| ||||||||||||
Helpful information, see 1)GSCS President Jim O'Neill letter to legislators on negative issues in these bills that would hurt schools & taxpayers and )Glen Ridge "SOS" community release and bill overview/implications
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 availableto 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. Iunderstand 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 considerthese 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 a 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 notavailable 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 preventthe 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 thislate 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
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
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
