The Saucon Valley School Board voted 6-2 to reject the teacher contract proposal proffered by arbitrator Timothy J. Brown, Esq., Tuesday, potentially increasing the likelihood that labor strife could disrupt the new school year.
School board member Ralph Puerta began the meeting by explaining the board’s rationale for the “no” vote on the proposal, which board attorney Jeff Sultanik said Friday is more than $4 million costlier than the board’s latest proposal.
Pastor Phil Spohn of Christ Lutheran Hellertown and the Hellertown Area Ministerium–a consortium of local churches–addresses the Saucon Valley School Board prior to its vote Tuesday on an arbitrator’s contract proposal.
According to Puerta, in the board’s most generous contract offer to date teacher salaries would increase to between $48,000 and approximately $97,000.
Under the arbitrator’s proposal, they would increase to between $50,000 and approximately $102,000, he said.
“The salary has to be consistent with the abilities of our school district and we simply are not a Parkland School District—we do not have that kind of current wealth here,” he said.
Puerta encouraged teachers to reconsider their salary demands and said the board wants to meet with them before their scheduled vote on the arbitrator’s proposal on Thursday at 3:15 p.m.
“We want to settle this,” he said.
Puerta identified the other issues that led the board to vote against the proposal as:
- A retiree health provision he said “simply does not make sense the way it is written.”
- The retirement incentive the arbitrator included in the proposal, which he said recycles the current contract’s language.
- The graduate study provision, which he said includes a clause that will not be acceptable to teachers.
Puerta criticized the language in parts of the proposal, which he said is “convoluted, ambiguous” and “serves no purpose.”
Saucon Valley Education Association president Vivian Demko addresses the Saucon Valley School Board on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015.
Several audience members addressed the board during the courtesies of the floor part of the meeting, including Saucon Valley Education Association president Vivian Demko, who spoke positively of the proposal.
“Arbitrator Brown has found the grounds for compromise,” she said.
Pastor Phil Spohn, a Lower Saucon Township resident who is president of a local consortium of churches, struck a conciliatory tone with his remarks, in which he likened the relationship between the teachers and the board to a marriage.
“Our students deserve a happy marriage,” he said. “This is a marriage that won’t dissolve, but I can guarantee you, this problem will… Sooner or later you will compromise, and in any compromise there is sacrifice.”
Lori Vargo Heffner, a parent and resident of Lower Saucon Township, voiced support for the teachers, who she said have worked hard and remained professional under adverse conditions.
“Find other ways to resolve these holes in the budget,” she told the board shortly before it voted the proposal down. “The kids that are going to suffer are our children.”
The two board members who voted against rejecting the proposal were Jack Dowling and board president Mike Karabin. Board member Susan Baxter was absent with prior notification.
“It has been three very long years,” Puerta said, referring to the length of time that has elapsed since the teachers’ last contract expired.
Contract negotiations have been ongoing since January 2012.
Teachers’ first day back is Thursday, and the 2015-2016 school year in Saucon Valley is scheduled to begin for students on Monday.
The school district can easily pay all of the teachers for years to come by legally requiring Northampton County to do a property assessment. There are many properties in Lower Saucon Township that are underassessed because of the way that properties are valued by the county and because the last assessment was done in 1995.
About 12 years ago when I worked for The New of Saucon Valley I did an extensive study about how property assessment in Northampton County is done. I found that over time, if reassessments are not done regularly, the assessments of all properties are drawn toward the assessment of the average property which at the time was about $315,000. The owners of lower priced properties end up paying a higher percentage of taxes on their properties than the owners of the most costly properties. (Yes, it’s another example of the rich get richer. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has described the present property assessment system as being “facially unconstitutional.”)
Here is an example of a failed assessment system. As you read this, know that there is a property in Lower Saucon that was purchased by the present owners in 1989 for $1,350,000. In 1995, six years later, county assessors valued the property at $293,400 which is its “fair market value” in the county system today. (The property is assessed at $146,800.) Do you think it is possible to buy a home in Lower Saucon Township in A+ condition that is over 5500 square feet in size with 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms, that sits on 10 beautifully landscaped acres, for $293,400?
Here’s the thing, that is just one example of dozens, maybe hundreds, in the township. How much revenue to the school district, the county, and the township, is lost because the people who can afford properties like that are not paying their fair share? The school district is well aware of the reassessment option. To me, it’s not an option at all, it should have been done years ago when I first brought this information to the attention of the school board.