BY DARRELL HALEN
Opponents argued the new teacher contract is too expensive and that educators need to shoulder more of the costs of health insurance.
Proponents countered the agreement is fair and offers competitive pay to keep teachers working in Pelham.
During a Tuesday, Sept. 25 deliberative session, a small group of residents argued over a revised teacher contract that voters will accept or reject at a special election.
“It’s a fair agreement. It’s not outrageously expensive,” teacher Darlene Greenwood told about 40 people gathered at Pelham Elementary School during the hour-long session. “It is our lives. These are our jobs. We love our jobs. We’re working for your children.”
Voters will decide the fate of the three-year contract when they go to the polls on Tuesday, Oct. 23, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., at Memorial School.
After voters rejected a teacher contract last March, representatives of the school district and the Pelham Education Association went back to the bargaining table and revised the agreement.
Last summer, a Superior Court judge granted a request from the School Board to hold the special election.
The special warrant article that voters will see when they go to the polls calls for increases in salaries and benefits of $283,514 in 2007-08, $324,437 in 2008-09, and $340,600 in 2009-10.
The School Board supports the new agreement while the Budget Committee does not.
During the deliberative session, Budget Committee Chairman John Lavallee said he does not support the agreement because teachers should be contributing more toward their health insurance and because of an increase in extracurricular position stipends and their costs.
Susan Harden, president of the teacher’s union, said that pay increases are modest and teachers are picking up a larger share of the health insurance premiums.
“I am here to tell you that we are not numbers,” she said. “We’re not a line item in a budget analysis. We are highly qualified professional educators.”
The contract rejected in March called for salary increases averaging 5 percent each year. Under the revised agreement, increases would average 3.5 percent in the first year, 3.99 percent in the second year, and 4 percent in the third year.
Salaries would go up $1,760 in 2007-08, $1,840 in 2008-09, and $1,920 in 2009-10.
A new teacher with a bachelor’s degree who earned $31,340 last year would see his or her salary increase to $33,100 this year at the next career step. The salary would increase to $34,940 and $36,860 the following two years.
Like the rejected contract, the revised agreement calls for stipends for extracurricular positions to increase 3.5 percent in the first year and stay flat for the second and third years. The revised agreement, however, includes nine new extracurricular positions.
School Board member Michael Conrad disputed that stipends are too high. He noted that the pay for intramural volleyball at the elementary school goes from $1,000 to $1,035.
Students are getting more involved in activities like sports and drama, he said.
Currently the school district covers 85 percent of the premiums for the most expensive health insurance plan regardless of which plan the teacher selects. Like the rejected agreement, the revised contract calls for the district’s contribution to decrease to 80 percent by the third year.
Some residents, however, believe that teachers need to share more of the burden of health insurance costs.
“My concern is, from a taxpayer’s point of view you’ve got to get a better contribution from all employees, not just teachers,” said Selectman Ed Gleason.
Earlier in the meeting, resident Bill Scanzani, who said residents would not be able to afford both the contract
and other needs in town, made a move to kill the contract and get negotiations reopened – he made a motion to raise the first year’s increase from $283,514 to $1,283,514.
That prompted Gordon Graham, the school district’s legal counsel, to advise voters that any approved cost modification authorizes either party to the contract to reopen negotiations.
It was a move that School Board Chairman Bruce Couture didn’t like.
“We took our negotiations seriously, our costs seriously,” he told the audience before Scanzani’s motion was voted down. “I’d like to see the defeat of this amendment. It’s too bad it’s being done.”
Earlier in the evening, Couture said changes to retirement severance in the contract will bring cost savings and help stabilize the tax rate in the future.
“I really would hope you consider it and vote for it,” Couture said of the agreement. “It’s a good plan.”