Collective Bargaining and the Town Budget

The first two nights of Town Meeting have been rather perfunctory, but for the somewhat overwrought reaction to the not unreasonable suggestion by the School Committee that the Blue Hills Budget be sent back for a little trimming. Diane Agostino’s charge of “mean-spiritedness” was, as they say, rich-- coming from someone who has routinely and mistakenly attacked the public school budget, even in years in which wage increases were not funded, such as this year, while the Blue Hills budget includes wage increases of 4%. Which brings me to my topic.

Warrant Committee Chair Katie Conlon made an excellent presentation on the state of our finances at the beginning of Town Meeting. She correctly pointed out the need for efforts to both slow cost increases and find new sources of revenue. This year’s fiscal dilemma led the Warrant Committee to look even at wage adjustments. The following appears in the report of the Warrant Committee in the Town Warrant .

“First, any recommendation against funding salary adjustments would impact only the non-school departments. Town Meeting appropriates separate amounts for salary expenses and general expenses for all departments except the School Department. Under State law, the Town Meeting is authorized to appropriate only a total amount for the School Department. Therefore, Town Meeting could decide not to appropriate funds for salary adjustments only for employees other than school employees. This difference raises issues of fairness and equity. The problem caused by wage adjustments exceeding available revenue is Town-wide and, we believe, requires a Town-wide solution.”

Some points.

1. The decision to not fund salary adjustments affects all departments when judged from the perspective of town residents who expect services, as well as employees.

2. While the Town Meeting cannot dictate how the public schools spend any increase they receive, that does not prevent the Warrant Committee and Town Meeting from appropriating sufficient funds for them to pay for salary adjustments. Indeed, providing significantly less than what is needed to do so makes the point entirely moot.

3. The Town Meeting obviously can decide to not appropriate money for salary increases for the Milton schools as well as other town departments. They have so decided with respect to the schools on a number of occasions.

4. Viewing not funding raises for departments as being unfair to the non school departments assumes that the primary group to be considered is town employees, when it is the services provided residents that should be paramount.

Let me try to clarify this issue, since it appears many do not understand the overarching problem.

Under state law, collective bargaining with non-school personnel is undertaken by the Board of Selectmen and designated personnel. When an agreement has been reached, the only body who can ratify it is Town Meeting, and that ratification must be done in the form of an article which simultaneously funds the agreed upon increase. No funding increase, no contract. In contrast, state law calls for the School Department and Administration to negotiate a contract and when agreement is reached, the vote of the School Committee alone finalizes the contract and obligates the School Department to pay that increase, whether the town meeting provides the funding for it or not.

So here are the potential consequences. If town side contract proposals are not funded, employees in those departments do not receive raises. But the services the town receives from them is unaffected. If the School Department’s contractual raises are not funded, the raises must still be paid. Without funding, this is done by cutting enough staff to free up the necessary funds to provide the raises. The remaining employees get raises, but the residents get sharply reduced educational services. No one is to blame for this fact. All involved are merely operating under the rules dictated by state law. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the Warrant Committee seems to be missing this important point.

The existence of a state law which was probably intended to protect school systems has been detrimental to them because it divorces the binding approval of a contract from any funding source. The consequences are significant. Currently the Police and Fire departments are without a contract. The Warrant Committee indicated last night it would cost $300,000 to fund a 2 ½% increase for FY08. It is likely an agreement will be reached during the next 12 months and an article will be placed on the Warrant next year to accept, and retroactively fund, the raises. That will mean that all raises for all town departments for FY08 will have been funded, with the exception of the school department.

Sadly, this fact is not an aberration. It will represent the third time since 2000 that this has occurred. Our recent history as a town has been to protect positions in non school departments while the schools absorb significant loses. This year 20+ lost positions in the schools, 2 in the Fire department and 1 in the Police department is another example of that. When you consider that school personnel represent approximately 2/3 of town employees, you can see that a disproportionate burden of lost positions falls on the schools, and the youngsters in our schools will pay the price.

This discrepancy in non-override years is why a disproportionate amount of override dollars are directed to the schools in override years. Without it the Milton public schools would be a shambles. Unfortunately, this provides fodder for those who really don’t care if the schools are properly funded, and who perennially blame the need for overrides on the schools. Next time you hear that line, you’ll know what to say.