School Board Unanimously Rejects Teachers’ Latest Proposal

Note: The following statement is from Saucon Valley School Board attorney/negotiator Jeffrey Sultanik and was released to the media on Friday, May 15. It provides an update on the status of contract talks involving district teachers, who are represented by the Saucon Valley Education Association. According to the statement, the school board has unanimously rejected an off-the-record contract proposal put forward by the SVEA earlier this month. Both sides are now working to reach an agreement to enter into non-binding arbitration, as a means of possibly ending the three-year teacher contract dispute in the district without a strike.

On May 7, 2015, representatives of the district met with representatives of the Association consisting of Andrew Muir, Esq., and Richard Simononis. The bargaining session lasted almost six hours in duration, during which time the Association submitted an off-the-record proposal.

While the details of the off-the-record proposal cannot be revealed publicly, the off-the-record proposal is $2,819,622.50 more costly in terms of salary/column movement costs alone than the now withdrawn February 26, 2015, bottom line proposal of the Board. This proposal is at least 23 percent more in terms of salary/column movement costs than the previously stated bottom line of the Board.

A unanimous school board through my office notified the union leadership and the state mediator on Wednesday morning of the board’s rejection of this very costly proposal. It has become apparent to the school board that the association misrepresented to the community that the parties were “close” when the board’s Feb. 26, 2015 bottom line proposal was still on the table.

By Board action dated April 28, 2015, the Board did resolve to go into non-binding arbitration with the Association if the negotiations on May 7, 2015, did not result in a contract settlement. Given the huge disparity between the Board’s position and the Association’s position, the Association was notified on May 13, 2015, that the Board unanimously was rejecting the Association’s proposal of May 7, 2015, and established some of the parameters of going into the non-binding arbitration process.

The District and the Association are still discussing the methodology for engaging in the non-binding arbitration process, though the union is currently balking at certain stipulations relating to the negotiated final best offer arbitration process.

Based upon the Board’s action on April 10, 2015, the official proposal of the Board is the Board’s Oct. 8, 2014, proposal. A summary of that proposal is set forth below:

Saucon Valley School Board Proposal to the SVEA on Oct. 8, 2014

The Saucon Valley School Board presented a six-year contract proposal to the SVEA on Oct. 8, 2014. The term of the contract proposal is 2012-2018. This summary covers the two primary financial aspects of the Board proposal: salary and health insurance. The other components of the proposal follow the State Fact Finder Report.

It is the sense of the Board negotiating team that this proposal, being based on the neutral Fact Finder recommendations, and taking into account community sentiment, is at the limit of the authorization provided by the Board as a whole.

1. Salary Overview

The first two years of the proposal are in the past. They are the 2012-13 district-wide salary freeze, and the 2013-14 Fact Finder Report, which was rejected by the Association, and therefore also has resulted in a salary freeze.

Going forward, the district accepts the Fact Finder salary schedules for years 2014-15 and 2015-16. These schedules were proposed by the Association and accepted by the Board. The Board now adds salary schedules for years 2016-17 and 2017-18, creating a proposal for scale, step, and column increases for the next four years. Salary scale and step increases are determined by the structure of the contract proposal and apply to all teachers. Column increases are dependent upon graduate study courses, and therefore apply only to 50-60 teachers completing courses in each year.

Table 1. Proposed scale and step increases without graduate study increases

*The percent increase in 2014-15 does not include the additional one-time $1500 payment, since this does not go into the base salary for subsequent years.

* The percent increase for all four years does not include the additional 3 percent per year increase for graduate study that is added to the step and column increase shown. This additional increase will apply to about 50-60 teachers in every year.

The salary structure progression over the four years of this contract proposal has been designed to accomplish two objectives:

(a)  Raise the starting salary for new teachers from $45,000 to $49,000 per year.

(b)  Improve the rate of salary increase for teachers in the lower half of the salary structure.

Table 2 shows how these two objectives affect the salary increases among staff in three seniority groups: steps 1-13 all, step 14 with less than maximum graduate study, and step 14 with maximum graduate study. It is acknowledged that fulfilling the district objectives for teachers in the lower steps will slow the rate of salary increase for the most senior teachers in step 14, and particularly those at the maximum salary.

Table 2. Salary increase detail by teacher group without graduate study increases

* The Board anticipates that in any year 50-60 teachers in these two groups will receive graduate study salary increases of 3% in addition to the increases shown in the tables.

1. Graduate Study

Graduate study adds 3 percent per year to the increases shown in Tables 1 and 2 for applicable teachers. Graduate study has taken place uninterrupted during the two years of negotiations. These completed courses have been “banked” and are now available for salary increase in the next four contract years. This 3 percent additional increase is on top of scale and step increases each year in the next four years.

Tables 1 and 2 are re-calculated in Table 3, showing the actual salary changes projected in this contract proposal including graduate study. The overall average salary increase for the four years is 4.1 percent per year when graduate study is included.

Table 3. Average salary increase with graduate study

1. Health Insurance Cost Share and Deductible

The Board is proposing the following cost share associated with health insurance. The premium share proposal is about 12 percent of plan cost. The deductible is very favorable compared with the generally available plans. The deductible has been designed to stay within the Affordable Care Act and to avoid the “Cadillac Tax” imposed on plans that are in excess of the legislation.

2014-15          2015-16           2016-17           2017-18

The Board proposal for years 2016-17 and 2017-18 also includes options with higher deductibles that reduce the premium cost share to as low as $10 single and $25 family. These options are advantageous for families with lower anticipated medical expenses. This is a new offer from the district’s medical insurers.