School Board Approves A Three-Year Teachers’ Pact

By Kendra Bobowick

“It isn’t the money, it’s the message,” stressed Newtown Middle School teacher Cathy Cincogrono. She stood in front of the Board of Education for the first time in her 32 years in the district to talk about problems she saw with the proposed three-year teachers’ contract.

Roughly two hours from the time she appealed to members to reconsider the document’s ratifications, she would listen as they unanimously accepted the proposal. Her concerns were not shared by teacher Candi Dietter, who had been part of the contract negotiations and had expressed confidence in the pact.

After the meeting concluded and guests stepped back into the evening’s chilly rain, Ms Dietter said, “I think we got the best contract we could get.” Although quieted by then, emotions had been strained earlier that night before the board reached its conclusion.

As a small group of teachers — some union representatives — and family sat behind Ms Cincogrono, she raised the microphone to address board members. Speaking softly, she glanced between notes of her comments to the board and the members themselves as she explained, “I represent many who feel as I do.”

Referring to her notes, she said, “I stand here alone but am representing teachers from all schools including the middle school.” Her primary complaint was the distribution of pay increases for teachers from steps 1 through 30. She and several others at the meeting felt the proposed contract — a document negotiated between the union representatives and the Board of Education — was unfair, and understood it to indicate that a first step salary earns pay increase at an estimated 10.7 percent and thereafter shows roughly 6 percent increases through 12 steps of the teachers’ professional development scale. From step 13 and beyond, the percentage of annual increase is 2.8 percent.

The teachers, all involved with the NFT (Newtown Federation of Teachers, part of the American Federation of Teacher), believed that the contract proposed a 5.25 percent increase dispersed evenly. To clarify, Ms Cincogrono said, “Many who voted did not realize that the money we would receive was nowhere near five percent.”

Following the meeting, Superintendent Dr Evan Pitkoff had explained that although he could not necessarily validate the opposition’s mathwork, he said that traditionally there are pay increases in the form of step and wage increases. He contends that now at a senior level, some personnel are upset that they are receiving only a general wage increase.

“Teachers going through steps are getting step increases in addition to general wage raises.”

He continued, “The union agreed to the structure.” He also explained that the district is interested in recruiting teachers. Regarding those upset with the contract, he said, “Their own union negotiated it.”

Money was not what had Ms Cincogrono most upset, however.

She said, “I want to say this contract sends the wrong message.” The contract may appeal to new teachers in the beginning steps, she argued, but in the later steps with 2.8 percent increases would be discouraging to veteran educators.

“So I come to you asking for help,” she said. “Is the contract fair, equitable, legal, and what message does it send to teachers?” After a pause, she asked board members, “If you were a teacher on the top steps, would you be happy?”

Also speaking against the ratifications was Spanish teacher Sarito Chandler, who said, “I am deeply concerned and take this personally and feel I am being told that what I do isn’t worth very much.” Ms Chandler explained she had approached union representatives after reviewing the contract union members received in late October. “I stated that I was very unhappy that some of us were getting very low increases while others are getting high [increases].”

She also stressed that the contract leaves a bad impression.

“Please consider what this means,” Ms Chandler said. “What message does this give us…of how you appreciate or do not appreciate years of service…”

Board Chairman Elaine McClure rose to answer the women, saying, “We do appreciate all the teachers, we do, and we hear what you are saying.”

She further qualified her view of the school system and explained, “We are what we are because of people who work together and make the town special.”

For more than an hour Ms Chadler and Ms Cincogrono waited outside in the hallway at Reed Intermediate School. Waiting at an opposite end were a handful of other teachers, union representatives, who had been on the negotiating team.

Considering the ratified contract for a last time before the board concluded its executive session and announce its decision, Ms Cincogrono noted, “It’s good for some people, but the distribution is the problem.” Ms McClure soon announced the board had come to a decision, and as guests again settled into their seats, she moved to approve the contract as modified, which the board unanimously supported.

Board Member Andrew Buzzi said, “I was on the negotiating team, they negotiated zealously and with dignity…”

Ms McClure said, “If we didn’t reach an agreement, we would have gone into binding arbitration…” She asked those in the audience to compare the conditions to nearby school districts.

Considering what Ms Dietter and others had grappled with during negotiations, she explained, “We were holding onto insurance.” Overall, of the 400-plus union members who were eligible to vote on the ratifications, 346 showed, and 289 voted in favor of the contract, she said.

The three-year pact approved by the Board of Education will go into effect unless the Legislative Council rejects it within the next 30 days.