the School Committee on May 31, 2009. In it she clearly states her reasons for objecting to the new 3-year contract that was ultimately approved last Tuesday night. It's very informative.

If any member of the School Committee would like to provide me with a serious analysis of the new agreement with the CTA from their perspective, I would be glad to post it here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


May 31, 2009


Hand Delivered


Honorable Members of the Coventry
School Committee
Ms. Kathleen Patenaude, Chairperson
Mr. Andrew Perra, Vice Chairman
Mr. Thomas Heatherman
Ms. Lisa Tomasso
Ms. Nancy Sprengelmeyer

Dear Members of the School Committee:

The purpose of this letter is to state my position in a formal, written manner over the potential ratification and approval of a proposed new 3 year contract with the Coventry Teachers’ Alliance (“CTA”).

Let me begin by saying that I believe that all parties have been working very hard, and I want to recognize the value of those efforts. I also acknowledge that the School Committee, by virtue of our charter, has full authority to enter into contracts with the CTA, with or without the consent of the Town Council.

In late March, I received an e-mail from Ms. Kelly Erinakes, President of the CTA, requesting a meeting or telephone conversation. We did connect by telephone and talked for some time, in an effort to find common ground, regarding the tentative terms of an arrangement whereby the CTA would make some $700,000-$800,000 in salary concessions in exchange for a commitment from the Town Council to Levy $750,000 in new taxes as a show of its “commitment to education”. I firmly stated my belief was that a $62,000,000 budget was quite a commitment to education. I was also very clear in stating my fundamental disagreement to any union being allowed to bargain with a demand for tax increases.

On May 16th, Council President Spear indicated to me that Mr. DiPietro thought he could secure a “0-0-0” contract with the CTA, essentially freezing the 08-09 salary schedule. Mr. Spear and another member of the council met with Mr. DiPietro on Sunday, May 17th, to discuss the proposal. Mr. DiPietro indicated that if the Council adopted a budget that level funded the schools, as it was prepared to do on Monday, May 18th, the CTA would cut off all negotiations and he would be forced to close Oak Haven and cut the programs he had previously outlined to the public. Based upon this representation, the Council unanimously tabled the budget at its May 18th meeting to allow time for the school committee to finalize this agreement.

Last week, Mr. Spear and Mr. DiPietro met to review the final details of a tentative agreement reached with the CTA. I was provided with copies of a detailed analysis of the agreement. Rather than a “0-0-0”, the deal more accurately represents “0.23%-0.74%-2%” (weighted average increase to salary schedule in each of the next 3 years). The following weekend was spent reviewing, analyzing and discussing the new 3 year contract your committee now seeks to approve. My understanding is that the committee originally sought the “blessing” of the Council over this arrangement, and a commitment to increase taxes by $750,000. I contacted Mr. DiPietro by phone with concerns/questions, not entirely dismissing the proposal, but seeking clarification on a few points. We had several lengthy, detailed conversations. I also discussed the arrangement with 2 members of the School Committee, expressing my concerns over the agreement, and listening to their points of view.

The apparent unwillingness of the CTA, the Superintendent and School Committee to attempt to secure concessions in the remaining year of the current contract (rather than a 3 year contract), with true givebacks to the community to save children’s programs is disturbing and prevents the Town from ascertaining funding sources next year. Why are the parties closing their eyes to the potential risks associated with guarantees of salary increases 3 years out, in a time of such great uncertainty? RIPEC has publicly released information in its article appearing on the front page of the May 25, 2009 Providence Journal indicating its forecast for Rhode Island Towns/Cities. The forecast is bleak: expenses are expected to rise at a greater rate than revenues and the deficit we now face is projected to grow greater in the coming years. In addition, I was recently made aware by Mr. West, our finance director, that the State is considering reducing the Reimbursement of Auto Excise tax exemptions to Cities and Towns this year; this has the potential to represent up to $1,000,000 in lost revenue for Coventry. It is unclear whether or not we will be allowed relief from Senate Bill 3050 regarding any such reduction. Further, the leadership of the Council has been advised of additional liabilities likely payable in 09-10 exceeding $1,000,000, although we are not at liberty to publicly discuss the particulars, due to the sensitive ongoing nature of litigation discussions.

After having the opportunities described in the paragraphs above to listen, ask questions and analyze the tentative agreement, as well as the current economic climate and other issues the Town will face this year and next, it is clear to me that this proposal does not represent what was originally offered and contains risks that the Town should not responsibly assume.

My interpretation and understanding of some of the details contained in the proposal are as follows:

1) A reduction of the work year by 3 days, from 186 to 183, with a slight increase in salary.

2) The addition of 3 days in the form of “Professional Development”, at a cost of $150,000.

3) An increase in the longevity schedule of $250 at every level, with an estimated expense of $50,000 in the first year. This addition gives the majority of top step teachers a salary increase outside of the salary schedule and these numbers will be difficult to reduce in future negotiations.

4) The freezing of co-payments towards health insurance for the first 2 years at a fixed dollar amount that represents 15% of the cost today. I believe there is significant risk in this concession, the greatest being in year 2. Blue Cross has publicly stated its intentions to increase its rates by some 15-18%. Although we participate in the West Bay Collaborative, this increase could significantly affect the cost of the Stop Loss Policy, and would then be entirely borne by the school/town, having the potential to wipe out any savings achieved in that year. A significant increase in claims would also pose an added risk of increases. I believe this concession is a gamble we may not win.

5) The illustrations which I reviewed indicate that the proposal gives teachers not on top step a weighted average increase this year of 7.27%, next year of 7.07% and 8.27% in year three.

6) The proposal contains the option for the CTA to renegotiate another three year contract, in the event that funding is not available in later years.

I believe that the time allowed by tabling the budget has been used to finalize the terms of an agreement already in the works for months, as evidenced by Ms. Erinakes' email and telephone call, in late March, outlining and seeking support for the same.

If it is true, as represented to me by members of the School Committee, that Mr. Erinakes and Attorney Tobin took part in School Committee executive session discussions held on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, over this proposal, then I find the negotiation process deeply disconcerting. The nepotism provisions of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics are quite clear on the prohibition of the involvement of public employees in contract negotiations, when in fact their spouses, or other immediate family members, are covered by the subject contract.

Where is our Courage? Why are we not standing together (the school committee and the Council) seeking a one year contract with concessions? Is it simply too difficult? Is the union unwilling? Is this the way it is always done? When are we going to start considering the consequences of the decisions we make today on our ability to pay tomorrow?

It is my belief that the end does not always justify the means. While I recognize that the salary schedule is slightly lower at the end of this new 3-year deal, than it would be in the 09-10 current contract (which would be fantastic in a prosperous, predictable economy), a new three year contract in the current climate is truly more beneficial to the union than the school/town. It offers protection for the union during difficult economic times and places all of the risk on the town/taxpayers. It is my belief that the School Committee would have a significant bargaining advantage and the ability to achieve greater, long-term results, most beneficial to the children and residents of our community, if the last year of the current contract were simply renegotiated.

Lastly, and most importantly, if this proposed contract is accepted, I believe it is highly probable the Town will not have the resources available next year or the year after to fund it, due to all of the aforementioned considerations. We may well find ourselves in the same position we are in today…. choosing between salaries and programs/services for children.

Perhaps our greatest deficit in Coventry is COURAGE.

Very truly yours,


Laura A. Flanagan
Vice President
Coventry Town Council

cc: Council President Raymond Spear