Lehighton decides rules for teacher talks

Published August 28. 2019 12:39PM

<p>By Jarrad Hedes</p><p>jmhedes@tnonline.com</p>

It’s teacher contract negotiation time in Lehighton Area High School District, and on Monday, school board directors set the parameters by which the beginning portion of those talks will take place.

By a 5-3 vote, directors agreed to have select members of Lehighton’s administration meet with representatives from the Lehighton Area Education Association, the union that represents district teachers, and bring any information back to the full school board for discussion.

Rita Spinelli, the board member who made the motion, said she favored the process as the most streamlined way to get information on negotiations.

“I negotiated six contracts about 25 years ago, but things were done differently then,” Spinelli said. “I was working with reasonable, professional people and I’m not sure that is the case now. I prefer administration get the information and bring it to the board. I don’t want to find out about it on YouTube in the morning.”

Voting against the motion were David Bradley, Joy Beers and Gail Maholick. Richard Beltz was absent from the meeting. Bradley suggested the board was abdicating its authority to the administration while addressing his opposition.

“We have an unsustainable budget, we are having tax increases and are expanding our debt, yet we will have no stakeholders with any skin in the game during these talks,” Bradley said.

Bradley advocated for someone from the board to sit in on the talks.

“Mr. Bradley, you have suggested that you be that person, and I would rather hang in the sun by my thumbs than let that happen,” Spinelli said.

A motion by Bradley on Monday night to have three board members oversee the negotiation process failed.

Board President Larry Stern said the early part of negotiations deal mostly with the language of the contract and less with the financial end of it. Like all employee contracts in the district, the pact would still need to be approved by the board before going into effect.

“We can meet on an ongoing basis to discuss these negotiations,” Stern said of the school board’s role. The board will be involved in the final discussion before approval of a contract. The administration has much more of an impact on language changes. All of that gets laid out first before salaries and benefits.”

The current contract with teachers was approved in November 2015 and runs through Aug. 31, 2020. At the time, district officials said the contract called for an 9.8% increase in district spending.

Tags
Comments
Here is another example of corruption in our local school board. Just look over there while we rob you blind. Seriously why would anyone make a motion like this unless there is something to hide. And the motion passed. This is like a bad dream.
This vote was a great example of how bad things are in Lehighton. The blockade created by the hometown team are failing to protect the students and save the community. So sad.

I seek the resignation of the corrupt rubber stampers that abdicate their elected authority to the very people they were elected to oversee.

Failure to use common sense and blocking transparency are two key indicators of a corrupt government agency.

Yes, Rita, the Sunshine act is still in effect in Pennsylvania, and you should read it. (Has us whistling the scarecrow theme song)

Sincerely,

Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.
A 9.8% increase in district spending this time around would come to about 4 million 312 thousand dollars. Another 10 mils tax hike. They've given away 3 of the 4 assets at a bit over 50 cents on the dollar and are poised to do so again. While this part of the negotiation process may have "less" to do with the financial aspect, it will still impact the financial aspect. Having board oversight from the beginning would be the best option in my opinion. And certainly not the board members on the finance committee who discussed switching banks which would provide a much higher rate of interest and important security enhancements for the bank accounts, then recommended that a motion be brought to the board to switch banks. The motion passed unanimously, but the administration did not carry out that motion. They have not even taken the first step. That motion was passed 9 months ago. The process was to have been completed in April. 4 months ago. They've not even started it. Not only that, the administration has taken it upon themselves to ignore that passed motion and send out an RFP for banking services. Is this the way it should have been done in the beginning? Perhaps so. But it went to committee, the committee brought it to the board and the board passed it. The administration ignored it. And this is not the first time this has been done with a board motion that has passed. And the majority voting block of the board has no problem with the administration ignoring a direct order from the board. They are followers, not leaders. They follow the "lead" of the administration. And now they have given the administration carte blanch in the beginning process of the contract negotiations. Chances are this won't change anytime soon, either. We need a board who will take the lead, not just follow and vote yes on everything without question.
A 9.8% increase in district spending this time around would come to about 4 million 312 thousand dollars. Another 10 mils tax hike. They've given away 3 of the 4 assets at a bit over 50 cents on the dollar and are poised to do so again. While this part of the negotiation process may have "less" to do with the financial aspect, it will still impact the financial aspect. Having board oversight from the beginning would be the best option in my opinion. And certainly not the board members on the finance committee who discussed switching banks which would provide a much higher rate of interest and important security enhancements for the bank accounts, then recommended that a motion be brought to the board to switch banks. The motion passed unanimously, but the administration did not carry out that motion. They have not even taken the first step. That motion was passed 9 months ago. The process was to have been completed in April. 4 months ago. They've not even started it. Not only that, the administration has taken it upon themselves to ignore that passed motion and send out an RFP for banking services. Is this the way it should have been done in the beginning? Perhaps so. But it went to committee, the committee brought it to the board and the board passed it. The administration ignored it. And this is not the first time this has been done with a board motion that has passed. And the majority voting block of the board has no problem with the administration ignoring a direct order from the board. They are followers, not leaders. They follow the "lead" of the administration. And now they have given the administration carte blanch in the beginning process of the contract negotiations. Chances are this won't change anytime soon, either. We need a board who will take the lead, not just follow and vote yes on everything without question.
Barb Bowes and Citizen Daveyboy,

There are these things called elections where the fine citizens of this school district vote to decide who they want to represent them on the school board. Ever hear of them??? The citizens have decided, and you and your fellow sheep should start accepting that fact.
Except, within that election is an Oath of Office. Regrettable, but moments after Larry Stern took his oath, he violated his duty and neglected to follow the Sunshine Act. Later he claimed immunity, twice.

LHGHTN, like your missing vowels, they are missing the 'public service' part after the election. There is so much evidence to their inability to serve the people, protect the student and save the community, only a complete zealot would give these five their "blint-trust" to oversee the collection and disbursement of funds for our children's education.

You have the same failure of logic as Larry, Steve, Wayne, Andrew and Rubber Stamping Rita. You see, the law required a director to act with fidelity in service of the district. The PSEA, and other lobbyist donors to the Reach Committee should be exposed. The failure to protect the children is evidence of Wayne, Larry, Andrew, Steve and Rita's loyalty.

Sincerely,

Citizen David F. Bradley, Sr.

Davey-boy vs. Goliath; bringing transparency and moral review to the Lehighton School District.

Morality test: Should a government official obey a direct order of the government agency?
Maybe you should have spent some more time teaching your mindless followers and sidekicks how to get more votes and support from this community that you feel is being ruined by 5 individuals that you like to call names. Seems the people that piggyback on your loudmouth were the lowest vote totals. Is this a coincidence, I don't think so.....

Here is a reminder of the most recent primary outcome, Barbara especially close to the bottom:

Lehighton School Board Democrat (4 yr term, vote for 5) Votes
Barbara A. Bowes 313
Frank Ruch 770
Craig S. Bowman 186
Walter "Wally" Zlomsowitch 270
Wayne W. Wentz 913
Nathan R. Foeller 716
Byron D. Schnell 341
Larry E. Stern 822
Thomas "Tommy" McEvilly 226
Richard R. Beltz 333
Rita L Spinelli 813
100% of Precincts reporting

Lehighton School Board Republican (4 yr term, vote for 5) Votes
Frank Ruch 1,048
Wayne W. Wentz 1,250
Richard R. Beltz 759
Larry E. Stern 1,121
Barbara A. Bowes 601
Rita L. Spinelli 1,067
Nathan R. Foeller 1,000
Thomas "Tommy" McEvilly 571
Walter "Wally" Zlomsowitch 626
Byron D. Schnell 641
- 0
100% of Precincts reporting
Yes and soon after the election the said hey let’s thank all those citizens that voted for us by raising taxes. But when they wanted the school built all we heard from them is that this is going to save us money. I’m still waiting for that.

Classified Ads

Event Calendar

<<

March 2025

>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      
     

Upcoming Events

Twitter Feed

Back to Top

ABOUT TIMES NEWS

594 Blakeslee Boulevard Drive West
Lehighton, PA 18235