New York City Council Education Committee held meetings on the Teacher's contract, the Supervisors' contract and the school custodians' contract. Each group is blaming Chairwoman Eva Moskowitz for exposing work rules which are, the Unions say, supposed to be only for the collective bargaining table.
Meanwhile, the New York City DOE and the Chancellor has refused to come to the table, and therefore none of the groups have contracts.
Below are the testimonies of Council of Supervisors and Administrators' President Jill Levy, UFT President Randi Weingarten, , Chancellor Joel Klein, DOE Personnel Director Dan Weisberg, and School Custodian Union spokesman K


TESTIMONY OF

THE COUNCIL OF
SCHOOL SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS

JILL LEVY, PRESIDENT

BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2003


Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Education Committee.

Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take this opportunity to
share with the committee and the public exactly who the members of CSA are
and how they function above and beyond any contractual limitations on a
daily basis.

Let us remember September 11th, 2001 and be thankful that we did not lose
one child in that disaster. In that extreme crisis, Principals, Assistant
Principals and school Supervisors led their courageous teachers and other
staff members in a mass exodus of children and faculty to safety. I remember
the story told by a teacher who said that she was totally immobilized until
her principal came by and gave her instructions. "I knew that everything was
going to be okay, then," she said. And there was the brand new principal of
a special education school who, late in the evening, caller her
superintendent to say, "The children are still here and safe, but we've run
out of medication." Our administrators in district offices got information,
supplies and services to parents and schools under those extraordinary and
painful conditions.

This September, with all of the chaos of the reorganization, lack of
information, staff and supplies, it was CSA members who opened schools
safely for children and proceeded to provide instructional services from day
one. They have done this work year after year.

Now for my formal testimony...



I appreciate the opportunity to bring before you for discussion matters that
are obstacles to the efficient and effective functioning of our schools from
the perspective of school principals, assistant principals, education
administrators and supervisors and CSE chairpersons. These CSA members work
directly in our schools, lend support to the schools and function in our new
Regional Offices and at Tweed.

In conversations with the Chairwoman I indicated that it was not appropriate
for me to comment about union contracts other than that of CSA. This is a
matter of inter-union ethics and Taylor law requirements. I am also
concerned that the word on the street is that union contracts are the
impediments to the functioning of our schools. We should be concentrating on
matters that are within the purview of this committee in which the Council's
Education Committee could actually involve itself and serve to improve. The
City Council has no jurisdiction in the collective bargaining process or in
the outcomes of negotiations.

I have divided my testimony into three portions. First, I will respond to
the document that you promulgated and sent out to the public and the media
entitled, Council Notes: Principals' Contract, the Abridged Version of the
Principals' Contract.

Second, I will attempt to address some of the practical day-to-day obstacles
that face CSA members in the execution of their duties.

Finally, I will make some observations about the collective bargaining
process and its impact upon the system's professional workforce.




PART I
Council Notes

The document you sent out to the public is filled with misinformation,
misinterpretations, misrepresentations and misplaced conclusions. For
starters, our contract is not the "Principals' Contract", but the contract
for all CSA members. Out of respect for my members, it should have been so
entitled.

An objective reading of the Council Notes leads us to the conclusion that
there was nothing objective about the analysis of the CSA contract. The
Council Notes read less like a neutral rendering of the CSA contract and
more like an editorial.

The changes in the language of the contract that were made by your office
are misleading to the public. It is no secret that we have challenged
portions of the reorganization and have a stipulated agreement that belies
your interpretation and change of language.
You took editorial license that you didn't have.

Some of the most glaring errors are:

On page 2, when referring to grievances, you conclude that if one CSA member
grieves his/her supervisor who happens to also be a CSA member, CSA
represents both parties. That is incorrect. CSA represents the grievant who
is arguing that the contract has been violated and the Board of Education
represents the other party who claims it has not been violated.
The notes refer to the fact that CSA membership includes employees who are
subordinate to one another as though there was an inherent conflict in that.
Had you checked with the Public Employees Relations Board you would learn
that mixed units of supervisors are the norm in New York State and there is
not a conflict of interest under the Taylor Law.


Contrary to your conclusion, the salary schedules in the CSA contract do
reflect the market in comparable and regional districts and were negotiated
in keeping with the collective bargaining patterns in the City.


Additionally, in the 1999 contract, the CSA and the City agreed to
differentials that were intended to assist in the functioning of the system.
Specifically, the contract provides for differentials to attract principals
to larger schools, to entice principals and other administrators to low
performing schools and to reward principals and administrators in high
achieving schools for sharing their success with others. Much of this is
within the discretion of the Chancellor. Clearly, he has discretion under
the contract to tailor compensation.


To set the record straight on the issue of cash bonuses of $25,000 for
principals transferring to low performing schools, when the Chancellor
learned that the proposal would have added pension costs, it was the Board
of Education that withdrew the proposal -not CSA.


As for conclusions related to hiring, let us be very clear. The Chancellor
promulgates the hiring processes for CSA members in accordance with the
requirements of state education law and not our contract. And, it is the
Community Superintendent, not the Local Instructional Superintendent who has
the statutory authority to hire the principal in elementary and middle
schools.


The notes seem to be critical of the requirement that parents and
representatives of unions participate in the selection process. This
requirement, as well as other parts of the process, is mandated by New York
State Education Law. Of course, both the CSA and the Chancellor are bound by
law.


The statement that CSA has challenged the policy to allow principals to hire
their assistant principals is absolutely incorrect. We have demanded that
principals be trained in the legal aspects of interviewing and hiring and be
represented by the Board of Education in legal matters arising from such
procedures. In reality, the principal is not the hiring authority since
under the Chancellor's regulations the LIS can disapprove the selection. Of
course under law it is the Community Superintendent who is the actual
appointing authority in elementary and middle schools.


Contrary to the statement in the Notes regarding working conditions, the
portion of our contract which provides relief from non-supervisory duties in
schools, refers specifically to intermediate supervisors-not to principals.


The characterization that those principals and assistant principals who work
the full calendar year get "additional annual leave and other benefits as
compared to their school-year counterparts" is erroneous. In fact, they get
additional pay and two additional sick days per year, but have a
much-reduced annual leave and receive no additional benefits.


As to principal evaluations, they are conducted through a mutually agreed
upon process and document. This work was initiated by McKinsey and Company,
the same consulting group spearheading the reorganization, and was completed
in 1996. The Principals' Performance Review is not only contained in our
contract, but is referenced in State Education law. When used properly, the
PPR serves not only as an effective tool to assess school leaders, but can
be used to improve every aspect of their performance as school leaders.


The claim that an assistant principal and principal have different rights
when they are terminated for poor performance is incorrect. It is the
By-laws of the Board of Education and our contract that provides all