The Wiscasset Teachers Association has endorsed a fact finding report issued by a three-member panel and "are willing to accept it in its entirety," according to a press release.

Two members of the panel, appointed by the Maine Labor Relations Board, agreed on salary and benefit recommendations, while a third member of the panel did not agree, explaining in a two-page dissent why he did not.

The teachers have been without a contract since the end of August, 2006, and have gone through a number of steps to try to reach an agreement with the Wiscasset School Committee.

In this latest step, fact finding, three people were appointed to serve on the panel: one representing the teachers' interests; one representing the town's interest; and one neutral party. The three were Michael Miles, Charles Priest and Martin Wilk.

Two of the three panel members recommend a four percent increase in salary each year for the next three years. Their reasons for doing so include comparisons with what neighboring towns pay their teachers, the huge loss of Maine Yankee revenue in recent years, and the fact that townspeople already cut the proposed budget by $450,000.

The dissenting panel member's reasons for not agreeing included the fact that Wiscasset is spending about 30 percent more than what the state's Essential Programs and Services formula recommends, that Wiscasset teachers' salaries were about five percent above the state's salary matrix in 2005-2006, and that Wiscasset's per pupil costs were 38 percent higher than the state average ($11,300 vs. $8,200).

"Wiscasset is backed into a corner," the dissenting panel member wrote, referring to the town's inability to partner with other towns to consolidate school systems. "The panel majority's proposed salary increase backs it further into the corner. The stark reality is that Wiscasset's costs of operation are significantly higher than its neighbors, and it is as a consequence, an unattractive dance partner. Who can blame Bath for being uninterested in a marriage with Wiscasset which will cost it nearly $450,000? Or Woolwich a shade over $150,000.

"Wiscasset's imperative has to be to control its costs. The panel majority's proposed increase, which results in average salary increases of five percent, 4.9 percent and 4.9 percent in the next three years, exacerbates a serious problem by increasing salary costs at a rate that is more than twice the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, which the panel agrees is 2.4 percent.

"Worse, if Wiscasset is unable to find a partner in the consolidation dance due to its high costs, exacerbated by a wage settlement more than twice the rate of inflation, it will incur additional costs in the form of a reduction in state subsidies, a penalty for schools who are unsuccessful in merging with other entities."

The two panel members who recommend a four percent increase say that this "would be in line with increases in Bath, Georgetown and West Bath, all possible consolidation partners. It would also serve to increase the salaries at steps 10-21 of the salary scale, where Wiscasset has slipped in comparison to neighboring school units over the past 10 years."

All three panel members agreed that the teacher salaries "should be considered in conjunction with health insurance."

Two of the three panel members said, "It is important that the combined effect of the recommended increase in salary, increase in health insurance costs to the employees and increases in the cost of living should result in a net gain, not merely a break even or possibly even a reduction in purchasing power to the employees."

The town now pays 100 percent of the cost of health insurance for single subscribers and 90 percent of family coverage. The school committee had proposed paying 95 percent of the cost of health insurance for single subscribers and 86 percent of the cost for family coverage. The panel found that for the 2006-2007 school year, Bath, Boothbay, MSAD 11 and MSAD 75 pay 100 percent of the single subscriber premium and 91 percent, 80 percent, 70 percent and 85 percent, respectively, of the family coverage premium.

The panel found that in the private sector, among large employers (100 employees and up) the average paid for full time employees is 72 percent of the cost for single subscribers and 49 percent for family coverage.

The panel majority recommended that Wiscasset continue to pay 100 percent of the single subscriber premium for the next three years, and 94 percent, 93 percent and 92 percent for dependent coverage in the next three successive years.

"Health insurance should not be looked at in isolation," said two of the panel members, "but rather, in conjunction with salaries, so that increases in health insurance costs to the employee do not eat up the increase in salary."

The dissenting panel member disagreed with the other two panel members' recommendation on health care coverage.

"The panel majority's proposal is radically at odds with the experience of the overwhelming majority of taxpayers of Wiscasset," he wrote. Referring to the 72 percent average health care cost paid in the private sector, he wrote, "The school committee's proposal to move contributions for individual coverage from 100 percent to 98 percent in year two and 95 percent in year 3 seems very modest.

"The majority's recommendation to maintain contributions at 100 percent is not even justified when comparing to area K-12 schools. The area average employer contributions for K-12 schools is 95 percent with districts such as Richmond and MSAD 40 paying 90 percent and 80 percent, respectively."

"In order for the community to support its local schools, it is imperative that the school be a reflection of the community and what it can afford. When health benefits enjoyed by school employees far exceed the benefits of those who pay for them, community support for the schools diminishes. With the escalating cost of health insurance, employees also need to bear some portion of the burden. This not only lessens the financial burden placed on the community, but it forces employees to be more responsive in exploring ways to slow the overall cost in health insurance through plan changes … and becoming better health care consumers."