NTA EBulletin: April 27, 2025

May Day 2025

(new)

On Thursday, join other working people for a May 1 Day of Action in Boston. 

School Committee Presents

School Budget to City Council

(new)

On Thursday April 17, Chris Brezski and Anna Nolin presented the school committee approved "Level Plus" budget to the Newton City Council. After Anna presented the details of the school budget itself, Chris (1) demonstrated that there are financially responsible and sustainable ways to fully fund the school budget next year and in future years; and (2) asked the city council to use the power it has to leverage Mayor Fuller into funding the FY26 NPS budget. 

With regard to (1) above, Chris showed that the city's free cash (that is, budget surpluses) allows it to fund the "Level Plus" budget this year. Moreover, because free cash surpluses result from chronically underestimating city revenues, they are thus not simply "one-time funds." Chris further argued that the long term goal of moving towards Anna's "Thrive" budget is sustainable IF the city were to slow down the pace at which it funds the Newton Retirement System. (State law requires the city to fully fund future municipal pensions by 2040; the city is currently on pace to fully fund future pensions by 2032--eight years sooner than required.  Instead of spreading the cost out over a longer period of time, this accelerated pace will starve the city's operating budget every year between now and 2032.)

With regard to (2) above, Chris said that the Mayor indeed wields great power over the budget in the city: She holds, he said, "51 of the 52 cards in the deck." But the city council holds one particularly powerful card that it could play: they have the power to say no to any use of free cash that the Mayor proposes, effectively preventing her from funding any capital projects with free cash. And they have the power to say no to any line items in the Mayor's FY26 city budget. (If the city council rejects the Mayor's whole budget, legally, it goes into effect without their approval; if they reject or reduce any number of individual line items, and approve it as amended, it goes into effect as amended. They cannot increase the amount of any line item.) 

Regarding free cash, Chris did not ask the city council to pick and choose which projects to approve; he asked them to disapprove ALL requests to fund ANY project with free cash until such time as the Mayor allocates the necessary free cash to fully fund the "Level Plus" budget--no strings attached. In other words, he is asking the city council  to stonewall the mayor.

I am not sure the city council members heard what Chris was asking; the questions and comments that followed his presentation were predominantly about the school budget itself. Only two council members, Marc Laredo, city council president and sole candidate to be the next mayor, and Lenny Gentile, chair of the finance committee, even brought the issue up. Laredo said that he did not think that the council should be picking and choosing which projects to fund with free cash--but that is not what Chris is asking them to do. Gentile seemed to understand what Chris was asking, but was deeply opposed to the city council asserting its power over the Mayor. 

If you have a chance to watch the meeting, Chris and Anna put on quite the performance. In particular, tune in at minute 59:30 of the meeting, where Chris asks the council to exercise the power of their "one card."

Budget Cuts and Reductions in Force

(new)

We don't yet know what the results are going to be of the budget battle Chris Brezski and Anna Nolin are fighting, so we don't know the depth of cuts there will be next year. But there already will be cuts due to the reorganization or cutting of programs, and members are asking: What are the protocols governing layoffs when there are staff cuts? What are my rights?

The superintendent has the prerogative, contractually and legally, "to determine the number of teaching positions and other professional positions that are needed in the school system." This is the same across units. She can reorganize programs, repurpose employees to other roles, reduce the total number of staff members. Nonetheless, there are contractual obligations and limitations on who is laid off when reductions in force or restructuring happens. 

The principles guiding reductions in force are simple, but the scenarios that result from layoffs can be complicated. I will try to convey the broad picture here. If you have questions about your individual rights under the contract, please use this form to ask Chris Walsh and me your questions.

In Unit A, if reductions are needed beyond normal attrition, PTS and licensure are the primary determining factors governing whom can be laid off. Unit A members without PTS must be laid off before Unit A members with PTS who have applicable licensure are laid off. 

It is similar for Unit B. Although Unit B members do not hold PTS in their administrative roles, they do pass through a probationary period of three years that is similar to to non-PTS Unit A members first three years. But even if Unit B members have finished their probationary period, they can be more vulnerable, because their administrative license does not necessarily qualify them for a different position in the system.

However, if a Unit B member had Unit A PTS in the district before they became a Unit B member, they have a right to a Unit A position for which they are licensed. The contract is less clear about whether a Unit B member who never had PTS in a Unit A position in Newton is entitled to a Unit A position.

Unit C members with fewer than eight years of seniority in the NPS can be laid off without regard to their years of seniority; which becomes a primary determining factor for layoffs when Unit C members have eight of more years of experience in the system. Historically, when a program or a number of positions are cut due to restructuring, the district helps the people who are cut find positions for which they are qualified, although the contract language does not definitively require this.

In Unit E, as with Unit B, the contract states that "[n]o non-probationary Unit E member shall be laid off within a job classification while a probationary (less than three years of service) Unit E member is holding a job within the same job classification, which a non-probationary Unit E member is qualified to fill."

On Friday, April 11, Chris Walsh, Greg Shea, and I spoke with NPS General Counsel Jill Grady and HR Director Joany Santa, and they explained to us how the were approaching reductions in force. Based on what they told us, they are attending carefully to members' contractual rights--and as important, gave the impression that they regret the loss of valuable employees.

Health Insurance

(revised from three weeks ago)

City of Newton CFO Maureen Limieux, working with the city's health insurance consultant, determined that health insurance premiums must go up 11.2% next year. Although an 11.2% premium increase is in line with increases across the state, coming on top of the over 13% increase in premium costs this year, next year our health insurance premiums will have gone up 25% in just two years. 

In solidarity, 

Mike Zilles, President

Newton Teachers Association