Donna Perry: Whose School Committee Is It Anyway?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
If ever there was a case to be made for the glaring conflicts of interest that exist in Rhode Island involving public unions; their state legislator/business agents; and compliant local officials who work against the interests of the taxpayer--it is unfolding now in a growing controversy involving the Westerly School Committee.
(Note: As of this writing, a School Committee meeting scheduled for last night will likely have brought new elements to the controversy, but the following attempts to capture where it presently stands.)
On the surface, the storyline seems pretty standard stuff: contract negotiating sessions beginning for both the teachers’ union and the non-teaching school union; a school committee deliberating over which committee members should serve as the committee negotiators; and the union just standing by awaiting to fulfill their end and reach a contract agreement.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTBut pull the curtain back a little and you’ll see not only how and why contracts get hammered out that are far less in the interest of the taxpayer and far more in the interest of the union, but also a vivid display of statewide union bosses taking hold of the school committee’s negotiating process to influence the outcome they want—by making sure they have the negotiating personnel in place to achieve it.
An agreement that had been solidified into the School Committee charter last year to create a new system of alternating 2-person negotiating teams to represent the Committee in contract negotiations with school unions was suddenly upended by School Committee Chairman David Pattenat a January 4th SC meeting when the agreed to negotiating teamwas suddenly cast aside and two new members were named to replace them which included Chairman Patten himself. It seems Patten tried to spin the unexplained maneuver by saying the ousted negotiating team would face “work overload” if forced to handle two union contract negotiations at once. The ousted team of Jay Goodman andMario Celico were told they could continue to negotiate the Local 808 contract which represents non-teaching school aides and workers, but that Patten himself and another SC member, James Murano would take over the negotiations for the larger—and more costly--teachers union contract. The ousted members have characterized Patten’s maneuver as a bow to union pressure on the state level to put in place negotiators more “friendly” to union demands.
Their claims are strongly backed up by the emergence of a letter sent to union members regarding the negotiating team personnel by none other than State Senator Frank Ciccone—who also happens to be the business agent for Local 808.
The comments made by Ciccone in the letter and reports of his being constantly unavailable for scheduled contract talk sessions up to now, before the negotiators were replaced, seem to validate that allegations that pressure to replace the ousted negotiators with more union friendly school committee personnel was going on behind the scenes.
In the letter, Ciccone not only urges Local 808 union members to attend Wednesday night’s school committee meeting but also reveals his irritation that in his view, Westerly school union members perhaps are more cooperative with school management than he would like.
“Passiveness by public sector members to engage in fighting for their rights has been a problem,” Ciccone writes.
Other concerns expressed by the ousted team and other school committee members aligned with them, are that the statewide NEA’s imprint is present in the behind the scenes maneuvers to change the team and that there aremotivations beyond compensation factors. They cite potential contract changes in work rules governing classroom activity which would be aimed at strengthening adherence to the state’s new Basic Education Plan (BEP) doctrine that is a cornerstone of the Commissioner Gistreforms.
What ultimately makes the fireworks in Westerly more than just a local School Committee having a very public disagreement over who should serve on a contract negotiating team, is that it vividly shows the process, the environment, and yes, the union’s hand in dictating not only what—but also who—will have the greatest influence in the process to hammer out contracts to their liking.
Toward the end of the Ciccone letter, after informing his membership of the negotiating team replacement episode, he states: “I along with the other members of our negotiating team now feel we should be able to reach a tentative agreement within a few meetings…”
In the continuing statewide debate over whether promises are being broken to public employee unions, it’s important to understand the compromised climate in which “promises” are often made.
Donna Perry is a Communications Consultant.
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
