The Massapequa School District's union dispute began in May of '95 when the board of education and the teachers union submitted their proposals for a new three-year contract to replace the previous contract.

The board of education's proposals called for a number of salary, fringe benefit, and health insurance rollbacks while the union sought salary and fringe benefit increases.

Both sides in the negotiations could not come up with a compromise settlement. The Massapequa Federation of Teachers (MFT) had proposed a 4 percent increase in salary, over three-years, while the board's proposal called for a 1.8 percent salary increase.

Union officials argued that the 1.8 percent figure was below the annual cost of living index while the school board contended that the union's 4 percent figure was unrealistic.

Both sides met approximately 12 times to negotiate a new contract. The MFT then declared an impasse and submitted a Declaration of Impasse to the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB).

An impasse, in the technical definition of the word, means deadlock. Neither side could find room for compromise.

PERB then appointed a mediator to assist both parties in their quest to find common ground. The mediation process was unsuccessful.

Eventually, the union asked for a New York State Public Employees Relations Board fact-finder to be appointed to draw up a compromise resolution for settling the dispute.

On Oct. 22, 1996 the Massapequa Board of Education appointed a special attorney to deal with the negotiations. The law firm of Guercio & Guercio was contracted, at a retainer pay rate, to represent the district. Guercio & Guercio, one of three firms on Long Island that have cornered the educational labor market in recent years, at the time, represented 32 school districts.

On August 23, 1996 the Public Employees Relations Board appointed Robert Douglass as the fact-finder in the impasse between the MFT and the district. Douglass met with both sides for the first time on Oct. 28 and conducted a fact-finding hearing on Nov. 26. The fact-finder then went home and left both sides, waiting for the report, in the meantime.

As time progressed the tactics of the Massapequa union began to change, including wearing black clothing on Fridays, protesting in front of the homes of members of the board of education and Superintendent James Brucia, distributing information revealing the addresses of board members, and placing advertisements in the Pennysaver, Massapequan Observer and the Massapequa Post urging residents to support them in the dispute.

For the most part, throughout 1996, many residents said that they accepted the tactics of the teachers union as a normal part of the dispute - until November.

Sometime in mid-November, the MFT leadership decided to take out a full page advertisement in Newsday urging prospective homebuyers to think twice before deciding to move into Massapequa. The move caused a great deal of anger and concern to spread throughout the community.

Sherry L. Prinzo from Newpoint Realty, which is located on Park Boulevard in Massapequa Park said that, back in November, realtors were concerned the union's action would cause the value of homes in the area to decline. However, she said that this has not been the case. "If anything, the Massapequa real estate market is stronger then ever," Prinzo noted.

From this point on, the dispute began to continually escalate. In January, 1997 the MFT held their election for union president. Current President Ruth Emler, a retired district employee, was challenged by MHS teacher Richard Goldman. Goldman, considered a "hard-liner" by sources close to the MFT, narrowly lost the election by 44 votes. 490 votes were cast.

The message sent throughout the union leadership, sources say, was to intensify pressure for a contract settlement favorable to union demands.

Around this time, while both sides waited for the fact-finder's report, the union began conducting "community seminars" to take their case to the public. Attendance was low at the meetings and a backlash resulted.

On Jan. 7 a small group of parents with school-age children began protesting the union's community seminars.

Mary Gavin, a parent whose child is a student at Birch Lane Elementary School said that it was time for teachers to return to their traditional roles-- teaching -- and to spend less time protesting. "They (the teachers) are not really happy and it's coming down on our children," said Gavin in a January 1997 interview.

Throughout the months of January and February of 1997 the tension and public displays of emotion intensified to a peak level.

Richard Gale, an MHS English teacher, argued at a public meeting on Feb. 13, the last before the fact-finder issued his report, that "there is an erosion going on here and it can't last forever. We are tired of not having respect, tired of not being appreciated and you can only continue like this for so long. Eventually you collapse and your spirit dies. I love my students but I hate being treated with no respect and appreciation. "

And finally, after a number of delays, PERB fact-finder Robert Douglass issued his report on Feb. 26. Douglass laid out a point by point analysis of the issues raised by the union and by the district.

The recommendations included a 2.5 percent increase in salary for each year of the new contract, the elimination of the transfer clause and preference sheet system with the provision that the district exercise their new rights for "sound educational reasons," and that the district retain the current school year without adding additional days.

The union quickly rejected the report.

At the next public meeting held after the report was issued, MFT President Ruth Emler handed a letter to attorney Greg Guercio stating that the teacher's union rejected the recommendations in their entirety.

Once again the union began picketing and protesting. At one point the home of Dr. James Brucia, superintendent of schools, was picketed on a Saturday afternoon by members of the MFT.

The next step in the process was a set of meetings with a New York State super-conciliator. The last of the five meetings with the super-conciliator ended with both parties going home, without a new contract, and without a foreseeable end to this three-year dispute.

Don Nobile, vice-president of the Massapequa Federation of Teachers, stated immediately after, "negotiations have broken down and broken off."

"Nobody from the MFT met directly with the board of education," argued Nobile in explaining why the method failed. "There was no face-to-face contact."

Nobile added that the union was now "willing to make changes in our transfer sheets and preference clauses in order to reach a settlement."

Newly elected School Board President Robert Thompson said he saw the situation differently. "Unfortunately," Thompson said, "the union is only willing to make a compromise if the taxpayers pay for it."

Once again, in what was originally seen as a final attempt to reach a settlement, both sides were back to square one.

This changed on Aug. 30, 1997.

For the first time the board put forward a proposal that exceeded the fact-finders recommendations. The proposal, made public by Guercio, proposed a five-year set of salary increases which surpass the recommendations outlined in the fact-finder's report.

However, the board added, in exchange for the new increases, a new item which was not mentioned in the fact-finders recommendations.

The new stipulation in the board's proposal was for an additional day of classroom instruction starting in 1998-99 and a second additional day of instruction to begin in 1999-2000. Also the district asked for the teachers to contribute 30 hours of staff development on an annual basis.

Martin Scheinman, a nationally recognized mediator, was called in, at the dual expense of the union and the board of education, to help break the impasse.

In January of this year, the board of education and the Massapequa Federation of Teachers called a "moratorium" on discussing any and all issues related to contract negotiations. The moratorium, which is still in effect, called for no ads, no pickets, and no public comments.

"The purpose of the moratorium is to facilitate the process," said Nobile in January.

In the meantime, the board and the union continued to meet with the mediator. Issue by issue, each point of contention was hammered out. First the preference sheets and transfer clauses, then salary and health insurance issues.

And, at their more recent meetings with the mediator last week, Scheinman came up with the final proposal by the board of education and handed it over to the union leadership.

They looked it over, and agreed to the terms. The union membership still has to vote on the terms of the agreement after the language of the settlement is worked out.

However, sources say that by the end of the week the agreement should be finalized, thus ending three years of argument, protest, and confrontation.

This story is a compilation of news articles written by Massapequan Observer Editor Eric Usinger over the course of the last three years.