NEA "Pay Cut" Analysis Hostage Day Count: Day 9

Still nothing from the NEA so the "pay cut" analysis hostage day count continues. Day 9 is now history.

We eagerly await a response! The offer to post it here on Anchor Rising remains open.

Here is our blog post describing how there is NO "pay cut." It even includes spreadsheets with documentation of data sources and assumptions for public scrutiny!

Prove us wrong and we will admit to it. Or 'fess up that your claim about East Greenwich teachers taking a "pay cut" is false. It is crossroads time for the NEA.

Until we see a quantitative financial analysis response from the NEA, we will continue with daily blog posts noting that their "pay cut" analysis is being held hostage at NEARI against the wishes of East Greenwich taxpaying residents.

See more thoughts in the Extended Entry below.

FURTHER CLARIFYING ISSUES IN THE "PAY CUT" DEBATE:

In response to questions about the model presented on Anchor Rising, I would offer these points for your consideration:

Some analyses are built on assumptions about assumptions and are, therefore, subject to analytical manipulation. We all would do well to be skeptical of such financial models.

However, this analysis debunking the "pay cut" claim is most certainly not that kind of model. Which means that anybody could independently confirm every primary assumption used in my analysis. And the analysis itself could be done by any student who successfully passed Finance 101.

Specifically:

• I copied 10 historical salary numbers for 2006-07 from 1 salary table in the recently expired and publicly-available contract.

• I copied 2 historical co-pay percentages for 2006-07 off that same contract.

• I asked the East Greenwich School Department for publicly-available information on the actual 2006-07 and 2007-08 costs of family and single person health insurance premiums for teachers, a total of 4 additional historical numbers.

• At my request, the School Department provided me with its assumed annual growth rate for health insurance premiums during the next two years, another 2 numbers.

• I took the latest School Committee 3-year offer for salary step increases (3 numbers, 1 for each year) and co-pay percentages (3 more numbers, 1 for each year), as quoted previously in a public newspaper, and used them after confirming they were accurate.

Those are the ONLY essential pieces of information needed to do the analysis and derive the NO "pay cuts" conclusion I did.

24 confirmable data points, 16 of which are documented historical data, all of which came from just 3 public sources. It doesn't come any more easily verifiable than that!

Instead of responding with cogent arguments, all the opposition does is engage in name-calling. Meanwhile, as many of the blog comments show, the public is noticing their evasiveness and keeps asking for a meaningful counter-argument from the NEA. In other words, the public is asking the NEA and its supporters to stop with their dismissive tone toward East Greenwich residents where they declare the Anchor Rising analysis wrong without any analytical support and without showing in a substantive way why they disagree. Meanwhile, they continue to propagate their false claim that the teachers are being asked to take a "pay cut."

This is not rocket science and here is what the opposition could do if they were genuinely interested in engaging in a meaningful public debate: Confirm the 16 publicly available historical data points and the 2 projected health insurance cost increase numbers central to my publicly available analysis. The good news is that nobody has to file any legal paperwork to get the information I used in the model because it is all publicly available to concerned citizens. An earnest call/meeting or two - like I did - is all that is required.

Plus, once those 18 data are in hand (and I assure you they will be identical to mine) and using the latest publicly-disclosed School Committee offer, anybody can then go back to my model available here on-line for review. Walk through each table of the model to see how the confirmed data form the basis for the analysis in it.

For a sensitivity analysis, though, don't stop there: Vary the step increase numbers and copays for the 3 years using less favorable numbers that we have been told were discussed - for example, try 2%, 1.75%, and 1.75% with a 20% copay in all 3 years, which was publicly disclosed in the media as the School Committee's original offer - and show how even that does not yield a "pay cut."

For anyone willing to make this effort, I can state with certainty that they will be pleased to confirm the validity of the Anchor Rising analysis and reporting.

So we return to the issue at hand:

The NEA has made and continues to make its "pay cut" claim central to its PUBLIC relations campaign in East Greenwich during the current contract negotiations time period. Their "pay cut" claim has been shown to be false here on Anchor Rising, using verifiable data from public sources - not just unverifiable words like the NEA prefers to use. Anchor Rising has invited the NEA to back up their public claim with facts, even to post it on this blog site. They refuse. If the NEA really had the data which discredited an outspoken public critic, why would they hold back sharing it publicly? What could the NEA be afraid of? Could it be that maybe - just maybe - their "pay cut" claim is false and they know it?

The ball is in the NEA's court.

Or, to have a little fun with this from a musical perspective, the NEA is at a crossroads.