Redefining the Bargaining Environment

Shifting the focus to more relevant considerations for these times

By Curt Wary

The use of data is an integral part of collective negotiations in both the public and private sectors. It is relied upon by management and labor to buttress their bargaining proposals and refute the other side’s positions. In short, information is used as a means to persuade the other party. During mediation, fact-finding and super conciliation, the parties will further use data to convince the neutral of the validity of their positions and their commitment to those positions. Neutrals, in turn, will use the data cited by one party to convince the other side to make movement towards settlement. It will also be used by fact-finders in writing fact-finding reports and making recommendations for settlement.

As data is instrumental to the bargaining process, the question then becomes: “what data is relevant.” In most bargaining, “relevant” data is selected by the parties themselves rather than by any outside source or authority. There is no statute or regulation that requires the parties, or the neutral, to consider one factor over another.* It is left to the parties to decide what information is most compelling to support their positions.

While the parties define the information that is used, the type of data cited may depend upon the employment sector or industry. In the private sector, key considerations revolve around market conditions including, above all, the employer’s ability to turn a profit. In the public sector, without the profit motive, key considerations involve the employer’s ability to support the terms of a negotiated agreement within limited financial resources (which come primarily from tax revenues). In both the public and private sectors, other negotiated settlements will, to some degree, be cited by one or both parties.

Comparative Data Historically, in public education bargaining, the parties have heavily relied upon other school district settlements (i.e., “comparative data”) to justify demands and to refute arguments across the bargaining table. For example, with respect to teacher salary negotiations, unions commonly cite state, regional and, particularly, county averages. A common union refrain has been “we expect the same increase that other teachers in the county have received.” While other school district settlements have traditionally shaped the parties’ expectations for a “reasonable” and “realistic” settlement, school board negotiators need to understand that other districts’ settlements are not necessarily a valid benchmark. In the past, boards often reflexively matched increases or benefits provided by other districts, when, in fact, the other districts’ financial constraints and educational goals may have been entirely different.

The fallacy of blindly accepting union-cited broad-brush averages is that critical differences may be masked. For example, the duration of most teacher contracts is three years; thus, averages may include settlements that were negotiated two or three years ago in a completely different economic environment. Settlement averages may also be inflated by other district settlements where the board was willing (and able) to agree to a higher salary settlement in exchange for additional work time, or cost containment on benefits. Similar factors may not be an issue in your negotiations.

When assessing other school district settlements, boards should be aware that salary settlements are starting to decline throughout the state; thus, the time-frame in which a settlement occurs is an important consideration. Also, boards are reporting an unprecedented number of bargaining achievements, most notably in the area of insurance cost containment. Since every district has just one pot of money to cover all district expenditures, including employee compensation, the totality of a settlement (salary increases and cost containment measures) must be assessed. For example, a salary increase coupled with changes in insurance benefits may actually result in a net increased cost that is considerably lower than the reported settlement. Boards, therefore, need to assess the timeliness of data, the most recent trends, and the broader context of other district settlements. At the same time, boards must recognize that, ultimately, comparative data cannot dictate the terms of a settlement.

Ability to Pay Over the years, the over-reliance on comparative data has resulted in a bargaining environment that is isolated and, many believe, completely out of touch with the times. In the current environment, local economic conditions are far more relevant and compelling than other school district settlements. Ultimately, it is the local community that must support the rising cost of education, including employee compensation, which comprises approximately 75 percent – 80 percent of a school district budget.

A school district’s ability to pay must, therefore, play a major role in all discussions at the bargaining table. The financial restrictions on school districts are greater than ever before. The ability to raise tax revenues is limited by the tax levy cap. Moreover, if a board’s budget is voted down by the public, it may face significant cuts in its revenues. To further exacerbate the problem, many communities have experienced the closing of businesses, which, in turn, results in loss of ratables and a greater burden on the local community.

In addition, with the state anticipating a huge shortfall in its own tax revenues, school districts will likely face reductions in state aid. Furthermore, federal stimulus money that helped school districts maintain staffing levels and educational programs in the 2009-2010 school year is projected to disappear in 2010-2011. The loss of federal money and state aid will either lead to cuts in staff and programs, or will require the district to fund those costs with local dollars.

Finally, many community members have lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings, their insurance, or have seen no salary increase, taken furlough days, contributed more toward their own health insurance. Therefore, the ability and willingness of the public to continue to support school employees’ salary increases and fully-paid health insurance has significantly waned.

This environment no longer allows public employees to be insulated from the realities of the community that supports them. Boards need to emphasize to their employee unions that the loss of revenues coupled with rising expenditures could lead to reductions in staffing, privatization of certain services, and cuts to educational programs. School district unions need to pull their heads out of the sand and understand that decisions made at the bargaining table will ultimately affect how many staff retain their jobs, which educational programs are maintained, and, in some cases, whether a school district even continues to survive. In short, boards need to make their employees and their unions realize that “it is not business as usual.”

Current Economic Environment Every community in New Jersey has been hard hit by the recession. Some of the grimmest but most telling statistics are as follows.

Unemployment Nationally, the unemployment rate in December 2009 stood at 10 percent with some 15.3 million persons unemployed. The national unemployment rate has doubled since the start of the recession in December of 2007. Some 5.9 million have been unemployed for more than six months. There are another 9.2 million people working part time that would prefer to be working full time.

In New Jersey, the unemployment rate for December 2009 was 10.1 percent with nine counties (Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Passaic, Salem) reporting double-digit unemployment. Since the beginning of the recession, the state has lost more than 168,500 jobs.

Foreclosures The Mortgage Banker’s Association has reported that one in eight, or 13 percent, of New Jersey homeowners were either in the foreclosure process or were late on their mortgage payments in the second quarter of 2009. This was up from 11.8 percent in the first quarter. In addition, the state judiciary reports that 5,757 foreclosure proceedings were begun against New Jersey homeowners in August of 2009. This figure represents a 40 percent increase from a year earlier.

Cost of Living In September 2009, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) fell 1.3 percent (seasonally adjusted). This follows a 2.1 percent drop in August which was the largest decrease in nearly six decades. For the New York – North Jersey area, the CPI-U dropped 0.6 percent for the 12 months ending in September 2009 (not seasonally adjusted). For the Philadelphia – South Jersey area, the CPI-U decreased 1 percent for the same period.

Social Security For 2010, Social Security recipients will receive no increase in their monthly payments. The automatic cost of living adjustment is, by law, tied to the Consumer Price Index. This is the first time since the automatic adjustments were instituted in 1975 that there will be no increase.

State of the State The financial crisis facing the state government has been widely reported but, as of this writing, is still unfolding. The state is experiencing a major deficit for this current fiscal year, with projected deficits for next year of $8 billion to $10 billion. It has also been reported that all of the federal stimulus monies that were used to plug funding gaps in 2009 have been exhausted. The likely repercussions include reduced funding to schools and municipalities, more furloughs of state employees, and the possibility of significant job losses at all levels of public employment.

This is the environment that exists in the nation, in New Jersey and in your local community. In particular, boards must be prepared to detail the impact of these realities. The old notion that school negotiations occur in some kind of vacuum where money magically rains down from the sky must be dispelled.

Salaries and Insurances in the Community In this recessionary economy, those local community members who have been fortunate enough to keep their employment have had a salary and benefit experience far different than that reported in school district settlements. Again, these are the individuals being asked to support the school district’s expenditures for employees’ salaries and benefits. The following are but two indicators of this far different private sector employment environment.

Employment Cost Index As a measure of employer spending in the private sector, for the 12 month period ending in September 2009, employers’ compensation costs for civilian workers increased only 1.5 percent. Wage and salary costs (about 70 percent of compensation) increased 1.5 percent during this 12-month period, slowing from 3.1 percent for the previous 12 month period. The contrast with spending on settlements for public education employees is striking.

Insurance According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Survey, 87 percent of private industry employees who received family medical coverage from their employer were required to contribute toward the premium at an average of $296.88 per month in 2006.

According to the Survey of Employer Health Benefits 2009 conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust, the average annual premium for family coverage from an employer-sponsored health plan in 2009 was $13,375 (roughly equivalent to the state plan). Of that, on average, the employer paid $9,860, and the employee paid $3,515. Thus, on average, employees pay 28.26 percent of the premium.

School boards have reported numerous insurance achievements in negotiations with their employees. In fact, almost two-thirds of districts that have settled their 2009-2010 teacher contracts have reported some type of health insurance cost containment (such as employee contributions, elimination of traditional coverage, higher co-pays, reduction in certain benefits, lesser coverage for new hires, etc). Some of these negotiated changes have resulted in tremendous savings. Yet, while these trends are noteworthy, the reality remains that school boards still pay significantly more toward the cost of health insurance than their private sector counterparts.

Summary The bargaining environment, in both the private sector and public sector, has undergone a dramatic change as a result of a collapsing economy. Consequently, the role of data has taken on a whole new focus. Comparative data, which has traditionally been an influential factor in shaping school district settlements, has become increasingly irrelevant. The focus has shifted to the community’s ability (or inability) to fund a contract settlement in light of revenue shortfalls. In the context of devastating economic conditions, comparative data can no longer trump a district’s ability to pay. It is, therefore, incumbent upon school boards (and all public employers) to redefine the bargaining environment, by stressing again, and again, that if the district does not have the financial resources to support the union’s negotiations demands, settlements in other districts are completely immaterial. The environment mandates that all decision-makers in the district (board members, administrators, union leaders, and staff members) live up to their responsibility to ensure the educational well-being and fiscal viability of the school district. This is imperative for the sake of all stakeholders – students, taxpayers, and employees of the district.

The economic data presented here is available on NJSBA ‘s Web site. Extensive teacher settlement data is also available through the same Labor Relations page in “Current Negotiations Data” (password protected) under Online Resources.

A Primer on Teacher Pay

Teacher compensation is becoming a focus of public attention. Here’s how it works

By Robert Greitz

How – and how much – teachers are paid is a topic of increased public attention these days. But the issue is not a new one. The question of how to determine appropriate salaries for teachers has been an ongoing discussion for many years, complete with varying opinions and studies regarding the impact of teacher pay on student achievement. 

This article will be an overview of the method by which teacher pay is currently determined in New Jersey. This is the first in a series of School Leader articles which will more thoroughly discuss the evolving concepts. One of the hottest issues currently being debated is merit pay for teachers. However, the expansiveness of this topic requires more space than is available in this issue of the magazine. Merit pay will be examined in more depth in a future issue.

At present, almost all teacher salaries in New Jersey are determined through the salary guide approach. However, there is no legal requirement that boards continue using the salary guide model. In fact, it has been the long held position of the NJSBA that boards of education must look at all possible methods to determine teacher compensation. Specifically, NJSBA Position and Policy 4140, which was originally enacted in 1972 and last amended in 2006, states the following regarding teacher compensation: “The NJSBA believes that a district’s method of compensating employees should be based on a salary structure that has a rational basis which reflects the goals and objectives of the school system. The NJSBA believes that boards should carefully review and analyze their existing compensation plans to determine whether their salary guides reflect their districts’ compensation and personnel goals and consider new compensation models including, among other factors, differentiated staffing models, relative workload, degrees of responsibilities and performance as methods of determining compensation.”

That said, there is a misconception held by far too many people in education, including those on both the management and union side, that the law does not permit a change from the current methodology of teacher payment. However that is simply wrong, as the law provides very few requirements regarding teachers’ compensation. (New Jersey’s law regarding how a teacher is compensated is found at N.J.S.A. 18A:29-1, et seq.)

In fact, there are only two legal requirements regarding teacher pay: (1) a full-time teacher not be paid less than $18,500; and (2) a prohibition against the reduction of a teachers’ salary. Despite what you may have heard, the law does not require an annual increase, step advancement, or additional pay for higher educational degrees.

It’s All Negotiable Indeed, all aspects of teacher compensation, including the amount and how the amount is arrived at, are negotiable. The board and the teachers’ union must agree on the methodology used. This entails negotiations between the board and the union over the issue. A board wishing to seek a different methodology in determining compensation is free to propose that during negotiations.

What has generated this increased focus on the methodology of teacher pay? The answer is a combination of economics, personnel decisions, and educational goals. Salaries not only affect the district’s financial resources, but also the district’s personnel resources and its ability to provide the best possible education to its students. Thus, the public is becoming increasingly concerned with how teacher pay is determined.

Although your district may be happy with its current teacher compensation model, a thorough knowledge of other approaches will ensure that the district has all the tools it needs to meet its staffing and educational goals. To that end, the following is a very general overview of three models for teacher compensation. 

Salary Guides As indicated above, this  methodology is used in nearly all New Jersey school districts for determining a teacher’s salary. Generally, the salary guide approach advances teachers one step on the guide each year until the maximum level is reached. The guides typically link increases only to length of service and educational attainment of teachers.

While the salary guide is the most prevalent method and is easy to understand, there are some definite disadvantages and concerns with this method. Salary guides can have “balloons” or other extremely large pay increments and aberrations, and there can be an inequitable distribution of increases among teachers. Salary guides may also place restrictions on establishing salaries of new hires. (When the parties have a salary guide, new employees must be placed at some existing rate on that guide.) Furthermore, the salary guide method imbeds an expectation of an incremental step increase each year.

Salary Ranges While currently non-existent in determining teacher compensation in New Jersey, the salary range approach could be of great benefit to districts. In fact, this approach to compensation is much more common and accepted in the area of administrator and support staff salaries. With a salary range, there is a minimum and a maximum salary for teachers, with nobody being paid below the minimum or above the maximum. Teachers receive increases and move through the range until they reach maximum. Thereafter, teachers at maximum would receive more modest increases (that is, their salary would only increase by the amount that the range increases). Generally, the minimum and maximum would increase each year by some amount that would be smaller than the settlement. For example, if the parties agree to an overall increase of 2.5 percent, it could be agreed that the minimum and maximums both only increase by 1.5 percent.

With this approach, teachers still reach maximum (just like with a salary guide), but then their salaries level off. There are no interim steps between minimum and maximum and, therefore, no expectation for a certain increment or salary rate in the coming year. There is also no possibility of balloons. With this approach, boards retain flexibility to determine the salary rate for new hires (as long as it was between the minimum and maximum), and the percentage increase for each employee within the range.

Merit Pay Without question, merit pay is one of the most widely discussed issues whenever the topic of improving public education is discussed. In fact, merit pay was an issue in this past year’s New Jersey gubernatorial elections and the 2008 Presidential election. It is interesting to note that according to a January 21, 2010, Quinnipiac University poll, two-thirds of all New Jersey voters favor merit pay.

That being said, it cannot be overlooked that in New Jersey “merit pay” has been discussed only in a theoretical sense, and the concept hasn’t been more fully fleshed out. This is because merit pay takes on various meanings and forms. It includes such things as pay for performance; value-added assessment, career ladders, and bonus pay. In general, merit pay and its possible variations are numerous, and require a more thorough examination. Future issues of School Leader will discuss merit pay and various teacher compensation issues in more depth.

Making Changes Boards must carefully review the methodology used for teacher compensation and determine if it is helping the board to deliver the highest quality education to its students. If the existing practice is not meeting the district’s needs, or is in some way limiting the board from achieving its ultimate goal, the proper course of action is to negotiate a change. If the existing plan is working and assisting the board in achieving its goals, the board should determine if improvements can be made.  

Keep in mind that in today’s increasingly difficult economic environment, with limited dollars and greater demands (both financially and educationally), boards must strive to obtain the greatest benefit from each dollar spent, and this includes salaries. The only limitations are the very minor restrictions imposed by law, leaving it to the board to negotiate the way salaries are determined. Repeat after me: everything regarding salaries is negotiable!

FEATURES

Reading Trends, Not Tea Leaves

A look at New Jersey’s demographic trends – and at how enrollment projections are figured

By Richard S. Grip, Ed.D

In order to do responsible planning, school districts need to know how many students will be attending their schools in the future.

In my profession as a school demographer, I have done countless presentations to school boards and members of the public discussing my five-year enrollment projections for a school district. Sometimes it’s clear to me – just by looking at people’s faces—that they don’t believe that it is possible to project enrollment. School demography is a field which has developed within the last 50 years or so, and has proved remarkably reliable in estimating future enrollment trends. It allows school districts to plan using scientific projections – not guesswork.

In this article, I’ll explain how enrollment projections are determined and what New Jersey’s future student population looks like- county by county.

How Are School Enrollments Projected? In most instances, an increase in a community’s population will lead to an increase in a school district’s enrollment. However, if the increase is in a specific age group, such as senior citizens, perhaps caused by the construction of developments for people ages 55 and over, the impact on a district’s enrollment may be minimal.

How does population change in a community? In short, additions to the population are caused by births and migrations into the community, whether from domestic locales or from abroad. Declines in a community’s population are caused by deaths and migrations out of the community. Natural increase, which is an increase in population due to more births and less mortality, is displayed in Table 1 for New Jersey from 2004 to 2008, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. As Table 1 illustrates, the natural increase in New Jersey is approximately 39,000-46,000 persons per year.

While New Jersey’s population may be gaining due to natural increase, it has been losing people due to migration since 2005. In Table 2, estimated net domestic migration and net international migration data from 2004 to 2008 are shown. As the table shows, there has been positive net international migration (more people coming to the state from other countries than New Jerseyans moving abroad) during this time period but negative net domestic migration (more New Jerseyans moving to other states than residents of other U.S. states moving here) as well in all years except 2004. Often, I hear anecdotal stories that a lot of people from New Jersey are moving to areas with lower costs of living such as North Carolina and Florida. The data on negative domestic migration provides some quantitative evidence to corroborate those stories.

Source: United States Census Bureau

At the state level, there were 1,377,728 pupils in New Jersey during the 2008-2009 school year as shown in Figure 1 at right. Since the 2003-2004 school year, enrollment in the state has been fairly stable, declining by approximately 3,000 students. Enrollment peaked in the 2005-2006 school year before slowly declining in the last three years.

While the enrollment has not changed much at the state level, there has been more changes during this time period at the county level, as shown in Table 5. Bergen, Middlesex, and Somerset counties have had the largest enrollment gains while Camden, Ocean, and Essex counties have had the largest enrollment declines since 2003-2004. While the data on total population change in Table 4 was a one-year snapshot for 2008, there still appears to be a correlation between population and enrollment growth. Bergen and Middlesex had the largest gains in total population in 2008 and also had the largest gains in enrollment since the 2003-2004 school year. However, while Ocean County had one of the largest gains in total population in 2008, it had the second largest school enrollment decline.

Source: New Jersey Department of Education

Why is it important to know the ethnic trends in a school district? Sometimes a district would project enrollment by race to satisfy redistricting plans. When redistricting, the attendance boundaries should be redrawn such that there is racial balance in the district. Another reason to consider race is to provide adequate educational services for minority populations, such as ESL programs, particularly if there is a high concentration of foreign-born persons in the community.

Recently, I testified as an expert witness in a case where a school district wanted to terminate its sending-receiving agreement with another district. According to state statute, the termination may be granted provided that there is no substantial negative impact resulting from the change in racial composition of the pupil population in either of the districts. In such a case, analyzing the enrollment trends by race would be necessary.

Live Birth Data It’s important to track the number of births in a community, since those new babies will be kindergarten students in five short years. The most accurate source for birth data in the state is the Center for Health Statistics of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (http://www.state.nj.us/health/chs/index.html). The accuracy of the data is achieved through a process called geocoding, whereby geographic coordinates are assigned to a birth mother based on her street address. This process avoids the confusion of using zip codes to assign births, since many municipalities share the same zip code. The main drawback of using the Center for Health Statistics data is that it is not up-to-date. The most recent available data is 2005, which would help in predicting the kindergarten class of 2010. To predict kindergarten classes beyond 2010, one would need to estimate births for 2006-2009.

At the state level, the number of births from 2000-2005 has been fairly constant, ranging between 113,000-117,000 births per year as shown in Figure 3. Table 6 shows the total number of live births from 2000-2005 by county. During this time period, Essex, Middlesex, Bergen, and Hudson counties had the greatest number of births. Not surprisingly, these same four counties had the largest natural increase in 2008, as shown in Table 4 on page 34.

Source: New Jersey Center for Health Statistics

In Table 7, the total number of COs issued by county from 2004-2008 is shown. Ocean County had the most COs issued, 15,185, while Salem County had the fewest, 1,261. In Figure 5, the counties with the five largest number of issued COs from 2004-2008 are shown. Three of the top five counties are in central New Jersey (Ocean, Middlesex, and Monmouth) while the remaining two counties are in Northern New Jersey (Essex and Hudson). Ocean County peaked with more than 4,000 COs issued in 2005 before dropping to 1,989 in 2008, which is less than half than that issued in 2005. Since Ocean and Middlesex counties had the highest and second highest number of COs issued during this time period, we would expect they would also be near the top in total population increase as shown in Table 4, where they are ranked third and first respectively.

Not all of the top five counties mirror the state trends. The number of COs issued in Middlesex County had been generally rising (there was a slight decline in 2006) from 2004-2007 before declining in 2008. Essex County rose through 2006 before declining sharply in 2007 and 2008. On the other hand, Hudson County, like Essex County, rose through 2006 before declining in 2007 and then increasing in 2008. Four of the five counties (Monmouth, Hudson, Middlesex, and Essex) that had the greatest number of COs also have the greatest number of live births. The lone exception is Bergen County, which was ranked third in the number of births and sixth in the issued number of COs.

TABLE 7

So how is the number of COs in a community used to help project the number of students? In short, the historical numbers of COs would be compared to the number of future housing units proposed in a community. The demographer contacts the local planning and zoning departments to obtain a detailed count of proposed housing units that have received preliminary or final approval or are under construction. Since the baseline enrollment projections use Cohort Survival Ratios that do take into account prior new home construction growth, the baseline enrollment projections should only be adjusted if the number of proposed units for the next five years is significantly greater than the number of homes built in the last five years, which is obtained from the CO data. Those baseline projections would be modified to account for additional children from the new housing developments.

 

In some communities, there is not much available land in which to build new homes. Unfortunately, that does not make these communities immune to rising enrollment. Communities that are “built out” may experience a “housing turnover” from households with senior citizens to families with young children. In these situations, a school district’s enrollment may grow not from children moving into newly created housing developments, but into existing housing stock. Many times this type of enrollment growth sneaks up on the school district’s administration since it is more of a function of a community’s lifecycle rather than an external factor such as new housing developments.

Projecting enrollments is a challenging process that examines many variables. However it is a vitally important process for school boards to engage in when planning future facilities needs, personnel needs and financial needs. sl

Lobbying from the Ground Up

As Trenton prepares to be turned “upside down,” board member voices are more important than ever

By Barbara Horl

“HEY, NEW JERSEY, WE DID IT!” With these words, Governor-elect Chris Christie greeted jubilant Republican supporters on the night of Nov. 3, 2009. His plurality of approximately 80,000 votes over incumbent Gov. Jon S. Corzine signaled a sea change in New Jersey politics. Not even Obama-mania could stem the tide of voters whose message to the administration and current political leaders was “we have had enough.”

Chris Christie vows to “make New Jersey more affordable and to do it now.” His pledge to all New Jerseyans that “together we begin to take back New Jersey for our families, friends and neighbors, …and build a greater New Jersey for our children and grandchildren,” is a tall order in a state facing an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion dollar budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal 2010-2011 budget year. To accomplish the goals he campaigned on, including no tax increases, Christie has promised to “turn Trenton upside down,” a powerful visual image to all lobbyists like myself, and one that has us all wondering just when the inversion begins and what we can grab onto for stability!

As a school board member, you might be asking yourself, “what now?” and “how will a new administration affect education?” Having served as a school board member for 13 years, in addition to working for legislators a number of years, I am anxious to see what is in store, since education dollars account for approximately one third of the state budget.

In the two months since the election, we are beginning to get some insight on what might lie ahead. A new commissioner of education will likely carry out the new administration’s policy initiatives. But the power of the purse will determine where much of the upcoming action will take place. The deficit looms, and the chairs have been set upon the stage for the next act. The governor proposes the budget, but the legislature must pass it.

With a change in the state’s chief executive, a new legislative session about to begin, and an uncertain fiscal picture, school board members are being presented with a golden opportunity. The confluence of these factors poses favorable circumstances for board members to have an enlightened discussion about education with our elected officials. And “enlightened” is the operative word. Here’s why: the electorate shouted that property taxes, already the highest in the United States, cannot continue to rise. Voters screamed for relief through reform, accountability and more efficiency. Months later, the message is still resonating in the ears of the governor-elect, legislators and local officials. Statewide, schools represent an average of 52 percent of local property tax bills, so your local budgets and spending plans will be front and center. As school board members you know the mandates and cost drivers that determine the bottom line.

What we can tell so far is that Governor Christie approaches problems straight-on. It is his style, and not only does it fit him, it serves him well. People know where he stands, and seem to like it. He doesn’t mince words. He has said repeatedly that things will have to change. Cuts across the board appear likely.

On the issue of consolidation and regionalization, Christie has said it “should be left in the hands of the taxpayers who are paying the bills. It should be studied by people who are interested in looking at the regional approach or consolidation…but not forced down people’s throats.”

He is an unabashed proponent of shared services for both municipalities and school districts and believes that more shared services will produce great savings. It also seems likely that school middle-management will come under discussion as he looks for savings at the local level. Accountability and transparency remain paramount, and for school board members, the message is one you have heard before.

Changes in the Legislature On the legislative side, the political make-up has essentially remained the same. The Senate members did not run for re-election and in the Assembly, which did have an election, several new members replaced members of their own party. The Republicans gained one Assembly seat in the 4th district, resulting in a roster that stands at 47 Democrats and 22 Republicans. But there has been one huge change in both houses of the legislature: new leadership – which took over on Jan. 12. A significant political shift has occurred, with powerful North and South Jersey political forces doing their own “turning Trenton upside down” with the selection of Gloucester County Senator Steven M. Sweeney (D-3) Senate President. This change was balanced by the selection of Essex County Assemblywoman Sheila Y. Oliver (D-34), a former school board member, as Assembly Speaker.

Leadership changes beget other changes in each of the houses. Senate President Steven M. Sweeney’s ascendancy brings a new Senate Majority Leader in Barbara Buono (D-18), while the Assembly has a new Majority Leader in Joe Cryan (D-20). The Senate President has chosen former New Jersey Network reporter Kent St. John to serve as Secretary of the Senate; the Assembly Speaker has chosen to keep Dana Burley as Clerk of the Assembly. Some committee chairs have changed, including the Education Committees. In the Senate, M. Teresa Ruiz (D-29) is the new education chairperson, while in the Assembly, it is Patrick J. Diegnan, Jr. (D-18).

The Board-Legislator Discussion Legislators from both political parties know that they must be part of the property tax solution in order to get re-elected, and are looking to their school boards for information and ideas can be useful. We hope you have been telling them all along that you cannot operate with unending mandates from Trenton and a stacked deck at the bargaining table if you are to be responsible stewards for your communities’ resources. If not, it is clearly time to have that discussion.

In New Jersey almost one-third of the state budget is devoted to educational expenditures. It is no stretch to think that both the executive and legislative branches will look to the education piece of the funding pie for savings. Education aid will be even more closely examined than it has been in the past two years – years that have seen a 4 percent hard cap imposed on school budget increases (except in certain circumstances). Districts have operated under that cap while implementing and complying with the new school district monitoring system (the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum), hundreds of pages of new regulations for school operations, and the requirement to have administrator contracts approved by executive county superintendents.

Here is where you can make valuable contributions – by bringing your personal experience in school board governance to the Trenton decision makers. You have insight that your legislator may not. You know what has been working for you and what hasn’t, and plainly, what makes sense for your district.

NJSBA represents you at the State House and to legislators wherever the governmental relations team meets them. You and the NJSBA governmental relations team share a common purpose: to do what is best for the people you represent, and for the state as a whole. Together we are stronger than either of us is alone. If you join your voice in echoing ours’ in Trenton by grassroots lobbying in your district, the message will be louder, clearer and more effective.

Building a Relationship with Lawmakers 101 So, how do you go about communicating with your legislator, to begin building a partnership? You might want to begin by inviting your legislators into your schools. There they can see the good work of your students first hand. Whether it is for an event that recognizes students or staff in academics or sports, a special exhibit of students’ work, or a performing arts program, welcome their participation in your school community. Use them as a resource for reading programs, social studies lessons on local and national elections or issues, and to take part in celebratory activities. In doing so, you will provide them with a built-in audience of people to meet and speak with. Call the legislative office, send an invitation through the mail or simply e-mail a short note giving date, time, duration of visit, and a rough estimate of the number of attendees who will be present. Although legislators’ schedules are extremely busy, most will be happy to attend if they can. Don’t be put off if they decline – they get invited to so many events that their calendars fill up quickly. Just keep inviting them to increase the chances that they might be able to come.

Another way to grassroots lobby is to visit your legislator at the local district office. Since New Jersey legislators are not considered full-time, their presence in the local office varies. Legislative offices are usually open weekdays and have set hours, but each legislator determines how much time he or she can spend at the district office. If you are flexible with dates and times, you might easily get an appointment. Go alone or with another board member or administrator, and prepare for the meeting in advance. Got an issue you want to bring to the legislator’s attention? Have specifics and brainstorm a possible solution in advance with your board and administrative colleagues.

Aides are Allies From a practical point of view, meeting to request a new school funding formula or entreating the legislator for increased funding is not likely to produce positive results. Using the time to discuss your district’s unique situations and how legislative proposals might impact your district is useful information to your legislator. If your legislator cannot meet with you and you are offered a meeting with the legislative aide, take it. Legislative aides are extremely well versed in a great variety of governmental issues, and likely will have more time to spend with you. They speak to the legislator daily, and can be an excellent ally.

Perhaps there is a particular piece of legislation that concerns you. If so, do some homework in preparation for your legislative visit. State your points and what you would like the legislator to do. Are you seeking his or her support or opposition on a certain bill, should the bill come up for a vote? Be prepared to make your case. If the legislator is not in agreement, be gracious and “agree to disagree.” The legislator will likely appreciate hearing the information you provide, even if it is not his view. Leave written information whenever possible and remember that there may be other issues in the future where agreement might be more likely.

Remember that your opinions are valuable to your legislator. As a school board member you occupy a catbird seat on how laws and policies actually operate at the local school district level.

Remember to also leave your contact information with the legislator and staff. Volunteer your services and knowledge, if they are needed. Invite them to call you if they have a question about your board or your schools. Try to jot off a thank-you letter soon after your meeting, not only because it is the polite thing to do, but because it will give you an opportunity to restate and reiterate the topic and reason for your visit. E-mail is quick and efficient, but if you want to make a lasting impression, do it the old fashioned way, by sending a short handwritten note.

Not sure you know how the legislative process in Trenton works? A confident grassroots lobbyist knows what takes place under the golden dome. How does legislation originate? Knowing the process will help you be effective in your lobbying effort.

How Trenton Works First, there is a legislative proposal – simply a rough idea for a change in the law, or perhaps an entirely new policy initiative. It can come from a legislator in either house, a constituent, a public interest group, some other official – in fact, it can even come from the governor.

How is the bill written into the appropriate language? The legislator gets the assistance of the Office of Legislative Services to put the idea into the appropriate form and language. OLS does the necessary research on the subject, and crafts the bill into its necessary format. They provide the legislator with an introductory copy, which the legislator signs as prime sponsor of the bill, and invites other members of his or her house to co-prime or co-sponsor the measure. The legislator “drops” the bill into the hopper. It is recorded and given a number. At the next session the bill has its first reading, which means that its title is read aloud by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the General Assembly. Soon after, the bill is transcribed onto the OLS Web site, and is accessible electronically. (If you have not already done so, please visit www.njleg.org and explore it. This site is ground zero for advocacy and lobbying information, and is easy to navigate.)

Often, a companion bill is introduced in the second house by the legislator’s running mate or another legislator who is championing the same subject or issue. Or, a single bill can go through the legislative process on its own.

It is the job of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the General Assembly to assign the bill to a committee for consideration. Under certain circumstances, when the bill must move very quickly through the process, the bill will go directly to second reading, after which time it can be voted on in its house.

Assuming the bill is referenced to committee, however, it will get a thorough hearing at a meeting which is open to the public for comments and testimony. The committee can do a number of things at the hearing. Members can amend the bill, substitute another bill in its place, or simply vote the bill out as it is. Or if the bill is not scheduled, it remains in committee, and may not be acted upon. Assuming the bill is voted out of committee, it goes again to the Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the General Assembly for a second reading of its title aloud. At this time, the bill can be amended from the floor.

The journey of the bill is now almost complete – at least in the first house. When the Senate President or the Assembly Speaker schedules it, the bill is read again – third reading. The members of the house now debate it, amend it, or simply vote on it up or down. In order to prevent the “rushing through” of legislation, rules of the legislature require second and third readings on different days, unless the members of the house approve an “emergency” by a voice vote of three quarters of the members. An “emergency” is a valuable tool when a bill must move through the process fast – and is often used around budget time, or at the end of a legislative session.

If in the Senate a bill attains 21 votes and in the Assembly 41 votes, the bill passes. It now moves to the second house for action and goes through the same process again. Once it is passed in the second house, it goes to the governor for approval, conditional veto or veto.

NJSBA reports on legislative action in School Board Notes, through our grassroots lobbying group, EAGLEs, through the NJSBA blog, and frequently, at county school board association meetings. We hope that you, as a grassroots lobbyist in your local district, will join with your governmental relations team in advancing public education as we make our way through the new decade, when the state capital in Trenton just may be turned upside down!

Back to top