Local Officials Wary Of Arbitration Bill

As the state Senate this week took up a bill that would impose binding arbitration for teachers' contracts, officials in Johnston were watching the developments with concern.

Johnston Sen. Frank Lombardo, interviewed by phone on June 30, said he felt the bill faces an uncertain future.

"Let's not get ahead of ourselves," the first-term senator said. "The House would have to pass it, and the governor has publicly stated that he's not comfortable signing it — and after the vote in the Senate yesterday, there are not enough votes to overturn a veto."

In a vote recorded just before 11 p.m. on June 29, the Senate voted 20-17, with one absention, to approve the arbitration bill. The House of Representatives had not taken up the bill by publication of this article.

Lombardo III (Dist. 25) voted against the measure, which would set specific timeframes for school committees and unions to reach agreements on new contracts and allow three-member panels to decide the terms of new pacts, including the amount to be spent by the districts.

(A copy of the bill is attached to this article.)

An opponent of the binding arbitration proposal, Lombardo predicted that "the bill will die, which I hope it does."

After watching the Senate pass the bill, which he said followed "resolutions from 36 school committees in the state" opposing it, Lombardo recalled that he was "disappointed" with the outcome.

"There are always bills you hope pass and bill you hope don't pass, but that was the first night that I can say I was completely disappointed with the process," Lombardo said. "I lost sleep over it."

Noting the outpouring of opposition from municipal and school officials across the state, Lombardo explained he can't understand Senators' support for the binding arbitration bill.

"How any Senator could snub their nose at the school committees, the town councils, the mayors and administrators of their towns — not to mention their constituents — is beyond me," he said. "The town of Johnston does not want this, I represent the town of Johnnston, and I voted that way."

Lombardo said his main objection was that the bill "is more government, and more government is not necessarily better government."

Officials in each community should keep their ability to determine what's best for them, he added.

"We elect officials in our towns to handle town matters," Lombardo said.

By 3 p.m. on June 30, the House had not yet taken up the measure — a sign that the chamber's leadership may not have the support from enough members to approve it, he added.

"Holding a bill usually indicates that they do not have the votes on the floor, and that they need to pursuade representatives to support it," Lombardo explained. "My message to the taxpayers is that they still have time to contact their representatives on this issue, because the leadership will try to pursuade them to support it."

Bill would hurt school's bargaining power, LaFazia says

School Committee Member Robert LaFazia, who heads up the local district's negotiating team, said during an interview that the bill would further erode the district's position in trying to work out the next teachers' contract before the current one expires on August 30.

"I'm not sure I'm 100 percent certain I know how it will work with Johnston (but) I know it's definitely not in our favor," LaFazia explained following the school committee meeting on June 29 and before the Senate vote was taken. "It's totally in favor of the unions."

LaFazia said the bill would, in effect, give the union less incentive to bargain and take the chance of getting more through arbitration.

"This becomes more of an asset to them than anything — it will make them hold out," LaFazia stated.

And in light of this year's town budget — which keeps the town's contribution to schools the same fot the fourth straight year — the school district was already in a tough spot, he added.

"It's not looking good, because it's going to hit the students the hardest if we have to make further cuts when there is really nothing left to cut," LaFazia explained. "There isn't any money. We're going to end up going to the taxpayers, and this is going to harm the whole town. It isn't there. We don't even have a well to draw from, we're in the desert."

At its April 12 meeting, the school committee passed a resolution opposing the arbitration bill; prior to that vote, Supt. Dr. Bernard DiLullo said he viewed the bill as an effort by the state to impose requirements for a process that local officials should be allowed to resolve.

"You want to be able to come to a consensus, and come to it amicably, and not have somebody make the decision for you," DiLullo explained at the time.

E-mails requesting comment from Kathleen Kandzierski, president of the local teachers' union, were not returned by the publication of this article.

Mayor opposed to out-of-state arbitrators

During a phone interview on June 29, Mayor Joseph M. Polisena said he thinks the arbitration bill "is going to be a problem for the school committee — with the way the economy is, it's very difficult."

Polisena said his main objection is the bill's requirement for out-of-state arbitrators to decide contracts, the same way that police and fire pacts are decided currently.

"What bothers me the most is you have so-called neutral arbitrators from out of state making decisions about what's best for Johnston," Polisena explained, adding that arbitrators can also approve contract increases that exceed the state's tax cap.

The current bill would require the two sides to choose from a pool of retired judges as a first step in finding a qualified third arbitrator before going through the American Arbitrators Association — an addition that Polisena said he found helpful.

"I don't have a problem with  that, as long as they're from Rhode Island, he explained. "It makes it a little more palatable since they're Rhode Island taxpayers, and they're not beholden to anyone."

Polisena said he agrees with LaFazia's assertion that the new bill would hurt the school district's ability to negotiate.

"I think it puts us at a disadvantage and puts the school district at a disadvantage, Polisena stated.

Asked what he thinks would happen if an arbitrator decided to impose across-the-board raises, for example, Polisena replied: "I'm going to have to ask the school committee to find savings and make cuts — it's going to be very, very difficult."