May 14, 2013

Board of Education votes 3-2 to restore tech teachers' pay

By SCOTT WRIGHT

Share |

CENTRE — The Cherokee County Board of Education voted last week to restore an extra month's pay to a group of teachers at the Career and Technology Center, putting an end to litigation they had filed against the Board 18 months ago.

Ten teachers filed a lawsuit against then-Superintendent Brian Johnson and the Board members in September 2011 after their payment contracts were reduced from 10 months to nine months. In their filing, the teachers claimed there was a “personal and political bias against them” by Johnson.

Specifically, the teachers' lawsuit charged that Johnson had a vendetta against them stemming from a grudge he held against Mitchell Guice, who was then principal at the Career and Technology Center. Guice has since been elected superintendent and presided over last week's vote.

Nearly a year ago, an administrative law judge from the office of Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange tossed out the teachers' allegations of animosity against Johnson and the Board. In a 12-page decision, Judge Julia Weller wrote that she found no evidence of personal bias and that evidence proved “that the Board acted within its authority in the reduction of the … contracts at issue.”

When a countywide sales tax for education passed in the summer of 2011, Board members told the Cherokee County Commission, which voted 4-0 to level the tax, that they would restore the contracts to the teachers if tax collections met projections of around $1.7 million in annual revenue.

The teachers filed their lawsuit before the tax went into effect on Oct, 1, 2011.

“From the beginning those teachers were told if the money was available their contracts would be restored,” Guice told The Post on Friday. “I felt that's what we should do since that's what the County Commission was told we would do.”

Prior to leaving office in January 2013, Johnson always maintained the salary reductions were part of overall budget cuts made necessary by years of diminishing financial support from the state Legislature. In her ruling, Judge Weller agreed.

“The Board faced a shortfall in 2011 of $700,000,” Weller wrote in her ruling. “Thus … the action of the Board must be upheld.”

Board chairwoman Lisa McKissick, along with newly-elected members Mark Green and Suzanne Bishop, voted to restore the additional month of pay. Board members Mark Gossett and Lynn Rochester voted against the move.

“They didn't even wait for us to begin collecting the tax before they got the lawyers involved,” Rochester told The Post. “A judge from the attorney general's office ruled in our favor, and they were the ones who wanted to have their day in court, which was going to be on June 4 in front of Judge Cole. I voted no because I was willing to let them have their day in court.”

Green, a former teacher who said he listened to hours of audio recordings of meetings during which the issue was discussed, said he felt it was time to put the issue to rest.

“The members of the Board at that time made statements that if the money was available, the contracts would be restored,” Green said. “I felt like we needed to do what we said we would do.”

McKissick's comments echoed Green’s.

“Ultimately, I felt like the Board of Education should do what it said it was going to do,” she told The Post.

According to WEIS Radio News, Gossett said the other teachers in the county are also deserving of a tenth month's pay and he could not vote to pay more to a small group when everyone else was just as deserving.

Green, who worked for years as a teacher with a nine-month contract, said he understands the sentiments of those who question why some should receive more pay than others.

“Those teachers have extra things that they have to do to keep up their certification,” he said. “I wish we could put every teacher on a ten-month contract, but it can't be done.”

“Those teachers interviewed for jobs with a ten-month contract when they were hired,” Guice said. “I thought, at the very least, we should have taken a vote to restore their contracts before this went to court.”