Raises not appropriate

Larry Simms, member, Municipal/SHRHS Workgroup, Lambertville
    Your news article of last week, headlined “South teachers get pay raises,” includes the factual percentages of the three-year teachers’ contract from the South Hunterdon Regional High School (SHRHS) given in a press release sent to local newspapers.
   However, it also contains subjective information from that same press release in which board members attempt to validate the raises in this recently ratified contract. Not included are other facts and views that directly relate to an understanding of whether giving raises of 3.25 percent, 2.85 percent, and 3.0 percent in this three-year contract was appropriate.
   First, a contract settlement needs to be appropriate for the current economic realities. Where for the last two years there has been no cost of living in Social Security and in NJ State pensions, and where many residents employed in the private sector have had to forgo salary increases or take salary cuts or move from full employment to part-time jobs, these teacher raises are not appropriate.
   Second, a contract settlement needs to be appropriate to the larger goals of property tax reform that Gov. Chris Christie is working to achieve. When the SHRHS administration and board attempt to justify the teacher raises by saying these are not real raises since the teachers will give back 1.5 percent of their salary to help SHRHS pay health coverage costs, and yet when the residents are actually paying the full percent increases in this three-year teachers’ contract through property tax levies and are not benefiting with any post-contract settlement 1.5 percent giveback from SHRHS on the previously paid two tax levies or the one yet to come, these teacher raises are not appropriate.
   Third, a contract settlement needs to be appropriate by balancing the needs of the teachers and the needs of the taxpayers. When the class sizes and teacher loads at SHRHS are significantly below those at other New Jersey public secondary schools, making those two of the major cost drivers for the SHRHS total cost per pupil of $23,785 compared to the state average of $15,601, and when the tax levies for taxpayers have been increased every year, even after the municipal cuts to the three defeated budgets, these teacher raises are not appropriate.
   Fourth, a contract settlement needs to be appropriate in relation to other work done to rein in operating costs. When the SHRHS administration and board have chosen not to reduce operating costs by consolidating three expensive administrator positions into two, and when they have chosen not to significantly reduce their per-pupil extracurricular costs but instead expanded their soccer program, and when they have chosen not to increase class size closer to the state average, but instead ran, as one example, an advance placement chemistry class this school year with only two students, the teacher raises are not appropriate.
   Finally, a contract settlement needs to be appropriate to SHRHS’ ability to garner support for its budgets. When the residents of the three sending districts have significantly defeated the last three budgets and expect the SHRHS administration and board to finally begin the work to bring their operating costs closer to the state average of other New Jersey public secondary schools, these teacher raises are not appropriate.
   Once again the SHRHS administration and board have failed to begin the real work to rein in their excessive operating costs for this junior/senior high school of only 350 students. The SHRHS administration and board have instead chosen to perpetuate a “public school with a private school feel” at the expense of the residents of the three sending districts and have chosen to stonewall the negotiated agreement with the elected municipal officials to formulate a five-year plan to confine and reduce costs, a plan yet to be submitted to the municipalities more than six months after the agreed deadline for this document.