To the editor:
Most rational people make purchasing decisions based upon how much money they have coming in their paychecks. Surely, unexpected events like the car breaking down or the furnace needing repair throw us off. For the most part, however, we wouldn't (and shouldn't) enter into contracts knowing full well that we don't have the means to pay for them. This is precisely what happens in Hamilton town government.
Each time the School Committee and the selectmen agree and go forward with town employee payroll contracts, they are fully aware that they cannot provide for the contracted obligations and other key expenses without tax overrides.
We hear of these key expenses all the time — the leaking roof, special education mandates, sports programs or a new police car. Little attention is paid to the basic math. If these payroll contracts were under control and within our income projections, we could afford many of the additional expenses.
A homeowner, who has bought a reasonably sized house, with a mortgage within his/her income level, can occasionally fix the roof or car. The homeowner with a monthly mortgage payment higher than his/her monthly income cannot.
I hear arguments about the need to accept teacher contracts as necessary to recruit and retain teachers. If you look at the Hamilton-Wenham schools' Web site, you will note that there are exactly zero openings for teaching and administrative positions. In the "dreaded private sector," pay is based on availability of qualified staff within projected company revenues. No such consideration, apparently, here.
On the "retention" front, it is not clear exactly how many teachers actually leave for pay reasons. Studies show that while pay is important, it ranks behind several other determining factors. Happiness with the job, a feeling of security, confidence in management, working environment and support of fellow employees all come before pay scale.
The bottom line is that school officials' conclusion that failure to pass the override will result in teaching position reductions is a direct result of their past agreement to salary contracts that we cannot afford. Salary contracts are more than half the cost of running schools.
Even a modest percentage reduction (through vacancies, changes in benefits, reduction in extra pay, and being tough on retaining marginally performing teachers) can make a positive budgetary difference with very little impact on educational quality.
We need bold creativity from our superintendent and School Committee. Most importantly, we need our leaders to stand up and explain the limits of our resources during contract negotiating time, particularly when the economy is in peril. Superintendents and school committees should not be lobbyists for the status quo.
Teaching is a great profession and critically important to our next generation. The best teachers should be given individual performance bonuses. The weak teachers should not automatically receive the same pay increase as the best. Principals need more authority to reward or discipline poorly performing teachers.
Tenure should be made more difficult to achieve, better yet, eliminated. Teaching salaries should be based on the principle of supply and demand, just like in the private sector, where excellence is rewarded. These suggestions are not anti-education; in fact they would provide the best possible education at an efficient cost.
We need to start this process now, not postpone it, or wait for a state bailout that won't come. Vote no on the overrides. Let's get going!
Robert F. Sica
Hamilton
