The Gold Standard Teacher Contract

James A. Weaver, President of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, wrote in an article "Let's Push for Salary and Benefits" that teachers are underpaid.

He wants the teacher union bargaining teams to drive wages and benefits higher.

The Oley Valley School District school board members must agree with Mr. Weaver.

They just approved a contract, which has become the gold standard for other teacher unions in the area to emulate.

The highlights of the contract are eye opening.

The five-year agreement will increase teacher salaries by an average 4.6%.

The starting salary will jump from $32,000 to $40,872. The top salary will increase from $70,370 to $80,070.

A family will pay $110 per month for health insurance premiums.

The Medical Pool Fund, which is meant to pay for medical expenses not covered under the health insurance, will grow from $300 to $500 per teacher.

In 2005, the total benefit cost for the instructional staff was $2,600,000. Benefit costs are predicted to rise at a double digit rate.

Tuition reimbursement will rise from $2,200 to $2,800 per teacher.

The teachers also get $50,000 Life Insurance, $50,000 Accidental Death & Dismemberment Benefits, and a 66 2/3% Monthly Salary to $3,000 Long Term Disability Income Benefit.

And what does the community get in return for this agreement?

One additional day work year from 186 to 187 days!

Families are not getting 4.6% yearly, salary increases. They are paying far more for health insurance. Yet, the school board continues to give contracts that are not reflecting conditions in the private sector.

The Board Continues Its Liberalism

The April 19,2006 board meeting resembled previous board meetings, the spending of more tax dollars, the inability or refusal to answer questions from the public, and an elitist attitude.

Dr. Jeffrey Zackon, the district superintendent, had his usual list of trips he wanted the board to approve. One of these trips will cost the taxpayers $4,000.

The board also voted to approve twenty-one subjects whose class sizes have fifteen students or less. One class has only three students.

Board members, Robert A. Heckman, Ralph C. Richard, Mary Anne McCarthy, Barbara M. Bieber, Robert J. Cappa, Scarlette Z. Gotwals, Kerry Madeira, David M. Maloney voted for the trips and the small class sizes.

Mary Anne McCarthy gave the board's latest spin on the funding for the potential $1,319,000 new, athletic facility. They are no longer saying the track will not affect taxes. Instead, they are saying the funds will not come from the General Fund.

She said the money could be drawn from the Capital Reserve Fund or the Capital Project Fund.

Ms. McCarthy neglects to say that these funds are initially created with tax dollars. The Capital Reserve Fund would be replenished with new tax dollars once the balance is reduced.

The board would go to great lengths and take money from the various funds to pay for an extravagant, non-educational undertaking, yet do nothing for property tax relief.

Several people from the audience asked additional questions.

One was directed to Dr. Jeffery Zackon . He and a number of students took a trip to Spain. The questioner asked him whether he paid for his trip. He responded that the tour company paid for his and the six chaperones. The students paid for their vacation. The private sector realizes nothing is free. We wonder why a tour company would be in business to lose money.

Other questions received half answers, but most received silence from the board.

They appear annoyed they are required to be answerable to the public.

The Board Deliberates Raising Taxes for the 7th Consecutive Year

The school board was presented revised figures for the 2006 budget at the April 12,2006 meeting.

Dr. Warren Moser, the substitute business manager, said both revenue and expense estimates had changed from the March 21, 2006 presentation.

The bottom line is that the board wants to spend $25,487,030 dollars in 2006-2007. This represents a 1.54 millage increase of 7.18%.

Currently, we pay $2,150 of property taxes for $100,000 of assessed value. The new tax would be $2,304 per $100,000 of assessed value.

This percentage increase is nearly twice the rate of inflation and the state average weekly wage increase.

If approved our millage will have increased over 67% since 1999.

The 7.18% increase does not include the cost of a new synthetic track. When questioned about the omission in his presentation, Dr. Moser said he was only discussing the operational budget and not the track.

The taxpayers then asked the board members how is the board going to pay for the track.

The board refused to answer the question.

This lack of honesty only reinforces concerns that tax dollars will be the main source of revenue for the new construction.

Equally, disturbing, is that Dr. Moser was unable to answer questions about the various off-budget categories called fund balances.

The amount of monies in these balances could have a profound effect on the amount of millage increases.

At the present time, there are three major fund balances of interest to the Oley taxpayers, the General Fund Balance, the Capital Reserve Fund, and the Capital Projects Fund.

After considerable prodding, the district finally gave the current rather than anticipated fund numbers.

The General Fund Balance has $1,800,000, the Capital Reserve Fund has $1,773,000, and the Capital Projects Fund has $1,231,929. The total for the three is $4,804,929.

The district generates approximately $677,000 for each mill of taxes. They are looking at a 1.54 mill increase or $1,042,580 of additional taxes in 2006.

The board knows they have nearly five million dollars of funds available before tax increases, yet they talk about raising taxes for the seventh consecutive year.

A number of the problems with our school board would be resolved, if they had to ask the taxpayers each year for permission to raise taxes over a certain standard.

A referendum would address issues like the size of the teacher salary and benefit package, a superintendent's one year $13,000 pay increase and the grandeur of a new athletic facility.

The Fleecing of The Oley Taxpayers

The Oley School Board voted to proceed with a new synthetic track. Since March, the school board meetings were filled with taxpayers opposing the potential expenditure of over one million dollars on an expensive boondoggle.

Mary Ann McCarthy pandering to a special interest group, constructed a motion to continue the permitting and bidding process. The board is rushing to complete the construction by the fall. This is in your face vote is typical of a liberal board who has lost contact with the community.

This project does not have the support of the community because only $180,000 has been pledged so far. These paltry numbers prove that the issue needs to be placed on a ballot referendum for the voters to decide the use of their tax dollars.

Mary Anne McCarthy, Robert A. Heckman, Robert J. Cappa, Christopher M. Hannum, Barbara M. Bieber, Kerry Madeira, David M. Maloney, Ralph C. Richard voted for this farce. Scarlette Z. Gotwals did not attend the meeting, but she is a supporter of the synthetic track.

To make matters worse, the board is not even soliciting bids on the least expensive solution to their problem, a cinder/stone track. They insist on purchasing a Mercedes Benz rather than a Chevy.

Board members Ralph C. Richard, Scarlette Z. Gotwals, and Robert A. Heckman still refuse to recant their public contentions that the funds spent on the track will not affect taxes. They are challenged at the board meetings how spending over $1,300,000 could not increase millage. They refuse to answer the question.

The truth of the matter is that the track or more accurately the facility will be an albatross around the neck of the taxpayers for years.

This fleecing of the taxpayers is yet another example of how the Oley School District school board wastes our hard earned tax dollars. They would want to squander money on pork barrel projects rather than education.

In May 2007, there will be five board members running for re-election. Enough is enough; we need a new board with new ideas.

The New Price Tag For The Track

The Property and Transportation Meeting on April 4,2006 was an important meeting for the taxpayers of the school district. The new estimated costs for a synthetic track were presented to the school board.

The meeting was orchestrated primarily with students who want a new facility. Three adult, citizen taxpayers spoke against and one Oley teacher spoke for the enterprise.

The base cost of a track would be $847,606. This number is far different from the $350,000 initially promoted to the community by the board.

If various amenities were added, the resulting permutations of the project could raise the outlay to $1,318,825.

However, because of the taxpayer concerns expressed at public meetings, the architect indicated that with modifications, the cost could be lowered to $609,089.

A board member asked about the estimations on a stone/cinder track. The price could be lowered to approximately $240,000.

Unfortunately, track supporters and fundraisers have taken the stance that no funds would be spent on anything other than a synthetic track.

According to a supporter, the primary beneficiaries of the track are the one hundred and fifty students who participate in the sport. There are nearly two thousand other students who will see little or no benefit from spending up to $1,318,825 on a non-educational undertaking.

Two speakers challenged some board members public comments that the track expenditure would have no effect on taxes. They said that regardless of whether the money is spent from the General Fund or from the Capital Reserve Fund, the new facility would affect millage. The board did not contest the speakers.

The track has become a symbol of how the school board spends our hard earned tax dollars.

Robert A. Heckman, board President, said he "will do what is best for education" in the district.

The taxpayers and the student body will be awaiting the board's pledge to the future of the children.

8 Questions For The School Board

Eight questions and accompanying comments were presented to the school board for their consideration about investing over $1,300,000 on a new track.

The board needs to consider the consequences of their decisions on the entire student body and the community.

1. How is the track going to improve student test scores?

We have 29% of the 11th graders not testing proficient in Math and 17% not testing proficient in Reading.
The school is on a watch list because it did not meet federal educational standards.
Shouldn't' t the board be investing in the future of the children by helping them in the classroom?

2. How is the track going to get students into college?

This is a rhetorical question, because it will not get students into college.

3. How is the track going to get students a job?

This too is a rhetorical question because it will not get a student a job.

4. How much money has been raised by supporters to pay for the track?

So far, only $180,000 has been pledged toward a $1,300,000 track. The supporters said they were going to fund at least half the cost.
Where is this money?

5. Why is there a rush to build a track?

If this track has community support then the board should have no problems placing the proposal on a ballot referendum.
Why not let the community decide if they want to spend an enormous amount of money on an non-educational expense?

6. Why hasn't the board looked into a less expensive solution to redo the track?

Surely, it is the obligation of the board to review all alternatives for such a project. To do otherwise, would be a dereliction of their fiscal duty.

7. How many programs will suffer because $1,300,000 will be spent on a track?

The board already cut over $300,000 of educational items from the 2006 budget. How much more will they cut just to have a synthetic track?

8. How is the track going to provide property relief for seniors on fixed incomes or young families buying a home or struggling to keep a home?

Another rhetorical question, because increased, frivolous spending will place even more burdens on our small bedroom community.

A supporter of the track felt blind sighted at the meeting when these questions were presented.
The posting offers the community an opportunity to discuss these concerns as well as others.