Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of Monday's story on the extended leave of absence granted a former Peabody High School teacher, is the fact that it went unquestioned for so long.
Each year since she left her job in the school system in 1986 to join the staff of the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, Annemarie Dubois was routinely granted a leave rather than being forced to separate from the system.
As a result, she was allowed to accumulate time toward what will be a generous pension when she retires. And to this day she retains the right to return to her former position even though she has been out of the classroom for 24 years.
This despite the fact she has spent most of those years negotiating against the city in her role as bargaining agent for the city's teachers.
A leave of that duration would not be tolerated in the private sector. But this is Peabody, where even in a down economy, raises for union members are treated as a matter of routine; police were granted a first-in-the-nation 9/11 holiday; and until recently, even members of the City Council could obtain premium health coverage and have taxpayers pick up 90 percent of the tab.
Little wonder that legislators bristle when municipal officials like Mayor Michael Bonfanti wail about the diminishing amount of local aid they receive. Cities and towns could save themselves a lot of money over the years by taking a tougher stance at the bargaining table.
Yet too often perks like those accorded Dubois are greeted with a shrug of the shoulders, which was pretty much the reaction of schools Superintendent C. Milton Burnett and veteran Committeeman David McGeney, who chairs the school board's bargaining committee.
Fortunately for those who pay the bills, change may be in the offing as a result of Jarrod Hochman's election to the Peabody School Committee last year. (Ironically, Ed Nizwantowski, one of the people Hochman replaced, raised the issue last year to no avail — and he's married to a member of the teachers union's executive board.)
Hochman last week finally raised the question regarding Dubois that should have been asked many years and contracts ago: Why are we doing this?
Burnett and McGeney say it's required by contract. (To which Hochman reasonably responded during a discussion of the matter: "If you can't say 'no,' what's the point of voting on it?")
Contract language is subject to change at the initiative of either party, and someone on the city's side of the bargaining table should have suggested at some point that Dubois' leave should not be extended indefinitely.
Taking advantage of the system in this way doesn't serve the best interest of anyone except the individual involved. What it does is simply reinforce the perception that the public pension system in Massachusetts is out of control.
No Limits for Disabled Hunters at Mich. Base
Victim Identified in Fla. Face-chewing Attack
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Crossed the Pacific
90 Guns Seized, Dozens Arrested in Oakland
Raw Video: Hail Storm Batters Oklahoma City
6-Year-Old Going to National Spelling Bee
California's Foie Gras Ban About to Begin
Video Essay: Funky Winkerbean Comic Turns 40
Hurricane Andrew Remembered, 20 Years Later
Judge's Ruling Halts Tenn. Mosque Construction
Romney in Las Vegas on Texas Primary Day
Sister Says She Reported Brother in Patz Killing
Even Fla. Police Shocked by Face-Mauling Attack
Angry Birds Spreading Their Wings
Witness Describes Fla. Face-chewing Attack
