Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Month – April 2011

Kudos to Unionville-Chadds Ford School District . . . For Openness & Transparency on Teacher Contract Negotiations

April 18, 2011
2 Comments

I have previously written about Unionville-Chadds Ford School District (UCFSD) and the ongoing contract negotiations between their school board and the teachers’ union, Unionville-Chadds Ford Education Association (UCFEA). Although there has not been a definite agreement, both sides continue to meet and discuss.

A wide economic gap exists between what the UCFSD School Board is willing to offer and what the teachers union is willing to accept. The last round of discussion centered on an independent Fact-Finders Report from early February, which the UCFSD voted to accept, and the union rejected. The union’s rejection of the report ultimately derailed the proposed settlement and the three-year contract remained ‘up in the air’. The school district has spent thousands of dollars in legal fees and administrators time in the contract negotiation process.

However, post-Fact Finders Report, Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget cuts to public education has now forced UCFSD to reconsider and take their original offer “off the table” and replace it with a more affordable contract. However, since UCFEA had already rejected the Fact-Finders Report and UCFSD’s offer, it would seem highly unlikely that the teachers will accept the reduced contract offer from the district.

In my opinion, UCFSD School Board receives high marks on their openness and transparency in their contract negotiations with the teachers union and their willingness to share the process with the taxpayers. The UCFSD School Board has provided an updated contract negotiation statement, which presents an easy-to-understand 5-page document that includes a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section. An interesting fact – the entry-level salary for a teacher in UCFSD is $47,743; average teacher’s salary is $75,798 and maximum teacher’s salary is $101,427. Approximately 70 of the 330 teachers earn the maximum salary. If you add in the compensation package, the average teacher’s salary jumps to $97,092 and the highest paid teacher’s salary rises to $125K a year.

The UCFSD School Board believes that they have to protect the taxpayer’s money and object to the union’s contract requests for the following reasons:

1) The request is out-of-line due to the economic conditions – the teachers union is requesting a compensation increase of 4% -7%.

2) The requested contract is not economically sustainable due to Act 1 restrictions.

3) The district does not believe that they have to increase the contract to the level requested to attract excellent teachers.

The school board has determined that they cannot ignore these three objections because taxes will not sufficiently cover the contract. They do not think that given the economic climate, a special voter referendum would pass with voter support.

Interesting, that the UCFSD update includes TESD in their budget and teacher union contract discussion:

“One only need look a few miles north to Tredyffrin / Easttown School District (TESD) to see what happens when an economically unsustainable teacher contract is signed. The preliminary budget submitted by TESD reflects a 4.2% tax increase, which is the maximum they are allowed by law, and will result in drastic educational program cuts and still leave a budget shortfall of more that $8 million. The UCFSD School Board will not put our district in that predicament with an unaffordable contract.”

The current offer from UCFSD to the UCFEA for a three-year contract includes a salary freeze for Year 1, 1% increase, full step movement mid-year for Year 2 plus a 10% employee contribution for health care, 1% increase, full step movement mid-year for Year 3 plus a 15% employee contribution for health care. The gap between USCFSD and USFEA is obvious.

What impresses me about the USFSD School Board is their willingness to keep the community involved in the contract negotiation process. Because taxpayers are updated on the contract negotiations, there appears to be greater public dialogue during the process. I know in the past, contract negotiations have always occurred behind closed doors; I am hopeful that TESD School Board will similarly keep our community informed as the calendar moves ever closer to contract negotiation season.

School Voucher (Senate Bill 1) Vote on Bill Delayed . . . What Does this Mean?

April 16, 2011
6 Comments

The proposed legislation to create a school voucher program for Pennsylvania (Senate Bill 1) was approved by the Senate Appropriation Committee on Monday, April 11 with a vote of 15-11 but a scheduled Tuesday, April 12 vote on the bill was delayed until April 26 at the earliest . . . what does this mean for the future of SB 1? Sometimes, a delay can mean that a bill is in trouble, is that the case here?

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Gov. Corbett is not letting go of the proposed school voucher plan, or at least not easily. Apparently, in an unusual move (and rarely done by governors), Corbett appeared before the closed-door caucus of the Senate GOP to argue in favor of the school choice legislation. I guess it was thought that by bringing in the ‘big guns’ the bill could be pushed through the Senate but it appears that idea didn’t work as planned.

SB 1 would allow students (based on family income eligibility) to attend private or parochial schools of their choice with state-paid vouchers. The projected costs associated with the implementation of a school voucher program are estimated by Senate Republicans to be at least $328 million by 2013. However, there is pushback on that number by the Democrats, who estimate the annual costs are actually higher, their estimate is $385 million by 2013.

The stated reason for delaying the Senate vote to April 26 is that one of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. Anthony Williams (D-Philadelphia), is ill. However, that does not make sense because Williams could vote by proxy from his home. My guess is that even with Corbett’s encouragement (arm-twisting?) it was determined that there were not enough votes for the SB 1 to pass the Senate on April 12 and the administration is hoping the delay to April 26 will provide persuasion opportunities.

Guess we will have to wait until April 26 and see if there is a Senate vote on SB 1. If the 26th comes and goes, it would appear that the proposed school choice bill is dead in the water. On the other hand, is it possible that the school voucher bill could fail in the Senate and be reincarnated in the House?

The outcome of SB 1 could prove interesting for Corbett, since this is the first major legislation that he has pushed since taking office. Facing pressure in regards to his proposed funding cuts to public education, maybe the Governor will decide against further pushing of the school choice legislation.

TESD Facilities Committee Looking at Revenue Sources and Maintenance/Storage Issues

April 16, 2011
11 Comments
Yesterday there was a TESD Facilities Committee meeting which Ray Clarke attended and graciously supplied notes. I was particularly interested in the fee structure for use of school district facilities and here is related rental information:
  • Regulation 7040 – Details for the use of TESD facilities and description of the tiered levels of rental fees (Oct. 2010)
  • Fee Schedule for TESD facilities usage – Pages 10-15.
I found district fee schedule for school district facilities usage very difficult to figure out. I often have reason to look for various township locations for lectures for the Trust (Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust) so I looked at the fee schedule to check the rental fee for the high school auditorium. I think I figured out that as a nonprofit township organization, the fee would fall in the ‘C’ category of fees but beyond that I was lost — would I pay additional fee(s) for custodian and if so, was that charge for the entire event by the hour or was it for clean-up. Was the requirement for 1 person or multiple people? Would I pay additional for use of bathroom facilities for the length of the event?
It seems to me if the district is looking to increase rental usage of the facilities rental, perhaps the fee structure could be more ‘user-friendly’. I understand that the school district rentals may be different from other non-school district rentals but. . . how about a flat fee for ‘x’ hours of usage that would include custodian and bathroom facilities, rather than the renter struggling to do all the necessary ‘add-ons’. Example: Conestoga HS auditorium rental for up to 3 hours, Mon – Thurs could be listed as ‘x’ fee. The fee should be inclusive and include all required labor fees, use of bathrooms, etc. — streamline the pricing so it is obvious the total cost is obvious.
In my review of the current facilities fee structure, I would not be able to fill out the application form and know the total charge without speaking to someone at the school. At this point, I would not be able to determine if the rental fees are too ‘high’ or too ‘low’ as compared to other outside rental options; there are too many variables and possible add-ons to the base hourly rate. This comment is not intended as a criticism’ just a suggestion to perhaps review and simplify the fee schedule to make it more user-friendly and therefore, more like for people to rent the facilities.
——————————————————
Ray Clark’s Notes from 4/15 Facilities Committee Meeting:
The Facilities Committee held another 3 hour plus marathon on Friday. A couple of noteworthy items, the last two with implications for the operating and capital budgets.
  1. Kudos to Chuck Marshall and the Valley Creek Trustee Council for their work to protect the “Exceptional Value” Valley Creek and its tributaries like Crabby Creek. I came in on the end of a discussion about installing a vegetated swale and drainage system to control the run off from the CHS fields off Irish Road. The Council would fund the project as a gift to the School District. Importantly, there is also a commitment to maintain the system until the desired natural vegetation becomes established. With assurances about the impact to the district, the Committee recommended that the project be accepted.
  2. More to and fro about facility rental fees and priorities, but frustratingly nothing concrete emerging yet. There is a recognition that the end of the property bubble requires new revenue sources, and thus the need to revisit policies that subsidize groups like scouts and TEYSA, that charge others below market rates, that are set by the day not the hour, and that restrict the use of Teamer Field based on limitations of the old grass field. I think that Betsy Fadem has taken responsibility for coming up with draft revisions to policy and regulations that address these issues and ensure that neighbor concerns are incorporated. The plan is to have something fully in place for 2012, with changes to the Teamer Field use possibly sooner.
  3. Finally, the Committee has zeroed in on a plan to address the limited maintenance and storage space consequent on the demolition of the ESC. (Let’s not revisit that decision here now: water under the bridge!) Both people and inventory are dispersed all over the district: not the way we’d want to have our district supported, I think. Over many meetings, the Committee has pushed the administration and architect to come up with a cost conscious plan that fits into a long term vision for the district facilities. The recommendation is now a two phase project. First, add on to the current, but frail, maintenance building on Old Lancaster Road, then, second (as the adjacent property becomes available), expand the addition, convert the old building to parking and add a storage building. The capital commitment for Phase 1 would be $1.13 million. (Another $2 million would be required to complete the project, but would not be committed now). I was assured that the space requirements for all functions are fully supported by the cost and service benefits of having the functions in house. This will be discussed at the next School Board meeting on April 25th for those interested.

Shorter School Week to Save Cash . . . Thinking Outside the Box with a 4-Day School Week

April 14, 2011
3 Comments

With the nation’s school districts strapped for cash, there is some ‘outside the box’ thinking going on across Pennsylvania in an attempt to resolve budget issues, many of which were caused by Gov. Corbett’s proposed cuts to public education. For some, a four-day school week – cutting a day out of transportation, utilities, and food-service costs could be an answer. Such a schedule change might delight students but could make working parents cringe.

In Chester County, a school district is actually considering the four-day school week as a cost-saving measure. With a staggering budget deficit of $6 million if Corbett’s budget is passed, Coatesville Area School District is required to look for some creative outside-the-box cost-saving strategies. According to the Daily Local, the school district has determined that moving from a five-day school week to a four-day school week would save the district approximately $1.7 million.

Although this may seem like a novel idea, in reality there are more than 120 school districts across the country that host four-day school week programs. Twenty states, including California, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia, have some school districts that operate on a four-day school week. Additionally, Arkansas, Delaware, New Hampshire, Texas, Virginia and Washington have laws that permit four-day school week but currently have no schools that are scheduling this way.

According to the administration of Coatesville Area School District, to make up for the day lost in a four-day school week, the school day would need to be longer by about one hour and 20 minutes at the elementary school and the middle and high school would extend by 45 minutes. This plan would reduce the number of school days in a year from 180 to 154. By extending school hours and eliminating a day of classes each week, transportation and utilities would see significant cost-savings. Closer to home, the idea of a four-day school week was briefly discussed at a Great Valley School District meeting in February. Faced with a staggering budget shortfall, administrators and school board members struggled with ways to reduce expenses, including the shortening of the school week. It is my understanding that Great Valley is not giving serious consideration to this particular cost reduction strategy.

The increase in the length of the day might not necessarily involve academics, but could incorporate clubs, sports, tutoring from teachers. Some parents may not like the idea of a four-day week because it means that they would have to find another child care option for that extra day. Conversely, some parents may prefer the longer day as it could help with pick-up at the end of day. It occurs to me that a longer school day would lessen the ‘home alone’ time for children whose parents both work outside the home.

For many school districts, a four-day school week is about saving money. A school can save a great deal of money by dropping a day, especially on transportation, utilities and substitute teacher costs. Perhaps the option of a four-day week may be viable if the school district is faced with other options – like ending sports, mandatory furloughs for employees or renegotiating union contracts. The focus of younger children with an increased school day length is concerning. If money is saved, but minds, potential and futures are lost, what is gained in the end?

Question of the Day: Is a 4-Day School Week a Good Idea?

West Chester Teachers Joins 16 Other School Districts to Agree to Salary Freeze Next Year . . . Where are T/E Teachers?

April 12, 2011
21 Comments

Residents learned last night at the Finance Committee meeting that there is a significant savings to the budget to the tune of $3 million! However, the catch is that the two district unions, the Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) and the Tredyffrin Easttown Non-Instructional Group (TENIG) would need to agree to a pay-freeze waiver for next year – in other words, no salary increases. A parent questioned the contents of an April 6 letter sent from TESD to TEEA and TENIG and asked if the letter could be made public on the TESD website. With further checking, it may be possible that the letter to the unions will be public. Apparently, the letters contained an appeal for a pay-freeze waiver. According to Dr. Waters, there has not yet been a response to the letters.

In West Chester Area School District, the teachers union has decided to follow Gov. Corbett’s suggestion for a wage freeze for next year. At their school board meeting last night, the board ratified the decision (teachers ratified the decision last week) which will help close their budget deficit. The decision to freeze salaries of teachers, administrators and support staff for next year will reflect a cost-savings of $1.4 million.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the decision of the West Chester Area Education Association (WCAEA) may be the first Philadelphia area school district to agree to a one-year, no increase contract. The wage freeze will to help with the school district budget shortfall caused by Gov. Corbett’s proposed funding cuts to public education.

I applaud the members of the WCAEA teachers union for two reasons. One, the teachers understand the seriousness of the school district budget problems, especially in light of the proposed funding cuts and two, for responding proactively by approaching the school board about a salary freeze. WCAEA teacher union president Debbie Fell told the West Chester school board last night, “Members of our union are willing to share in the sacrifices that are required by everyone in the community.” She added, “The teachers overwhelmingly voted for the agreement”.

The proposed state funding cuts is estimated to save a total of $400 million but is causing havoc on school district budgets. Freezing wages can help the school districts from seeking further cuts, so where is the TESD teachers union on the issue of one-year salary freeze? According to the Inquirer article, teachers in at least 16 school districts, besides West Chester, have already agreed to a salary freeze for 2011-12.

The pay-freeze waiver letter from TESD to TEEA and TENIG was sent almost a week ago and as of last night, there has been silence from the union side. Why . . . ?

Senator Dinniman to Hold Public Rally for Education – April 27th

April 12, 2011
1 Comment

Note that there has been a date change for the Education Rally — Senator Dinniman will hold rally on April 27, 7 PM on the Chester County courthouse steps. Although some of the readers on Community Matters have suggested that Sen. Dinniman public rally is nothing more than a politician seeking the limelight. Personally, I think it is refreshing to have an elected officials willing to get involved and represent those that elected him.

This past fall marked Sen. Dinniman’s retirement from teaching at West Chester University, having served as a professor for 30 years. Regardless of your personal political sway, it is obvious that Sen. Dinniman is someone who supports education, the students and their families. Doing nothing more than complaining about Corbett’s proposed public education cuts is not going to get Harrisburg to listen . . .but the voices of many cause them to listen! Write or call your state officials. I support making your voice count and plan to attend this rally! Below is the latest press release from Sen. Dinniman.

Dinniman to Hold Rally for Education on April 27th – Public Rally Set for 7 PM on the Steps of the Chester County Courthouse

WEST CHESTER (April 11) – State Senator Andy Dinniman announced today that he will hold a rally for residents opposed to Governor Corbett’s proposed budget cuts to education on Wednesday, April 27 at 7 p.m. on the steps of the Chester County Courthouse (corner of High and Market Streets) in West Chester.

“Governor Corbett’s significant and widespread cuts to education will be disastrous for students at all levels and even more devastating in the years to come,” Dinniman said. “We know that cuts to basic and early education mean increased local property taxes, larger class sizes and less individualized attention and specialized programs. We know that cuts to higher education mean significantly increased tuition and fees, greater student borrowing and debt and more people on the unemployment rolls.”

Governor Corbett recently proposed a $27.3 billion budget that calls for cutting education funding across the board, including the following:

  • A $550 million cut to funding for public elementary, middle and high schools, including an $8 million cut from the Coatesville Area School District, a $2.5 million cut from the West Chester Area School District, and a $2.9 million cut from the Downingtown Area School District.
  • A $260 million cut to funding for pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and early childhood education programs.
  • A 50 percent cut to funding for state colleges and universities, including a $26 million cut for West Chester University, a $182 million cut for Penn State and $100 million cut for Pitt.

“We know that by investing in education, we are investing in our future and that is precisely what is at stake here. These cuts will set Pennsylvania back decades and undermine all of our efforts for long-term economic growth and prosperity,” Dinniman said. “That is why I want everyone – current students and their families, teachers and school employees, college professors and university staff members, high school seniors and prospective students – to come out on April 27 and make their voices heard. We need to stand together and ensure that our message is loud and clear.”

T/E School District Finance Meeting Updates . . . 2011-12 School District Budget Problem is the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’

April 12, 2011
24 Comments

Last night was the Finance Committee meeting and continued the discussion from the Budget Workshop held last month. The administration and the school board members focused on the budget strategies available to fill the remaining $3.3 million shortfall.

If you recall, originally the remaining school district 2011-12 budget deficit was $2 million. However, because of Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget and cuts to public education, an additional $1.3 million in state funding was lost to the district and therefore was added back into the TESD budget shortfall.

How to fund the $3.3 million deficit was the focus of the Finance Committee meeting. Members of the Finance Committee support and encourage a pay waiver freeze for next year. Hoping for an understanding of shared sacrifice, the school board recently mailed letters to TEEA and TENIG unions seeking their support.

Outsourcing of custodial services remains an open issue for further discussion; it appears that the updated cost-savings on out-sourcing of those services is approximately $800K annually. There was discussion of pay-to-play or ‘activities fee’ to be charged to students playing sports. This would be a yearly fee for student athletics, regardless if they played 1 or more sports. If a $50 fee per student athlete is charged, the revenue generated is approximately $80K. In reviewing other area school districts, five districts in Chester County have some type of sports activities fee in place. How much is the school district budget for sports? $1.5 million annually; which breaks down to approximately $509 per student who plays sports (including club sports).

Here is an open question . . . does sports activities fee impact participation. The discussion of an activities fee for sports brought up an interesting discussion. Is it fair to only charge for sports, what about other extra-curricular activities, clubs, band, etc.? Some members of the Finance Committee suggested that the activities fee should be associated with those extra-curricular activities that required transportation.

Another way to generate revenue for the school district is advertising and members of the Finance Committee are investigating the concept of paid advertising on Teamer Field, as well as other locations. Two adverting companies that handle this type of school district advertising will make a presentation at the next school board meeting. Generated revenue from this type of advertising was estimated as $30K-95K. Advertising on the sports team shirts was also discussed, as well as school bus advertising. If the district decides to move forward with the adverting concept, there will need to be a policy change.

FLITE is working to raise $85K to fund the after-school homework club. The homework program is included in the 2011-12 budget but is on the list as a possible budget expense reduction. Another expense reduction item under consideration is transportation for some extra-curricular activities ($90K) and summer school ($40K).

Several parents spoke in support of maintaining the quality of education and programming in the district. Many suggested raising property taxes or instituting an EIT to cover the school district budget deficit. If instituted, an 1% EIT would generate approximately $17 million annually. With the township and school district equally sharing those funds, $8.5 million would go to each.

The argument by some in support of an EIT or property tax increase was that your property values are directly tied to the quality of the school district. Therefore, if you want to sustain your property values, you must support the quality of the school district.

What was clear from the Finance Committee meeting is that the administration and school board are running out of options! They encouraged those in the audience and watching from home to contact your state representatives and Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania Primary, May 17, 2011 – Community Matters Schedule for Candidate’s Resumes

April 11, 2011
2 Comments

In advance of the Pennsylvania May Primary on Tuesday, May 17, last month I contacted chairs of the local political parties — Mike Broadhurst, TTRC and Dariel Jamieson, TTDEMS. I requested (and received) the resumes of candidates for the TESD School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, Chester County Magisterial District Judge and Board of Supervisors Special Election.

Providing a discussion forum on Community Matters as I did for the Tredyffrin Township interim supervisor’s appointment process in February, I will provide the Republican and Democratic candidate resumes for each of the May Primary races. Using the following schedule, I hope that by providing in-depth information on the candidates, will encourage a greater voter turnout for the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday, May 17.

  • Monday, April 25: Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor Candidates
  • Monday, May 2: Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates
  • Monday, May 9: Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01 Candidates
  • Wednesday, May 11: Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Special Election Candidates
  • Tuesday, May 17: Pennsylvania Primary

All candidates in the May 17, 2011 Primary

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates:

  • Region 1: James Bruce (R) **
  • Region 1: Tara G. LaFiura (R)
  • Region 1: Karen Cruickshank (D) **
  • Region 1: Jerry Henige (D)
  • Region 2: Kristine Graham (R)
  • Region 2: Elizabeth Mercogliano (R)
  • Region 2: Scott Dorsey (D)
  • Region 2: Jenny Wessels (D)
  • Easttown, Region 3: Peter Motel (R) **
  • Easttown, Region 3: Craig Lewis (D)

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Candidates:

  • At Large: Michael Heaberg (R) **
  • At Large: Kristen Kirk Mayock (R)
  • At Large: Molly Duffy (D)
  • At Large: Ernani (Ernie) Falcone (D)
  • District 1 East: Paul Olson (R) **
  • District 1 East: Victoria (Tory) Snyder (D)
  • District 3 West: John DiBuonaventuro (R) **
  • District 3 West: No Candidate (D)

Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01

  • Jeremy Blackburn (R) **
  • Analisa Sondergaard (D)

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Special Election Candidates:

  • Michael Heaberg (R) **
  • Molly Duffy (D)

** Incumbent

T/E School Budget Discussion to Continue at Tonight’s Finance Committee Meeting . . . Salary Freeze & Demotion Considered as Possible Cost-Cutting Measure

April 11, 2011
Comments

The Finance Committee meeting will continue the budget discussion tonight, Monday, April 11 at 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School.

Following up on the Budget Workshop meeting held last month, the Finance Committee will continue to discuss various cost-cutting measures. Two new strategies introduced at the Budget Workshop will have further discussion tonight. The school board is suggesting a one-year salary freeze for the instructional and non-instructional union members. The school directors view the salary freeze as a form of shared sacrifice to show support for the district’s students. It is estimated that the pay waiver would net a cost savings to the school district of approximately $3 million.

The other new cost-saving suggestion that surfaced at the Budget Workshop was new to me . . . the option to demote or reduce full-time status of teachers for economic reasons. We learned from Dr. Waters that under Pennsylvania School Code that this action was permissible and apparently an option that more school districts are looking at as a strategy to maintain programming while providing a cost savings. I am looking forward to further discussion on this strategy at the Finance Committee. It is my understanding that the Superintendent is the one who ultimately makes the decision on where this demotion would take place in the school district.

I know that representatives from the local teachers union, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) attend school board meetings. I would encourage and welcome public comment from TEEA at tonight’s meeting. Some of the cost-cutting strategies discussed at the Budget Workshop, and that will be further discussed at the Finance Committee, speak directly to the teachers union. I think that the time has come for the teachers union to be drawn into the discussion – I know that I would like to hear a public statement from a union representative.

How Can PA Legislature Increase their Payroll by 22%, Cut Healthcare & Public Education Funding & Sit on $189 Million Reserve . . . Because they can!

April 10, 2011
Comments

Although much of the state’s government has fallen victim to Gov. Tom Corbett’s ax swinging proposed budget, there does appear to be one area that is seemingly ‘hands-off’ to receive any significant cuts . . . the legislature’s payroll!

On one side of his budget-cutting measures, Corbett suggests that public workers take 4% salary cuts but on the other side, we learn that since 2005 the General Assembly’s payroll has grown at almost double the rate of inflation. During this period, the legislature’s payroll has soared 22% to $119.5 million. Now, remember during the same time that Harrisburg salaries are climbing . . . the state (and the country!) is feeling the effects of the recession and that Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate hit a 26-year high of 8.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011.

What is wrong with this picture? Pennsylvanians are out-of-work and the payroll is ever-increasing in Harrisburg. Here is an interesting statistic . . . legislative staffers with salaries over $100,000/yr. rose from 36 in 2005 to 69 in 2011. The highest paid member of Corbett’s staff is the executive director of the House Appropriations Committee, Edward Nolan, who makes $192K/yr. Corbett’s salary is $14K less; $178,000/yr.

Where is the oversight for legislature salaries? Did you know that Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is the largest full-time legislature in the country – and comes with a $300 million annual price tag? There are 253 state legislators; each has a base salary of $79,646 and automatic cost of living increases. The General Assembly employs 2,650 staff members, which makes Pennsylvania one of the largest government employers in the nation.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, www.pittsburghlive.com conducted an interesting 6-year comparison of legislative staff and salaries from 2005 – 2011 with surprising results. Their review found:

  • The number of House employees grew from 1,714 to 1,812, and payroll increased by $17.3 million from $59.4 million to $76.7 million.
  • The House payroll includes “lounge attendant” Lynn Bias, paid $37,300 annually for duties that include cutting members’ hair. In a “Members Only” room, Bias “takes care of members’ needs and grooming” because they are away from home for long periods and make public appearances.
  • Though the number of Senate employees declined from 905 to 835, the payroll grew $4 million to $42.7 million this year. The Senate pays staffers Robert Nagle and Chris Miller $37,384 and $45,888, respectively, to cook meals and clean the room where members dine at their own cost on Senate session days. The employees have other duties on non-session days, such as moving furniture, cleaning carpets, changing light bulbs, sweeping high ceilings and chandeliers for cobwebs, running errands and delivering ice to Senate offices.
  • Pennsylvania was the only large state with legislative staff growth — 8 percent — from 1996 through 2009. Ohio, New York, Michigan, Florida, Texas and California reduced staffs from 1 percent to 31 percent.

It appears there is a double standard in Harrisburg. The legislature salaries continue to rise; the number of staff members in Pennsylvania is one of the highest in the country, yet the proposed state budget targets health care, public education and the lowest-earning public workers. Again, I ask what is wrong with this picture. How does ‘fairness’ factor in . . . what about everyone ‘feeling the pain’? Why are some exempt from the pain; is this a case of it’s ‘who you know’ in Harrisburg?

This brings me to more questions. With the looming $4 billion deficit in the state budget, why is that the legislature is sitting on a $189 million reserve? Why can’t some of that money go towards the mega-billion dollar deficit? Why not transfer some of this money into the General Fund? This $189 million surplus is taxpayer’s money – so why not take some of this money and help the people in the state that need it. What makes this situation any different from a school district dipping into their fund balance to help with their budget deficit?

Someone will need to explain to me why the legislature needs to keep a reserve cushion of $189 million yet the proposed budget calls for state funding for higher education to be cut in half. I do not understand how this equates.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme