Though it seems as if the Levittown School District and Levittown United Teachers just settled a lengthy contract dispute, that time has arrived again and concerns that the district wasn't doing everything in its power to make those negotiations run smoothly were expressed by the LUT President during the Public Be Heard portion of the board of education's regular April meeting.

Martha Martin, the president of the LUT, the district's teachers' union, said that she was speaking at the meeting to quell two rumors which had recently surfaced. The first rumor that Martin said was untrue was that the teachers' union was against a nine period day in the high school. According to Martin, because there have been no negotiations, the union has taken no position on the subject.

The second rumor, which according to Martin emanated from central administration, is that contract negotiations are going very well but cannot be discussed with anyone, as they are private. "Facetiously, I add, so private that the union doesn't even know about them," said Martin. "We have been prepared to begin negotiations since mid-December."

Martin said that when she and LUT Vice President Beth Harrigan attended the March 7 school board meeting, they were surprised to hear the bond and budget discussion concerning a nine period day in the high schools, when there is no provision for anything more than eight periods in the teachers' current contract. "It seems to me that if the board is making important financial decisions affecting the Levittown community, its administrators should be well into negotiations with the Levittown United Teachers to negotiate contractual items, said Martin. "Therefore, I am confused. To quote our present contract, which expires June 30 this year, 'The parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations for a new agreement no later than Feb. 1, 2001."

Martin explained that she met with Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Herman Sirois on Sept. 14 to informally discuss the upcoming negotiations. She said that because they were meeting so early she was hopeful that the LUT would not have to go nearly a year and a half with expired contracts as they did during the last contract negotiations.

"I explained to Dr. Sirois that the officers and the negotiating team felt obligated to meet with the teachers in each of our schools to hear their concerns. We traveled to each school and completed our meetings on Nov. 20 at which time I again contacted Dr. Sirois. We met on Jan. 3 for additional informal discussion and on Jan. 16, Dr. Sirois indicated to me that formal negotiations were in order," said Martin. She further stated that on Jan. 17 she hand-delivered a letter to the superintendent's office indicating that the union was prepared to begin negotiations and would like to set some dates for those negotiations. According to Martin, on Jan. 30, the NYSUT labor relations specialist and chief negotiator Claudia Schacter-de Chabert received a letter from the district's chief negotiator and attorney, Jonathan Heidelberger, stating that he was in receipt of Martin's letter and would be in touch with her shortly to establish meeting dates.

According to Martin, more than a month went by and the union had not heard from Heidelberger again so she hand-delivered another letter to the superintendent's office. She said that on either March 20 or 21, Schacter-de Chabert contacted her to say that she and the district's negotiator had agreed upon two dates to begin negotiations. One date was not good for the LUT so they scheduled the meeting for the second date, May 1. On March 29, the district's negotiator informed the LUT's negotiator that May 1 was not a good date after all. They then set a meeting for May 14, but one of the LUT's team members will be chaperoning a school trip that week so that date was not appropriate for them.

Martin stated, "I think the union has been more than patient considering the district has violated its agreement with us. The negotiating team and officers feel that the district and its attorney should clear its calendar from May 14 on and get on with the business of negotiating a new contract."

Sirois responded to Martin's statements by saying that she left out the fact that when they met in September, he had asked her to open negotiations by sending a letter to the board, requesting that negotiations begin at an early date, but no letter was sent until the middle of January. When Martin asked if she could respond to that statement she was ignored. Sirois went on to state, "The administration and the lawyer for the board was prepared to meet next week, but that date wasn't good for you. It is not my opinion that this board of education has been dragging feet or doing anything like that. We're open to negotiations. You and I have had some, I think, good discussions, about some of the general parameters of that. I think it was positive, I still think it's positive, I certainly don't think that this is something that should be done in public. We're not allowed to comment or discuss negotiations. My position is that they are going well."

Heidelberger then commented on the fact that they were not able to agree upon a date that was good for both sides but that the district had been prepared to meet during spring recess. He then added that there was no question in his mind that the board would take all negotiations seriously, in good faith.

Sirois stated that it was very important for not only the LUT but for all unions, that negotiations stay positive, in order to keep the morale of the district high. "Certainly for the staff, the board, district parents and our students, swift completion of those [negotiations] are particularly important to our teachers who rely on that contract and I appreciate that," said Sirois.

Martin asked Board of Education President Michael Moriarity if she might reply to an "untruthful statement made by Dr. Sirois." Moriarity responded by holding up the statements made by Martin and asking the district's attorney if everything in those comments were 100 percent correct.

Heidelberger said that he could only respond to what he and Schacter-de Chabert were directly involved in but stated, "Some of it is true, but some is obviously not."

Sirois offered to meet with Martin the next day to speak with her about what she perceived not to be true. "I think it should be on the record, Dr. Sirois, I really do but I guess that's not to be," said Martin. Sirois simply responded, "no," and ended the discussion.