Report Inappropriate Comments

The taxpayers have had their taxes raised every year for the last 4 years as a result of over spending on the city side. The 20% co-pay was for 1 year only and it would have reverted back to $11. We would have lost in court.

Fedup1, removing weighting has been tried for 20 years and in 20 years it hasn't happened. This committee after 20 years got it to change. The committee had some cards and the legal system of RI favors the unions in these situations. East Providence 5 years ago achieved a ruling and it is still being contested in court. If they lose it will be the next Central falls. I will not comment publicly on Rosemary Healey or her performance. Rosemary Healey and Beth Furtado were the members of our side for the negotiation. Beth reported back to the committee after a negotiation meeting. No more than 2 members of the committee can sit in a negotiation because it would violate the State open meetings law.

I'm not happy about the 90 day sick policy. It is a shared pool of sick days. I know very few, if any, that have use the sick days, most went through a traumatic accident or were deathly ill. Our new evaluation system will allow us to review anyone we believe is taking advantage of the system and will allow us to take action as we have never had the opportunity before. So although the sick time policy itself is still there, we have the ability to remove someone who is not sick but is using sick days. The evaluation system was negotiated in this contract.

The State of RI is the body that instituted Step Increases. It is a law and Warwick can't choose to not follow it.

Warwick is the only city to use weighting but State law requires every school district to provide special education. Warwick Schools does not set the parameters of what is considered a special education need, the State and Federal government sets these regulations, again we have to follow them. If Warwick didn't use weighting we would be required to do something else. This is something I questioned when I first arrived on the committee. If we didn't have weighting we would have to hire additional support staff, more teachers assistants which would include more salaries and benefits for more people. Eliminating weighting completely would not save money, it would cost the same but the money would have to be spent a different way.

As far as the comparison to Cranston. We have 3% more special education students than Cranston. 3% of 12000 is 360 more special education students. The average cost of educating a special education student 2-4 times the cost of educating a non-special education student, 26-50K. the average being 38K. 38K * 360 students = $13.6 million. I don't want to spend more than Cranston but people know we have a good Special education program and we can not turn people away.

perky 4175, the schools have not caused the taxes to go up, the city give aways have caused the taxes to go up. I was tired of having my taxes go up and watching my neighbors move away because they couldn't afford to live here. My own parents moved out of RI years ago and my kids are growing up without their grandparents around because the taxes in RI are out of control and there is out of control spending.

GordonKnot, the savings was in not having to not return to $11, an amount that was in the contract prior to my arrival. Returning to $11 would have cost $2+ million. It would have reverted back. We could have fought it in court for 5 years and then been required to pay back $10 million plus losing the cost of legal expenses. The city would not have been able to negotiate a 20% copay if the schools have not already implemented it with the WISE union and was on the way to implementing it permanently with the teachers. If the teachers ever sue the schools and win, we will never go back to $11, it will not go below 20%. The city side has an unfunded liability of 100s of millions of dollars. The schools have the funds for employees who retire and at age 65 they are no longer paid by the schools at all.

I will not be seeking an increase for additional funding due to this contract. If additional funding is needed it will be for costs that increase every year like gas, oil, a maintenance cost like a roof repair, not to pay for this contract. We have done millions of dollars on building maintenance for buildings we don't own, I want to be taking care of education and not continuously repairing buildings. I would prefer to have the City be the landlord of the buildings and take care of repairs.

I would like to share services with the city and find a savings there too. I believe technology savings can be achieved if we work together with the city.

Please feel free to email me at patrick@maloney4schools.com or maloneyp@warwickschools.org. Patrick Maloney Jr.

From: Committee ratifies 2-year teacher agreement

Please explain the inappropriate content below.