Council’s Vote Guided By

Inevitable Arbitration Outcome

By John Voket

By voting to not reject a marginally adjusted administrators’ contract, members of the Newtown Legislative Council avoided another costly phase of arbitration that would have inevitably delivered the same outcome. Council chairman William Rodgers detailed nuances of the frustrating legal loophole and its affect on the arbitration in a letter (see Letter Hive this week) and subsequent interview with The Bee last Wednesday.

Mr Rogers explained that although council members had continued misgivings about elements of the contract, a 6-5 vote permitting the stipulated agreement to stand did little more than validate a “last best offer” that would have gone into effect no matter which direction the council chose.

“Council rejection of the contract would have resulted in the identical contract being imposed,” Mr Rodgers said. “There was no real decision on our part. If we turned it down again the stipulated agreement was bound to give back what was just rejected.”

While the ultimate outcome certainly appears to have much greater political collateral than economic impact, Mr Rodgers said it was important for taxpayers to know that the initial contract rejection that forced arbitration was still a significant victory for the town.

“Some might suggest that our actions seemed a little silly. Some might wonder why we entered into the process only to accept what some council members described as ‘a slap in the face’ settlement. But it is a miracle that we got anything resembling a better deal given the fact that binding arbitration tends to [historically] favor unions,” Mr Rodgers said.

As he explained it, the decision to force binding arbitration created a situation where the arbitration panel was forced to pick between two offers. Since the first stage of the arbitration process arrived at an approved (stipulated) agreement, each side’s last best offer was exactly the same.

The Board of Education initially approved the administrators’ contract during its September 21 board meeting. At that time, administrators were given a wage increase of 3.75 percent for each of the next three academic years and a graduating annual insurance co-payment increase from 15, to 16, to 17 percent.

After Newtown’s Legislative Council voted down that initial administrators’ contract October 20, the new stipulated agreement was forged during the initial phase of arbitration negotiations.

There was only one modest adjustment to the initial contract. While the insurance co-payment percentage increases remained the same, administrators’ wages would increase by 3.75 percent for the 2005-06 year, 3.70 percent for the 2006-07 school year, and 3.65 percent for the 2007-08 school year.

Mr Rodgers said if the council rejected that contract, the loophole involving the stipulated settlement would have forced the town to adopt the same contract, with the added expense of initiating another phase of arbitration.

“Economically, a number of council members saw the benefit of wrapping this process up at this stage,” said Mr Rodgers. “The majority of our members felt it would be best for the town.”