Schools continued on A2
By Lindsey Hilty
Staff Writer
Across the state, school boards have been approving new contracts with employee unions, cutting costs and prolonging the need to go back to the ballot for more funds.
But some local residents say this is a political move to avoid the effects of Senate Bill 5 and they question the legality of the contracts when funds are not there to fulfill them.
“I think everybody is situating themselves in case SB 5 is not overturned in the fall and goes into effect,” Lakota parent John Trygier said. “They would have a current contract in place for three full years.”
In that time, there is a chance to vote in a new administration and representatives, he said.
“If you are in the union’s shoes at this point in time, and really the district’s, it’s an opportunity for both sides to control their own destiny, if you will.”
A survey conducted by the Ohio School Boards Association indicates there have been 54 contracts signed this spring, compared with 17 in 2010. Additionally, 80 percent of the contracts include freezes on annual, base pay increases, according to the report.
Lakota Local and Fairfield City schools are among the districts to pass three-year contracts with pay freezes.
Both are short on cash in the next three years and would need to pass a levy or make drastic cuts to fulfill those contracts.
Former Fairfield City School Board member Arnold Engel and some local Tea Party members have been asking similar questions about the legality.
“It seems a little strange in how you can obligate us, the taxpayers, to spending levels when we have yet to authorize what the revenues are going to be, knowing that the operating budget doesn’t cover all the financial expenses,” Tea Party participant Doug Dragoo said at a recent board meeting.
Engel said he has called the office of the auditor of state, Dave Yost for an opinion. Trygier said he, too, made inquiries.
“We have been made aware of the issue, and we’re going to be looking at it at the next financial audit,” spokeswoman Brittany Elking said.
Those audits will occur in the next six months to determine if districts are in compliance with state law.
If they aren’t, the county prosecutor, law director or other chief law officer of the district would be notified that it may file civil action to void the contract. If nothing is filed, taxpayers have the right to file suit.
Even if the auditor rules in favor of the school districts, Engel said he feels like it goes against the spirit of the law. Contracts, he said, should have to be reopened to make more cuts if funds are not available.
“This is a win for the teachers and a loss for the taxpayers, because they’ve locked us into three years, and there’s still millions and millions of dollars (to be cut)” Engel said.
Fairfield Treasurer Nancy Lane said these contract agreements amount to millions in savings for districts statewide, and she is confident the wording of Ohio law gives the right to certify them with the anticipation that funds will be acquired or cuts will be made.
“We have the ability to raise additional revenue by either placing a levy on the ballot or by renewing or replacing existing levies,” she said. “According to contracts, we have the ability to use the reduction in force policy in those contracts to make budget reductions.”
Both parties agree you can open up negotiations any time, she said.
“We’re looking at decreasing the salaries and benefits in that contract,” she said. “We’re not increasing it. If the auditor says ‘No you can’t sign it,’ then I just lost the opportunity to save the district money. It improved our financial position by signing off on this.”
This is a strategy put forth by the Ohio Education Association, No Lakota spokesman Rich Hoffman wrote in an email.
“The goal is to make it appear that their teacher unions are working with the community, so they can plead their case this upcoming fall with the people of Ohio to overturn SB 5, which eliminates collective bargaining. For them, it’s a way to secure their current contracts while they fight to preserve collective bargaining in the state, which is what people like me have identified as being the costliest factor in public education.”
It is working, he said, because recently some of the anti-levy group for Lakota has switched sides.
“It’s a shame that some people actually fall for these deceptive practices,” he said.
“If it wasn’t for the passing of Senate Bill 5, the union would be threatening to strike to get more money like they did in 2008, instead of trying to appear that they are working with the community with these contracts that don’t give up anything really, but increases they haven’t even obtained yet.”
Bonnie McMurray, a labor relations consultant that helped with area contracts, including Fairfield, said the contracts are reflective of the current economic climante in Ohio "and confirm that our members recognize the financial limits of a school disttricts' scare resources and that we work to address them through the collaborative process of collective bargaining."
"I verify that the number of locals who have not only agreed to pay freezes, but have also offered to give up step increases is unprecedented. And that yes, the frequency far exceeds any year since Ohio’s collective bargaining law was enacted."
Trygier said he has not been able to see the formal wording of Lakota’s contract yet, but he has concerns that the contract is contingent on the passage of a levy.
“My position has been in reading the certification language in the Ohio Revised Code is that you’re supposed to certify that you have funds for the contract ... to maintain programs and personnel at the time of contract signing,” he said. “This is where we have a disagreement in what we believe it says. I’ve always said if you get to the point where you have to cut programs and personnel as a result of the funding, then the contract needs to be reopened.”
This year, there were insufficient funds to fulfill the second year of Lakota’s contract, and the district decided to go back into negotiations with everything on the table.
“In process of opening that contract in addition to cuts, there was more savings that were made,” he said.
Lakota Local School Board President Joan Powell said the ability to void the former contract had to do with how it was written. The old contract, she said, specifically called for certification of finances in the second year. The new contract does not.
“Many, many districts have recently negotiated three year contracts and show a negative cash balance at some time during that period,” she wrote in an email. “We are not trying to avoid the effects of SB5, but we are attempting to plan for and manage them effectively. For years, state law has mandated that teachers are paid based on seniority and education. SB5 will shift all of this to performance pay. The Lakota board supports that shift and addressed this in our new contract, but we also believe that it takes time to plan for new evaluation systems and train personnel to handle this effectively. Our contract period will provide us with more time to create and implement a system that works well for Lakota.”
With this new contract, she said, there will be a board committee to create a new performance pay system.
Lakota Treasurer Jenni Logan said she sought the opinions of attorneys, who drafted the language of the contract and gave a legal opinion on the duration clause. The contract, she said, is contingent on passing an operating levy, and the board has the discretion to make appropriate additional budget cuts if one is not approved.
“There’s no vagueness or ambiguity,” she said. “It was very important for us to make sure that the language was very clear.”
Logan said she, too, spoke with the state auditor.
“What they will tell you is, if you have a legal opinion, that this is a valid contract,” she said. “That is what they are going to rely upon. That’s what we’re relying on. We’re not attorneys, but we have attorneys who are specialists in this area, and honestly, we are in a very unique situation. I think that people are trying to find answers to problems that we all have right now — funds are tight. If you have employees who are willing to take a three-year freeze, why wouldn’t you want to try to find a way to make that happen?”
Just because the board has a legal opinion that shows this is what it is allowed to do, Trygier said, it doesn’t give him confidence.
“You can shop around to buy a legal opinion to support anything you are doing if you look long and hard enough,” he said.
“Just because you have a legal opinion doesn’t mean the legal opinion is correct.”