Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

Jimmy Duffy’s Redevelopment Plan Requires Zoning Change … Is There Community Support?

May 7, 2012
20 Comments

UPDATE May 8, 2012: According to the township zoning officer, Matt Bauman, the Jimmy Duffy property is not 2 acres C-1 Commercial and .3 acres R-1 Residential as was stated by Ed Morris, the developer for the proposed project.

The property is a total of 2.069 acres containing 1.069 acres of C-1 Commercial and 1 acre of R-1 Residential. If the commercially zoned part of the site was 2 acres as previously stated, the developer could probably just ask to change the C-1 zoning. But now it appears that Morris would need to ask for variance on both the C-1 and R-1 sections.

Taking the ‘amending the C-1 Commercial ordinance route’ to include assisted care facility would suggest that it is OK to construct this type of structure on 1 acre rather than the 10 acre minimum as is currently required under IO Institutional Overlay zoning district. The Jimmy Duffy property actually only contains 10% of the property currently required for an assisted care facility.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

It has been 2-1/2 months since the players in the Jimmy Duffy’s redevelopment project last met publicly … but this Wednesday, May 9, 7 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building, they will take up where they left off with a town hall meeting. What’s changed with the proposed plans for a multi-story assisted care facility? I don’t know if any of the plans have changed from the developers-side; it’s more about the fact-finding that has occurred with the Daylesford neighbors. I will get to that, but first here is the abbreviated history on the project.

The decaying catering facility that once housed Jimmy Duffy’s is on Lancaster Avenue in Daylesford. The 2.3-acre property is wedged between the Paoli Vetcare (the 2 properties share a parking lot) and a large new office building. On and off over the years, the property has seen its share of redevelopment interest but most notably the 2006 proposed Arc Wheeler townhouse community. That proposal, ‘Station Square’, called for the teardown of 14 single-family homes (in addition to Duffy’s) and the construction of 150+ residential units and retail space. With much backlash from the neighboring Daylesford homeowners and many heated discussions, the developer eventually decided against further pursuit of that project.

Several years passed without any new suggestions for the Duffy site until last fall. In September 2011, Capital Health Service and the project’s developer Ed Morris, presented sketch plans to Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission to redevelop the property as a multi-story assisted living facility. Planning Commission minutes from September and October 2011, and January 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes reference the discussion. Here’s the sticky wicket for Capital Health and Ed Morris – the 2.3 acre Duffy property consists of 2 acres of C-1 zoning and .3 ac of R-1 zoning. The C-1 Commercial District does not permit an assisted care facility as a usage; nor does R-1 Residential District.

The township does have zoning that permits residential care facilities – Institutional Overlay (IO) but the proposed Jimmy Duffy project would not comply with this ordinance – why? The answer: An IO zoning district requires a minimum of 10 acres and the Jimmy Duffy site has 2 acres. The applicant for the project could ask for a variance to the IO zoning, but 2 acres is not exactly close to minimum 10-acre requirement. Under these conditions, would the township Zoning Hearing Board grant this type of variance request? My guess is that Capital Health Service and Ed Morris figured that their best shot at getting this project approved was to have the C-1 zoning district amended to include an assisted care facility as an acceptable use.

According to the January 2012 Board of Supervisors minutes, “The developer [Ed Morris] is drafting the language as qualified by the Planning Commission for the proposed amendment to the C1 zoning district that is under consideration by the Planning Commission at this time.” The minutes from the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings, give the impression that the Daylesford neighbors were contacted and that their response favorable to the project. This is probably why Ed Morris et al received the green light to draft language for a zoning amendment change.

What’s the saying, the devil is in the details. At the February 23 public meeting between the Daylesford Neighbors Association (DNA), Capital Health Service representatives and Ed Morris, the detail that the project’s success hinged on a zoning ordinance amendment change was not an obvious part of the discussion. The Daylesford neighbors focused their concerns on the height of the proposed building, lighting, traffic, trash, etc. but most attendees missed the greater issue – that a residential care facility was not permitted in C-1 zoning and that there was not sufficient property for IO zoning (remember, IO requires 10 acres and there’s only 2.3). I admit that like the Daylesford neighbors, I too missed (or overlooked) the significance of what this project would require … the zoning amendment change. To say that the developer’s discussion at the February 23 meeting was ‘incomplete’ would be an understatement.

Fast forward since February and DNA residents have gone on a fact-finding mission to educate themselves on local zoning ordinances, C-1 Commercial, R-1 Residential, IO Institutional Overlay districts, conditional use and variances. As a result, I think that the developer would better serve the neighbors if there were a full and fair presentation of the project at Wednesday’s meeting. Ed Morris should come prepared to explain why the township should grant a C-1 zoning amendment change to include assisted care facility when the township already has the IO ordinance that includes this usage. At 2.3 acres, the Jimmy Duffy property is off by an order of magnitude to meet the IO requirement of 10-acre minimum for this type of project.

Simply stated, the proposed Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project does not match up to the requirements of IO Institutional Overlay zoning requirements and is not currently included in C-1 use regulations.

If the township allows a developer to draft a C-1 Commercial ordinance amendment to fit his specific project, what does that say for future developers in Tredyffrin? Will they too be afforded that same opportunity? It is important for the community to encourage local economic development and redevelopment. However, if a proposed project requires a zoning ordinance amendment, I ask for careful and thorough analysis. Although Wednesday’s town hall meeting is intended for those directly involved in the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project (Daylesford neighbors, Capital Health Service representatives and the developer, Ed Morris), the ramifications of the actions taken in regards to this project are far-reaching for all future township development.

———————————————————————————————————–

Trisha Larkin, President of Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) and her neighbors are circulating a “Petition to Oppose Ed Morris Proposal for Assisted Living Facility on Duffy Site”. Click here for copy of petition. According to the petition, the neighborhood members further state that “DNA opposes any FUTURE proposals that require zoning changes” for the Jimmy Duffy property.

With $32 Million in Fund Balance, How Can TESD Consider Demotion?

May 5, 2012
54 Comments

Here’s the question for the day:

Why is it that Tredyffrin Easttown School District has the largest fund balance in the state ($32 million) and is the only school district giving serious discussion to ‘demotion of professional staff’ to fund the $1.5 million budget deficit?

There are those that suggest that the idea of demotion is not a serious consideration but simply a contract-negotiating tactic to use against the teachers union. If I understand the tactic, the school district keeps the teacher demotion idea afloat in hopes that the teachers union (TEEA) will offer reduction in health care benefits in exchange for no demotion. Looking at the calendar, here is what I do not understand — The School Board has to vote on the 2012-13 budget at the June 11th school board meeting but … the teachers’ contract does not expire until June 30th. Presumably, based on the calendar, our school board members will need to make the demotion decision prior to knowing the contents of TEEA’s contract offer.

I don’t claim to know what ‘magic’ amount our school district should have in reserve, but it would appear that with $32 million of taxpayer dollars, the District could afford to use $1.5 million to fund the budget gap. As I said in a comment on Community Matters, Haverford School District voted to use $1.3 million from their fund balance to fund next year’s budget gap – but unlike TESD, they only had $2.6 million on which to draw! Their school board decided to take 50 percent of their reserves to fund the budget shortfall. The Haverford School Board choose this approach to funding the gap versus demotion of teachers. I know, I know, some will say that TESD is being fiscally responsible by preserving the $32 million fund balance, and yes, I realize that the District’s pension obligation grows significantly in the years to come, but still … ?

Regardless of motives, is the ‘demotion talk’ from the School Board, the right direction the discussion should be going? According to the agenda for Monday’s Finance Committee, the two big ticket items that still remain as budget strategies are $640K for demotion of professional staff for economic reasons and $345K for increasing class size one at each level. My guess is that there will be a decision at this meeting whether or not to recommend these strategies to the entire School Board.

The Finance Committee agenda defines demotion as a “reassignment to a position which has less authority, prestige or salary.” (PA School Code). “Demotions are permitted by the School Code for economic necessity. Seniority provisions do not apply to demotions for economic necessity. The right to demote employees is an inherent management right and does not need to be bargained. The TEEA contract is silent on demotion.” Under ‘considerations’ of demotion, the agenda lists “retention of existing trained staff could become more challenging, and (2) “Introduces a competitive disadvantage to the recruitment and hiring process.”

This afternoon, I received the latest communication from TEEA – titled, “Demotions Will Harm T/E Students, Community; Residents Asked To Share Voice”. Although some reading Community Matters may suggest that demotion of professional staff is nothing more than a negotiating ploy on the part of the union, it certainly appears that the teachers are taking the demotion strategy seriously, stating in their latest press release “ … any minimal and short-term economic benefits produced will be offset by greater and more serious long-term costs. If the Board decides to follow through on teacher demotions, we ask—what is the true price? How will these demotions affect our students, our schools, and the T/E community?…” TEEA echoes my question in regards to other school districts, declaring that “… T/E is currently the only district in the Main Line area considering teacher demotion as a cost-effective strategy…” I have spoken with several District teachers and they are concerned and consider ‘demotion’ a serious District strategy, not just a negotiating ploy. It will be very curious to see if the Finance Committee is met with a similar audience of teachers, parents, students, taxpayers were at the last school board meeting.

For the record, I absolutely believe that members of TEEA understand that their health care benefits cannot remain at the same level and, further I think that their contract offer will be reflective of that understanding. On the topic of health care benefits, I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. The administration is not part of TEEA but I have never heard their health care benefits discussed. Do they have the same insurance plan as the teachers? And if so, will the administrators health care benefits change when presumably, the teacher’s plan changes? Anyone know the answer?

I found the following comment for Community Matters apropos to this post. Rather than see the comment, I think the commenter’s sentiments are reflective of what many in the community are feeling:

From bluedog1776:

I would rather procrastinate with using a small amount of reserve money than decimate our teaching staff.

I would rather use a small amount of reserve fund money than lay off our most experienced teachers.

I would rather use the taxpayer’s money: THE RESERVE FUND, than ask our non-profits to chip in.

I would rather use some of the reserve fund than cavalierly dismiss employees who have worked for the District for many, many years.

I would rather do what Haverford School District is doing or what our School District has done in the past, which is to use some of the Reserve Fund, some tax increases, and some employee give backs, than make a rash ridiculous decision that is really about destroying the teacher’s union than about great fiscal principles.

The same five people on this blog hash over the same tired arguments over and over again. Would love to hear from more people. But I guess they are reluctant to contribute because they just don’t have the same level of experience/knowledge/brilliance as you.

The problem with many of the postings on this blog is the groupthink that persists. It would be interesting to have a real debate with real analysis.

The District has done a heckuva job (great job Sultanik PR firm) convincing most of the public that they don’t have a nickel in the bank. If we had a real newspaper asking real questions; if we had more community members come out and ask more questions; the truth would come out.

It is an absolutely unbelievable that a District with $32 million in the bank has convinced the public that we are Chester Upland. Since when? It is demeaning to this community that the powers that be have made TE out to be broke and near bankruptcy. Since when?

The board has done a good job cutting expenses, and the teachers need to pay more for health care; but we should NOT destroy this school district because we have a few people who want to take an ideological stand on not using the fund balance.

I don’t want my property values to plummet because TE schools go down the tubes as we cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.

I watched the school board meeting on TV and saw the woman at the end who revealed that it is not that the school district CAN’T use the fund balance; they have CHOSEN not to use the fund balance by passing a policy to put it in a lock box.

UNLOCK THE BOX! Stop this nonsense! Stop attacking the teachers! Work with the teachers!

I agree with Pattye. I elected YOU school board members, to represent me. DO YOUR JOB! Get to the table. Settle this contract. Stop making the teachers the enemy.

TEEA States T/E $1.5 million Deficit Will be Reduced by Teacher Retirements!

May 3, 2012
3 Comments

The teachers union in T/E School District, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) held a members meeting today. I am assuming that the press released that I just received (below) was a result of their meeting. The teachers union is coming out strong in opposition to school board using demotion of professional staff as a budget strategy for the $1.5 million budget deficit.

According to this press release, TEEA is suggesting that the 2012-13 budget deficit could be reduced by nearly $1.5 million due to the retirement of 17 teachers. According to the teachers union, these retirements were not factored into the budget. If this is true, problem solved and no need for further discussion of demotion. Surely, it cannot be that simple. Or, can it?

Looks like another showdown may be coming at Monday’s Finance Committee meeting. I have received a number of phone calls and emails from concerned residents since the School Board meeting. Many of the conversations have been in support of my call for greater transparency in the teacher contract negotiation process. Comments have continued to be posted on Community Matters suggesting that the school board is fully aware of the negotiations, etc. etc.. and that it is perfectly OK that elected school board members are not sitting at the negotiating table. Sorry, I am still standing on the fact that the taxpayer needs to be represented in the room, sitting at the table, not hearing the conversation secondhand. I want someone with ‘skin in the game’ representing me — the taxpayer. And unless someone can tell me otherwise, I do not think any of the 4 people negotiating on behalf of the school district lives in either Tredyffrin or Easttown Townships.

All four school district representatives are paid by the taxpayers – one is professional negotiator Jeff Sultanik and the other three are school district administrators — Superintendent Dan Waters, Human Resource Director Sue Tiede and Business Manager Art McDonnell. Where is the Tredyffrin or Easttown taxpayer? Again, unless some tells me differently, these four individuals are not personally affected by the outcome of next year’s budget or the contract negotiations because they do not live here. The District negotiating team (Sultanik, Waters, Tiede and McDonnell) will not be affected by the increase of property taxes or the possible diminishing quality of the TESD educational program — certainly not like the taxpayers, parents and students!

I know that I sound like a broken record, but where is ‘our voice’? I think that is why I am stuck on the transparency issue; I can’t helping thinking that the taxpayers are the ‘third wheel’. We have the teachers union and the school board appointed negotiators but the parents and the taxpayers are not represented but left with a lot of questions.

Here’s the latest TEEA press release:

T/E Teachers: Demotions Unnecessary, Destructive; Existing Resources Sufficient to Preserve Program

The T/E community recently spoke out against teacher demotions at the April 23rd School Board meeting. The central concern: should the Board use existing resources to protect our best and brightest teachers – the core of an exceptional T/E school system – or cut these dedicated educators from our program?

One truth remains clear: no parties involved have created the financial challenges affecting T/E. Rather, these challenges result from a confluence of economic and legislative factors beyond the control of our local officials, residents, and teachers.

The manner in which these challenges are resolved, however, still remain in the Board’s control.

While the School Board has recently proposed the demotion of our most successful teachers as a viable cost reduction strategy, T/E teachers believe strongly that this proposal will be extremely destructive to the T/E educational program and that more reasonable solutions exist.

The recent Board meeting and a TEEA review of District finances reveal several important factors related to demotion alternatives:

  • The Board revised downward its projected deficit to 1.5M based upon allowable Act I tax increases not included in its original assumptions, revised instructional expenditures and newly accepted budget strategies.
  • 17 retiring teachers, also excluded from the Board’s initial assumptions, will reduce the projected deficit further. TEEA estimates savings of nearly $1M from teacher retirements.
  • The Board has designated much of its substantial 31M fund balance – one of the largest in the state – to rising PSERS obligations, a major external legislative challenge causing this year’s deficit. But it has not considered the use of these funds to offset next year’s increased obligation. The projected deficit is larger as a result.
  • The Board regularly uses the general fund balance to resolve budget deficits.
  • The Board’s own internal policy is the only measure preventing the use of the $31M general fund balance as a bridge that would protect the excellence of our program. The Board regularly changes its own policies, and has the authority to use these funds. The Board is not prevented by PA School Code.

If the decision to be made is between the core of our educational program or a small fraction of the fund balance, then the decision should be clear.

The Board should table the demotion measure and, instead, fully participate in comprehensive, two-way, productive contract negotiations – one of several important paths to sustainability. Why destroy our award-winning program when the resources to protect it exist?

PA School District’s Financial Problems … Taxpayers Draw the Short Straw

May 2, 2012
38 Comments

Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) the state teachers union recently released a study, Sounding the Alarm, which looks at the financial crisis in school districts across the states. The paper examines how districts are being forced to cut educational programming to meet the demands of school budgets because of the public schools financial crisis.

The PSEA report identifies the following five key problems that have combined to create a financial crisis in the public schools.

1. State Budget Cuts. Unprecedented state funding cuts and the elimination of key funding programs have compounded underlying, systemic problems, particularly for lower-wealth districts.

2. Charter School Payments. Charter and cyber charter school laws result in a net increase in costs to school districts.

3. Declining Tax Bases and Rate Limits. Declining local property values and caps on property tax increases have eroded school districts’ tax bases and curtailed their ability to raise much-needed revenues.

4. Underlying Fiscal Weakness. School districts showing the greatest underlying financial weakness had fund balances averaging 1.27 percent of total expenditures. These districts tend to be relatively small, rely heavily on a single source of revenue, have a small amount of buffer within their budgets, and carry a heavy debt load. They range in type from urban school districts, to small districts in the coal regions and Monongahela Valley, to rural districts in the central and western parts of the state.

5. Pension Cost Increases. A decade-long “holiday” that allowed employers to avoid paying their share of retirement contributions, coupled with investment losses from 2008 and 2009, forced the current increase in employer payments.

In the Education section of today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, we learn that Philadelphia schools may not be opening in September due to a budget gap for 2012-13 of $218 million! The school district officials are hoping that the five unions operating in the Philadelphia public school system will ‘giveback’ $156 million to help next year’s budget. There is discussion of privatizing the custodial services; officials think they can raise another $50 million from maintenance, transportation and custodial cutbacks. Even if this wishful thinking translates into a reality for Philadelphia public schools, they figure they will still end up short by $94 million.

In the meantime, Mayor Nutter is trying to collect $90 million in taxes for the school district next year by shifting to AVI (Actual Value Initiative) system for property taxes. Nutter claims that the new system will more accurately indicate the increase in market value of properties in the city but includes two tax hikes to Philadelphia’s properties owners.

Whether it’s PSEA or Mayor Nutter in the city, why is it that the solutions have one thing in common – the burden falls to the taxpayer with increased property taxes. I’m really struggling to understand how taxpayers are going to survive the increases in the tax bills. We all want the quality of the school districts like T/E maintained, we get that our property values are tied directly to the desirability of the educational program but … if the residents can no longer afford to live in these communities, than what difference does it make?

Layer the state funding cuts with the teacher’s pension and health care benefit cuts and add in the community’s demand for excellence in the schools and you are left wondering how are the school districts supposed to balance their budgets? Answer seems simple … either decrease spending or increase revenue. Problem is that the school boards are finding themselves left with few options short of jeopardizing the quality of education, as they discuss options to increase revenue. One of the more unfavorable budget strategies left on the table is demotion of professional staff for economic reasons and increasing class size. Of course, there was another revenue source but that option was not taken to the voters — the Earned Income Tax. It was decided that it would not pass a voter referendum. While that is probably correct and an EIT would not have passed, I wonder how the community is going to feel about increasing property taxes and possible decreasing property values.

Like many people in this community, I too feel the frustration as we sit on the sidelines of the District’s budget discussions and watch for updates from the teacher negotiation talks. I have asked for transparency in the negotiation process but apparently, that is not to be … interesting to note however that in some parts of the country, teacher contract negotiations are held in the public. For instance, in Idaho the state law allows public attendance at all labor discussions.

Below is a comment for Community Matters from a resident that shares his/her frustration:

Comment from ‘Damage Control’

T/E Budget Crisis Solved!

Move to Haiti. Yes, you’re reading this correctly— move to Haiti. Students, teachers, administrators, board and taxpayers – move to Haiti! … where they use rags as soccer balls, bicycle rims for basketball nets, parking not an issue. Teachers get paid $5,000 per school year, administrators reap $7,000 and yes, like all the other districts, the superintendent makes $10 worth of stogies (not stoga’s). Best of all, UNICEF and the Salvation Army “underwrites” the entire school system!

School board, what nerve you have in asking non-profit organizations to help with a bailout. I am not a teacher nor do I have children in attendance. I’m just an old taxpayer who sees the “writing on the wall” with this school board and this particular cost savings “strategy” is one of the reasons that prompted me to write this piece.

How dare you! How dare you ask non-profits for a handout when you have $30 million in reserve! You say this reserve money is set aside for rainy day issues, sick day payments, retirement, etc.—Total BS and I don’t mean in a masters or PhD degree sense! How dare you ask these non-profits when your net worth far exceeds any amount these local non-profits could attain even if they all pull together!

Aretha Franklin sang about RESPECT, Rodney Dangerfield got more. You, the board, gave NO respect to Ms. Whittaker, the TEEA president at the last school board meeting. Granted, you announced and stressed at the meeting that only TE residents could speak—a.k.a.—allowed to be heard. Excuse me? Is Dr. Waters a resident? He speaks at school board meetings and he commutes from a different time zone!!! And, by the way, who pays for his gas—TE resident tax payers do! A TE resident voiced that the TEEA president be heard—you board, denied that request. By denying Ms. Whittaker the 1st amendment right of every American, you fired the “first shot” deep into the bowels of the TEEA ship.

Am I just blowing smoke? Don’t think so. Threats of cutting family coverage without ability to purchase such coverage, demoting top educated and experienced teachers, over-crowded classrooms, etc. will only bring together teachers, students, parents and the many news cameras and media to every school in this top-notch and one of the richest school districts in America come this September. Lines drawn, let the battle begin—what a shame! There will be no winners.

Need Jobs Now!

May 1, 2012
7 Comments

What’s the saying, ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’?

As I drove along Swedesford Road to Wegmans a few days ago, I actually did a u-turn in the middle of the road … not quite believing what I saw. In the median strip on Swedesford Road in the shadow of the Great Valley Corporate Center and its mega-commercial buildings, were these two gentlemen holding ‘need help’ signs. I stopped the car to chat with them – both were out-of-work, one for 2-1/2 years, the other for 18 months. One was a union carpenter but explained that his local union had no work for him and he was managing by living off odd jobs. The other man, a veteran, explained that he had lost his family and his house since losing his job.

They said they generally came to this location in the morning during the work week, hoping that someone would offer them a job (even a few hours of work) or donate food or money. As if on cue, a well-dressed young may stopped his car and came over to us – giving each man a bag of food from a local carry-out. Aside from a polite thank you, no other words were exchanged, leaving me with the impression that this was not the first time this young man stopped to offer the men lunch.

I asked why did they choose this particular location and they said they thought it was important to serve as a reminder to the local corporate center workers, that they themselves were but ‘one paycheck away from a similar situation’. I asked them who they blamed — their response, “the government” … adding that “nobody cares”.

This photo serves as a reminder that unemployment and the job crisis is no longer ‘somewhere else’ — it’s right here in our backyard — Pennsylvania … Chester County … Tredyffrin Township! In the coming months between now and November, I want to hear some real ideas about how to get people back to work in this country. And that includes jobs for people in Chester County.

 

 

 

A Review of Radnor Twp School District’s Teachers Contract … Will the Results Help T/E Teachers?

April 27, 2012
45 Comments

The following Community Matters post, “Signed, Sealed and Delivered … Radnor Twp School District & Teachers Union Ink 3-year Contract with Salary Increase … Is there handwriting on the wall for T/E Teachers?” is from March 23, 2011.

A year ago, the Radnor Township School District signed a 3-year contract with their teachers union( RTEA) that was surprising, given the economic situation of the times. Fast forward to 2012, and T/E is in the midst of their own contract negotiations. This post and the attached comments from a year ago, make for an interesting commentary to compare and contrast where we are in our own teacher negotiation process. Can we learn anything from the decisions of our neighboring school district?

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“Signed, Sealed and Delivered … Radnor Twp School District & Teachers Union Ink 3-year Contract with Salary Increase … Is there handwriting on the wall for T/E Teachers?”
~ Community Matters, March 23, 2011

It is now official, Radnor Township School District and the teachers union, Radnor Township Education Association (RTEA) have voted to approve three-year contract, September 1, 2010 – August 31, 2013. Below are some of the highlights of the contract.

Salary Highlights:
Salary freeze September 1, 2010 – March 3, 2011 (6 months)

Year One Salary:

  • No step movement
  • Average pay increase after freeze: 1.57%
  • Top salary step remains at current level
  • Average lump-sum payment for top salary step: $749

Year Two Salary:

  • RTEA members move to next step
  • Average pay increase: 3.26%
  • Top salary step remains at current level
  • Average lump-sum payment for top salary step: $1,206

Year Three Salary:

  • RTEA members move to next step
  • Modest increase to top salary step
  • Average pay increase: 2.66%

Health Benefits Highlights:

  • RTEA members agreed to significant increase in the cost of health insurance
  • Stating March 4, 2011, teachers move from fixed contribution to a percentage-based contribution
  • Year One – salary contribution 0.75% – 1.5%
  • Year Two – health care plan changes from Blue Cross to lesser premium-cost plan, with increase co-pays doctor and hospital visits (salary contribution 0.85% – 1.5%)
  • Year Three – salary contribution 0.95% – 1.65%

Retirement Option:

  • Eligible teachers will receive a one-time retirement payment from $25K – $50K (depending on number of retirees). The retirement option is in effect for limited time to allow district to reduce payroll.

OK, so looking at the contract inked between the Radnor Township School District and RTEA, is the handwriting on the wall for T/E School District? So much for Gov. Corbett’s recommendation for a one-year freeze . . . Radnor’s teacher union only agreed to a 6-month freeze. However, after the 6-month salary freeze, the teacher union pulled off 7.5% salary increase for the following 2 ½ years of the contract.

Remember, if a teacher qualifies for a step increase, his or her salary increase would actually be higher than the average yearly salary increase. Radnor’s teachers contract is remarkable given today’s economy and budget shortfalls!

Seeking Transparency in TESD Teacher Contract Negotiations

April 25, 2012
56 Comments

As a bit of history for those that are new readers to Community Matters. When I started this journey 2-1/2 years ago, it was without a personal agenda except to engage the community on important issues and to encourage greater transparency from our elected officials.

Transparency implies openness, communication, and accountability; a metaphorical extension of the meaning a “transparent” object is one that can be seen through. In government, transparency is vital to a healthy democracy. Public scrutiny helps ensure that government works for the people and spends their tax dollars wisely.

As far as the teacher contract negotiations are concerned, I suggest that both sides ‘open the door’ that in the past has been closed. We have seen how in the last few days, the ‘cloaked in secrecy’ approach to the negotiations is not working and is showing signs of cracking. Discussion is turning to conjecture, as in the ‘he said, she said’ world; which is never good. Letting the sunlight shine in on the negotiations, would help the parents, taxpayers (and employees) better understand the process and the District’s priorities.

My assumption is that if negotiations were public and everyone could see the negotiations, it would help us (the taxpayers) to further understand the positions of the teachers and the District. If all that the community hears is a partial or half-truth from either side, the misinformation is perpetuated and the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. The teachers’ contract accounts for a significant part of the budget and strongly influences the bottom line of the District’s financial picture. The negotiating period is the only time when informed public opinion can have any possible effect on the decisions of elected officials, but how can the public reasonably weigh in on the proposals without having all the facts. A mandatory public comment period on the yearly budget seems a bit like an empty exercise if we do not have updated contract negotiation information.

The early disclosure of each side’s proposed contract terms would reduce the incentive to open negotiations with extreme proposals made merely for bargaining purposes. Extreme proposals from TEEA or the school board are bound to create hard feelings as we have recently seen and the potential to prolong negotiation, thereby making compromise more difficult. Conversely, an open and public process (transparency) would lead to proposals that are more realistic from both sides and narrow the range of disagreement in the process.

In the last few days, we heard from several teachers who alluded to a less than satisfactory proposal from the school district in regards to insurance and reduced salary. Add the possibility of demotion for economic reasons to the plate of the teachers, and it is no surprise that they are concerned. Do we have the entire story from TEEA on the subject of benefits and salary, probably not? On the other hand, what have the teachers proposed to the District and what was the school board’s response. Don’t know; the public doesn’t have any of those answers.

How about the negotiating parties work to make the process transparent for the public – posting the bargaining framework, their proposals and counter-proposals on the TESD website, as they become available. This kind of transparency would help the TESD parents and community members understand how children will be taught and how the tax dollars will be invested. The relationship between teachers and school administrators is an important element in what shapes public schools. There is no better way to understand this relationship than to observe the contract process. The teachers are public employees, so why shouldn’t the union negotiations be public.

As a community, we should call on our elected school board members and teachers union to put the needs of students and families first and honor the public investment of taxpayers. I ask for both sides to be more open about the negotiation process – talk truths to each other and to the public. It’s time to turn on the lights, open the windows and the doors.

How to Close $1.5 Million Budget Gap is TESD’s $1.5 Million Question!

April 24, 2012
61 Comments

With channel 6 ABC news cameras rolling and with a standing room crowd, Tredyffrin-Eastttown School Board held its monthly school board meeting last night.

Passion, commitment, support, devotion … adjectives that describe the steady stream of District students who spoke on behalf of their teachers at last night’s school board meeting. Waiting for hours for the opportunity to show their opposition to demotion of District staff, they ranged from the 13-yr. old young girl who read her college sister’s plea to save the arts and music programs to a current Harvard student who spoke about passionately about his Conestoga physics teacher who gave his life meaning and direction. There was a young man who delivered an emotional appeal in German, than translated and re-delivered the words in English, on behalf of his special German teacher. One after another, the students would explain the sacrifices of their families to move to this area, all because of the quality of the school district. Interestingly, more than one of the students suggested that the School Board let go of the technology purchases, the Smart boards, the computers, etc. and save the teacher’s jobs instead.

Least someone suggest that the teachers union somehow orchestrated this show of solidarity by the students (and parents) for the District’s teachers; I don’t think that would be possible. Anyone who has raised a teenager knows they have to ‘believe’ in the cause, their passion cannot be supplanted and forced by someone else. No, what was clear last night was these kids believe in this school district and believe in the teachers who are making a difference in their lives. It was quite stunning to witness.

Of course, the looming budget deficit remains. After $10 million worth of cuts over the last 3 years, the decreasing local revenue, increased contributions to the state pension fund and diminished state and federal revenue, the District is continues to face a financial crisis. School boards across the state are faced with the same difficult challenges as TESD … how to balance the budget amidst these challenges.

The projected TESD 2012-13 budget deficit is $5.9 million. With the Act 1 allowable 1.7% tax increase plus exceptions, the District can reduce the deficit to approximately $1.5 million. That includes the $50 sports and activities fee, approved last night for all middle and high school students who participate in one or more activities. But how to close the $1.5 million budget gap is the $1.5 million question.

School board members spoke of their support for the teachers, many explaining that they have children in the District. They suggested that their ‘hands were tied’ and that very few options remain on the table to close the budget deficit and again suggested that students and parents send letters to the state legislature demanding relief. With few options remaining, the school board is being forced to look at the possibility of increasing class size and demotion of senior members of the staff.

Some have suggested that the school board should have pushed for a taxpayer referendum for an earned income tax on the ballot. Although too late for November’s election, it was reiterated that these types of tax increase referendums historically have not passed in Pennsylvania. In addition, the results from the tax study group indicated that there was no support for an EIT in TESD. Hindsight being 20/20, I would have to ask what was the downside for the school board to take the question to the voters. We have to remember that only 20 percent of the taxpayers in TESD also have children in the District. So, it’s complete speculation if there would have been enough interest to get the EIT passed.

Unfortunately, for TEEA, it looks like it is going to be up to the teachers to help save the school district through their contract negotiations. How much are they willing to sacrifice? How much of their benefit package and salary increase are they willing to forego? I don’t think any of us (and that includes the School Board) wants to see the quality of the education diminished through increased class size and he demotion of some of the District’s best teachers. We know that the District cannot afford the teachers’ health care plan at its current level, but is a benefits change enough to make up the $1.5 million District deficit? I have no answers.

Demotion & Class Size Remain as T/E Budget Strategies … Teacher Union Weighs In

April 23, 2012
36 Comments

Opening a door that most school districts would prefer to keep closed.

Teacher contract negotiations have traditionally been cloaked in secrecy. In my perfect world of transparency, school districts would open the teacher contract talks to the public. Letting the sunlight shine on the negotiations, parents, taxpayers and employees would benefit by seeing the open dialogue around our district’s priorities. Open negotiations would hold the District and TEEA (Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association) accountable for how they are dealing with the contract negotiations. I know, I know, not possible . . . it will never happen.

Those involved in teacher contract negotiations would probably claim that critical issues such as teacher pay, benefits, and overall responsibilities should fall within the client-lawyer privilege of privacy. I am sure that those at the ‘negotiating table’ would say that the talks should be private in order to foster a more open and frank discussion among the participants. In the case of TESD, this seems twisted logic at best. Why do I say this? Reason … There is no representation by the T/E school board at the negotiation table. As a result, it is a bit like ‘whisper down the lane’.

The information and updates that the school board receives are not through first hand attendance at the meetings, but rather from the four members of the negotiating team. Three members of the team are employees of the District (Superintendent Dan Waters, Director of Personnel Sue Tiede and Business Manager Art McDonnell) and the fourth member of the team is professional negotiator, attorney Jeffrey Sultanik.

I don’t know how the rest of the taxpayers feel about the ‘no seat at the table’ by an elected school board member issue, but I stand by my original view. The school directors were elected by, and are responsible to, the people of the Tredyffrin Easttown School District. I do not think it is fair to the taxpayers and the teacher contract process that there is not at least one school board member participating directly on the negotiation team.

Based on the many comments received in regards to the teacher contract negotiations and budget strategies, I reached out to TEEA president Laura Whittaker. Stating in my email to Ms. Whittaker, that ‘my intention was not to in any way jeopardize or breach the teacher/school district negotiating process’, I asked her several questions. Does TEEA believe that any of the District’s budget strategies currently being discussed (class size, demotion of professional staff, $50 activities fee, etc.) could have a potential negative effect on the quality of the District’s educational program. I also asked if members of TEEA were the decision makers in regards to the TESD 2012-13 budget, what solutions would the teachers offer that could bridge the current financial crisis in the District.

Understanding the limitations posed by the teacher contract negotiations, Ms. Whittaker proved the following statement for Community Matters and I thank her. Reading Ms. Whittaker’s statement, I was reminded again that if the contract talks were held in public, the taxpayers would know what the the teachers are offering; including changes to their health care plan that would save the District money.

“Because of the ground rules established in the negotiations process, I am limited in my ability to share specific aspects of our proposal and negotiations with you.

You have asked what solutions we offer. We are willing to discuss alternative approaches to health care coverage and funding as a means for the District to save money. Additionally, although we are not able to release the details of our salary proposal, we are confident in stating that our salary requests are modest and reasonable.

We have many concerns about the District’s proposal to demote our most experienced, educated teachers. Of course, we are fundamentally concerned about the negative impact that it will have on the educational program and the well-being of our membership. However, if the School Board chooses to implement demotions and the hiring of part time staff becomes the norm, they must realize that T/E will become an undesirable place for the most qualified educators to pursue a career. Simply stated, T/E has been able to attract the best and the brightest to teach its children. How will the District be able to continue to attract the best and the brightest if we are currently choosing to replace our own best and most educated teachers with part-time employees?

With regard to class size, studies have concluded that increased class sizes have a negative impact on student performance. Individual support and attention will most certainly suffer if class sizes are larger. Regarding the proposed $50 participation fee, we have no official position. As far as other budget strategies are concerned, demotions and increases in class size, are (to our knowledge) the only two major strategies being considered by the Board.

The members of TEEA remain committed to achieving a mutually beneficial settlement with the District.”

Thank you for providing this opportunity.

Sincerely,
Laura Whittaker
President, TEEA

If you are reading today’s post on Community Matters and have an interest in our school district, I hope that you will plan to attend the school board meeting tonight at 7:30 PM.

On the subject of demotion, other area school districts are keeping a close eye on TESD. The teachers union in Radnor School District has notified their members of tonight’s TESD meeting and suggested their members attend. At Conestoga HS, the demotion issue has caused concern among students and they are organizing support for their teachers.

T/E Fund Balance … Panacea to District’s Budget Shortfall?

April 20, 2012
24 Comments

The Tredyffrin Easttown School District School Board is contending with decreased local revenue, higher health insurance costs, increased contributions to the state pension fund, and diminished state and federal revenue. These problems do not make TESD unique; school boards across Pennsylvania are facing the same issues.

To suggest that Pennsylvania school districts are challenged by the financial crisis would be an understatement. As School Boards struggle to balance their budgets amidst these challenges, there is unprecedented concern as they look for solutions.

In TESD, the teacher contract talks continue as a backdrop to the ongoing budget discussions of the school board. With the current teachers’ contract set to expire on June 30, 2012; we are starting to see the battleground lines drawn in the sand. I am beginning to fear a “us versus them” mentality is developing. Many of the comments on the last Community Matters post were focused on the health insurance benefit plans of the teachers. I have to believe that the T/E teacher’s union TEEA accepts that the district can no longer afford to sustain their members’ health care plan at its current level – simply not possible.

Teacher unions fight for their members’ financial self-interests. To be clear, I do not have a problem with that motive – after all, isn’t that the primary reason ‘why’ a teacher would join TEEA and pay dues. Some may suggest that it appears that both TEEA and the school board are more focused on the money than the education. Let’s hope for the benefit of the District’s children, that conclusion reached by some is incorrect. Many of T/E teachers are also residents and parents. TEEA may be hoping to keep their benefit package intact but I have believe that the quality of the district’s educational program is every bit as important to most of its members.

Monday’s School Board meeting should be an indicator to the community on whether the teachers and the School Board are working toward the same goals or not. A couple of important topics for discussion at the meeting will be demotion and increased class size. I have previously written that increasing class size by one or two students may not be a problem, but could this be seen as the beginnings of change to the quality of TESD education? Increased class size may mean that teachers cannot focus as easily on individual students’ needs.

Just the talk of ‘possible’ demotion in TESD for economic reasons, is sending a negative tidal wave to TEEA. It is worrisome that the professional staff may be feeling devalued based solely on this budget strategy discussion. According to a recent TEEA press release, “T/E Teachers Willing to Help Create a Financial Bridge to the Future” the teachers union fully understands the District’s financial crisis and has prepared an ‘extremely reasonable solution’ to the School Board. However, according to TEEA, there has been unwillingness on the part of the School Board representatives to discuss their offer. The article further states that if demotion in the District moves forward, it is likely that some of the teachers will be forced to seek employment elsewhere. In reading the press release, I bought into this part of their argument.

However, the following paragraph from TEEA caused me pause,

At the same time, the Board has made assumptions about our future financial condition based upon many worst-case scenarios. They assume no future revenue growth, continued real estate decline, and continued lack of state and federal funding. These assumptions ignore significant increases the district made to its reserve fund in the past year. A more reasonable projection would account for an improving employment rate in Chester County, a real estate market that is beginning to rebound, and other indications of improving economic conditions.

To be fair to the School Board, they would not be doing their job if they were not realistic in their budget projections. Governor Corbett has focused his blame for the current budget crisis in Pennsylvania schools solely on the shoulders of local school boards. With Harrisburg’s major public education funding cuts, it is precisely the school board members who are now mired with this mess as the state pushes school funding responsibility on local school districts. I believe it is a bit quixotic for TEEA to suggest that the School Board should take a more positive (unrealistic?) approach to improving economic conditions. I am all for taking the ‘half glass full’ approach to situations but its needs to be tempered with realism. Rather than ‘worst-case scenario’ as suggested by TEEA, I hope that our School Board is attempting to be realistic in their projections.

In the latest TEEA press release, ‘Teachers Hope for Open Dialogue, Ask Community to Share Voice’, they offer a list of questions for community members to ask at Monday’s School Board meeting. Much of their focus is on the District’s fund balance, and the suggestion that the reserves be used to fund the budget shortfall. According to the TEEA, our school district currently has a reserve fund that is 26% of revenue, whereas other local school districts have fund balances of 8% to 10%. TEEA states that the PA School Boards Association recommends a balance no greater than 5%.

I believe that TESD has the largest fund balance in the state – someone please correct me if this wrong. And since the fund is taxpayer’s money, do you agree with TEEA and that a buy down from the reserve is in order to help fund the 2012-13 budget?

However, what are the repercussions, if any, with this approach for future budgets or future emergencies? Moving forward, you don’t know when a roof is going to need major roof repairs or a school boiler is going to need replacement. Few school districts have amassed anywhere close to the significant fund balance as TESD. Maybe we should view 2012 as an ‘emergency’ and with that approach, use the fund balance as TEEA suggests.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme