NEW GLOUCESTER – The Gray-New Gloucester Teachers’ Association, embroiled in stalled contract negotiations with the School Administrative District 15 Board of Directors, is seeking to gain an upper hand in the dispute by capitalizing on voter discontent related to upcoming referendums that would fund athletics-related improvements.
The association and the board have been negotiating since the spring. The teachers’ three-year contract expired on Sept. 1, and three weeks later, a mediation session held by a Maine Labor Relations Board mediator failed to yield a compromise. Michelle Adler, the longtime president of the association, said she expects the negotiations to head to fact-finding, a process that results in an independent report on the merits of the two sides’ contending positions.
On Oct. 14, Adler and half a dozen association members and supporters, rallied in front of Gray-New Gloucester High School before the board held a public hearing on two unrelated bond issues that will come to a vote Nov. 4. The two bonds would collectively authorize $7.4 million in spending on school renovations and a new high school athletic complex. The bond authorizing artificial turf for a new “small ball” field has been particularly controversial among some Gray and New Gloucester property owners.
Earlier in the day, the association sent out an email announcing the event, dubbed “Teachers Over Turf.”
“This bond, with the new turf addition, will raise those taxes again in an area which has already seen a 10 percent increase all while teachers in the district work without any support from the board in the form of fair working conditions and pay,” the press release read.
At the rally, Michael Stash, an eighth-grade math and science teacher, held a sign reading, “Does your school board represent your priorities for quality education?”
“If they want to put $7.2 million into fields over keeping quality educators here in the district, then that’s their choice,” Stash said.
The proposed bonds would authorize roughly $3.5 million toward athletics-related spending.
At the rally, Stephanie Enaire, a fifth- and sixth-grade math teacher from Cumberland, held a sign reading, “Tell the school board to give teachers a fair contract.”
“We’re not saying don’t vote for the bond,” Enaire said. “We’re not saying vote for the bond. We’re saying, ‘Do you realize the teachers in this district are working without a contract?’ ”
The following day, the school board publicized a letter condemning the association’s attempts to link the contract negotiations to the bond issues.
“We value our teachers and all the work they do for our students, but we will not condone tactics which seek to mislead our staff and the public or attempt to undermine the upcoming bond referendum vote on Nov. 4 because the teacher contract is not settled,” the letter read. “There is absolutely no connection between the bond issue and teacher negotiation.”
According to Adler, the school board has informally proposed a contract that would increase pay 1.3 percent over a three-year period for teachers who have worked for the district 16 years and more. Meanwhile, teachers who have worked for the district for less than 16 years would receive a pay raise of about 10 percent for the entirety of the three-year contract. The school board’s proposal would also significantly cut the district’s contribution to teacher health insurance policies. The cut would retroactively cover last year’s health insurance contribution, Adler said, and would add $4,000 to the average family plan.
“They’re asking for some pretty deep cuts in health insurance to a significant number of teachers in the bargaining unit,” Adler said. “They have presented a salary proposal that is not equitable and is divisive in our bargaining unit. And they have asked for the deletion of quite a bit of contract language around working conditions we find unacceptable, in that they have not been able to substantiate their reasons for this at the table.”
According to the board’s Oct. 15 letter, starting salaries in the district are lower than in surrounding districts and “disproportionately benefit those who are on top of the salary scale to the harm of our newer teachers.”
“As a result, the board has proposed to invest approximately $419,000 of additional money into the salary scale to create a uniform salary scale which treats all teachers equitably,” the letter read. “This represents an aggregate salary increase of more than 5 percent over the previous year. Our proposal, however, does not take away anything from teachers and only seeks to correct current inequities.”
When it comes to health insurance, the board is also trying to “spread its health insurance costs more evenly between staff and protect itself from escalating costs,” according to the letter.
“The board is proposing to increase coverage for a single teacher and teacher with child but is asking that those who elect family and spousal coverage pay a little more,” the letter read.
According to Tina Martell, chairwoman of the board, the board is working “diligently” toward a fair contract settlement.
“The board has offered to invest a significant amount of money in salaries and benefits over the three years of the collective bargaining agreement,” Martell said. “The disagreement lies, in part, in how that money is distributed.”
But neither Adler nor Stash are convinced.
“We would actually lose pay,” Stash said. “It would be a regressive contract. The increase they want to give us in pay is not enough to compensate for the increase in health care, so we would actually be losing money.”
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Comments are no longer available on this story