By JOSEPH FITZGERALD

BURRILLVILLE — The Burrillville Teachers Association knew in advance that a contract proposal drafted by state-appointed mediator Bruce Kogun was not financially workable and that the School Committee would not vote for it, the attorney for the School Committee said Tuesday.

Benjamin Scungio blasted union officials for what he called “disingenuous” comments made after the School Committee’s vote on Sept. 9 to reject Kogun’s contract proposal, saying union leaders knew three days before the union ratified it on Sept. 9 that the committee would reject it that night.
Union officials criticized the committee last Friday for rejecting the proposal, saying they were led to believe by school officials that the committee would endorse it. But Scungio says no one on the School Committee’s side ever gave the expectation to the union that the committee would “lock-step approve” the mediator’s proposal.
“The union knew two Saturdays ago that the proposal wasn’t financially workable,” Scungio said Tuesday. “There was also a clear signal from me that the committee would not vote on it, yet they went ahead, knowing it was highly unlikely the committee would agree to the terms of the mediator's proposal before the union representatives entered the union ratification meeting (on Sept. 9).”
“One must question why those representatives would choose to move ahead with a vote to ratify rather than first addressing the financial concerns of the committee,” he said. “One could easily conclude that the ratification vote of a doomed proposal was purely a political maneuver and a cynical attempt to manipulate the public and perhaps other groups. It is disingenuous for them to make these kinds of comments. The School Committee has spent hundreds of hours to negotiate this contract in good faith and these kinds of misstatements of facts do nothing to help move the ball forward.”
Scungio was specifically referring to comments made last week by BTA President David Sheehan and Thomas R. Landry, the National Education Association Rhode Island representative for the BTA. Landry used the word “disgusted” to describe the union’s reaction to the School Committee’s rejection of Kogun’s proposal hours after it was ratified by the union membership.
At the committee’s meeting on Sept. 9, School Committeewoman Joan Cote initially made a motion to reject the mediator’s proposal, but the motion failed to gain a second. Then, following Scungio’s advice, Cote made a motion to “lay on the table” the mediator’s proposal.
Sheehan said he was “shocked” that the School Committee rejected the proposal, especially since it was the committee who asked the mediator to craft a resolution.
But that’s not true, Scungio says.
According to Scungio, neither he nor the School Committee ever asked Kogun to draft a proposal. In fact, Scungio said he personally asked the mediator not to provide a proposal because “the time was not yet right and I felt that he was not fully prepared or knowledgeable of the costs of such a proposal.”
Scungio said he offered Kogun the opportunity to run his figures and calculations by the School Department’s business manager, but the invitation was declined.
According to Scungio, the reason the School Committee declined to act on Kogun’s proposal is because the agreement would have cost the district another $695,000. That, he said, would have raised the tax limit beyond what is allowed by state law.
Scungio said while the district might have been able to find the cash to fund the first two years of Kogun’s proposed contract, it could do so by “stripping the district of virtually all of its cash reserves.”
However, the third year of the proposal, he said, would have a substantially more detrimental effect. The third year, along with assumed budget increases for items like transportation, fuel and utilities, would result in an expected increase in expenses over this year’s budget in the amount of $1,656,277. The maximum legal increase the district can request from the town is $707,000. As a result, Kogun’s proposal would incur a potential deficit of approximately $1 million.
“When he (Kogun) talked to us he was specifically told by the committee that we would not adopt a contract that would result in a deficit,” he said. “They were aware that this proposal would result in a deficit, yet they voted on it knowing the school board wouldn’t.”
Said Scungio: “The School Committee never requested that the mediator create his own proposal as erroneously stated by the union leadership. The mediator told my group that he would like to present a proposal for both side’s consideration.  The committee agreed to consider the proposal. Mr. Sheehan's statement to the contrary is either uninformed or a misrepresentation.”
In the meantime, it appears all but certain that a new mediator will be brought into the negotiations and that Kogan, director of Roger Williams Law School’s Mediation Center, is out after having worked with both sides for more than a year.
“The present mediator has proven unable to bring the parties together after significant time and effort,” Scungio said. “If the union would like to proceed without a mediator from this point forward they need to inform us of that intent. Every signal I have received from the union representative is general agreement that a new mediator might be helpful.  However, if we are going to utilize the services of a mediator, the committee requires one that is knowledgeable in the areas of budget finance, educational issues and municipal and state funding mechanisms.”