Concession Rejection Exposes Teachers’ Union Greed
Anticipated Layoffs Have Roots In Controversial Contract
James Bailey Brislin
The Carpet City Chronicle
The Enfield Press, March 19, 2009
“If we were to simply do nothing and let this crisis manage us, the tax burden for an Enfield taxpayer would need to increase by 13.4 percent. In today’s economic climate, I do not believe that the residents and businesses of Enfield can afford any tax increase.“
—Scott Kaupin, Mayor of Enfield
“I believe that until the Democratic Party breaks ties with the teachers unions, we are not going to see the true reform in this country that we need.“
—Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of the DC Public Schools
Recent weeks have been marked by sobering news for Enfield residents. Anticipated cost increases and revenue decreases have left the town facing a deficit of more than $10 million in its 2009-2010 budget.
Last Tuesday, Mayor Scott Kaupin and Council Minority Leader Patrick Crowley appeared at a Board of Education meeting to tell the Board that it must cut $6 million in expenses to close the deficit. Kaupin and Crowley informed the Board that this deficit was a function of the global economic crisis and that they could not raise taxes by the 13.4% needed to fill the gap. Rather the deficit would be closed by unfortunate, yet necessary budget cuts.
Kaupin and Crowley are to be commended for approaching the issue in a bipartisan manner. Petty partisan politics must not obscure the pursuit of the common good, particularly in this time of global crisis.
In the face of challenges unseen in generations, Americans are making unprecedented sacrifices for the sake of the common good. Many have agreed to pay cuts and furlough days in hopes that these measure will save their jobs and the jobs of their coworkers. Others find themselves in the unemployment lines.
In the hope of preserving jobs, the Town Council and Board of Education have sought wage and benefit concessions from employees in all bargaining units. Wanting to save jobs, many of these unions have agreed to modest concessions. Generally, these unions have agreed to forgo their raises and take several furlough days in light of the economic circumstances facing the town.
For the Board of Education, potential cuts include a school closure, redistricting, larger class sizes, and teacher layoffs. Given the serious cuts anticipated in the education budget, it was disappointing to learn of the Enfield Teacher’s Association’s unwillingness to make any wage or benefit concessions to the Board of Education.
Last Thursday, Republican and Democratic leaders of the Board of Education and the Town Council met with representatives of the ETA to discuss a last best offer for concessions. The bipartisan proposal rejected by the union included a wage freeze, a step freeze, and five furlough days. Together these measures would have yielded a cost savings of $2.9 million. This is substantial money- particularly when your goal is the closure of a $10 million budget deficit.
It was made clear to the union that a failure to make concessions will likely result in the layoff of 50-65 teachers. Nonetheless, the ETA executive board has persisted in its refusal to grant concessions.
Where is the spirit of union brotherhood? Why does the ETA think that they need not make sacrifices comparable to those being offered by other bargaining units in town?
Officials at the National Education Association and Connecticut Education Association want a unified front in the denial of concessions, even if it means the layoff of union members. As a consequence, the ETA’s executive board refused to submit the concession request to a democratic vote of the membership. Undoubtedly, they feared that their rank-and-file would put the interests of fellow union members in Enfield ahead of national negotiating strategies and directives from political apparatchiki in Washington and Hartford.
This incident dramatically illustrates what I have long argued: unionism has declined because unions have ceased to represent the concerns and values of rank and file workers. Instead, they have become a protection racket in which dues are funneled into the coffers of the Democratic Party and national union organizations in Washington, DC. Instead of representing family values, unions have abandoned Catholic allies and in favor of an unholy alliance with the abortion industry and the homosexual lobby.
The seniority system used to determine the order in which employees are let go has tarnished the reputation of unions in the eyes of young people. By refusing concessions, it is cannibalizing its young. Why would a young man wants to join a union if it is run by folks that they would sooner strip him of his job than make modest sacrifices for the general good? What kind of a “team” is that?
ETA President Mary Lombardo’s comments in The Journal Inquirer show the degree to which she and her fellow union bosses are tone-deaf to changing times. “We are all feeling the pinch as well”, she said. How are members feeling the pinch? Now that the price of gasoline has markedly decreased, there really is not much for her members to complain about. Her claim rings hollow in comparison to the plight of the unemployed and underemployed. She should try telling that to the young men and women who will soon find themselves without teaching jobs- ‘you don’t have a job because we’re feeling the pinch’.
More outrageous is her assertion that, “We feel we negotiated in good faith.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Her union’s controversial contract was a corrupt bargain rammed through the Board of Education and Town Council in the waning days of the Tallarita administration.
The chief negotiator for the Council was Councilman William “Red” Edgar (D-District 2), a former Enfield police union president. By appointing Edgar to lead the negotiation, the Tallarita administration left the impression that they desired a negotiation in which the interests of labor would be preferred to those of management.
The contract was ratified by a party line vote, in which Democrats supported it and Republicans opposed it, reflecting the partisan and polarized tone of the Tallarita era.
Documents obtained from the State Elections Enforcement Commission shed additional light on the circumstances surrounding the 2007 ratification of the Enfield Teachers’ Association’s three-year-contract. These documents show that the Enfield Democratic Town Committee failed to report a $1,000 campaign contribution made by the Enfield Teachers’ Association PAC days after the ratification of their controversial three-year contract.
The Enfield Teachers Association operates a political action committee known as the Enfield Teachers Association PAC. The PAC has provided the union with a channel by which it can funnel money to political candidates and committees, including the Enfield Democratic Town Committee. By law, the PAC is required to submit quarterly campaign finance filings to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
The ETA PAC’s filing for the fourth quarter lists a campaign contribution of $1,000 to the “Enfield Democratic Committee”. The check is dated 10-31-2007, two days following the ratification of the contract by the Democrat-controlled Council. Clearly, this creates the appearance of a quid pro quo- that the ETA contract would be ratified in exchange for a campaign contribution.
An ETA contribution to the Enfield Democratic Town Committee should appear on the EDTC’s campaign filings as a receipt. However, the EDTC has failed to report this contribution on its filing for the period beginning 10/24/2007 and ending 12/31/2007. It cannot be found in any filings for the following period. Nor was it reported in any amendment filed with SEEC.
This is an extreme impropriety. The purpose of the quarterly campaign finance filing process is to provide citizens with transparency about campaign contributions and receipts. How could the EDTC “lose” or “forget” about a $1,000 check- the largest contribution made during that election cycle? Such an assertion seems disingenuous at best and mendacious at worst.
Undoubtedly this generous contribution helped fund the Democrats’ election-eve attack ads against now-Deputy Mayor Ken Nelson Jr. There is some tragedy to the use of union funds to spread calumny and falsehood, as education is a profession dedicated to the pursuit and transmission of truth in all forms.
However, the greatest irony of this story is the role that this contract is now playing in the anticipated layoff of dozens of teachers. By refusing to concede the raises secured with thirty pieces of silver, Mary Lombardo and the ETA bosses are killing the careers of their fellow teachers with a poison of their own making.
James Bailey Brislin is a member of the Enfield Republican Town Committee. The views and opinions expressed in this column are his own. CarpetCityChronicle@gmail.com.
March 19, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Dear Enfield Press,
I commend the Enfield Government for it’s correct thinking and fiscal restraint. Great job!! I feel equaly as strong about the Teacher’s Union, only my feeling are of disgust. IT just goes to show how the liberal left is totally out of touch with reality. They constantly claim to be the champions of the struggling but when it comes time to put actions behind their words, their true, self centered ways govern thier actions.
Nice article!
March 23, 2009 at 11:07 am
I find not only this article absolutely absurd, but the proposed cuts to education also. This article is not coherent. It is titled as if it has some sort of insight into the ETA/BOE and Town Council discussions, but it is really just a very thinly veiled attack on the Democratic Party. The author knows little about the Union talks and attacks it blindly.
As for the change in unions that the author alleges, that is untrue. First of all, unions have never nor do they now have any responsibility to be Catholic. Unions did not start as religious movements. That is simply not true. Unions are not and should not be religious. Insinuating that unions are for abortion is simply out of place does not make sense.
Also, the biggest irony of this article is not the action of the ETA. It is the author preaching bipartisanship and good spiritedness, while his agenda is nothing more than to blast of the Democratic Party. Being against the Democratic Party simply because it is for education is terrible. Education is important and anyone with children or grandchildren should fight for a quality education in Enfield.
Saying that teachers are greedy is an amazing fabrication. Teachers are people could easily be making double what they make in education if they worked in the private sector somewhere, especially science teachers. I have never met a teacher whose career choice was motivated the apparently ‘amazing’ money in education. Most teachers teach because they feel a strong commitment to the future and want to make sure students are ready for their lives when they leave the classroom. Teachers and other school officials are not the ones who should be targeted because of some Enfield-wide budget problem.
It’s funny; when I was younger I thought that the BOE was a protector of the schools. Now I know better: the BOE is nothing but a bunch a penny-pinchers who clearly don’t value an education. Anyone who thinks of education as just a number on a page should not be in charge of education. Education is not a dollar amount spent per student or teacher, and it is not a CAPT or CMT score, education is teaching a child to read or helping someone understand complex chemistry equations.
March 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Anna, you assert that I’m attacking the Democrats for “supporting education”. Apparently you live in a warped world in which “supporting education” means engaging in campaign finance hanky-panky.
The Democrats accepted a campaign contribution from the ETA which they failed to report in their filings— a likely violation of campaign finance law. Moreover, they accepted the contribution two days after the ratification of the controversial ETA contract, a move that looks like a quid pro quo. How is it partisan to condemn this clear impropriety?
Although this incident was unfortunate, I think that Enfield Democrats have learned their lesson. At every level, they are under new management. They have expelled former Mayor Tallarita from their town committee. As minority leader, Pat Crowley has led the Democrats towards a spirit of bipartisanship that was unseen during the Tallarita era.
Let’s be clear… I never said that teachers are greedy… I said that the union was greedy. In fact, the evidence of this is the refusal of the union executive board to put concessions to a democratic vote. It is my firm belief that a democratic vote on concessions would likely result in their ratification by union rank-and-file.
I know what the pay is like in teaching… I have family members in the profession. However, I can tell you that in a time of economic crisis like this, they would be willing to make sacrifice raises and furlough days to save the jobs of their co-workers. Let’s be clear… Enfield teachers are not paid starvation wages… for a first-year teacher with a bachelor’s degree, starting salary is north of $40,000 a year. Moreover that number goes up with years of experience and additional education.
Your misinterpretation of my remark about unions abandoning their Catholic allies shows that you are painfully ignorant of the history of organized labor in America. Unions are not religious organizations. However, in the 20th century, they were greatly aided and abetted in their struggle by churches, particularly the Catholic Church. Without the support of the Church, organized labor would not have been nearly as successful as it is today.
However, over the past thirty years, unions have abandoned these allies and instead allied themselves with the abortion industry and the homosexual lobby. In so doing, they have provided aid and comfort to opponents of organized religion and traditional morality.
Moreover, my assertion that unions have stopped representing the mainstream morality of most members is evidenced by cold hard facts. A good example of this is the role that educational unions have had in leading the charge for the “trans-gender” bill, a measure that would put cross-dressing teachers in front of a classroom. Why would you want to subject children to this kind of gender confusion?
Ultimately, the Board of Education must answer to its shareholders— the voters of Enfield. The BOE’s job must balance the interests of the voters with those of the students, parents and teachers by effectively managing the schools with the money appropriated for education. However, the cold hard reality is that many / most voters are hurting this year. Enfield has been rocked by waves of unemployment. Private-sector workers are seeing their wages frozen or cut. In short, the annual income of the average Enfield homeowner is on its way down. How can you ask those receiving less to pay more?
Look I wish we had all the money in the world to spend on education. However, the reality is that money doesn’t grow on trees. If you raise taxes too high, you run the risk of hurting the economy.
April 2, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Here’s a thought:
There isn’t really a shortfall in education funds. Well, there is, but it’s not $6 million. It’s closer to, say, $400,000. Or something much more manageable.
Anyway, what’s happened is that the new plan for Enfield’s self insurance requires $40 million in the bank to succeed. We (Enfield) didn’t quite have that much. Maybe they had $26 million — the amount socked away to ensure an elegant bond rating. And maybe another $10 million they (Enfield’s TC & Manager) had planned to pay for insurance.
So they go to the BoE and say, “Hey, pony up for 55% for your debt.” And instead of saying “STFU” like a Democratically controlled board or even “WTF” like a 50/50 board, they say “okay.” Because, hey, they are majority Republicans and they hate that Democratically controlled teacher’s union, too.
So they ask for a couple million. And time goes by. And then it’s a few more million, because Enfield has had to pay for traditional insure by now and no longer has the full $40 million in sight. And now it’s up to $6.5 million because the BoE takes so damn long to do anything.
It’s a weird-ass detective story I’m working on — which is why I left my name off it (sorry). But I really have to wonder about a couple of things…
Why is it that *Enfield* is having this big an issue with its teachers?
Where did we get the $40 million to set up the self insurance fund?
And what was that fund called before *before* it became a self insurance fund?
April 22, 2009 at 10:13 am
I’m honestly surprised that Greco (and a few others) haven’t been sued for slander and libel.
Publishing private communications? No wonder the union won’t say one public word about all this. I would trust the current BoE with my house plants, let alone the negotiation of this contract.
It hasn’t been a secret — or at least a well kept secret — that the Republican TC and BoE are hell bent to gouge the teachers. They view the last contract the ETU got as the illegitimate child of, I don’t know, Ted Kennedy and Chairman Mao. They hate it and resent it and they want to do anything they can to tear it to little pieces.
It’s not easy defending the teachers of Enfield. They won’t talk to me about any of this, either. Again, I don’t blame them. When you adopt a policy of non-communication, you have to stick with it. You never know when even a well meaning knucklehead like me will let something slip, like the fact that the ETU were the first to talk with Greco and he screwed it up. The BoE asks for concessions but gives none in return (like the promise not to lay off teachers). But that never gets mentioned, does it?
But this is all just a red herring, completely beside the point. The heart of the matter is that, rather than even a scant increase on the mill rate or a flat budget, the Town Council decided to stick it to education. And I’m done playing nice…
If you support the $6.5 million cut in Enfield education, you are a thief. You are taking more than just money away from our children, you are robbing their future. And we won’t let you get away with this.
April 23, 2009 at 11:12 am
Let’s be clear— libel and slander are particular torts in the common law. (See “Defamation”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation and “United States Defamation Law”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law)
In order for a statement to qualify as defamation, it generally must be false. I fail to see how publishing Mary Lombardo’s email in its entirety constitutes the publication of a falsehood.
I would add that the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan raises the evidentiary bar for defamation of a public official— a plaintiff must show that the statement published by the defendant is knowingly false or shows reckless disregard for the truth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan)
Moreover, I dispute your suggestion that reproducing Mrs. Lombardo’s email constitutes publication of a private communication. Connecticut has a very robust Freedom of Information Act, under which most emails sent and received by public employees and public officials are discoverable. A long time ago, my father drilled into me that you do not write anything on email, chat, or message boards that you would not be proud to have posted on every door of your school or business. I never cease to be amazed at the degree to which folks put private thoughts in email.
There is no way that the BoE was going to agree to the ETA’s request for no layoffs. Why? State funding is up in the air. Even if the state level-funds ECS grants, it likely will cut PILOT and other forms of municipal aid that are used to subsidize education in Enfield.
I would disagree that the TC and BoE are trying to gouge the teachers. You need to look beyond the borders of Enfield to see what’s going on in the larger economy. How many Enfield residents are in danger of foreclosure? How many foreclosures have occurred in Enfield since the beginning of 2007? How much has the stock market crashed since its peak in 2007? What is the unemployment rate in the Town of Enfield?
Quite simply, the reality is that many residents cannot afford to pay for contractual cost increases. Moreover, it seems inevitable that tax collections will go down. How do you expect folks without jobs to cough up $4,000 – $5,000 a year in property tax, let alone a property tax increase? What will your “modest” tax increase do to businesses like the Enfield Square, Hallmark Cards, Lego, or Mass Mutual that pay millions of dollars in taxes? What will that “modest” tax increase do to a small technology business that has several hundred thousand dollars of servers and IT equipment on the tax rolls?
The reality is that the economy is contracting with the business cycle. This economic contraction means that everyone has less money: businesses see reduced sales and commerce, the homeowners who still have jobs are accepting pay cuts and not getting raises or bonuses.
The assertion that supporters of no tax increase are thieves is ridiculously illogical. Salaries and wages are first the private property of their owners, not the government. (Ownership of private property is one of the principle differences between capitalism and communism.) To assert that the educational system has an a priori claim to property, prior to taxation, fails to recognize private property rights. Moreover, it fails to recognize a community’s right to decide what levels of taxation and public services it wants. In the last election, the public was rather clear in asserting that they did not want higher taxes. The Council is following through on this rather clear direction from the general public.
If you think this is robbing the future, what do you think about the gross expansion of federal indebtedness that has occurred during the Bush and Obama administrations?
The reality is that parents with children in the public schools are receiving an expensive public service for a massive discount. Inclusive of municipal subsidies, it costs $14,000 a year to educate a child in Enfield. That means that it costs $28,000 a year to educate the average two children that most people have. The average Enfield homeowner pays $4,000-$5,000 a year in property taxes. This means that they are receiving an annual discount of $23,000 – $24,000 a year, paid for by somebody else (who never hears the words, “Thank-you” and only hears the words “more, more, more!”). How long can you keep that somebody else happy before they decide they can get a better deal elsewhere?
April 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm
So I guess we should just let people keep their money and wait for the charitable impulse to kick in. Is that how we should fund education?
And don’t confuse that lack of a refutation as confirmation of the truth. Unanswered statements made by members of the TC and BoE are still wrong even if they aren’t dignified with a response from the ETA. As for publishing private correspondence? That just shows lack of character. “Tabloid politics,” for lack of a better descriptor.
You do an excellent job of educating your readers, and I’m particularly impressed by the vast set of numbers at your command. But you’ve left out a few crucial factors in your calculations.
We are taxed on what we make. If some one is unemployed or underemployed, that gets taken into consideration at filing time. Heck, if you make $80,000* and I make $40,000 we still get (IMHO) a fair and proportional amount taken out of our pay. And the last time I checked, the amount that I paid in taxes to Enfield was part of that equation.
*(and I think you deserve at least that much)
And for the sake of everyone’s health, PLEASE don’t make it look like the average homeowner has to cough up $28,000 a year to pay for Joe T. Plumber’s two kids! You’re likely to give people heart attacks!
No, go to http://www.csde.state.ct.us and look up the grants that Enfield schools get. Last year the total we’d received was $18,755,105.92 The individual contribution rate is not as high as you think.
One last word: Thank yous. In Providence, where I lived last, the thank yous were not getting your property vandalized by truants while you were at work. I’m happy to say that here, things are MUCH better.
If you want a thank you, the kids just have to know who you are. I suggest that you volunteer to read to a class — just once. Seriously. Any class, K-12, would love it and I guarantee you will get thanked.