Although a new labor contract was signed last week with teachers
in the Bradford Area School District, it may be as much as a month
before details are released to the public.

The Era has been attempting to learn the provisions of the new
contract with the Bradford Area Education Association since early
August.

The teachers’ union and the school district reached an agreement
via a fact-finding report with official approval by the district on
Aug. 7, and the teachers’ union, Aug. 8.

Since then, The Era has repeatedly asked school officials for a
copy of the report but has been turned down for various reasons –
time needed to organize the information, and to have both sides
re-read and then sign the document.

Just this past Monday, Samuel Johnson Jr., the district’s
director of human resources, acknowledged that the contract had in
fact been proofread and signed Oct. 6 by three of the four people
needing to sign the document before it goes to print, but there was
only one copy.

Before it could be released to The Era, it would have to be
printed in volume and distributed to members of the teachers’
union, many of whom have not yet seen the completed document.

Johnson said that process could take an additional three or four
weeks.

Given that further delay, The Era asked if it would be possible
in the interim to meet with Johnson; BAEA members, and union
representative Terra Begolly to discuss the contents of the
contract, or even highlights of the labor agreement.

Again, the answer was no.

Johnson said he had talked to two members of the BAEA’s
executive committee who said they preferred that members of the
association receive a copy of the contract before any information
is released.

A message was left for Begolly on Tuesday afternoon. She is
currently in contract talks with another school district and her
expected return date to the office is not known.

At Tuesday night’s school board meeting, Board President Paul
Ridley said he could appreciate the teachers’ association’s desire
to keep the information from the public until all of their members
have seen a copy of the agreement.

“It would be disrespectful (to print the information) before
they see the actual contract,” said Ridley.

School Superintendent Sandra Romanowski had this to say: “I
don’t feel it’s mine to give out of respect. If they want to give
it to you, I have no issue with that.”

This is the second major sticking point between The Era and
school officials over pay-related matters.

Several months ago, The Era requested the amount of “incentive
pay” – bonuses – the school board paid administrators this school
year.

On Aug. 21, a reporter e-mailed the district three sets of
questions asking for various information regarding the incentive
pay and who and what amount was received by those
administrators.

In response, Johnson said the district did not believe incentive
pay is public information. Officials cited the Right to Know Act,
asserting that incentive pay is not public information because it
is part of the administrators’ personnel file.

The Era appealed that decision asking that the district
reconsider releasing the information to the newspaper as well as
“the public who has a right to know how its money is being
spent.”

In addition, the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association sent a
letter in support of The Era, citing several cases where payroll
records were considered open records as long as the information did
not result in potential harm to reputation or personal
security.

By Era calculations, the superintendent must respond to the
appeal on or before Oct. 26.

In May, after three years of not having an administrative
incentive pay under Act 93, the board of directors in the district
voted to approve a memorandum of understanding – an administrative
compensation plan for 2005-06 and 2006-07.

That means that any administrator who meets the criteria, or
receives a distinguished rating in their program review would be
eligible for a bonus of up to 2 percent of their salary.