The specifics of the contract settlement between the Massapequa Board of Education and the Massapequa Federation of Teachers (MFT) were unveiled last week revealing a new six-year teachers contract with major changes from their previous agreement which expired in 1995.

The agreement had been reached last month (as reported in the March 13 issue of the Massapequan Observer) when both sides ended a three-year stalemate by reaching an agreement on the major issues: salary, health care, and internal employee policies.

The memorandum of agreement, which was signed by Assistant Superintendent of Schools Charlie Sulk and MFT President Ruth Emler, followed two night-long negotiation sessions on March 31 and April 3. The final meeting began at 9 pm on Friday and lasted until 5:15 am on Saturday morning.

The proposed settlement still needs to be ratified by the membership of the MFT and the board of education. The MFT's general membership will be discussing the memorandum of agreement on April 22. However a final vote date has not been set.

According to union vice-president Don Nobile, the MFT will not vote on the contract until after a settlement is reached with the secretarial unit of the MFT. "It is our intention that both the teachers and secretaries have an agreement and a vote at the same time," said Nobile.

To date, an agreement has not been reached with the secretarial unit. The next negotiations session is scheduled for April 23.

The new agreement calls for a six year contract with retroactive pay dating back to July 1, 1995. The new salary increases, starting with school year 1995-96, are 2.5, 2.5, 2.85, 3.0, 3.65, and 3.75 percent.

The last offer made by the board called for salary increases of 2.5, 2.75, 3.0, 3.25 and 3.5 over a five-year time frame. The State of New York appointed fact-finder, summoned to break the stalemate in 1995, recommended a salary increase of 2.5 percent for the first three years and 2.85 percent for the last two years of a five-year contract.

Each increase in salary is in addition to the required step increments mandated in the contract. Step increments average anywhere from 2.1 to 2.4 percent. For example, a teacher with a master's degree in their fifth year teaching made $43,315 for the 1994-1995 school year. Without the proposed salary increases, the step increases would bring the teacher up to $50,510 after six years. With the increased outlines in the new contract, the teacher will make $60,454 for the 2000-01 school year, an average yearly increase of 4.73 percent.

The agreement also calls for a 10 percent employee contribution to health care premiums for individual or family coverage. The 10 percent co-pay was a major point of contention between the board of education and the MFT. The district's initial contract proposal had called for a 10 percent employee contribution which the MFT had considered to be unreasonable. According to figures released last year by school attorney Greg Guercio, a 10 percent contribution would cost close to $352.20 per year for a family plan, or $172.92 per year for an individual plan.

The new contract adds an additional day of classroom instruction to the school year, bringing the district up to 181 school days. In addition, teachers are now required to provide an additional six hours of training time per year, to be used after the end of a school day.

The new contract also makes major modifications to two of the district's internal policies, the teaching preference policy and the old contract's transfer clause. Under the provision of the old contract, the district was strictly limited in its ability to assign teachers to certain classes or grade levels or to transfer teachers from one building to the next.

The new preference procedure requires that a teacher must submit a preference sheet which shall be honored based upon seniority. At the junior and senior high school level, teachers have the right to request two out of five of the previous years classroom periods. However, the new stipulations give the Superintendent of Schools the authority to preempt a teacher from his/her teaching preference.

Board of Education President Robert Thompson said that the agreement was reasonable for both sides. "It's a very good contract and serves the needs of the students, the teachers and the taxpayers," said Thompson.