Huntington Board Tables Votes on Mandate Relief

Support for changes on Triborough Amendment, seniority rules and non-public busing put off.

The Huntington Board of Education turned away from approval of three recommmendations to the state after teachers spoke out Monday night.

On the table were proposals supporting significant changes in rules that mean more senior teachers are protected from layoffs ahead of junior colleagues, sometimes known as Last In, First Out; requirements that public school districts provide transportation to students attending nonpublic schools up to 15 miles away, and continuation of step pay increases, under the Triborough Amendment to the state Taylor Law, after a contract has expired.

Had the three proposals passed, the board would have gone on record with the state Mandate Relief Council in support of:

  • Using the new Annual Professional Performance Review instead of seniority-only rules when reducing staff.
  • Reducing the nonpublic busing limit from 15 miles to 5.
  • Freezing step increases now required under the Triborough Amendment.

About 70 teachers turned out for the meeting and to hear teachers' union president James Graber criticize the proposed recommendations.

Graber, a high school economics teacher, said the value of the Triborough Amendment was to ensure labor peace.

Before the passage of the Triborough Amendment, Graber said, "Critical public services were withheld. The state wanted it to stop, but management had no incentive to settle.

"Triborough is not an unwarranted benefit to teachers but rather brought labor peace."

With the vote in support of the changes, the "board would be saying that labor peace is unimportant. The board vote is largely symbolic but it does not mean inconsequential."

Teachers in the audience gave him a standing ovation.

Trustees took pains to make clear that their vote would have no binding effect on the council, and that their vote was, in effect, symbolic, which prompted one person in the audience to ask, "why vote for it then?"

Board members, in particular Tom DiGiacomo and Adam Spector, explained that voting for the changes weren't anti-teacher. Spector said, "To not like LIFO is not to say anyone endorses FIFO (First In, First Out). The goal should be Best In, Worst Out. That’s what I expect as a parent and as a board member.

"It is fair to say that there are certain aspects of labor laws that are not as applicable now as when they were created," Spector said. " Someone need to make a first step to say that the model is broken. So the first step is to discuss it. I hope people will understand that these symboloic gestures are meant to stat the dialog of how we educate our children for the next 30 or 40 years."

Another teacher challenged the board and asked, "What is the driving force? If it’s a better staff, I can understand that. But if the driving force is money it simply says we get rid of the more expensive teachers. If not, the perhaps there should be a different madnadte that you look at."

Trustee Jen Hebert, a teacher by profession, said the goal of making changes in the seniority rules was not to force out seasoned but more costly teachers in favor of younger teachers.

"I in no way would ever want to hire or fire based on the cost of the salary and so the suggestion that we would look at LIFO is because of dollar signs, I can tell you is 100 perent inaccurate," she said.

While the board took votes on the proposals, which failed, the effect was to table any recommendations because they are expected to come up again.

The first proposal, on seniority rules, was supported by Spector and DiGiacomo, but opposed by board president Emily Rogan, Rich McGrath,Hebert and John Paci. Xavier Palacios abstained, saying he wanted more time to consider the measures. That first rejection was quickly followed by the failure of the other two proposals.

JSC August 28, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Best In, Worst Out should be the standard by which we hire and fire teachers. Of course, it should have nothing to do with anyone's salary level. Teachers understand this and should be supportive of this action. No one likes to keep the rotten apple in the basket, it hurts everyone's reputation. Busing to out of district schools has gotten out of hand - it is a huge cost. I don't know what effect going from 15 to 5 miles would have on Huntington's transportation costs, but it's worth looking into. Rather save $ this way then by cutting programs and staff. As to step increases being guaranteed even with an expired contract...I should remind some of the board members that their lawyer said many years ago that step increases should be gotten rid of totally! Food for thought. Freezing a step increase during contract talks is nothing compared to totally losing them! This isn't a kick in the teeth to teachers, but a necessary move to help districts survive and not have to fire teachers during budget votes! I'm disappointed that this school board didn't see their way to the right thing to do.
Hikerr August 29, 2012 at 07:00 AM
School Board giving in to the teachers union. Nothing has changed.
Jim August 29, 2012 at 05:50 PM
You can say that salary won't be considered but that is completely unrealistic. If a older teacher makes double the salary of a new teacher it immediately puts them at risk in bad economic times. Additionally, these decisions are made by BOE'S that have no required qualifications other than being over 18. Also, how do you compare teachers and determine who is the best?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »