Posts tagged Contracts
School Board Meeting – June 16, 2010
Jun 14th
The Northwestern Lehigh School Board will meet on Wednesday, June 16th at 7:30 pm in the conference room of the District Administrative Offices.
Noteworthy highlights:
Item D – Facilities
1. Discussion and action on proposal for custodial services for Weisenberg Elementary School for the 2010-2011 school year.
Item E – District Finances
1. Approval of final 2010-2011 General Fund budget and supporting tax levies for Northwestern Lehigh School District as follows:
a. Budget Expenditures – $36,932,065.00
b. Local Tax Levies:
- Real Estate Tax – 50.66 mills (1.25 mill increase)
- Earned Income Tax – 1% (net .5%)
- Real Estate Transfer Tax, Act 511 – 1/2% for each of 4 townships
- Local Services Tax – $10
- Amusement Tax – 10%/not to exceed 40%
NEW — Agendas now include clickable links to discussion items.
This document reflects updated information received on Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The PSERS Crisis – Kicking the Can Further Down the Road with HB 2497
Jun 11th
The House Appropriations Committee approved HB 2497 which amends the Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) and the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) codes by modifying their actuarial funding requirements.
This bill parallels the anticipated “fix” [and I that word loosely] by “kicking the can further down the road”, rather than addressing the significant issues of the looming pension crisis. Gov. Rendell endorsed this “solution” [and only a politician would deem it this] in his proposed 2010-11 state budget. It’s funny how politicians appear to develop short-term memories around election time [see below].
We should reduce the benefit level. We should reduce when those benefits accrue. We can’t afford it. It’s going to break school districts and the state. It was a giveaway. Interestingly, everyone got upset at the [2005 legislative] pay raise. The pay raise cost the taxpayers about 1/500th of what this [2001] pension grab is costing. And no one got mad at Gov. Ridge. No one got mad at the Legislature back then. I guess it’s because the impact is phased in over so many years. But this is a tsunami compared to the pay raise.
Governor Ed Rendell (during an interview with the Morning Call)
An actuarial note attached to this bill by the PERC (PA’s Public Employee Retirement Commission) estimates the higher costs in later years will far outweigh the contribution reductions in the earlier years – to the tune of an astonishing $52 billion MORE to achieve this “cost smoothing” over the next 30 years. See pages 10-11 of the document below.
Again, this legislative “solution” is projected to cost $52 billion more than the total amount of the current PSERS and SERS pension crisis already!
The following graphs are from “HB 2497 and the Pension Rate Spike”, prepared by PSERS & SERS upon request from the House Democratic Caucus, detailing the impact HB 2497 would have on the employer contribution rate spike and plateau facing both state pension systems. Note: Click on the images to enlarge them.
HB 2497′s Projection of Employer Contribution Dollars
HB 2497′s Projection of Total Employer Contribution Rate
HB 2497′s Projection of Unfunded Liabilities
HB 2497′s Projection of Funded Ratio
More information on HB 2497
Regarding PSERS, the bill re-amortizes all of the unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities of PSERS over a 30-year period using level percentage of pay amortization payments and extends from five to ten years the asset smoothing period beginning July 1, 2011. The bill also proposes to fund any increases in accrued liability enacted by legislation after June 30, 2010 over a ten-year period using level percentage of pay amortization payments. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010, HB 2497 establishes the total employer contribution rate as the final contribution rate of 5.0% of the total compensation for all active members, plus the premium assistance contribution rate.
The bill also imposes “collars” on the rate at which employer contributions may rise from year to year, establishing temporary collared contribution rates for fiscal years July 1, 2011, July 1, 2012 and on or after July 1, 2013, that if the contribution rate is more than 3%, 3.5% and 4.5%, respectively, of the total compensation of all active members greater than the prior year’s final contribution rate, then the collared contribution rate must be applied and equal to 3%, 3.5% and 4.5%, respectively, of total compensation for all active members. For all other fiscal years in which the actuarially required contribution rate is less than the collared rate, the bill establishes the final contribution rate as the actuarially required contribution rate, provided that the final contribution rate is not less than the employer normal contribution rate.
HB 2497 was amended by the committee to insert technical changes and also to allow any active member in the SERS, who was previously an active member of PSERS, to elect to become a multiple service member no later than 365 days after becoming an active member in SERS.
Source: PSBA’s Office of Governmental and Member Relations, Weekly Legislative Update, June 10, 2010
The new Collective Bargaining Agreement
Jun 3rd
The Northwestern Lehigh School Board and the Northwestern Lehigh Education Association approved the terms of a new 3-year Collective Bargaining Agreement at their respective meetings on April 21, 2010. At that time, the school district released a one-page highlight summary sheet.
Subsequently, a complete copy of the new teacher’s contract was obtained through the District’s approval of my Right to Know Request. It might appear a little “odd” that I would file an official request for information that I presumably already had available.
While this is true on the surface, it also clearly demonstrates my recognition of “walking a fine line” of responsible actions [as a school board blogger] to share information in an appropriate manner.
Recap of Board Meeting – April 21, 2010
Apr 25th
Noteworthy Highlights:
Personnel: Approval of a new 3-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Northwestern Lehigh Education Association (NWLEA). The administration released the highlight sheet below to summarize the details.
Approval of the employment contract for incoming Superintendent Dr. Mary Anne Wright.
Finance: Approval of a Parameters Resolution for refinancing the 2005 GOB issue pending a minimum required savings level of $65,000 can be achieved, net of all costs.
Earned Income Tax (EIT) revenues continue to lag budget estimates. Although this month’s report shows nearly a 15% decrease for the year, our actual trend is closer to a 10% decrease due to a timing issue for the March EIT deposit.
The previously scheduled Building and Grounds meeting for May has been canceled. In its place, the Board has scheduled a Finance/Budget public meeting at 8:00 pm on May 5, 2010.
Northwestern Lehigh School Board and Education Association release joint statement
Apr 6th
The following statement was posted on the District’s website as of this morning.
The Northwestern Lehigh Education Association and the Northwestern Lehigh School Board want to announce that they have reached an agreement in principle, the details to be released at a later date. The parties expect final agreement and ratification by the end of April. Classes and all school related activities will continue without interruption.
Northwestern Lehigh School Board Releases Update Letter to the Community on Contract Negotiations
Mar 20th
The Northwestern Lehigh School Board has released the following update letter to the community on contract negotiations. A copy of this letter is posted to the District’s website at: http://www.nwlehighsd.org/files/966119/March%202010.pdf. This letter has been revised slightly from its initial posting on March 20, 2010.
March 22, 2010
To the Residents of the Northwestern Lehigh School District:
The Board of School Directors for the Northwestern Lehigh School District would like to issue the following statement regarding contract negotiations with the District’s teachers to update our community as to our progress.
The Northwestern Lehigh School District has a very long history of successful contracts and negotiation processes. This history has led to professional, respectful, and collaborative dialogue and the District has not experienced many of the negative issues that are common in contract negotiations such as strikes or disrespectful, unprofessional communications with students or community members. The Board also feels the relationship between the Board and the Teacher’s Association has always been positive, based on mutual trust and respect.
Contract negotiations began in January of 2009 and we had high hopes our teachers would be cognizant of the deteriorating economy, the loss of jobs and salary cuts to members of our community, the rising costs of education, and the extreme constraints that Act 1 combined with the recession has placed on all school districts in Pennsylvania.
Act 1 is a piece of Pennsylvania State legislation that restricts a school board’s ability to increase taxation millage. While this piece of legislation provides restrictions on tax increases it does not account for the fact that State and Federal revenues have not kept pace with rising costs and that local revenues such as Earned Income Tax and interest on the District’s investments have decreased significantly as a result of the recession.
The Board and Teacher’s Association have continuously set dates to meet and negotiate the terms of a new contract in good faith. You can view a schedule of the timelines at the District’s website under the Collective Bargaining menu item on the left side of the home page at www.nwlehighsd.org. We have stated publicly and at many negotiations session our commitment to our teachers. The Board places a very high value and is deeply thankful for the work of our teachers and all our employees as well as our students, parents, and community members.
The Board continues to negotiate and come to the bargaining table with ideas and suggestions to mutually agree to an appropriate and affordable contract. Our next bargaining session is March 31, 2010 and we hope to make progress.
The Board’s hope for the Fact Finding process was that the Fact Finder would provide a contract solution that would be appropriate for our teachers, affordable to the District and taxpayers, and move us forward in the negotaions process. While the Fact Finder’s report contained many options that are viable for the District and the Teacher’s Association, the salary increases of 3.5% are too high and not affordable for the District or our taxpayers at this time.
Of the approximately 40 items in the contract, the Teacher’s Association and Board have tentatively agreed to approximately 25 of these items. Of the items that we have agreed to that have a direct financial impact, all of these items provide maintained or increased benefit to our teachers. Many of the tentatively agreed upon items were recommendations from the Fact Finder’s report. The Board views this as progress given that more than half of the new contract language has been tentatively agreed to by the Teacher’s Association and School Board.
The Board remains committed to continued negotiations and sound fiscal management over the remaining items in the contract. We hope that our teachers continue to provide all the services they have been to our students as they have stated they will continue to perform their professional responsibilities in a professional manner.
Many members of our community have indicated they have heard rumors about our teachers choosing to consider a potential strike. The District has no communication from the Teachers’ Association about a strike and the Board is very hopeful these rumors are not accurate. We are very aware of the difficulty a strike places on families, especially our graduating seniors, and again we are hopeful the Teacher’s Association will continue to negotiate to resolve the contract in a professional, respectful, and collaborative manner.
Act 88 of Pennsylvania governs the rules of a strike in Pennsylvania.
The law requires the Teacher’s Association to notify the District in writing 48 hours in advance of a strike.
The law limits a teacher strike to only that number of days that would still enable students to complete a 180-day school year.
Should the teachers choose to strike, the District will notify parents, employees, and our community as soon as a strike notice is received. School for our students would be closed, but the District will make the best effort possible to continue operations and activities if a strike should occur. The District would use ConnectEd and the District’s website to notify parents and the community if the teachers choose to strike.
If you have any questions about the District’s 2009-2010 budget or the current budget development for the 2010-2011 school year, please take the time to call the District at 610-298-8661 and ask to speak with our Business Administrator or Assistant Business Administrator who are more than happy to answer your questions.
We thank you for taking the time to read this message. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our District Superintendent at 610-298-8661, ext. 1225.
All our best wishes to you and your family for a wonderful spring!
The Members of the School Board for the Northwestern Lehigh School District
An open letter on the status of collective bargaining
Dec 1st
Dear neighbors and community members:
I hope you and your family had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday. I know you realize by now collective bargaining is a highly sensitive, complex and emotional topic.
As a lifelong member of this community and a former student of both Weisenberg Elementary and Northwestern Lehigh High School, I am deeply saddened by the amount of misinformation being spread by a few individuals.
It is truly a honor, privilege and great responsibility to serve as an elected member of our school board. Without any hesitation, I can honestly tell you the members of your board are some of the most caring, dedicated, and passionate individuals I know…and within each of them is a heart of Tiger gold!
Rather than speaking to rumors or email blasts, let me provide you with some information that is appropriate and accurate.
First, the negotiation teams for the school board and the teacher’s association have been working for many months to reach mutually agreeable terms of a new contract. The teaching staff has been working without a new contract since the previous one ended on June 30, 2009. Unable to bridge the impasse that exists, the board’s negotiation team initiated the request for the parties to submit to fact finding. This is an standard procedural element of the collective bargaining process that is outlined in Act 88 of 1992 (Act 88) and the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) .
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB), the state assigned agency for this process, appointed the fact finder for this case. The school board had no control, nor input, in the selection of the PLRB’s appointed fact finder. The board and association presented their positions and documentation at a hearing that was held on November 5, 2009 at the district.
The school board received a copy of the fact finder’s report late in the evening on November 18th during our regularly scheduled meeting. Upon receipt of this report, both the school board and association had 10 calendar days to take official action on it (either accept or reject it in full only). It was discussed that additional time would be needed to fully review and analyze the contents and impact of the report within this 10-day deadline of November 28th.
The Board scheduled an extra meeting for November 25th to take official action. This decision was based on many factors including: allowing additional time for data and statistical analysis, the deadline for required action, public meeting advertising requirements, Board members’ schedules, and the impending holiday. I assure you, the implication that this date was somehow chosen as “suspect” is totally inaccurate, unfounded and completely unwarranted.
The Board did meet in Executive session prior to the meeting on November 25th. The vote to support or reject the findings was required to be decided in a “single, non-exclusionary” fashion, despite its vast array of information and compounding complexities.
As you may know, the Board voted to reject the report on a vote of 6 to 3…and I did vote to reject it. At this time, the PLRB has released the details of the fact finder’s report to the public. You may view a copy of the report below.
Despite what may be perceived from a “no” vote — I am truly respectful and appreciative of the collaborative roles our entire staff invests in our children and our schools to promote a lifetime of excellence through learning. And I remain committed and focused to seek a fair and equitable solution for all stakeholders. Rest assured – every student will always remain close to my head and heart throughout this process.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Paul C. Fisher, Jr.
