Stoughton School Committee to Vote on STA Contract Tuesday

Three officials have reportedly vowed to vote "no" on the contract.

Credit: Patch file photo.
Credit: Patch file photo.

The Stoughton School Committee on Tuesday will vote on whether to ratify the contract of the Stoughton Teachers Association, the STA announced

Stoughton teachers voted to ratify the STA contract earlier this month, and the final vote must come from the school committee, which will meet on Tuesday, May 27 at 6:45 p.m. at Stoughton High School. 

Three Stoughton officials have reportedly already opposed the contract, the STA said, and if they vote no on Tuesday, the vote would be deadlocked at 3-3 and not pass. 

"We have worked too hard and for too long to allow this dysfunction to continue," the STA said in a statement. "A deadlocked vote will definitely lead to more litigation and prolonged dysfunction. Taxpayers, parents, students and teachers have earned the right to enjoy labor peace in order to move our school system forward."

Last week, the STA reported that the Division of Labor Relations issued a decision that the Stoughton School Committee illegally withheld steps from its employees. For updates, follow the STA on Facebook here.

The full agenda for Tuesday's meeting can be found below.

  • Stoughton High School Student Representatives – Leslie Camilo and Adam Potter 
  • Public Comments 
  • Decision on STA Unfair Labor Practice Complaint – nonpayment of FY14 steps 
  • School Committee Ratification of the tentative agreement with the STA 
  • Stoughton Teachers Association (STA) 
  • Stoughton Public Schools Hiring Freeze 
  • Update on the Payment of School Department bills 
  • Curbing School Committee legal costs 
  • Periodic Financial Reports for the school committee – May Report 
  • Close of the 2013 – 2014 School Year 
  • Acceptance of Scholarships - SSEPAC Higgins Scholarships 
  • Acceptance of Donation - Dr. Robert G. O'Donnell Middle School PTSO - $250.00 
  • Open Meeting Law complaint from Ms. Husseini 
  • SPS Lunch Price Increase 
  • SPS Hiring policy – and School Nurse posting 
  • Administration’s duty to inform school committee with accurate and complete information 
  • Superintendent Evaluation - Superintendent’s Self-Assessment 
  • Extended School Day Policy – Second Reading 
  • Correspondence 
  • Acceptance of Minutes – Regular Meeting – March 25, 2014 
  • Other Matters 
  • Executive Session
    Acceptance of Minutes – March 25, 2014
    Unit A Collective Bargaining Update 
  • Financial Warrants 
  • Next Regular Meeting – June 17, 2014
    Next Special Meeting – May 28, 2014 
Stoughton Parent June 01, 2014 at 11:26 PM
The 2 1/2 override will be on the same ballet as the recall for "Dr" Erdum and his union bought and paid for lapdogs.
Scott M June 04, 2014 at 08:50 AM
Can you please elaborate on who is "bought and paid for"? Perhaps you are in possession of some intel the rest of us are not privy to? By all means, enlighten us all from the shadow of your keyboard.
Stoughton Parent June 04, 2014 at 09:50 AM
Just quoting "Dr" Erdum on the lapdogs.
Marlene June 04, 2014 at 01:31 PM
I'll elaborate on Stoughton Parent's comments for you, Scott M. Stoughton Parent is is no possession of any intel the rest of us are not privy to. He's just a misinformed/willfully ignorant hater who for some reason likes to spew nonsense on these comment boards. As my comments above to Ed show, this contract was fair and would have in no way contributed to layoffs or a 2 1/2 override. But they think if they keep saying it will, then it will magically become true. The facts are the facts.
Marlene June 04, 2014 at 01:33 PM
My reply to Ed above seems to not be showing up..So I will post it here again: Hi Ed. Let me explain. The lawsuit the teachers won was for illegally withheld step increases for fiscal year 13/14 which is now ending. The SC illegally withheld those step increases as a bargaining tactic. So the teachers are going to be getting the back pay they were owed for this school year which is about to conclude. The sta has a right now to sue the SC for this violation which,if won, would cost 1.5 million dollars to the town. As part of the tentative agreement that was just shot down, the sta agreed to first, not taking the interest on the illegally held step raises(which equals about 50k, and second to drop all lawsuits(including the 1.5 million dollar one I mentioned) in turn for the contract being ratified. So basically, by the SC not ratifying the agreed contract they just cost the town over 1.5 million dollars. As far as the rejected contract goes, here's the info. During negotiations the sta was asking for 2.5 percent cost of living increase for the next 3 years. During negotiations, the SC bargained down to 1percent Cost of living increase for the next 3 years. So the sta wanted a 7.5 cost of living increase over 3 years. They got a 3percent cost of living increase over 3 years. Pretty fair deal if you ask me. That's less than half of what they asked for! As far as the fuzzy math goes, we need to start off with the knowledge of what has already occurred in the past. It is now known that the Superintendent(and her friends on the SC) overestimated the budget by 160,000 for two years in a row(by doing such things as counting a teacher who got married and changed her last name,as two people, by counting mid year hires as taking a full salary, etc.) So they do not have a good track record of accurate numbers. Second, Dr. ural's powerpont presentation.clearly showed the accurate numbers based on real numbers. The SC knows their numbers are not for real, yet they keep repeating the lie that this will lead to massive layoffs and millions of dollars. Why would the STA, along with the help of a mediator, agree to a contract with the SC bargaining team that would lead to 50 layoffs? It just doesn't make sense. It's just a scare tactic in this political game. The fact is, is was a very fair deal and the reason it was shot down was purely political, which is a shame bc the teachers, students, and residence deserve better than to have two members of the SC and the Town Manager toying with so meant people's lives. Oh. I forgot to mention. Here's how the step increases work. The way the system is set up, a teacher starts her first year of teaching at a relatively low salary. As she gains experience each year she moves up one step and gets a bit of an increase, until after 14 years the steps end where 14 is the top step. Makes sense, right? Teachers start at a low salary and as they gain more experience through the years they gradually make more money until they reach step 14. Once the teacher reaches 14 years the steps stop. So only the teachers in their first 14 years get annual step increases as a trade off for a relatively low starting salary. So in year 15 and on there is no increase. So steps are already built into the system....kind of why it was illegal for the SC to withhold them. What we are talking about above is a simple cost of living increase, something totally different. Do you understand now? Hope I helped.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »