Dear Editor: 

Last week I received a flyer from the teacher’s union lobbying the public to support its position in the ongoing teacher contract negotiations.

I have no doubt that the statistics listed in the flyer are true. However, I found many of them to be either irrelevant to the negotiations, or selectively presented in such a way as to be misleading. In some cases they also took advantage of the public’s inexperience with the teacher salary scale and the school budget in general.

For example, at first glance I thought that teachers averaged only 0.8% salary increases over the last five years. It took a second reading before I decided that they were only talking about teachers who were at or close to the maximum negotiated salary for a teacher. Every job in the school district is subject to some maximum salary amount, starting right at the top with the superintendent. Why would it be any different for the teachers? The public understands the concept of limited raises or even no raises for employees who are making the maximum allowable salary for a particular job position. Why didn’t the flyer state the average for “all” teachers for the past five years instead of just “senior” teachers. Not doing so was misleading.

Another statistic says that senior administration received an average increase of 3.5% in 2014-2015. Most likely that number represents the highest raise that senior administrators have received in recent years. The fact that the flyer shows the highest rate for administrators rather than an average rate over a period of time, and the flyer never shows an average rate for all teachers which could be used for comparison purposes, again seems to be misleading.

The statistic that the superintendent received a one year 11% increase in salary falls into the irrelevant category. Even with that 11% increase, the superintendent position is being paid 20% less today than five years ago. How does a position whose absolute salary has gone down over recent years draw away budget dollars that could be used to pay teachers? It doesn’t.

The next statistic relies on the public’s lack of familiarity with how the school budget works. On the surface, taking $500,000 from the “Teacher Salary” account sounds like a terrible thing. But in reality, budget money is routinely shifted from areas where actual expenses are less than budget estimates to areas where actual expenses exceed estimates. Budget estimates are set before the beginning of the fiscal year. In most cases there is no way to know how much will actually be spent on any given line item. As a result, budget amounts are usually estimated a little on the high side to protect against unforeseen expenses. Last year the district paid the teachers every dollar that they were contractually entitled to. The fact that the Board put aside more money than they needed to accomplish this should be of no concern to the teachers. The Board met its obligation. What remains should either go into surplus or be returned to taxpayers.

As a taxpayer, I totally approve of the $40,000 for a negotiating attorney. The last time that the Board tried to save money by negotiating without assistance resulted in disaster. It was around 2009 at a time when the Great Recession had just begun to take hold. The governor had already frozen the wages of state employees and there were massive layoffs in both the public and the private sectors. But the Parsippany district contract gave teachers raises of 4 – 4 ½%, leaving the public in disbelief. A few months later when nearby towns were negotiating contracts in the 2-2 ½% range, it became clear just how bad the Parsippany contract was. Today, because of the 2% cap on the budget, the Board cannot simply pass on the costs of a 4% increase to the public. Any amount beyond 2% must come out of other budget items such as building maintenance or iPads. The Board’s main obligation is to the students, and under current budget rules the Board can no longer afford to enter into a contract that would disproportionately reduce student related line items. A negotiating attorney is necessary to insure that the Board does not enter into a contract that would be detrimental to the students.

The 2015-2016 budget will increase by about $2.5 million as a result of the 2% cap. The flyer asks “Where does the money go?”, yet it omits one of the biggest expenditures. The increase in Medical Benefit premiums alone will eat up almost half of the 2% cap. The remaining half is all that is left to support increases for all the other budget categories including teacher salaries.

In order for the public to determine whether the teachers have been treated fairly or not, meaningful statistics must be provided. For this purpose, I ask the Board to provide the following information at the next Board meeting, and in the Q&A section of the Board website.

• What is the average salary increase received by Parsippany district administrators over the last five years?
• What is the average salary increase received by Parsippany district teachers over the last five years?
• How do the average teacher salaries for the Parsippany district compare to the average teacher salaries for other K thru 12 districts in Morris County, adjusting for differences in average length of service?

Bob Venezia