Where’s the outrage?
Two years ago, the Matawan Regional Teachers Association (MRTA), was outraged. Over two hundred teachers stormed a board of education meeting at Strathmore Elementary, wearing buttons that read “I CARE about our kids”. They picketed in front of board members’ homes and stuck placards in their car windshields when parking at the schools.
At the time, MRTA President Carl Kosmyna said "Tonight is about making a statement and about making the public aware that things are not what they seem in the district. We also want the board to see that we are standing here united."
Why was the union so outraged? Their salary guides hadn’t increased 4.5%.
Today, the school district is on the verge of terminating 73 employees. The union response? A flyer. Kosmyna’s only public comments, made literally minutes before a board vote on the budget, was a suggestion for the school board to recommend raising taxes as high as possible to avoid personnel cuts.
The union leaders are willing to beat the war drums for a raise but not to save scores of employees’ livelihoods? It doesn’t make sense unless, and this is just a theory, the union leaders were never fighting for their union. Maybe, just maybe, the union leaders were fighting for themselves. After all, even without increases to the salary guide, everybody but the highest paid teachers were still slated to receive a raise.
In 2008, the school board and MRTA ratified a memorandum calling for salary increases and retroactive pay in exchange for a change to the state health care plan, NJ Direct 10.
However, the exact language of the contract still needed to be negotiated, the biggest of which was the salary guide. The memorandum only refers to the total increase to the salary guide, not how that increase is distributed.
In an astonishing act of malfeasance, Board President Pat Demarest outsourced the writing of the salary guides to the teachers union and Joel Glastein, director of personnel. The salary guides were never reviewed by any third party or even by the school board prior to Ms. Demarest signing the contract.
While a district wants to increase salaries at the lower levels to attract the best teachers, unions want raises at the higher levels to boost pension income. With Demarest’s blessing, the union got what it wanted.
The below tables show what the union officers received from the revised salary guides. Comparing salary guides, our senior teachers earn over $3,000 more than their peers in most wealthy “I” districts in Monmouth County (p. 22), which explains the top-line’s slow growth rate – it can only grow so fast without appearing obscene.
However, the real story is the extraordinary spurt in income for those union officers that hadn’t yet reached the top rungs on the salary guides. To use an extreme example, Margaret De Be Voise, a building rep for the middle school, got a 62.30% salary increase over three years plus a five-thousand dollar check for retroactive pay. In fact, a third of union officers got about five-thousand dollars in retroactive pay.
Furthermore, among the officers, only Kathleen Vergaretti (32.35% raise) is earning below $84,000.
In other words, due to seniority, the union officers ain’t afraid of losing their jobs. Nor are they willing to sacrifice any raises to save jobs.
Let’s assume there’s $1.5 million budgeted for increases to the salary guide. The teachers could also shift to NJ Direct 15 for a 5% savings, or about $300,000. Additionally, the legislature looks likely to pass a requirement for all staff to contribute 1.5% of salary towards health benefits – another $500,000. That’s a total of $2.3 million savings. The terminations are saving the district $2.8 million. That still leaves a deficit of $500,000 but one that is far more manageable. Five more retirements could close the gap.
Absent union concessions, 73 staff members will lose their jobs and the district will begin looking for additional places to cut next year. Everybody but the most senior teachers and administrators will be at risk of losing their jobs.
Does the union leadership care? I’m guessing their membership does.
| Name of Employee | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 | 3-yr Increase |
| Carl Kosmyna | 80,580.00 | 82,330.00 | 85,220.00 | 87,080.00 | 8.07% |
| C. Marshall Gorman | 69,330.00 | 71,900.00 | 86,540.00 | 87,900.00 | 26.78% |
| Patricia Mattern | 82,960.00 | 84,650.00 | 87,540.00 | 89,400.00 | 7.76% |
| Janet Breslin | 82,960.00 | 84,650.00 | 87,540.00 | 89,400.00 | 7.76% |
| Edward Kornberg | 78,450.00 | 80,150.00 | 83,040.00 | 84,900.00 | 8.22% |
| Janette Caufield | 65,998.40 | 69,750.00 | 76,110.00 | 84,350.00 | 27.81% |
| Rose Marie Turley | 73,730.00 | 81,580.00 | 84,220.00 | 85,580.00 | 16.07% |
| Margaret De Be Voise | 54,160.00 | 61,640.00 | 74,700.00 | 87,900.00 | 62.30% |
| Kathleen Vergaretti | 51,560.00 | 54,440.00 | 62,070.00 | 68,240.00 | 32.35% |
| Suzanne Serden | 78,450.00 | 80,150.00 | 83,040.00 | 84,900.00 | 8.22% |
| Barbara Lyttle | 82,610.00 | 84,300.00 | 87,140.00 | 89,400.00 | 8.22% |
| Wenona Dubrowsky | 64,070.00 | 71,900.00 | 86,540.00 | 87,900.00 | 37.19% |
| Name of Employee | Retro Pay | 3-yr Increase |
| Carl Kosmyna | 1168.00 | 6,500.00 |
| C. Marshall Gorman | 5120.00 | 18,570.00 |
| Patricia Mattern | 1168.00 | 6,440.00 |
| Janet Breslin | 1168.00 | 6,440.00 |
| Edward Kornberg | 1168.00 | 6,450.00 |
| Janette Caufield | 4954.49 | 18,351.60 |
| Rose Marie Turley | 1091.66 | 11,850.00 |
| Margaret De Be Voise | 5088.00 | 33,740.00 |
| Kathleen Vergaretti | 2104.00 | 16,680.00 |
| Suzanne Serden | 1168.00 | 6,450.00 |
| Barbara Lyttle | 1128.00 | 6,790.00 |
| Wenona Dubrowsky | 5120.00 | 23,830.00 |
>>> Read more!
