2005-01-20-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

January 20, 2005 TG explained that negotiating COLAs is very hard because of the requirements to bargain in good faith. It was pointed out that bargaining in good faith did not require giving away money you do not have. RC pointed out that in Marblehead COLAs are subject to Town Meeting appropriating money for them, and last year they did not. It was not known if such language is in the Lexington contracts. DK asked, doesn’t this mean moving to larger class sizes? RC recalled the Superintendent’s comments at the last budget summit meeting that the amount for meeting the class size goal was about $800K and only half of that amount was contractual, and the other half was simply a desire. TG agreed in general, but was not sure of the specific breakdown of the $800K. TG explained that the issue of mandated class size is simple in the elementary schools, but is more complicated in the high school where the biggest crunch is. Other school issues: The discussion then moved to how teacher contracts are negotiated and formulated. There is no current salary contract. Recent practice has been to set top salary for different classifications (e.g. Masters, Masters plus 30 hours of class credits, etc.) at or above the median for 10 comparable systems. Further, the top salaries are reached at 12 years of experience, rather than the more common 16 years. It was noted this brings the median salaries in Lexington rather higher than simply the median of the 10 comparable towns. Pro forma question: PH asked about the differences between the 2005 school and town expenses and the 2006 requests, $960K for schools and $220K for the town. RP replied that on the town side it was flat plus increases in utility costs. TG replied that on the school side it was $525K for increased utilities plus some increased SPED outplacements which are very variable year to year plus some other things. Contract timing: DB inquired about the timing of contract negotiations. th Schools: TG said the next session is February 10, but he did not expect resolution then, but hopeful that they would be complete by Town Meeting. Town: Linda is talking to the two lead unions, but there does not seem to be any push on the union side to get things moving. The Town is not pushing either. The unions want to wait until the schools finish as they hope to use the school contracts for leverage. RE came back to the COLA issue and asked, if the unions are not in a hurry to resolve the contract issues, why not zero out the COLA in the budget? Budget process question: DK voiced an objection to the school committee not following the guidelines all sides agreed to in the beginning of putting together a level-staffing budget and a needs-based budget. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the needs-based budget was needs or if it was really a level-staffing plus growth budget. TG pointed out that there was only one budget because the SC had already voted on going forward with only one budget. He pointed out that the while the desired information for trade-offs is not in the Pro Forma format, it is in some of the supporting documentation.