D220 paying price for teacher contract

The District 220 board wants to cut $2 million out of the budget to fix the problem it created by agreeing to the current BEA teacher union contract in November 2009.

Why did the D220 board agree to a teacher salary increase that ranges from 3.9 percent to 6 percent per year, in the midst of a 2008 recession and high unemployment?

Under the contract terms, teachers get an annual 3.9 percent increase — base, offset — plus CPI of 2.7 percent with a 6 percent cap, according to CUSD 220.

The education salary budget, not including benefits and pension, is $65 million. Six percent is a $3.9 million annual cost increase. With CPI at 2.7 percent, do you see at least $2 million of cost savings each year?

After November 2009, the Herald reported the board announced a second year of budget cuts, laid-off teachers and staff, and froze administrators' salaries to make up for their ill-conceived decision.

Neither state lack of funds nor the teacher union caused the budget problem. The incumbent D220 board did by agreeing, except for two members, to generous salary increases for the BEA.

I'm disappointed for the property owners of D220 who accept this. How many D220 teachers are property owners in the district?

Programs cut, teachers cry, nontaxpaying students give emotional pleas, class sizes grow because of teacher layoffs, tenure goes on, squeaky wheel parents complain, the school superintendent gets a 6 percent annual salary increase. The resident taxpayers — including seniors, those with no kids, preschool, or in nonpublic schools — pay for it.

But the BEA has the chance to do something for the children, residents and their laid-off members, by agreeing to give up salary increases for two years. Let us see if they really care about the kids. Or they can strike or call in sick.

Dan Cerny

Port Barrington