Schools

Educational Administrative Personnel Agreement Voted Down by B-W School Board

Disagreements and heated exchanges on Wednesday night.

Passionate arguments came about during Wednesday night’s Baldwin-Whitehall School Board meeting when the board rejected a motion, 5-4, that would have passed an agenda item reaching a benefits agreement between and its Act 93 educational administrative personnel. Educational administrative personnel include the district’s deans of students, psychologists, director of pupil services and guidance supervisor, among others.

The agreement would have been backdated to July 1, 2011, and would have run through June 30, 2014.

School board members Kevin J. Fischer, President George L. Pry, John B. Schmotzer and Kevin A. Stiffey voted “yes,” while fellow members Nancy Lee Crowder, Sam DiNardo Jr., Diana Kazour, Laurencine Romack and Martin Michael Schmotzer voted the motion down.

Find out what's happening in Baldwin-Whitehallwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

John Schmotzer made the motion to vote on the item. Kazour seconded the motion before voting against it.

After Kazour’s second, Martin Schmotzer commented.

Find out what's happening in Baldwin-Whitehallwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“I’m going to recommend a ‘no’ vote on (this motion) for a number of reasons,” he said. “I appreciate the fact that the Act 93 employees have taken a freeze in their salaries for the 2011-12 school year. That’s a good thing. But, their contract ended on June 30, 2011. We still have a classified (service workers) contract that , that has not been voted on yet ...

“I don’t think people should eat their entrees until they finish their salad and soup. Therefore, I’m not sure why the rush to do this (agreement) is important, especially since no money is going to be affected for any of the employees ...

“Whether it’s voted up or down, there should be a vote taken (on the service workers’ contract) before the Act 93 (agreement) is voted on.”

John Schmotzer commented next.

“The one doesn’t have anything to do with the other,” he said. “These Act 93 (policies) are not contracts; they are agreements ... These are not negotiated contracts ... By law, we have to institute it.

“The classified is a negotiated contract with the union (Baldwin-Whitehall Service Employees Association Local 95-02-11-8). These people (Act 93 employees) are not represented by a union, so it’s my belief that one has nothing to do with the other. It should be voted on at this meeting.”

DiNardo was next.

“I’m voting ‘no,’ because I think the Act 93 people deserve exactly what the classifieds get,” DiNardo said. “If the classifieds get a wage increase, I think the Act 93 people should get an increase.”

Fischer then spoke.

“While I respect my colleagues, I agree with Mr. John Schmotzer in the fact that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. To borrow that logic, and any logic that Mr. DiNardo has considered, to say that the teachers, who have a contract to go for another 3-4 years in a 4-percent salary increase, that everybody should get that, that we should all be equal ... That’s not the way the system works. I didn’t craft the system. I’m not saying that it’s right, wrong, good or bad. It is what it is.

“The classifieds are in negotiation ... The Act 93 personnel, as John said, there’s no negotiations ... The classifieds, when they get their contract done is when it will be done. The negotiations will run their course. It’s the process ... To hold one with the other, that really doesn’t make good sense from where I’m sitting at any point in time.

“If that’s the case, then there’s no sense to doing this. We’ll just deal with one contract, one set of rules and then, everybody gets the same thing. And that’s a little bit absurd, at least the way this system is drawn up.

“There’s a very distinct difference between those that are classified people, those that are certificated professional educators—meaning Act 93—and those that are teachers, and the system is what it is. They’re allowed to bargain the way they do. We abide by the law. We have proceeded and continue to proceed in that way. We have done everything the way it should be done ...

“I think it really sends the wrong message to the Act 93 personnel that they, now, are held captive to the classified people. The top administrators, minus the superintendents, in our schools, are held captive to the classified personnel and whenever, on the whim, that they decide to agree with their contract. It makes absolutely no sense ...

“I will recommend highly that the majority of this board vote (‘yes’), move this, get it out the way, get it done, and then, let’s go continue with the administration to negotiate with the classifieds like they have been doing. At some point, hopefully, in the very near future, we have something to vote on for them, as well.”

Fischer added that he hoped that his fellow board members will vote based on the Act 93 agreement itself and not marry it to the service workers’ contract.

“That’s where I’m at,” DiNardo said. “I don’t agree with what’s there (in the agreement).”

“I agree with Marty and Sam,” Crowder said. “It’s been quite a long time for that classifieds agreement. I don’t know what side’s what, but it really needs to be sped up.”

After the motion failed, B-W Superintendent Dr. Lawrence C. Korchnak took longer than usual to read the next agenda item to the board.

“I’m just composing myself after the vote,” Korchnak said. “It was a surprise.”

The next agenda item was similar to the previous one, except that the benefits agreement in front of the board now would be between the district and its Act 93 finance and operations administrative personnel.

This time, after a Stiffey motion and a John Schmotzer second, Martin Schmotzer asked for the motion to be tabled.

“It is now meaningless to vote on these (next two items) since the (last one) failed,” Martin Schmotzer said. “I would respectfully ask the people who made their motion and second to withdraw their motion and second. (Let’s) table these and bring them back as a package at a later date.”

Stiffey withdrew his motion, but John Schmotzer did not withdraw his second. Schmotzer’s second became the new motion, and Fischer seconded.

“I don’t understand the logic ... ” John Schmotzer said. “These agreements have nothing to do with the classified contract.”

“I’m really befuddled,” Fischer said, “because there’s nobody in Act 93 that sits at a negotiating table, that participates in negotiations. They have absolutely nothing to do with classifieds ... I’m having a disconnect. I understand the desire to get it done (agree on a service contract) ... but this, whether this gets done today, next month, eight months from now, has no bearing, zero bearing except for maybe your vote and your world to have this done.”

Fischer was speaking to Martin Schmotzer.

“It’s not my world,” Martin Schmotzer said. “It’s a majority rule.”

Pry’s gavel silenced Martin Schmotzer before Fischer continued.

“You somehow convinced four other people,” Fischer said. “This thing was discussed in executive session. I won’t go there, but it just befuddles me to no end the complete disconnect.”

“Mr. Fischer, I could sit here for an hour and pick that contract apart,” Martin Schmotzer said, “but I’m not going to do so. I don’t care if your committee (formed to analyze the agreement) was for it or not. Frankly, it’s nice to win a vote around here. I wish you guys would quit being babies when you lose a 5-4 vote, occasionally ... You lost a vote ...

“There was no rush to do these three (agreements) at this point in time ... There was no reason to put this on the agenda tonight, especially when you don’t have the five votes to back it.”

Martin Schmotzer was referring to the next agenda item (a benefits agreement between the district and its confidential administrative assistants personnel), as well.

“We had a working session last week where we discussed all three of these Act 93 agreements,” John Schmotzer said to his brother. “A working session is for people to bring out any opposition, any debate that they have with the agreements, and it could have been resolved if there was a particular issue in there that you didn’t like. We could have talked about it.

“Very few people opened their mouths during the working session ... We are doing a disservice to the educational group, the finance and operations group and the confidential secretaries group ... by not approving an agreement that outlines what their benefits and working conditions are.”

DiNardo then clarified his position, saying that his “no” votes stem from the district not rewarding employees for good work.

“How can you say that these people (educational employees) are doing such a great job in education by hitting standards and plateaus, and how can you say that our finance people are running a tight ship,” DiNardo said, “and then give them no (salary) increase?

“That’s not where I come from, and I’m not going to justify any vote. All I gotta do is press this button, and I’m done.”

John Schmotzer said that he’s been told by some employees whose benefits agreements were up for approval on Wednesday that they did not want a raise.

“They know that they’re getting paid a very nice salary,” John Schmotzer said. “They actually said to me, ‘We don’t want a raise, but we’d like to have an agreement to outline what our benefits are.’”

He then said that educational employees are being rewarded with bonuses.

DiNardo disagreed with the practice of giving educational employees bonuses.

Crowder said that, while she agrees that the service workers’ contract needs to be settled as soon as possible, her “no” vote on the Act 93 educational administrative personnel item was based on the agreement itself. She said that she has no issue with the Act 93 finance and operations administrative personnel item or the confidential administrative assistants item.

Pry said that he was disappointed that some board members’ issues with the items being debated were not voiced during prior meetings.

“Suddenly, now, this is a surprise that this is on this agenda,” Pry said. “The whole reason it was brought up last week was to put it on this agenda. If there was a resounding issue that should have taken it off of the agenda, that’s what those sessions are for.”

The finance and operations personnel motion passed, 5-4. Crowder joined Fischer, Pry, John Schmotzer and Stiffey on the affirmative side.

The confidential administrative assistants personnel item then passed, 6-3, with DiNardo joining Crowder, Fischer, Pry, John Schmotzer and Stiffey in the affirmative.

Before the meeting adjourned, Korchnak used administrator-comments time to express his disappointment with the board’s vote on the educational administrative personnel item.

“One of the most prolific symbols of the Roman Empire is a small silver coin of about 3-3.4 grams called a Roman denarius,” Korchnak said. “That Roman denarius took prominence because that became equated with one day’s wages for a Roman centurion, or soldier.

“The reason why it became equated with them is because it was known, even then, in the Republic of Rome, that, if you didn’t pay your soldiers, they wouldn’t fight for you.

“Nobody, in Roman times, would have ever considered not paying their soldiers. Tonight, this board did it to your administration. I have to say that.”

Martin Schmotzer used board-member-comments time to respond.

“Dr. Korchnak, have these administrators been paid since July 1, 2011?” he asked.

“You obviously missed my point,” Korchnak said.

“I didn’t miss your point,” Martin Schmotzer said. “What you said is that we’re not paying our administrators.”

“I made an analogy,” Korchnak said. “I need to respond, and I know I’m a little bit heated. Please forgive that. I ask you all to forgive.

“I made an analogy, and I think the analogy stands. It’s a matter of loyalty. It’s a matter of double-edged loyalty, not only for those that work but for those that employ them. That goes for all of us. It goes for our classifieds; it goes for our teachers.

“Trust is what holds institutions together. It’s the cement within which we operate. When that breaks down, you begin to break down what I believe to be the essence of what a good-flowing organization does. I feel, by the fact that the board did separate by not passing one, and then, the other they do, I think they did that.

“It’s an issue. I think they’re (the district’s employees are) going to work as hard as ever, because these people don’t work for you or for me. They work for our children. The counselors, the teachers, the para(professional)s, the secretaries, the bus drivers, they work for our children. That’s what it’s about. That was my point.

“I’m not saying they’re not getting paid. I made an analogy.”

Check back with the Baldwin-Whitehall Patch for more odds and ends from Wednesday night's school board meeting.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here