Editor’s note: This commentary is by the South Burlington School Board, whose members are Elizabeth Fitzgerald, chair; Martin LaLonde, clerk; Julie Beatty; Diane Bugbee; and Dan Fleming.
[S]chool boards across Vermont are striving to contain and reduce spending while continuing to provide excellent educational opportunities for their students. School spending is dominated by personnel costs – namely, salaries, benefits and payroll taxes. Attempts by school boards to reduce these costs are met with several obstacles. In order to help the public understand these obstacles and assist Vermont’s legislators in overcoming them, the South Burlington School Board has provided state legislators with a number of proposals. These proposals are set forth in a position paper, which can be found on the District’s website — www.sbschools.net .
The board focuses here on just one of its proposals for change: modifying the guidelines for the fact finding process in collective bargaining. This modification would assist boards throughout the state in managing the expense of personnel in ways that recognize a community’s ability and willingness to support school budgets.
The fact finding process occurs if the parties reach impasse and are unsuccessful in mediating their differences. Fact finding involves both sides presenting their positions to a neutral fact finder, who issues a fact finding report. Neither party has to abide by the resulting recommendation(s); it is intended to inform the parties of the reasonableness of their positions.
There are several disadvantages inherent in the current process that prevents school boards from being able to effectively manage total employee compensation. Notably, the guidelines that fact finders generally follow have a tendency to perpetuate the status quo. Fact finders rely heavily on a too-narrow concept of so-called “comparables,” namely the terms of other recently-settled contracts in like districts. A fact finder may note that comparable districts have provided certain percentage increases in salary and benefits and will suggest application of the same percentage increases. However, the fact finder will often do so without considering the relative wages and benefits across the districts causing some districts to pay more in absolute value than others. For example, a three percent increase on a $70,000 salary costs less to the taxpayer than a three percent increase on an $88,000 salary. Overemphasis on comparables leads to neighboring districts marching in lock-step to provide year over year percentage salary increases.
The Legislature need not restrict employees’ right to strike, nor school boards’ right to impose contract terms. Nor should it require the parties to enter binding arbitration, which under current guidelines would have the same tendency as the current fact finding process to perpetuate the status quo without containing costs.
A fact finder may consider the interest and welfare of the public and financial ability of the school board to pay for the increased costs of labor. However, that consideration, if included at all, is usually superficial. Fact finders often pay minimal attention to economic factors affecting the community’s ability to pay. Moreover, fact finders focus narrowly on the local community, despite the fact that under Act 68, all of the property tax payers in Vermont are affected by local decisions on school spending.
The fact finding process, and the negotiations that it guides, are currently ineffective at deriving creative solutions to help contain spending. The current fact finding process stifles creative thinking and encourages “incrementalism.” As it is done now, fact finding discourages parties from considering novel approaches to the issues facing the education community. To quote the recent fact finding report from the South Burlington School District, “the District is seeking to act as a trailblazer … But fact finders generally resist recommending ‘game-changing’ modifications to existing contract language … (T)he (Educators’) Association is justified in its goal to maintain the status quo.” The fact finder made this statement in response to a health care proposal that would have generated over $500,000 in savings to the district and put $750,000 back into employees’ pockets in reduced premiums, while actually improving health care coverage with a health care plan compliant with the Affordable Care Act.
To address these problems, the South Burlington School Board proposes that our legislators provide specific guidelines for fact finding in the education sector that shift away from the current “pattern of comparability.” These guidelines would emphasize ability and willingness of Vermont’s taxpayers to support district budgets, taking into account broader economic indicators such as local property tax burdens, statewide increases in property taxes, changes in median income, unemployment rates, and property values, as well as changing demographics and student needs. Comparability of salary increases by percentage should be deemphasized. Guidelines should allow for, and indeed promote, thorough consideration of creative proposals that break out of the status quo. H.102 was been introduced in the House this week for consideration by the Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs.
The Legislature need not restrict employees’ right to strike, nor school boards’ right to impose contract terms. Nor should it require the parties to enter binding arbitration, which under current guidelines would have the same tendency as the current fact finding process to perpetuate the status quo without containing costs. Rather, it should implement new guidelines for fact finding. Because the current fact finder’s process carries such weight in negotiations it should be based on more substantive and credible criteria than the terms of other recently settled contracts. This improvement to the collective bargaining process, along with broader education funding reforms, will enable communities to continue to support and value local public education at a cost they can afford.
