April 27, 2012 By
Mark Pazniokas
and Jacqueline Rabe Thomas CTMirror.org
Gov. Dannel
P. Malloy and Senate Democrats remained at odds Friday over the union rights of
teachers in the troubled schools that are at the heart of Malloy's education
reforms, with legislators questioning if some of the proposed reforms run afoul
of labor laws.
Malloy said he supports a
continued role for unions at the troubled schools, but he sees conventional
arbitration rights as a time-consuming impediment. Senate Democratic
leaders said they are unsure if the administration can legally force teachers
to give up arbitration rights or even reopen existing contracts.
"Quite frankly, there is a
threshold question that we need to have answered as to whether you can force
the reopening of a contract," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams
Jr., D-Brooklyn.
How can the question be
resolved?
"We've asked the
administration for legal support to the idea that you could just willy-nilly
open a union contract without their consent," Williams said.
Reforms in New Haven, which has been regarded by many as
a model for reform, were negotiated with teachers. "A lot of that
came as part of a new contract," Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney,
D-New Haven, said.
Only one-third of teachers'
contracts in the state will expire this year, according to the Connecticut Association
of Boards of Education.
But Malloy has said he does not
want to have to wait for union approval or for their contracts to expire to get
involved in the state's 25 worst schools. His proposal gave the education
commissioner broad authority to make certain changes without requiring union
support.
Malloy told reporters at the
state Capitol complex Friday he disagrees that turnaround plans should have to
wait for the union nod or after their legal options to run out.
"Arbitration, as you know,
is a very timely process. So do we think arbitration is the way to settle that
issue? The answer is no," he said.
Senate Democrats are correct to
worry about the legality of negating union contracts, a spokesman for the state
chapter of the American Federation of Teachers said.
"Yes, we would definitely
be in court ... and guess what? We would probably win because you can't just
throw out contracts," said Eric Bailey of AFT Connecticut.
A spokesman for the State
Department of Education said Michigan, Tennessee and Louisiana
have all survived legal challenges and successfully carried out state takeovers
of their worst-performing schools.
"Such states have also
taken steps to eliminate or overturn collectively bargained agreements. In
contrast, we suggest that Connecticut
take much more moderate steps. Schools would remain within their local
districts when they participate in the Commissioner's Network, returning fully
to local oversight when the turnaround has been conducted," said Jim Polites with state education department.
Officials at the Center on
Education Policy and the National Association of Boards of Education said they
are not aware of any cases where the courts have overturned the state takeover
of low-performing schools.
"State takeover is a
re-emerging trend," said Diane Rentner, the
executive director of the OCEP, a non-profit think tank, specifically
mentioning Louisiana and Michigan. "States have created
completely new districts for certain schools. If it's a new district then there
is no existing contract... They negotiate from scratch."
Patrice McCarthy, a longtime
education lawyer, said the Connecticut
Association of Boards of Education thinks that creating this so-called
Commissioner Network district is "completely in the authority of the
legislature. Someone can challenge that in the court of course. We don't think
that they'll be successful."
But Senate Democrats are
looking for a much more diplomatic approach with the unions to getting change
in these districts.
"When the governor sought
concessions last year to help balance the budget deficit, we just couldn't
simply legislate that contracts be reopened. The unions had to agree to reopen
those contracts," Williams, the Senate president, said.
"I think all of the points
that folks are making in terms of collective bargaining come back to that
threshold question: Can you force a union to reopen a contract if that contract
is not expunged?" he said.
Williams and Looney, who
answered questions about education reform at a news conference on a jobs bill
before the Senate session Friday, downplayed the continuing conflict they have
with the Democratic governor over his major priority.
"I still believe that when
this session is over, we'll be on the same page," Williams said.
"We'll have some good initiatives that help improve education."
Time is growing short. The
legislature's constitutional adjournment deadline is midnight May 9, but
Williams and Looney said the relationship with the governor remains
constructive, and their talks are positive.
"Look, we've obviously had
some policy disagreements or else we would have passed the governor's bill right
out of the box. These disagreements are fair. They are reasonable,"
Williams said. "It is my expectation we will have resolved all of those in
the not too distant future."
Looney said the Democratic
majority and Democratic governor have worked together on controversial matters.
"On major issues like the
creation of the earned-income tax credit, in-state tuition and now, this year,
the death penalty, we've worked in close partnership with a Democratic
governor," Looney said. "We expect we will continue to do that on
issues that are easy and issues that are hard."
**************************
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/16147/union-tries-rally-support-study-state-run-retirement-savings-plan
One of Connecticut's largest
public employee unions is trying to rally support in the waning days of the
General Assembly session for a study of whether state government should offer a
retirement plan to private citizens.
But one of the key lawmakers
behind the proposal conceded late last week that the chances of passage this
year are poor with the legislature scheduled to adjourn in less than two weeks.
"I think it's very slim it
is going to happen this year, but it is still a very good idea," Sen. Edith
G. Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the Labor and Public
Employees Committee, said Thursday.
But if the bills should die
this year, the concept likely won't go away, Prague added. "So many folks are
struggling to get by with just their Social Security," she said.
Both the labor panel and the Committee on Aging raised
bills that would mandate a study of whether state government should offer a
retirement plan to the increasing number of people whose employers don't
provide a pension or a 401(k) savings program.
Council 4 of the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, one of the leading groups
advocating for the bill, has argued that two of the three tiers of the
traditional American retirement income plan -- personal savings and an
employer-sponsored retirement plan -- are missing from many households. And
Social Security simply isn't sufficient, advocates of the bill say.
About 61 percent of employers
nationwide sponsored plans in 2000, but just 53 percent did by 2010, according
to the Schwartz Center
for Economic Policy Analysis in New
York. Over the same period in Connecticut, the percentage dropped from 64
percent to 58 percent.
But the state's chief business
lobby, the Connecticut
Business and Industry Association, opposes the study, arguing it would harm the
private financial services industry and expose taxpayers to financial risks.
"If the state goes down
that road, it needs to be ready to absorb the fiduciary responsibilities,"
said CBIA Associate Counsel Eric George, who added that not only includes the
costs of administering private citizens' investments, but covering any
penalties should funds be mishandled.
"We already have a private
market that services (retirement planning,) and by all accounts, very
efficiently, George said, adding that a state program for the private sector
might ultimately lead to job losses in the financial services community.
But Teresa Ghilarducci,
a labor economist and pension expert with the New
School for Social Research in New York, said the same
argument was used during the 1930s in a failed effort to block enactment of the
Social Security Act.
Ghilarducci, who visited the Capitol Thursday with Council 4 representatives to
advocate for the study, said a state-run investment plan ultimately would
bolster the private financial services sector, just as Social Security did
nearly 80 years ago.
"When more people begin to
save for retirement, even a little bit, they become more aware and it increases
the overall demand for retirement security," she said.
Ghilarducci also rejected the argument that state taxpayers might be saddled with
paying penalties stemming from potential misuse of retirement dollars. "It
happens all the time in the private sector, but there is no incentive for that
in a state plan," she said. In the private sector, "the loyalty of
the fiduciaries is to the firm and the shareholders who stand to profit."
And because Connecticut government already invests a
huge pot of money annually -- more than $25 billion in assets tied to pension
programs for state employees and for public school teachers -- it has the
ability to manage a more diverse investment portfolio, Ghilarducci
said.
Under the proposed legislation,
an 11-member task force would study the availability of retirement plans and
trends in retirement savings, as well as the projected needs of future
retirees.
The study panel would include
representatives from the governor's budget office, other constitutional officers,
the state Commission on Aging and experts in the field to be appointed by
legislative leaders and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy
****************