Elwood Board Rejects Union's Second Proposal

Within a period of two weeks, the Elwood Teachers Alliance offered a second salary restructuring proposal to the Board of Ed which would have extended the current contract by two years.

That offer was promptly rejected on the same day.

In response to a resident’s question at the April 14 Board of Education meeting, Superintendent Peter Scordo announced that the Board had received that second offer earlier in the day but had rejected it in executive session.

Saying that she was proud of the offer, ETA President Lorelei Stephens confirmed that the proposal would have extended the current contract by two years, with the following increases:

• Year 2011-2012: 2.0% (currently 3.5%)
• Year 2012-2013: 1.5% (currently 3.0%)
• Year 2013-2014: 3.5% (currently 3.5%)
• Year 2014-2015: 1.5%
• Year 2015-2016: 1.5%

On its website, the ETA says the proposal would have amounted to double the savings of the original proposal, between $700,000 and $800,000.  “Had this offer been accepted, it would have amounted to 6% in contractually guaranteed increases that the Elwood Teachers would have deferred or foregone in the past three years, far more in total than any other District on Long Island in the same amount of time.”

The ETA’s statement concludes “We are at a loss to explain the rationale for the rejection of these offers.”

In its April 14th response, posted on the district’s website, the Board explained that it rejected the proposal for the same reason it rejected :  the extension of the contract amidst an uncertain economic future:

“The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members.  Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able to cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs.”  A pdf of the letter is attached to this article.

The letter goes on to give a breakdown of the impact of the increases, including step. While savings in the first three years would have amounted to more than $650,000, the district would have had to pay $2 million in increases for those additional two years.