Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

WATERBURY � Salary and benefits aren't the only things at stake in teachers' contract arbitration, which wrapped up Friday. Teachers and school officials spent the last two weeks debating everything from how warm buildings should be kept to how often principals should use the public address system Costly issues included contractual stipulations for class sizes and teacher pay, which together could cost the school department some $10 million in spending increases � about $100 per capita � over the next three years if everything goes the union's way. That's unlikely though. Even union officials agree the city can't afford to fund all its requests from pay increases to continued bonuses for teachers with big classes. This arbitration session marked the first time contractual nuances have been debated publicly. Normally, the two sides negotiate privately and call in a panel of three arbiters if they reach an impasse. About 15 teachers and the newspaper attended hearings daily since Dec. 2. The talks have been in public in Waterbury because contracts are hashed out before the state oversight board, which was created in 2001 to control finances in the-then nearly bankrupt city. The financial outlook is better now, say union leaders who are asking for pay increases. Teacher pay is the big-ticket item, with Waterbury Teachers Association initially proposing increases in salary scales of 3 percent, 3.5 percent and 4 percent, respectively, for the next three years. The union, though, withdrew that proposal Thursday, saying it will come back with a new proposal for smaller increases. The original proposal would have resulted in a per-capita tax increase of $23.81 next year and would have brought the average teacher pay in Waterbury to about $64,500 for current teachers who remain next year. The school system's 71 administrators also are seeking raises in their new contract, which also is in arbitration. The 2.2 percent increase they requested would bring the average administrative pay to $95,211 next year, instead of $93,099, their average pay next year with no salary step increases. Funding the raises would cost $1.36 more per capita in taxes. For its part, the Board of Education wants to increase teachers' time at school, require more meetings and decrease health insurance benefits. Officials hope contractual changes will minimize the high price of oversized classes, which cost $1.2 million last year � $11.26 per capita � in extra payments to teachers who had more students than the current contract allows. Some teachers got more than $20,000 for having one or two extra students last year. The union and school board agree those kinds of payments can't continue, but it will be up to the oversight board, which is arbitrating the contract, to decide how teachers with big classes should be compensated. Instead of paying them extra, the school department wants to relieve those teachers from monitoring lunchrooms and hallways, but the union said that's not a good solution because other teachers would have to pick up those duties. The board also wants to increase limits on class sizes. Less-costly issues were the subject of the bulk of the discussions during some 35 hours of testimony during the past two weeks. The school board's side wants to eliminate a contractual stipulation that restricts principals' use of school intercoms to the first and last 10 minutes of the school day, except in high schools where announcements can be made during the last 50 minutes of the day. Other school contracts don't have those kinds of provisions, said Christine Goodwin, of Shipman and Goodwin, which represents the school board in labor issues. But teachers say the rule is needed to prevent "a chronic problem" of excessive interruptions. "The way to protect against it is to (restrict access to the intercom) rather than just leaving it open to anyone who gets close to the button," said Mark Sheehan, of the Connecticut Education Association, which represents the city's 1,300 teachers in arbitration. Jack Cronan, who is both a member of the oversight board and president of the Waterbury Teachers Association, said principals are too lazy to find out where students are and contact individual classrooms. Instead, they use building-wide announcements to call a single child to the office, he said. "I know some people think this is a funny article but it has been grieved before, not just because a principal has used it once, but because it really has become a problem at some schools," he said. Teachers say another problem is the temperature of school buildings, which often are too hot or too cold. The current contract says buildings must be no colder than 60 degrees, otherwise schools must be closed. Middle and high schools, which have air conditioners, may not be warmer than 85 degrees. The school board wants to strike that provision, but the union says it's necessary. "Oftentimes, school principals couldn't get (boilers) fixed and they would come to the teachers' union and say, �Please file a grievance so something gets done about it,'" Sheehan said. Michael Eagen, school personnel director, said building conditions are a concern but not one that should be a contractual issue. Chinni agreed, saying its highly unusual for a contract to stipulate building temperatures. A key issue for the school board was whether teachers could be forced to transfer to other schools. The board needs that flexibility because school populations could change drastically and suddenly because of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which will allow parents to transfer their children out of failing schools in two years. Half of Waterbury's schools could be subject to that rule if they don't shape up their test scores. If the school board can't move teachers where the students are, the school system won't be able to meet its obligations under the law, Chinni argued. The current contract doesn't allow forced transfers. The oversight board aims to clarify language and shorten the 73-page contract, which the school board agrees is unwieldy. Contracts in most other school systems are half that long. "The goal of some members of this (oversight) board is to standardize this contract so it looks like other teacher contracts across the state," said Michael Cicchetti, oversight board chairman. But the Waterbury Teachers Association wants to preserve as much language as possible, saying the stipulations were added over time to protect teachers from things that may not happen in other districts, where contracts have fewer mandates. Waterbury has a long tradition of patronage hiring, which caused other teachers to miss out on appointments, promotions and raises, the union argued throughout the two-week arbitration hearing. Chinni argued contracts must be written with the future in mind. "The Board (of Education) did not craft its proposal being mindful of its long past, but to compete and be a modern school district," she said. "That's what our proposal does." A ruling in the contract is expected Dec. 24.