Just read any newspaper in the country or surf the Internet and you will come across article after article reflecting one jurisdiction after the other seeking for ways to deliver public services in the face of a major economic downturn in which the unemployment rate remains stuck.
In my recent visit to the Washington, D.C. area, the Washington Post ran many stories about state, county and local government cutbacks.
Just like us in the Garden State, others are experiencing reduced tax revenues and the need to modify their budgets. Near the nation’s Capital, officials of Montgomery County Maryland have been advised that they can no longer count on the same level of state aid, and that they will need to find ways to provide public services with less cash from state coffers.
Another recent example – very close to home – is that of Somerset County, New Jersey. In its April 7, 2010 E-mail advisory, the freeholders released information about the county budget which is scheduled for a public hearing on April 27 at 7 p.m.
The freeholders are striking the same chord as that of Governor Christie in his message to school districts: Freeze salary increases. The county, although experiencing success, is struggling with the same problem facing school districts and municipalities. Not all employee groups are agreeing to hold the line.
In the E-mail release, Freeholder Director Jack Ciattarelli said that “These unprecedented times call for shared sacrifice and making difficult decisions.” He goes on to explain that “The wage freeze imposed on non-union personnel and accepted by the majority of unions is, all things considered, more than reasonable, fair, and appropriate given the economic crisis.”
However, Mr. Ciattarelli concluded that the freeholder board “remains deeply disappointed and troubled by those unions that, to this point, have chosen not to accept a wage freeze.” Seven of the county’s nineteen unions are still holdouts.
The proposed Somerset County budget is $212.3 million, 1.16% less than last year, with $169.9M to be raised through the county tax, which “will rise slightly, by .0016, from .2652 to .2668 per $100 of assessed value.”
Showing posts with label B-R BOE Wage Freeze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B-R BOE Wage Freeze. Show all posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
BREA Members Authorize Talks with B-R BOE
Today, the membership of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association voted to authorize its leadership to meet with the Negotiations Team of the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education for the purpose of re-opening contract talks.
If there is still time to agree and to make changes, this will be a last-minute deal that should, if it comes out right, have a better-than-currently-envisioned impact on the level of the 2010/2011 expense budget of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District, its employees, and Bridgewater-Raritan taxpayers.
But nothing is over until it’s over.
The timeline is now extremely tight because, as previously mentioned, the B-R BOE is scheduled to vote on a final budget tomorrow evening for submission to the County Superintendent early next week.
Folding last-minute changes into a budget of this size and complexity – unless they are minor – will require a major push by the School Business Administrator/Board Secretary, should an agreement be reached.
Maybe this comes under the practice of getting everyone into a room and not letting anybody out until a consensus is reached.
If there is still time to agree and to make changes, this will be a last-minute deal that should, if it comes out right, have a better-than-currently-envisioned impact on the level of the 2010/2011 expense budget of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District, its employees, and Bridgewater-Raritan taxpayers.
But nothing is over until it’s over.
The timeline is now extremely tight because, as previously mentioned, the B-R BOE is scheduled to vote on a final budget tomorrow evening for submission to the County Superintendent early next week.
Folding last-minute changes into a budget of this size and complexity – unless they are minor – will require a major push by the School Business Administrator/Board Secretary, should an agreement be reached.
Maybe this comes under the practice of getting everyone into a room and not letting anybody out until a consensus is reached.
Wage Concessions Update for B-R Schools
Sometime subsequent to Tuesday’s meeting of the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education at the Middle School and the posting of this brief message, representatives of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association decided to poll its association membership for authority to re-enter negotiations with the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education.
Time is extraordinarily short for a decision, because the B-R BOE has to finalize a budget and vote on it by tomorrow evening. The final budget needs to be submitted to Trudy Doyle, the County Superintendent of Schools early next week.
I don’t know if the voting is complete (it should be by now), what the results are, or if an offer has been presented to the B-R BOE Negotiations Team. Or whether time has run out.
If the BREA membership authorized its leadership to proffer an offer, chances are very high that it now sits before Board of Education representatives for consideration and subsequent inclusion into the budget process.
Time is extraordinarily short for a decision, because the B-R BOE has to finalize a budget and vote on it by tomorrow evening. The final budget needs to be submitted to Trudy Doyle, the County Superintendent of Schools early next week.
I don’t know if the voting is complete (it should be by now), what the results are, or if an offer has been presented to the B-R BOE Negotiations Team. Or whether time has run out.
If the BREA membership authorized its leadership to proffer an offer, chances are very high that it now sits before Board of Education representatives for consideration and subsequent inclusion into the budget process.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Schools’ Union Chief Rejects Wage Concessions
After weeks of successfully asking to be admitted into the budgeting process with the Bridgewater-Raritan School Board, Mr. Steve Beatty, President of the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association revealed last night that he refused to take the Board’s offer to his membership for a vote.
The B-R BOE had requested the BREA to “reduce its scheduled raise from 4.35% to 2%, and to forgo $403,000 worth of tuition reimbursements.” In exchange, the B-R BOE “offered to submit a budget calling for a $1.7 million tax-levy increase beyond the 4% cap.”
The Board had further committed that the resultant savings would be applied to the last round of budget cuts. The effect of this, according to a statement by B-R BOE President, Jeffrey Brookner, is that it would give “the teachers’ union the opportunity to save over $3 million worth of teacher jobs in exchange for givebacks worth approximately $1.7 million.”
No deal!
Instead, Mr. Beatty addressed the School Board at the Middle School last night, acknowledging that he “felt awful when he left school Friday,” and that he had been ”flip-flopping about it on Saturday.” (The B-R BOE Negotiations Team and school bargaining units had met on Saturday.)
Emphasizing that he would not accept what had been proposed, Mr. Beatty claimed that the “teachers would be losing $1800 per year, a grossly disproportionate burden on the back of the staff,” while taxpayers would be asked to shoulder only a $288 tax increase. (These numbers have not been verified by the B-R BOE.)
He went on to say that “It is a band aid and would not save Tier 3 cuts.” He confirmed that although he “accepts it in principle” (the Board’s proposal), he “does not agree with the math.”
Mr. Beatty claimed that “it is a bargain for the taxpayers,” and that the B-R BOE “is more concerned with the Town Council.” (This is because, should the budget be defeated on April 20th, it would be remanded to the municipalities of Bridgewater and Raritan for resolution.)
The BREA Chief affirmed that he was “ready right now” to “personally” go with an “offer that is fair and right . . . so don’t tell me that I am unreasonable.” He concluded with, “I will suffer the slings and arrows and hold my head up high.”
Later, in response, Mr. Brookner explained why the B-R BOE could not accept the BREA’s plea to pass on all cuts to due to the loss of state aid to the residents of Bridgewater and Raritan. Probably the most notable of his comments is, “A tax levy of 7% (or more) would go down in a blazing ball of glory.”
The B-R BOE had requested the BREA to “reduce its scheduled raise from 4.35% to 2%, and to forgo $403,000 worth of tuition reimbursements.” In exchange, the B-R BOE “offered to submit a budget calling for a $1.7 million tax-levy increase beyond the 4% cap.”
The Board had further committed that the resultant savings would be applied to the last round of budget cuts. The effect of this, according to a statement by B-R BOE President, Jeffrey Brookner, is that it would give “the teachers’ union the opportunity to save over $3 million worth of teacher jobs in exchange for givebacks worth approximately $1.7 million.”
No deal!
Instead, Mr. Beatty addressed the School Board at the Middle School last night, acknowledging that he “felt awful when he left school Friday,” and that he had been ”flip-flopping about it on Saturday.” (The B-R BOE Negotiations Team and school bargaining units had met on Saturday.)
Emphasizing that he would not accept what had been proposed, Mr. Beatty claimed that the “teachers would be losing $1800 per year, a grossly disproportionate burden on the back of the staff,” while taxpayers would be asked to shoulder only a $288 tax increase. (These numbers have not been verified by the B-R BOE.)
He went on to say that “It is a band aid and would not save Tier 3 cuts.” He confirmed that although he “accepts it in principle” (the Board’s proposal), he “does not agree with the math.”
Mr. Beatty claimed that “it is a bargain for the taxpayers,” and that the B-R BOE “is more concerned with the Town Council.” (This is because, should the budget be defeated on April 20th, it would be remanded to the municipalities of Bridgewater and Raritan for resolution.)
The BREA Chief affirmed that he was “ready right now” to “personally” go with an “offer that is fair and right . . . so don’t tell me that I am unreasonable.” He concluded with, “I will suffer the slings and arrows and hold my head up high.”
Later, in response, Mr. Brookner explained why the B-R BOE could not accept the BREA’s plea to pass on all cuts to due to the loss of state aid to the residents of Bridgewater and Raritan. Probably the most notable of his comments is, “A tax levy of 7% (or more) would go down in a blazing ball of glory.”
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
B-R BOE Budget Reduction Options
A few refreshers: The preliminary budget for the 2010/2011 school year has been submitted to the Somerset County Superintendent of Schools, Trudy Doyle. That budget does not include the last round of $4.4 million of cuts due to the final reduction of state aid. That is why the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education has to decide this week how to handle the final reduction.
The B-R BOE has already presented the four options below to the public:
1. Pass all or a portion of the cost onto the taxpayer by invoking an automatic tax waiver, exceeding the 4% cap on the tax levy. That final revised budget would still have to be approved by the County Superintendent of Schools before being placed on April’s ballot.
2. Insert additional spending proposals on the ballot as separate spending question(s) for voter consideration in the April 20th election, also exceeding the 4% cap. This requires the County Superintendent’s approval prior to budget insertion, and would also require at least 60% voter approval.
3. Implement some combination of the first two options, exceeding the 4% cap as well.
4. Maintain the tax levy increase at its current 4% cap level by absorbing the $4.4M as spending reductions.
However, there is a fifth option that was not part of the mix presented by the B-R BOE last Thursday evening: That is the possibility of still holding the three bargaining units, the BREA (teachers), the BRPA (principals), and the BRSA (supervisors), to a wage freeze. The Board President has made it clear that he and the Negotiations Team had been in discussions on the topic, but could not disclose any specific data.
Yet there are clues. BREA President Steve Beatty has made public statements of his desire to get involved. At the B-R BOE meeting on February 23rd, for example, Mr. Beatty expressed his wish for the BREA to, “…Let us help in restoring funding . . . let us do the right thing, not the popular thing.” He also mentioned the word “lobbying” in his statement to the Board.
Later, during the public portion of the March 18th B-R BOE meeting, Mr. Beatty reinforced that view when he said, “Let us in the process. Let us be part of the process,” he asked.
It sounds good, depending on the results and the nature of the process. But the idea of a wage freeze on next year’s 4.35% scheduled wage hike sounds better.
At least one other option can be imputed from the nature of what we already know. And that is the possibility of the B-R BOE and the bargaining units linking wage concessions to a waiver of the 4% spending cap, or the inclusion of a second ballot question also exceeding the 4% spending cap. Not a good idea.
The B-R BOE has already presented the four options below to the public:
1. Pass all or a portion of the cost onto the taxpayer by invoking an automatic tax waiver, exceeding the 4% cap on the tax levy. That final revised budget would still have to be approved by the County Superintendent of Schools before being placed on April’s ballot.
2. Insert additional spending proposals on the ballot as separate spending question(s) for voter consideration in the April 20th election, also exceeding the 4% cap. This requires the County Superintendent’s approval prior to budget insertion, and would also require at least 60% voter approval.
3. Implement some combination of the first two options, exceeding the 4% cap as well.
4. Maintain the tax levy increase at its current 4% cap level by absorbing the $4.4M as spending reductions.
However, there is a fifth option that was not part of the mix presented by the B-R BOE last Thursday evening: That is the possibility of still holding the three bargaining units, the BREA (teachers), the BRPA (principals), and the BRSA (supervisors), to a wage freeze. The Board President has made it clear that he and the Negotiations Team had been in discussions on the topic, but could not disclose any specific data.
Yet there are clues. BREA President Steve Beatty has made public statements of his desire to get involved. At the B-R BOE meeting on February 23rd, for example, Mr. Beatty expressed his wish for the BREA to, “…Let us help in restoring funding . . . let us do the right thing, not the popular thing.” He also mentioned the word “lobbying” in his statement to the Board.
Later, during the public portion of the March 18th B-R BOE meeting, Mr. Beatty reinforced that view when he said, “Let us in the process. Let us be part of the process,” he asked.
It sounds good, depending on the results and the nature of the process. But the idea of a wage freeze on next year’s 4.35% scheduled wage hike sounds better.
At least one other option can be imputed from the nature of what we already know. And that is the possibility of the B-R BOE and the bargaining units linking wage concessions to a waiver of the 4% spending cap, or the inclusion of a second ballot question also exceeding the 4% spending cap. Not a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)