|
Question: Can the school board pass an Act 93 plan that the
administrators did not approve?
Answer: Yes. The school board, after good faith meet and
discuss, can, at a public meeting, pass a plan the majority of administrators
may not approve. Nothing in the law requires the administrators to approve the
terms and conditions of the plan, only that they have the ability to meet with
the board concerning the plan.
Question: Must we have an Act 93 plan?
Answer: No. The law is optional. If the majority of
administrators do not want to meet and discuss with the school board, the board
may pass policy on compensation without input of administrators.
Question: What if some of us like the board offer and others do
not? What happens?
Answer: The board does not need the administrators' acceptance
of the plan to make it legal. While it would be nice to have the majority
accept it, the school board could adopt the minority position.
Question: Can the custodial supervisor, transportation
supervisor and other like positions be in the Act 93 group?
Answer: While no court case exists to determine eligibility,
the law states "any employee of the school entity below the rank of
superintendent, executive director, vocational director, assistant
superintendent….". Common practice has been to include all positions of a
supervisory nature that are not excluded by the law, which would be
superintendent, assistant superintendent, business manager and personnel
director. In fact, in Curley vs. Greater Johnstown, the issue of
non-supervisory school administrators was addressed and the court stated they
could be part of Act 93 group.
Question: What if we do not want certain positions in the
group?
Answer: After 15 years since the enactment of Act 93, it would
probably be difficult to win this argument in court and would probably have a
negative impact on the legislature. From a practical standpoint, many groups
have been able to resolve this issue by having separate agreements - one
covering educational staff and another covering non-educational staff under a
master Act 93 document.
Question: Can the school board not live up to the terms of an
Act 93 agreement?
Answer: No. Assuming the plan was passed by the school board
at a public school board meeting, the plan is in effect to its expiration date.
This issue was affirmed in Curley vs. Greater Johnstown School District.
Commonwealth Court found that an ACP is a binding document and once adopted by
the board may not be changed by the board during the term of the plan, unless
by mutual agreement. In the event the school board would change the agreement,
the issue would be taken into the local county court of common pleas to be
resolved.
Question: How long a time line must a plan be in existence?
Answer: The law requires minimum of one year, but multi-year
plans are not excluded.
Question: Can the board make a deal with one administrator?
Answer: Although never litigated, it is the position of the
associations (PAESSP) that the legislative purpose of Act 93 is that all
members would be covered by one document. However, the law does not preclude
the school board from giving one administrator greater salary or benefits
although they must do so under the context of meet and discuss. Where
administrators actively pursue this request, they really hurt the Act 93
process because all semblance of group unity is lost.
Question: How soon before the ACP expiration date should we
meet with the school board?
Answer: While there is no set standard, a meeting should be
held in January/February to acquaint the board with Act 93. Many board members
might have never been part of the process. Topics should include how Act 93
works, the importance of good pay and benefits for administrative staff,
developing a philosophy of administrative compensation and other areas the
group wishes to address. This is not a gripe session, but should be used as an
opportunity to educate the school board on the role of the administrator and
compensation issues. At the next meeting, the group can get into specifics.
|