February 11, 2014

Here are a few notes about the contract with the teachers which you will consider tonight. I could write many more. It’s unfortunate that the School Committee and the Administration didn’t engage with the public prior to negotiating so it could learn more perspective about concepts to apply to the contract or about the structural changes our district needs which could have been reflected in the contract.

The “Integrated Contract,” which purportedly reflects the Memoranda of Understanding which were signed on September 19, 2013, contains internal contradictions. It also still contains language from prior-term contracts which is obsolete and should have been removed. It contains ambiguities which need clarification. Please don’t approve this contract until all the contradictions and ambiguities are resolved. A contract which defines the expenditure of more than $50 Million Dollars in salary (without including benefits) should not be so defective.

How do the large salary increases listed each year for the three years detailed in Appendix A of the "integrated contract” comport with the 1% salary increase each year specified in the written language of Section 42 on page 48?

The salary increases many teachers would receive as detailed in Appendix A for FY14 are in a range of 10% - 12% above the amounts listed in the schedule for FY13 detailed in the old contract. The salary increases many teachers would receive as detailed in Appendix A for FY15 are in the range of 6% - 7% over the amounts listed in Appendix A for FY14. The salary increases many teachers would receive as detailed in Appendix A for FY16 are in the range of 7% - 8% over the amounts listed in Appendix A for FY15. In total, applying the salary increases in Appendix A would result in salary increases in the range of 25% - 27% over the three years for a significant portion of our teacher population (and not including increases due to lane changes). These amounts clearly are not close to the 1%, 1%, 1% stated in Section 42. How can the schools and the city afford such large percentage increases to its largest cost account without failing students due to the omissions in so many other areas?

Even for teachers who were already at the highest step of the salary schedule in FY13, the salary increases listed in Appendix A are approximately 7% in FY14, an additional 2% for FY15 and an additional 3% for FY16. The total increase under Appendix A for these teachers already at the highest step level in FY13, is approximately 12.5% over the three years of the contract (not including longevity increases and lane changes). The total increase for these teachers under the language of 1%, 1%, and 1% in Section 42 would be 3.03%. Again, how does Schedule A comport with the language of 1%, 1% and 1% written in Section 42?

It appears as if the two members of the School Committee who served on the bargaining team, and the Superintendent, did not apprise the entire School Committee of the huge salary increase embedded in the schedule in Appendix A, and which is in direct contradiction to the 1%, 1%, and 1% language in Section 42. Presumably, such a large salary increase for the largest collective bargaining unit in the city cannot occur without seeking a funding source or making major cuts in other budget areas. The School Committee did not discuss this issue in public session – did it discuss it in executive session? If so, please provide the minutes of those executive sessions to me.

Appendix A has another conflict with the contract language. The contract refers to eleven step levels, while Appendix A only lists ten. If there are now only ten steps as listed in Appendix A, does that also mean there is a year in which a teacher doesn't receive a step level increase and also doesn't receive a longevity pay increase (since the longevity increases only apply starting in year twelve)?

Although there is likely tradition as to applying longevity pay increases, there is no specificity in the contract as to how the longevity pay increases are applied. Does an employee receive $300 increase in year 12 only, and $1,100 only in year 16, etc? or does an employee receive $300 in each of years 12-15, then $1,100 in each of years 16-19, etc.?

If the large salary increases in Appendix A were intended by the School Committee, why did the School Committee not obtain significant structural concessions from the teachers in exchange for such large salary increases? Some long-recognized and needed changes are: at least a slightly longer school day to allow for reasonable lunch periods, requiring teachers to post every assignment on Aspen, requiring teachers to return student work within a reasonable time frame, requiring teachers to commit out-of-school time for parent conferences, etc.

Instead of obtaining significant concessions, the School Committee gave away three extra half-days each year to the teachers through the contract. Half days hinder student learning. If the School Committee intended to let students out early on the day before Winter Vacation, the day before February vacation and the day before Summer Vacation, why didn’t the School Committee designate those days as Professional Development Days instead of taking three other half days from students during the school year? The students would be better served through the preservation of three full school days while the teachers presumably do not need to start each vacation two hours earlier.

Please clarify the language in Section 42 which reads, "These raises are on the Bachelor's, Master's, Master's + 30 and Doctor's columns of the teacher salary schedule currently in force under Appendix A, provided that, effective at the start of the 2013-2014 work year, they will be applied across-the-board to all steps in all lanes." What is the application of the chosen word, currently? Is it today, or last year, before the term of the contract began? What does the reference to just the four lanes mean in context? Are the old contract’s eleven lanes of Bachelors, and +15, +30, +45, +60; Masters, and +15,+30, +45, +60; and Doctorate still included as the raises are deemed to be “applied across-the-board?” Appendix A seems to eliminate Bachelors +30 and +45, while it also seems to combine Bachelors +60 with Masters. How does that square with “all steps in all lanes?”

Under the old contract, job sharing was supposed to finally end after the 2011-2012 school year. It’s long been recognized that the job sharing which has been done is a detriment to the learning of the affected students. Why was job sharing for 2013-2014 included in this contract? Under the old contract, presumably, there was no job sharing after the 2011-2012 school year. That would mean there should not have been job sharing in the 2012-2013 school year. Why was job sharing added back in for the 2013-2014 school year or was it allowed in 2012-2013 against the terms of the old contract?

I find it interesting that the contract continues to include what is represented as an “early departure incentive.” Why do we feel that early retirement benefits our students? Do we believe that all older teachers need to leave because the money we pay them is not worth the expertise they have gained over many years in helping educate our students?

The early retirement incentive is represented in three ways. First, a teacher can receive an extra $1,000 each year for ten years after age 45. That appears to help retain a teacher by offering an extra $1,000 for those ten years, but that teacher would then, presumably, want to leave because s/he will no longer receive the $1,000. Is that really an early retirement incentive? Is it a teacher retirement incentive? Whose interest is served by that mechanism?

Second, a teacher can receive $10,000 if s/he notifies the system of intent to retire by December 31 for a June 30th date after age 55? Is this really an incentive to retire or is it just an extra windfall upon normal retirement? Third, a teacher can elect to receive an additional salary or $750 in their last year before retirement to artificially boost their retirement pay.

There are caveats for the above departure devices, but how do they promote student learning? How does this document promote student learning?

Additionally, if this document had really been edited effectively, it would no longer include references to stale deadlines for applying for job sharing for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years.

If this contract was the result of Interest-Based Bargaining, the interests of the students and the taxpayers of Melrose were not adequately represented in the process. Students need far more than giving teachers more money without direct benefit to the students. Taxpayers are on the hook for significant cumulative costs from this contract without any direct gains guaranteed for the students.

The contract states that an underperforming teacher (only in the first ten years of service) may not experience an automatic step increase. This is certainly better than before. Why does the contract consider step increase as automatic otherwise? Why aren’t step increases applied only for exemplary teachers and not for ones needing significant improvement until they, too, improve?

Because so much money is offered to teachers in this contract, it may well be necessary to reduce the staff in our schools to the detriment of students.

If it requires an override to pay the teachers under the burden of this contract, Melrose will certainly become another Weston, Lexington or Winchester in terms of its property taxes. That will be sure, but it may occur without any surety that there will be parity with those towns in student educational experiences or outcomes. A contract is not just about money, but this contract was certainly focused on the money.

Paying more money for anything doesn’t actually get the job done, whether it’s science kits, science labs, textbooks or smartboards. Those are just tools. What gets the job done is ongoing vigilance in action true to making a school system that is better for our students.

Gerry Mroz

I think even for the "low information" citizen" this should suffice in understanding that previous posting about teachers not making enough money is not the issue in Melrose any longer. They got their salary increases they have been looking for, the Mayor got his big increase several years ago, Taymore got her increases several years ago and continues to get hers each year...and the only ones getting the shaft now - are the students - based on the recent MCAS results!

This letter really delineates the matter in a sober and clear analysis.

It's too bad that even during what was supposed to be an MCAS presentation, the mayor had to devolve into a stump speech for an Override.

Yes, this should be required reading for all those advocating for more money for the schools as The Solution. More money would go for more administrator salaries and toys. As it is, millions more each year are already leaving the cityside budget to fund the schools, with no accountability whatsoever.

Whatever that charade was last night it certainly wasn't about Accountability!

Most of us would be willing to dig deeper for the children if we believed there was a true emergency. This thing that's going on is politics at its worst, in my humble opinion. Even last night the mayor couldn't stop himself from devolving twice into stump speeches for an Override during what was supposed to be an analysis of MCAS results, in which he referred to this new teacher's contract (with the clear implication that he should be given credit for it, and that more money is needed for the schools). Dugan and the absent Casatelli have been very public about their voice for an Override. When the superintendent wasn't busy making continual references to the poor MCAS results of "the African American or other minority" children or those other special needs ESL or "Subgroups," (implying that somehow they are responsible for the district's poor showing overall) she kept referring to the budget process, since she's clearly intent on this Override bandwagon. Heaven knows what kind of raise she thinks she'll get if that were to pass.

But if you look at the budget in the other string, the numbers do not add up. They are only budgeting an additional 4.25% for teacher salaries in the 2015 budget. Are you saying they are going to budget an additional 10+% higher in the next two budget cycles to come up with the 26%? Or is it that that only a select number of teachers will actually get the 26% increase so the overall increase is lower?

Certain step increases, for individual teachers, do not mean that there is an across the board pay raise for Melrose teachers of 26%. So far I don't see any budgetary evidence that what Mr. Mroz is saying is true.

I guess we will find out when the new teacher salary rankings come out that will contain the new teacher's contract.

There is nothing published on our city websites that tells the whole story of budget numbers, and that is by design. No budget numbers include the large raises (or "stipends" as they were formerly called) that the committee hands out like candy during the summer months when the citizens are at the beach and not paying attention. What Mr. M says is absolutely based on truth, and you can confirm this by going to the state numbers for confirmation. What we report locally is just trumped up fake numbers that will fly during budget season. Look at any monthly budget summary and cringe at what and how it is reported. Mr. M works closely with the state statisticians and he knows what he's talking about. If you'd rather believe DelloRusso or any of the other city hacks, help yourself. They purposely tell as little of the actual story as they can get away with, counting on a dumb public that won't take the time to investigate beyond the surface.

And if you believe the school budget director, you have even bigger problems. Remember he and his stellar boss lady are the ones who let a 2.8 million dollar error go to the state for the End of year report, and it was Mr. M who had to bring it to their attention in one of the dreaded Public Comment sections, for which he was vilified in parting shots by the superintendent (and wasn't allowed to rebut). They quickly covered their butts, and corrected the state reporting a few days later, but naturally they didn't have the simple humility to apologize in public for such a grotesque error, one of many that fly by the population.

That was a very thoughtful letter written by GM outlining his opinions and questions on the new teachers contract. He should run for school committee.

That's just mean.

Thank you for explaining this: "There is nothing published on our city websites that tells the whole story of budget numbers, and that is by design. No budget numbers include the large raises (or "stipends" as they were formerly called) that the committee hands out like candy during the summer months when the citizens are at the beach and not paying attention." I have never understood why the numbers discussed in budget "season" aren't the same as those end of year numbers, or the ones published in places like the Globe. Now this makes some sense.

It is clear that Melrose officials do everything in their power to obscure the true numbers, where other communities put it all out there.

Because you are so keep writing vote no on an override, I think I will just have to vote yes because you are annoying me so much. Thanks for contributing to the discourse in such a productive way.

And thanks...MHS Parent...for having such a rational reason for voting Yes for an override!

Another yes here. With the positive traction with this year's MCAS results I am voting yes on an over ride to help keep the momentum moving!

You are voting yes for an override to keep the momentum moving? We just had one of our schools drop to a level 3 school for the first time and you think that this is the kind of momentum worth continuing? Are you a complete "moon bat?

Brigid gets paid for spinning.

VOTING YES!

With the positive news coming out of the school system, now is the time to show our support and vote yes.

MYS is now level 1. Say yes to override. It is much better to be able to vote these things in locally than wait for Washington to do something.

You're kidding, right? Your plan is to throw more good money after bad? We have been throwing money at the schools for 10 to 15 years with just about zero results.

Forget about an override passing, or even gaining serious traction. With other costs rising alarmingly across the board, ie: water bills - perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining how my Melrose bill is twice as high as my Wakefield bill, even though my Melrose usage is less - trash fees, etc, etc, I see absolutely no chance of an override passing. People have been bled dry, and the only ones who don't seem to get that are those in the administration or those floating an override. I, for one, am sick and tired of having the City's hands in my pockets, and even though I have lived here my entire life, if an override passes, I will immediately put my house on the market and go somewhere where the focus isn't finding new ways to separate me from my money. If you want to continue to allow this, good for you - you pay for it. I'm glad you can afford it, but there is a sizable percentage of Melrose residents who simply can't.

I'm sorry to say that I agree with the previous poster. As a lifelong Melrose resident, I do enjoy living here, but the truth is that I cannot afford the potential additional monies, and also would have to consider leaving.
You can say "good riddance" all you want, but I don't believe that would be true.

Virtually every high school parent I know is not happy with the education their kids are getting at MHS, for a variety of reasons, and will never vote for an override. Most of us are long time residents who have credibility with our elderly and childless neighbors, and if and when an override campaign begins, we will advise our friends and neighbors who have no children in the system to vote no also. There will be many, many experienced parents with kids in the system who will be quietly campaigning against this override....not because of cost, but on principal.

The Melrose Public School system has not delivered the product my tax dollars paid for....a quality education for my children. There is NO supervision of staff, no adherence to a curriculum, and no evidence that administrators are even capable of hiring and retaining competent teachers. Why on earth would I give more money to a system where, five years on, several of my child's teachers STILL refuse to use technology and post grades and assignments on ASPEN?

I find the very idea of an override campaign almost bizarre in a district where so many people are not satisfied with the school system. Add to these numbers the people who won't vote for any tax increase, period, and an override is doomed to fail. The only question in my mind is, by what percentage will it fail?

Rezeeg, somebody is tossing bombs.

Here's a question for Mayor Dolan...

What would it take to provide some protection to current fixed income Melrose residents who can not afford another increase AND will more than likely receive none of the benefits of said increases?

Not as much as it is costing all these young people being crushed by the burden of social security and Medicaid they arereceiving no benefit from, and maybe never will.

The old timers on fixed incomes have benefited by the tremendous increases in home values during the last ten years and if an extra $200 is going to break them they need to move on anyway.

Keynes is right--the young are paying to support the old. Aren't your tired of paying for retired teachers that are getting more pay than a new hire?

Because it was mentioned as one reason people can't afford an override for schools, especially after the teacher's raises.

The teacher's raises didn't cost anyone extra $$ because we didn't need an override to fund it.

I am not going to allow Reezeeg and Yugdlo to be vilified on the dark side for what our country’s promise to our veterans and anyone who worked their entire lives PAYING TAXES to be called an “entitlement”. It is and always will be what is DUE to anyone who has paid into the system, lived their lives or fought for our country. believing the promise that if they worked hard all their lives there would be some support as a payback for all the money that the government withheld from their paychecks.

This isn’t Welfare folks! Seniors are not on the “dole”!!! They’ve earned monetary compensation justified by paying employment and social security taxes all their lives! We all pay into this as required by law. We have no choice. The fact that these monies have been squandered is not our seniors’ fault. And the spin that the debt regarding “entitlements” is due to our seniors collecting what was promised and is DUE them is abhorrent to me and just plain wrong.

Our schools are not suffering because Mystic Valley is siphoning off money out of our school budget (as the mayor was vociferously advocating back in the day and trying to out Melrose parents who chose to send their children to Malden…with the support of the Princess Katherine Clark). It’s because we have our own home grown parade of fools on the school committee who kowtow to whatever Rob wants…Ms Carrie Kourkoumelis as the only exception. Rob’s addition to the school committee has been an abysmal failure.

The “entitlement” might not be there for me when I retire but it makes no difference. An override for the schools will be throwing good money after a pathetic lost cause. The aldermen need to understand that 200 dollars is a lot of money for anyone and so far nothing has been “proven” that an override would help.

"The teacher's raises didn't cost anyone extra $$ because we didn't need an override to fund it."

Okay - that may be the single dumbest thing ever posted to this board. Who do you think paid for it, your fairy godmother?

LOL How.....Amen!

I agree. It may get me a few extra dollars when/if I have to do a reverse mortgage, but it's not helping pay the bills now!

I see we have decided to invade the dark side and throw our two cents in - if it was three cents I'd have to take out a loan.

Interesting string over there about health reform. I knew the Aldermen could leave after ten years and get health care for life. I had no idea it was a city wide thing.

Um... I don't think we should be announcing our invasion plans Fossil.

It's much better to announce what you are NOT going to do.

Isn't that what I just said?

I think the point was that the new teacher's contract was incorporated into the current school budget, without the need for an override. People keep harping about an override but the teacher raises didn't trigger one, no matter how much people complain about it.

I actually would like to pay the teachers even more then they are currently receiving, even with the raise. Because even with the raise, I am pretty sure they are still not even making close to the median wage in the state, since they started so low (what is it from that other string, something like 300th place in the state). And I'd definitely vote for an override for this. I also would vote for an override to support technology improvements in the district.

Heard that Dolan will soon propose a 2 million dollar technology bond for the schools
Timing? Folding in other city departments? Deals and decisions made?

It's not surprising that something like a huge technology bond might be proposed. If the administration stays true to form, it will blame all those "unfunded mandates" for the need to look to hit up the taxpayers yet again. No way will there be anyone taking responsibility for the chronic failure to fund the necessary educational technology every year it has been in power so that the district wouldn't find itself in its current backwards predicament. There is also no will to demand appropriate accountability from the IT director for why he failed to have a responsible purchasing and maintenance schedule all these years. That's because that guy has always just been a six-figure shill. There's lots of brouhaha when a bunch of costly but educationally questionable new toys--SmartBoards, SmartTables (for toddlers at the ECC Center)--get bought because the top brass are true cynics who think that the parent population in Melrose is as gullible as it apparently is.

2013 Boston Globe: "“After three years, they will be much more competitive with their counterparts” in similar communities."

Okay, so now it's 4 months into 2015 and the cabal is sending its minions out crusading for piles of new taxpayer cash--an override (who knows how much?), a $5.3 million-dollar MHS library project (with no public process and only the most superficial of documentation), and a "technology upgrade" for the entire city (another bond? who knows how much?), so at least 3 major things beyond whatever budget is approved (which right now includes another $2 million+ on top of the $2 million+ that the schools demanded last year above what had been allocated previously not including that half-mill textbook bond, etc.). Next they'll be claiming they have to lay off staff because of the loss of the kindergarten grant or some other inconsequential red herring (like METCO, which is becoming the favorite thing to kick around by the closet bigots).

One of the talking points is that teachers (and administrators!) are pitifully underpaid, despite the 2013 claims of Melrose's own "educational expert" in this Globe article, about the "historic" contract, which he and all but one voted on without ever seeing. So which is it, Rob, are the teachers "more competitive" now or was this only political hay in 2013? Or did you use up your slush funds paying the administrative top dogs' never-ending raises and attorneys for all the bad management leading to legal actions (while not appropriately funding technology and textbooks, etc. all these years in office catering to other political interests) and now find yourself needing to raise a lot of cash in order to appease the Birth to Five group so that you can be a lifer mayor?

Read the coherent explanation on this string of what that contract actually entailed and decide for yourself if the administration soldiers advocating for bonds and overrides are telling the truth about how woefully paid the teachers are. Then watch (better yet, show up) Thursday night when the Appropriations Committee of the BOA looks again at that $5.3 million dollar MHS renovation. Wonder if the administration will have the appropriate documentation this time (doubtful, since they look contemptuously at anyone who asks questions). How many millions for "furniture"? How many ways can you spell Boondoggle?


Teachers get new raises, performance standards
By Kathy McCabeGlobe Staff October 13, 2013

MELROSE — A new teacher contract will boost teachers’ pay by $2 million over the next three years, and includes new performance standards for teachers tied to student test scores on MCAS and other standardized tests.

The city’s 248 public school teachers, represented by the Melrose Education Association , will receive a 1 percent annual raise for each year of the contract, along with a 1 percent annual cost of living adjustment, officials said.

Mayor Robert J. Dolan called the agreement the “richest contract the city has ever given” to the teachers union.

The increase — 6 percent over the three years — is necessary to keep veteran teachers, particularly in the areas of math and science, from seeking better-paying jobs elsewhere, he said.

“We’re losing good teachers, because we are not competitive in the middle ranges,” said Dolan, a member of the School Committee.

Salaries for teachers vary, based on the level of experience and education. Overall, teacher pay accounts for $16 million of the $22 million for school disttrict salaries included in this year’s city budget.

Naomi Baline, the teachers union president, declined to comment on the new agreement.

School Superintendent Cyndy Taymore, who was appointed last year, referred questions to city solicitor Robert Van Campen.

Under the new agreement, the base pay for a teacher with a bachelor’s degree and six years of experience will increase from $49,843 to $52,905 by the time the contract expires in 2016, according to a salary schedule provided by the school department.

By comparison, a sixth-year teacher with a bachelor’s degree was paid $53,481 in Wakefield and $51,172 in Reading, according to contracts published on the website of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Reading and Wakefield were among 10 school districts of similar demographics and academic performance Melrose used to compare salaries, Van Campen said.

The new pay scale was necessary to put Melrose teachers “on a trajectory to get closer to their counterparts,” he said. “After three years, they will be much more competitive with their counterparts” in similar communities.

The union approved the agreement by a vote of 195 to 35 last month, according to Dolan.

The School Committee voted 4 to 1, with two members absent, including Dolan, to approve the agreement during a special meeting on Sept. 16.

“We’re very happy with it,” said School Committee chairwoman Kristin Thorp. “We look forward to working with the teachers.”

She declined to comment further.

School Committee member Carrie Kourkoumelis said she voted against the contract because the committee did not receive a full draft of the agreement, either at a Sept. 10 meeting, when it was first presented for a vote, or at the Sept. 16 special meeting.

“We have yet to see a fully integrated contract,” Kourkoumelis said, noting the committee only received copies of memorandums of agreement and the old contract.

She added: “I am also concerned about the terms of the agreement. We didn’t really have a discussion about where the funds are coming from, or what impacts come next.”

The new educator evaluation system included in the contract complies with a regulation adopted in 2011 by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Melrose is among the school districts that had to negotiate an evaluation system into its labor contract with teachers this year or risk losing federal Race to the Top grant funds.

The new system will include a self-assessment by teachers as well as observation by outside evaluators. Student performance on standardized tests, including the MCAS, will be among the criteria used to evaluate teachers, according to the agreement.

Teachers found to be unsatisfactory can be put on a 45-day improvement plan, and could face possible dismissal unless they improve, the agreement states.

“When it’s necessary, unsatisfactory educators will be put on a plan,’’ Van Campen said.

Teachers must also receive additional training, and there will be eight early-release days to allow time for professional development. The prior contract allowed for seven early-release days, five of which were required for parent-teacher conference time, according to a copy of the agreement.

Four new committees, including a labor/management panel to address workplace issues and one devoted to professional development, were also created, the agreement states.

“This gives our superintendent a lot of tools in terms of professional development,” Dolan said. “It’s a very serious performance-evaluation tool.”

The agreement, which took months to negotiate, was hailed as “historic” by both sides — for the salary increases and the negotiating technique used — in a joint announcement issued after the pact was signed by the School Committee. The new contract expires on Aug. 31, 2016.

For the first time, the two sides used a method called interest-based bargaining, agreeing to negotiate areas of common concern, rather than to exchange contract proposals. The format was suggested by Taymore, who was negotiating her first contract since becoming superintendent, Van Campen said.

“She wanted to have more of a collaborative relationship with the teachers union,” he said. “We believe it worked out well for both sides.”
Kathy McCabe can be reached at katherine.mccabe@ globe.com.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/10/12/melrose-teacher-contract-calls-for-performance-evaluations-million-raises-over-years/IhMkeT47gnb3b5BEvz6MXO/story.html

Thank you for this. It really helps frame the bigger picture. The administration/School Committee and their MEF henchmen need to be SHUT DOWN. The damage they have caused will already take years to correct, meanwhile we will continue to lose our best and brightest--students, families, teachers.

"2013 Boston Globe: "“After three years, they will be much more competitive with their counterparts” in similar communities."

Okay, so now it's 4 months into 2015 and the cabal is sending its minions out crusading for piles of new taxpayer cash--an override (who knows how much?), a $5.3 million-dollar MHS library project (with no public process and only the most superficial of documentation), and a "technology upgrade" for the entire city (another bond? who knows how much?), so at least 3 major things beyond whatever budget is approved (which right now includes another $2 million+ on top of the $2 million+ that the schools demanded last year above what had been allocated previously not including that half-mill textbook bond, etc.). Next they'll be claiming they have to lay off staff because of the loss of the kindergarten grant or some other inconsequential red herring (like METCO, which is becoming the favorite thing to kick around by the closet bigots).

One of the talking points is that teachers (and administrators!) are pitifully underpaid, despite the 2013 claims of Melrose's own "educational expert" in this Globe article, about the "historic" contract, which he and all but one voted on without ever seeing. So which is it, Rob, are the teachers "more competitive" now or was this only political hay in 2013? Or did you use up your slush funds paying the administrative top dogs' never-ending raises and attorneys for all the bad management leading to legal actions (while not appropriately funding technology and textbooks, etc. all these years in office catering to other political interests) and now find yourself needing to raise a lot of cash in order to appease the Birth to Five group so that you can be a lifer mayor?

Read the coherent explanation on this string of what that contract actually entailed and decide for yourself if the administration soldiers advocating for bonds and overrides are telling the truth about how woefully paid the teachers are. Then watch (better yet, show up) Thursday night when the Appropriations Committee of the BOA looks again at that $5.3 million dollar MHS renovation. Wonder if the administration will have the appropriate documentation this time (doubtful, since they look contemptuously at anyone who asks questions). How many millions for "furniture"? How many ways can you spell Boondoggle?"

Dear "Teacher pay advocate":

"So far I don't see any budgetary evidence that what Mr. Mroz is saying is true. "

Mr. M spelled it out very plainly, with no artifice or spin. He never said all teachers are now getting a 26% raise. He did however point out that it was false (to the point of actual dishonesty) for the administration to portray the new "historic" contract as a one-percent (times three) raise. What was purposely hidden is that the Steps were changed in addition to the basic agreed raise.

Believe the magic if it helps you sleep at night, but don't expect everyone else to buy into the nonsense.

Teachers deserve professional compensation. No argument there. Buying into the current political nonsense, however, has nothing to do with what professional teaching staff deserve. If that were the issue, a whole lot more than money will be needed in order to draw and keep good teachers. It is only a ruse that things are so bad in the district because teachers are underpaid. The fact that you "don't see any budgetary evidence that what Mr. Mroz is saying is true" relates more to your limited ability to separate fact from highly personalized and quite vicious political rhetoric.

Here are the coherent and relevant explanations by Mr. Mroz about the "new" teacher's contract, for those who are tempted to be duped by the "pay teachers more" "reason" for the Override.

I tell you what. Until the average teacher salary, as reported on the Mass DOE website, shoots up $20,000 for Melrose to have salaries on par with the average teacher salary in many other towns, then this is all just twisted logic to me. So yes, in the meantime we still need to pay our teachers more and we still need an override.

So the average teacher salary is $53,569 before the huge raise. So now that they have gotten their massive 26% raise, the average teacher salary will be listed on the DOE website as $67,497, right? Which is still $10k less than Newton. But as for this massive raise, I will believe it when I see it on the website. Til then, I am advocating for greater teacher pay.