Worthington teachers have agreed to a salary freeze for the 2011-12 school year as "a way to help with the financial difficulties facing the community," said Worthington Education Association President Pete Scully.

Scully told school board members at the Monday, Sept. 14, board meeting that nearly 700 teachers "overwhelmingly" supported the proposal that will extend the three-year contract approved a year ago, which called for annual 2.85 percent increases in teachers' base salary schedule, to a fourth year, with no increase in base salaries.

"While an agreement for 2011-12 may confuse some community members, it is simple," Scully said. "This agreement would be the first zero percent increase since 1995 and, with a levy passage, will result in $2.4 million that need not be cut from programs that benefit our students."

Treasurer Jeff McCuen said that even if the 3.9-mill incremental levy passes in November, the district will have to make $4.8 million in cuts because of the failure of the 7.4-mill operating levy request in May.

"We'll only have to cut $2.4 million instead of $4.8 million now, because the new union contract year provides half of what we needed," he said.

Scully said the district already will realize a decrease of more than $300,000 in total health care expenses for certified staff in 2010, as compared to calendar year 2009, because of collective bargaining agreements between the board and the teachers' union.

"It is clear that there is and always will be a continual effort to cut costs," he said.

All board members but one responded positively to the union concession, voting to approve the document that extended the teachers union contract by one year.

Marc Schare cast the only "no" vote.

"This is the second time this decade that our district has determined that a three-year agreement was underfunded and would result in program cuts and the requirement to directly or indirectly ask for union concessions," he said. "Everybody on both sides of the negotiation table understood that without a levy passing, there would need to be significant cuts in the district to pay for the contract ... we could have jointly structured an agreement with contract terms that were contingent on levy passage.

"It may be fashionable to blame the teachers, their union or the state, but at the end of the day, we agreed to the contract and we should expect to live with it," he said. "I know this is not a popular view, but in business, you don't go back on contracts. The willingness of the WEA to even entertain this gesture is very much appreciated."

Schare said the extension of the contract does not amend the current contract "and is therefore not a concession."

"It is more properly labeled as a prenegotiation on a contract that would have been negotiated in the spring or summer of 2011," he said.

Schare said he saw "no reason to rush the negotiation of the 2011-12 union agreements.

"We are apparently contemplating this action because we believe it would help pass a levy and it will satisfy community requests for shared sacrifice," he said. "Even if it does help pass the levy, in my opinion, it is bad policy to rush our most significant contractual obligation in hopes of picking up a few undecided voters."

Schare also said transparency was abandoned, because he did not know until the night of the meeting that board members would be asked to approve the contract extension.

"Transparency cannot be abandoned when inconvenient for levy politics," he said.

Schare said he did appreciate the union gesture, adding "I very much appreciate the WEA's willingness to make the proposal and I regret having to vote no."

Scully said after the meeting he had only one response to Schare's remarks.

He quoted Frederic Mishkin of Columbia University from the front page of that day's Wall Street Journal: " ... if you take the view that every measure that we take has to be exactly right, you don't do anything."