| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garden State Coalition of Schools/GSCS
FYI Heads Up! Update 6-24-09
GSCS 'Quick Facts'
1. State Budget Vote Thursday, 6-25-09
2. 6-23-09 A4141 & S3000 clarifies how to eliminate Non-Operating school districts
These companion bills were introduced and moved out of the Assembly Education and Senate Budget & Appropriations Committees Monday, June 22, 2009...they are scheduled for a vote tomorrow in both houses. It is notable that Commissioner Davy pointed out (while presenting the bill in the Assembly Education Committee) that parts of this bill will likely be used as a model for merging regular operating districts.
More...
From GSCS website homepage @ www.gscschools.org :
6-23-09 Grassroots at Work re A4140, A4142 and A1489
GSCS has been working hard to keep these bills from being voted on before the legislature breaks for the summer. There has been pressure to have them posted for a vote. For helpful information, see below 1)GSCS President Jim O'Neill letter to legislators on negative issues in these FAST TRACK bills that would hurt schools & taxpayers, 2) Glen Ridge "SOS" community release and bill overview/implications (helpful example), and GSCS testimony provided to Assembly Education Committee on the bills…
(Note: At this time, these bills have not been posted for a vote in tomorrow’s [6-25-09] voting sessions…However, they bear attention and watching. Thanks to those who have reached out to Trenton to express their concerns regarding these bills.)
1. Legislator letter, from GSCS President Jim O’Neill:
Gentlemen, On behalf of every school district I know in Morris County and all the members of the Garden State Coalition of Schools I seek your help in addressing Bills A 4140, 4142 and 1489.
There are distressing issues related to transparency and substance. With regard to transparency notice of the Assembly Education Committee meeting was not public until after 6pm on Friday. There was no opportunity for the bills to be scrutinized and commented on because they were not available to the public and even though the bills could go to the floor of the Assembly as early as this Thursday the bills are still not posted for the public to read (as of 5pm Tuesday the 23rd). I have called both the Bill Room and the Speakers Office, no copy of the bill is available to email or fax. I understand there is pressure to act at the end of a session but there is also a history of poor legislation when there is no opportunity for public input.
With regard to substance there are extremely serious issues that are not only detrimental to the effective and efficient operation of school districts but are also in conflict with the stated goal of all other legislation which is to reduce the cost of education in New Jersey.
Please consider these specifics; A4142; does the legislature really intend for decisions about retaining teachers to be in the hands of an arbiter rather than the administration or school board in a district. Is there recognition that every non-tenured teacher who is not renewed will claim disciplinary action and seek reinstatement through arbitration? You are well aware of how difficult it is to dismiss tenured teachers who are not up to standards but you may not realize this bill will make it extremely difficult to not renew non tenured teachers who do not demonstrate the knowledge, expertise and dedication necessary to be successful in the 21st century classroom. Since the bill is not available I cannot see the rationale offered by the sponsor or the reason it was passed out of committee with bipartisan support. We have often argued that 3 years is not a sufficient amount of time to determine if a new teacher meets the standards in a school district this bill could have the unintended consequence of guaranteeing tenure as soon as an individual is hired. NJEA is pushing this bill hard and it is not for altruistic reasons.
Bill 4140 has to do with subcontracting and would undoubtedly increase cost. Subcontracting is one of the few ways we have to reduce cost if necessary. This bill would force many district to reduce classroom expenditures while retaining non instructional personnel. Again, since the bill is not available I am concerned there is ambiguity in the issue of subcontracting and the result will be delayed work on necessary projects and increased costs in salary and benefits. It would also preclude a contractor who wanted to make a donation to a school district to incur costs that would prevent the gift. We cannot employ sufficient talent in every field but arguments could be made that every time we contract out some work we are violating this subcontracting law. It could also cause us to spend money we do not currently spend. e.g. if a school district maintains their own fields during the school year but the municipality maintains them in the summer for recreation programs when school is not in session are we subcontracting the work our men usually do? This bill is fraught with problems for schools. Municipalities at least have a threshold under which they can subcontract.
Bill 1489 - I am stunned that this bill has come forward. Tax payers have appreciated a "user" fee for those who are able to take advantage of athletics, the arts and many non athletic extracurricular activities. If parent contribute to the cost of extracurricular programs it saves the entire community some tax dollars. I am sure you are aware we already pay for students who are eligible for free or subsidized lunch programs. They are not charged these fees. Many districts thought this type of fee was exactly what the legislature was encouraging.
Finally I note that many of these bills are slated to take effect immediately. How can we be expected to make changes after our budgets have been approved by the voters? There is no reasonable way that a budget which took many months to create and explain to the voters could be changed at this late date.
We appreciate your support and understanding in the past; please seek further clarification of the impact of these bills before they have a devastating impact on our schools.
Sincerely,
Jim O'Neill, Superintendent
School District of the Chathams
President, Garden State Coalition of Schools
President Morris County Association of School Administrators
2. Glen Ridge Public Schools
Board of Education
SUSTAIN OUR SCHOOLS
IMPORTANT UPDATE—6/22/09
Newly Introduced Legislation to Affect Student Activity Fees and Districts’ Ability to Subcontract Services
The New Jersey Assembly bills excerpted below came out late in the day last Friday (June 19th). Only one of them, A1489, was up on the Legislature's official website before the Education Committee hearing on the bills. All will have a potentially damaging effect on cost saving and potential cost saving measures in New Jersey school districts, including Glen Ridge. The bills were heard in the Assembly Education Committee Monday morning and passed out of committee. The next step is the floor of the Assembly.
Please take a moment to read the official summaries of these bills and the “what this may mean to you” section at the end of each one. They will probably be up for passage before the Legislature goes out of session on June 30. The content of these bills is disturbing because they mitigate directly and indirectly against cost containment and student achievement, both of which are of paramount importance in this and every community. The bills also further limit local control of local taxpayers’ dollars while increasing the number of costly mandates to which districts must comply.
Perhaps equally disturbing is the complete lack of due process. Given the haste of the introduction and hearing schedule, there is no time for educators, the New Jersey public or even the legislators themselves to understand the full impact—including the cost impact--of these pieces of legislation. The Legislature is working against a June 30th deadline to get the budget finalized and passed, after which the Legislature will go out of session for the summer. It is inconceivable that these bills will receive more than a cursory review before they are put to a vote by the Assembly and Senate.
If you wish to express an opinion on any or all of these bills, please contact the legislative leaders listed at the end of this release. There is not enough time for letters or postcards, so only phone and e-mail information is included.
ASSEMBLY, No. 1489 (Identical to S1135)
STATEMENT [SYNOPSIS]
This bill prohibits a board of education from charging a student, or the student’s parent or legal guardian, a fee to participate in extracurricular activities. The bill, however, allows a board to charge a fee for the reimbursement of costs associated with equipment and supplies necessary to participate in the extracurricular activity if the board provides the parent or guardian with documentation of those costs. However, a board that charges such a fee may not exclude from participation in extracurricular activities any student whose parent or guardian is unable to pay the fee because of financial hardship. In determining financial hardship under the bill the criteria would be the same as the statewide eligibility standards for free and reduced price meals under the State school lunch program.
- What this may mean to you: Given the current 4% budget cap, 2% surplus limitation and other constraints; this law would almost certainly mean cutbacks in student activities and athletics programs, as the GR activities fee helps defray the costs of those activities. Additionally, the legislation is slated to go into effect for the 2009-2010 school year. The activity fee was factored into our budget, so any cuts would have to go into effect in the fall. [N.B.: We already waive the fee for students with financial hardships. No one is denied participation in any GRHS activity because he or she cannot pay the fee.]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
ASSEMBY BILL A4140
STATEMENT [SYNOPSIS]
This bill supplements the "New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act" to prohibit an employer from entering into a subcontracting agreement which may affect the employment of any employees in a collective bargaining unit during the term of a collective bargaining agreement covering those employees. [N.B.: The bill includes local or regional school districts among its definition of "employers".] The employer is permitted to enter into a subcontracting agreement for a period following the term of a current collective bargaining agreement only if the employer:
- Provides written notice both to the majority representative of employees [NB: in the case of GR, this is the GREA] and the Public Employment Relations Commission at least 90 prior to any effort by the employer to seek the subcontracting agreement; and
- Offers the majority representative [GREA] the opportunity to meet and discuss the decision to subcontract and negotiate over its impact.
The bill also requires the disclosure of various information regarding the subcontractor including proof of required insurance, a cost projection of at least three years, and criminal and disciplinary records and other information about the subcontractor employees.
The bill makes all actions of an employer regarding subcontracting, except for those expressly required or prohibited by the bill, mandatory subjects of negotiations.
Each employee replaced or displaced because of a subcontracting agreement is deemed by the bill to be on a leave of absence during the period of the subcontracting and therefore retains all previous acquired seniority and has recall rights when the subcontracting terminates.
The bill provides that an employer who violates its provisions has committed an unfair practice, and may be subject to unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission, under which the employee may be entitled to remedies including reinstatement, back pay, back benefits, back emoluments, tenure and seniority credit, and attorney's fees.
- What this may mean to you: If the district wanted to subcontract any services (to save money), we would have to wait until the end of the union contract to do so. We would also have to notify the union and PERC (a state labor relations/arbitration agency) and, essentially negotiate with the union before we could enter into a subcontracting agreement. This greatly restricts the Board's ability to consider subcontracting as a cost-saving option for the district. PERC is also substantially understaffed already, making the addition of their involvement in subcontracting issues a step that will cause substantial delays in the process. [N.B.: Our district is not presently confronted with the subcontracting situation, but this bill limits our ability to do so in the future without a time-consuming adversarial process.]
________________________________________________________________________
ASSEMBLY BILL A4142
STATEMENT [SYNOPSIS]
This bill provides that the terms of a collectively negotiated agreement shall supersede the terms of any individual contract between any public employer and any individual public employee whose position is within the bargaining unit covered by the collective agreement. In addition to this provision, which applies to individual contracts of both educational and non-educational public employers and employees, the bill, with respect to only the educational sector:
1. Makes binding arbitration the terminal step for the review of any imposition of discipline under collective bargaining agreements, extending that requirement to major, as well as minor discipline, and extends the scope of collective bargaining to cover procedures for major, as well as minor, discipline.
2. Provides that fines and suspensions for any discipline, major as well as minor, levied under a contract or an arbitrator’s award do not constitute a reduction in compensation for pension purposes;
3. Extends binding arbitration and contractual grievance procedures to cover disputes over the withholding of increments for any reason, instead of just for predominately disciplinary reasons;
4. Provides an arbitrator, in cases of discharge, termination or contract non-renewal, with the authority to order remedies which include reinstatement with back pay and benefits; and
5. Amends the definition of "employer" to include county colleges, county vocational school districts, and charter schools.
What this may mean to you: This places potentially costly, extreme and onerous limits on a district's ability to take disciplinary action against staff members, including the ability to undertake the already difficult and time-consuming process of terminating teachers or other employees who, after a lengthy process of observation and counseling, do not perform up to the standards and expectations of the district. It also makes even minor disciplinary manners subject to arbitration by a state agency. Allows a state arbitrator to reinstate a teacher terminated by the Board.
Legislative contacts:
Bill Sponsors:
- (A1489—activities fees) Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli: (856) 251-9801; asmburzichelli@njleg.org
- (A1489—activities fees) Assemblyman Gary S. Schaer (973) 249-3665; asmschaer@njleg.org
- (A1489—activities fees) Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith (201) 536-7851; asmsmith@njleg.org
- (A1489—activities fees) Assemblywoman Joan M. Voss (201) 346-6400; aswvoss@njleg.org
- (A4140—subcontracting) Assemblywoman Sheila Y. Oliver (973) 395-1166; aswoliver@njleg.org
- (A 4142—disciplinary procedures) Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (908) 624-0880; asmcryan@njleg.org
______________________________________________________________
Garden State Coalition of Schools/GSCS
Testimony - Lynne Strickland, Executive Director
Assembly Education Committee June 21, 2009
GSCS Positions on A4140, A1489, A4142: Opposed
A-4140, concerning collective bargaining agreements and subcontracting,
A-4142, concerning certain disciplinary procedures, collective bargaining, and binding arbitration in public employment, are on the agenda pending introduction & referral.
A-1489 prohibits boards of education from charging students a fee to participate in extracurricular activities.
Due to very late public notice of the hearing, as well as bills not being available for appropriate review and analysis, GSCS is presenting a compilation of thoughts, including member comments (in quotes below) on bills A4140, A1489, and A4142.
Overall issues with these proposed bills:
- Timing
Lack of transparency; virtually no public notice
No vetting allowed by abrupt process; these major bills require in-depth analysis
Economic crisis: bills will cost taxpayers more
- Instability: Current state of the economy precarious and unstable
- Mixed Message: District cost-saving measures nullified while legislature tells districts they spend too much
- No fiscal note; costs to local districts and local taxpayers
- Effective Immediately
Extremely disruptive
Budgets set for the year
- Credibility at state level will be out-front issue
- State mandate-State Pay/Council on Local Mandates
- Too many unanswered questions outstanding
- Cap issues – Mandates
A4140 concerning collective bargaining agreements and subcontracting
Will be costly at local level
Efficiency regulations and legislative intent to districts to save money
Conflict with existing regulations/districts are not allowed to run food services program in deficit
Outsourcing practice has been in legislative effect for approximately 10 years
State Mandate – State Pay
Mixed message: “As I read bill A4140 -- for example, it would prevent the district from contracting out custodial services, food services, or bus services, except when the contract is up for negotiations. This will severely limit the ability of a district to reduce costs -- a goal the legislator and county executive superintendent are encouraging… (Camden/K12)”
“(Morris/k12 Regional) …Respectfully, A4140 places extraordinary and unwarranted burdens on school districts that need to find economies.”
“This bill is also unrealistic because sometimes we have too much work for our own men to perform so we have to contract out some work. Do they think we should hire more custodial and maintenance staff to do the work when we can hardly afford the staff we have?
Finally there are many areas of dispute here; if school folks maintain ball fields during the school year but the municipal recreation department does it in the summer months does that become our responsibility when it is not our kids playing and not during the school year? There are unintended implications and consequences here that will have the opposite impact of everything else they are telling us to do. How can this take place immediately, we are supposed to have all kinds of information about the employees of any contractor who is going to do work for the district and we have already contracted that work for this summer.
“…(Monmouth/large K8)…Certainly these bills are calculated and targeted at those of us that have outsourced our food services program and our custodial services saving the district over 2 million a year, every year. Without the foresight of the Board of Education to so contract these non-educational services in the past, the district would be in a financial straight jacket today and our instructional technology program would be virtually non-existent! “
“…. (Middlesex/K12) regarding the immediate impact to our budgets by bills that are rushed through the legislature at the end of June: additional unplanned expenditure requirements will throw any budget into chaos. Conversely, the limitation on subcontracting will prevent us from large potential savings. We have had some privatization of our custodial staff for some time now. Additionally, with the requirement that child nutrition be a self supporting enterprise, we are looking to establish a satellite for our elementary school food service where cooking would be limited to one or two elementary kitchens and then delivered to the other schools. A subcontractor would be brought in to assist with this…”
A1489 prohibits boards of education from charging students a fee to participate in extracurricular activities.
- Increases Property Taxes/local taxpayers appreciate participant support of extracurricular activities
Budgets already struck for the 2009-2010 fiscal year
Midstream change would either result in cancellation of extracurricular activities and/or staff & program reductions; essentially decimate extracurricular programs in mid-stream
One K12 Regional district will save approximately $210K in local property taxes by instituting extracurricular fees for this coming year. The district did not decide to implement this measure until after it had to cut 18 positions from its staff, 9 of the 18 positions were held by teachers. No fee is asked of student households that qualify for free or reduced lunch.
“This bill would not allow (K12 district/Camden County) to charge an activity fee as it currently does. The impact of this legislation WILL BE that sports and extracurricular activities will be dropped by the district. This bill will severely impact extracurricular in this district.”
(K12 Union County/5500 enrollment) I can tell you now that everything said above is also true for us, especially the ban on extracurricular fees. We'll have no choice but to cut activities, since our budget already relies on these fees to keep the extracurricular programs going. And we'll have no choice but to lay it at the feet of the state. We had a "robust" public dialogue about these fees during this year's budget campaign, since they were proposed for the first time for the coming budget year. Our public knows that we had to do it in order to keep the array of activities available.”
“…local taxpayers appreciate participant support of extracurricular activities.”
“It's really not playing fair to adopt any bills at the end of June that will have an immediate fiscal impact on district budgets that were presented to the public and voted on in April…to do it at the end of June for implementation a week later is ludicrous. “
“We (Essex County K12 district) will absolutely have to curtail programs if we cannot charge a student activities fee. These programs go beyond athletics, since we charge for any high school activity--from French Club to football. It is ironic--the union contract requires us to stipend faculty advisors, coaches, etc., but the Legislature wants to take away our ability to provide the programs that provide those stipends.”
“I doubt they realize the reduction in extracurricular activities this will create.”
“…Our district (Middlesex/K12) also charges a fee for extracurriculars. The charge by no means covers the cost in full for participation, but thus far has provided the district with enough so that we have not had to cut our programs….We fully recognize that these are NOT ideal times and have accepted the necessity of collecting these fees…”
Midstream change would either result in cancellation of extracurricular activities and/or staff & program reductions; essentially decimate extracurricular programs in mid-stream.
Districts institute a means test re: affordability for fee via the free or reduced lunch application.
Budgets already struck for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
A4142 concerning certain disciplinary procedures, collective bargaining, and binding arbitration in public employment
- Unanswered questions/full impact not clear/big bill, requires in-depth analysis
“A4142 -- not sure of the direct impact -- binding arbitration / discipline an employee. …”
“Appears to be a way to increase union impact, control and membership” “Will be costly”
“Is this an ‘instant tenure’ bill?
“Respectfully, A4140 and A4142 places extraordinary and unwarranted burdens on school districts that seek to discipline unproductive employees (A4142.)”
“…binding arbitration is a topic that needs extensive discussion. If everything ends in binding arbitration then our legal fees will escalate again.”
“We also release employees every year that are not performing to our expectations. And now they are proposing that these local decisions that predicated upon well- honed local criteria and well-articulated expectations be submitted to binding arbitration? The state legislature clearly speaks with a ‘mixed message’.”
The broad language of this bill would appear to refer to substitute teachers, professionals that we subcontract to do some testing (psychological etc) and other services. Their fees will increase greatly if they are supposed to supply all of this information or there will simply be fewer willing to provide the services.”
