NORWICH – Leaders of the collective bargaining units which represent Norwich’s teachers and support staff have expressed their willingness to discuss reducing contractual pay increases if it will help save jobs.
“We are more than happy to sit down and have that conversation,” said Erika Kwasnik, who serves as president of the Norwich Educators Organization, during a special board of education meeting Wednesday night.
A key factor in the union’s decision to do so, she said, was tied to Superintendent Gerard O’Sullivan’s assurance that the money would be used to save teachers, not items such as extracurricular programs.
“I have been assured by Mr. O’Sullivan that that is the intent,” Kwasnik said.
The union head did stress, however, that the issue was not as “black and white” as it appeared, since forgoing a pay increase could have long-term ramifications in a teacher’s retirement benefits.
Mike Girgenti, president of the Norwich Educational Support Staff Association, echoed some of Kwasnik’s sentiments following the meeting, saying his organization was “absolutely” willing to sit down with district officials to discuss the matter.
During the meeting, the superintendent reviewed the financial impact of raise increase for each category of district employees. A 1 percent increase in total administration payroll, he explained, equates to roughly $7,919. For confidential and managerial staff, that number is $7,498; support staff, $28,903; teachers and professional staff, $105,369. In total, he said, a 1 percent increase in the district’s total $15.1 million payroll increases expenses by $151,490.
“Four-times that number is $600,000,” said Board President Bob Patterson, who asked the superintendent to sit down with each of the collective bargaining units to see if some kind of an agreement could be reached.
Neither the superintendent nor the district’s new business official will receive raises next year.
As of last week, school leaders had proposed more than $2 million in cuts to the initial run of next year’s budget in an attempt to offset the loss of $840,000 in state aid and the uncontrollable rise of expenses in terms of health insurance premiums, retirement contributions and contractual obligations. The proposal included cuts to athletics, extracurricular activities and other programs, as well as the elimination of more than a dozen full-time teaching positions.
In the last three weeks, a total of 24 full- and part-time faculty and staff members have been informed their jobs are in jeopardy as a result of efforts to reduce district expenditures. In addition, seven positions which will be vacated by retirement or resignations will not be filled. Those include an administrator, a special education teacher and several support staff members.
At the behest of the school board, whose members felt the proposed 7.5 percent tax levy increase was too high, O’Sullivan returned this week with a plan to slash another $438,045 from the budget. The proposal included the elimination of 11 additional full- and part-time positions, most of which are support staff.
“All of these cuts put a strain on other areas,” the superintendent said. “Nobody wants these cuts.”
According to O’Sullivan, as the budget currently stands, it reflects a 2.07 percent decrease in spending compared to the current year, and would translate into a 3 percent tax levy increase for district taxpayers.
“We’re 2 percentage points below the contingent budget,” the administrator said, explaining that the state education department had actually raised the contingency figure since the board’s last meeting.
Part of the plan, according to O’Sullivan, is the use of $1,220,341 from the district’s undesignated fund balance to reduce taxes.
“There were some questions last week about fund balance,” the superintendent said, referencing Kwasnik’s assertion that the district was holding an amount in excess of the legal limit. He confirmed that Norwich did have more than $5 million in the surplus fund, but that it was the district’s plan to use a portion of these funds to offset larger tax increases over the next 5 to 6 years.
“We’re consuming far too much,” he said. “We’ve got to cut expenses.” And not just in the short term, O’Sullivan explained, but over the next two, three or four years. The district expects to lose another $425,000 in revenue at the end of next year, when federal stimulus money runs out.
The superintendent described the funds as a “protection for our community and the taxpayers,” as well as staff, since those funds may need to be tapped into in order to cover payroll if the governor is successful in holding up aid payments as he has once again suggested.
According to Board Member Brian Loomis, the district’s auditors had “called (Norwich) out” on exceeding the limit, but then they had advised it was a good thing given the district’s circumstances.
Patterson added that the money had been accumulated in the fund to provide a cushion against the aid cuts and rising expenses. But the financial impact of those factors ended up being of a larger magnitude than expected.
“We were talking $1.6 million as a worst case scenario; we’re now up to $2.4 million,” Patterson said.
Kwasnik did take the opportunity to weigh in once more on the topic during public comment.
“You’re making a conscious decision to be above the legal limit,” she said, cautioning the board that all it would “just take a few phone calls” for taxpayers to bring suit against the district for return of the funds.