[T]he Burlington School Board Thursday night imposed a contract on teachers for the remainder of this school year.
Mark Porter, chair of the Burlington School Board, said the board wants to move immediately into negotiations on a new three-year contract.
“We moved on a lot of stuff,” Porter said. “We ended up at 2.75 percent (salary increase) with $80,000 toward tuition reimbursement, 16 percent for health care – that is up a point – and they said no.”
Teachers responded with disappointment during a public forum at both of the meetings on Tuesday, Sept. 13, and Thursday, Sept. 15.
The teachers, represented by the Burlington Education Association, said they made concessions, including accepting the fact finder’s recommendation of a 3.25 percent increase in salary. They want to keep insurance copayments at 15 percent. Tuition reimbursement for teachers taking graduate courses will max out at $80,000. Any employee who receives a tuition reimbursement and separates from the district after 3 years will be required to repay reimbursement on a pro-rated basis to the board.
Porter said that teachers’ demands would cost the city $440,000 and he doesn’t know where to find it in the budget without going into deficit spending or cutting programs.
“I don’t have any money left,” Porter said. “Our hands are tied. The only way to give them what they want — the $900,000 — is cutting programs that people don’t want to see happen. It would be devastating to the kids.”
Fran Brock, president of the the teachers union said at the meeting that the board has yet to “substantiate” the claim that they will have to cut programs for children by paying teachers a higher salary. The increase teachers are asking for would put them in the middle of the pack among their colleagues in Chittenden County.
“We are disappointed, we are frustrated, we’re sorry that you decided to impose,” Brock said when she addressed the board. “You’re making up your own schedule and putting it into effect for us, a sign of rudeness and disrespect for the professionalism of teachers.”
“Bottom line, you have not been honest with us or this community about what this district really has in its funds and its treasury,” Brock continued. “You have to answer to the city of Burlington and the fact that you are continuing to pull down the education of our children — shame on you.”
Lynda Siegel, another teacher in the Burlington school district, addressed the board about what she feels is a lack of transparency regarding the $85 million school budget.
“As a taxpayer in Burlington for the past 32 years, I appalled that the fact that all that we have seen from this district this year is a four page budget,” Siegel said. “South Burlington has a 68 page budget on their website for people to look at it, line item by line item. We want to know where the money is going. I am just disgusted.”
Several other teachers spoke passionately in protest of the board’s decisions, before the close of a 20-minute public forum held as part of the meeting.
Porter said the board has cut $1.55 million from the budget to meet the board’s final offer that was made to teachers. It would take an additional $900,000 cut to raise the teachers’ pay 3.25 percent. Porter said it is “flabbergasting” that the union says the board isn’t being honest about the budget.
“They are trying to build distrust of the school board among the community,” Porter said. “We are volunteers, what do they think we get out of this? We are spending the voters’ money – it isn’t our money.”
Contracts have only been imposed on Vermont teachers 20 times, according to Darren Allen, communications director of the Vermont-NEA. He said 40 years of negotiations have resulted in more than 5,000 contract settlements.
“It is rare,” Allen said.
In the union’s view, the imposition worsens labor relations.
