The Herald Bulletin

Editorial: School board vote on contract would be dereliction of duty

The Herald Bulletin

— All of the pieces are in place for the Anderson Community Schools board to vote Tuesday on a new 10-year master contract with the Anderson Federation of Teachers.

The AFT ratified the contract unanimously Wednesday, and now the board could vote on the contract at its regular Tuesday meeting (6 p.m., administration building off 29th Street).

Could and should, however, are two different things.

At least two members of the board, as of Wednesday, had not had seen the revised contract proposal. Pushing it through so quickly, especially in the aftermath of a questionable and possibly illegal negotiation process, would clearly demonstrate that the board is acting politically rather than responsibly.

First, a recap:

• ACS attorney Charles Rubright wrote in an April 9 letter to board members that his leverage had been undercut by board members negotiating on the side with the AFT.
• ACS Business Manager Kevin Brown, in an April 30 letter to board members, said the proposed contract could bankrupt the school system, which is facing an estimated budget deficit of $22 million by 2012.
• On May 11, board member Irma Hampton Stewart filed a lawsuit against five other board members ­— Keith Millikan, Teddy Bohnenkamp, P.T. Morgan, Tobi Jones and William Riffe — for collusion and breaking public meeting laws. A temporary restraining order from a local court then forbade the board from taking action on the proposed contract.
• The restraining order was lifted May 27, clearing the way for the board to vote Tuesday.

ACS board president Morgan said recently that a revised contract proposal has significant new concessions from the teachers union. Citing school system-union negotiation law, he wouldn’t comment on specifics.

But Morgan acknowledged that he had concerns about the contract, particularly the 10-year length of the pact. The current master contract doesn’t expire until the end of 2012.

Knowing all of this, an outside observer would ask why the board is in such a hurry to vote on the contract. The only plausible answer is that four board members, all friendly to the teachers union, will vacate their seats at the end of June. They’ll be replaced by four new board members, none of whom were endorsed by the teachers union in the May 4 election.

Obviously, the sitting board wants to install a new contract as a parting favor to the union. That would be a dereliction of duty.

The board is elected to do what’s best for the school system. In this case, that means tabling contract negotiations until the litigation ends and the new board takes over.

The public should attend Tuesday night’s meeting to deliver that message loud and clear.