Mountain View teachers protest pay plan

BY TOM FONTANA
Correspondent

Mt. View school director Michael Barhite stood near the end of the board meeting on Monday night, Oct. 27, and admitted he really didn’t understand the district’s indexed salary proposal for teachers.
“I’m somewhat embarrassed by my stupidity,” Barhite said.

He was addressing a crowd of over 100 teachers, students and taxpayers who attended the meeting to address the rejection of a fact-finding report related to the contract impasse between the district and the Mountain View Education Association (MVEA), which represents teachers.

The teachers in the Mountain View district have been working without a new contract for over two years.

Before the meeting, the crowd gathered outside the district offices located at the elementary school, marching in a circle and carrying signs mostly stating an objection to the district’s ‘mapping’ proposal for determining salary scales. The board meeting was moved to the high school auditorium in order to accommodate the large crowd that showed up in response to the board’s advertised question and answer forum concerning the fact-finding report.

After a lengthy confrontation about the salary indexing plan by first grade teacher Jamie Janesky, many on the board (like Barhite) admitted they did not fully understand the ‘mapping’ pay scale.

Janesky claimed that, based on the scale or ‘steps,’ after working for eight years for the district, she would end up with the same annual salary as a newly-hired teacher.

“Where did my four years of service go?” she asked the board. “You can’t take away that time from me that I put in, but you want to take away from me financially.”

The salary system proposed by the school board bases teacher pay on a scale of ‘steps’ (1 to 19) by indexing (or ‘mapping’) according to the amount of training and experience a teacher has.

Theoretically, as a teacher gains training or experience they would move up by steps on the salary map, with salary increases based on multiplying an indexed number by their current salary to determine their pay scale.

Janesky argued that if the mapping plan is adopted, she would drop from step eight to step five or four, and a new teacher could be hired at a step four and receive the same salary as Jeneski without having put in the number of years of service as Jeneski.

“Unless you look at each teacher and their individual situation,” she stated, “this plan is ridiculous.”

Board president Thomas Stoddard objected to Jeneski’s analysis of the plan. When asked who created the plan, Stoddard responded, “Everyone on the board worked on this mapping.”

But several directors admitted they didn’t really understand the plan, including Barhite.

“I feel somewhat embarrassed by my stupidity,” Barhite stood up to say. “I truly thought this mapping was a better thing (for teachers).”

Stoddard admitted that he formulated the step plan after working on it for several years, and some directors commended him for his efforts. Still, none stated they understood or worked on the plan.

“Mr. Stoddard just presented the salary schedule to us,” Board member Sondra Stine commented.

“If anyone on the board didn’t understand this salary schedule,” Stoddard responded, “they didn’t come to me.”

High school teacher Darin Bain, who serves on the negotiating team representing the MVEA, said “mapping is just not something we want.”

“The teachers just want a fair shake,” he said. “We just want what is equitable with teachers in other districts. This is not something that will be that difficult to fix.”

Contract negotiations will continue, with other aspects also in dispute, including the district’s proposed increase of medical insurance premiums, and retirement incentives.

“I believe this is all resolvable,” board member Roy Twining stated, “if we’re all a little flexible.”

In other business, the board agreed to issue a notice of nonrenewal of the contract of former superintendent Francine Shea, whose contract with the district was terminated last spring.

The board’s decision stated, “Although the board believes it properly terminated the contract, [Shea] has challenged this decision in court and is seeking reinstatement. To insure that no court order would result in the automatic renewal of her contract, the District [issues] a notice of nonrenewal.”

The board also agreed to eliminate the senior project as a graduation requirement starting with the class of 2017. Acting superintendent Karen Voigt, who is also the director of curriculum, said that “teachers will be meeting to rethink the graduation project to see if it can be something that focuses more on community service or career.”