Republican farmer., 1920-07-16
TEACHERS PROTEST CITY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR
 PAYMENT OF STATE AID
Take Sharp Issue With the City Attorneys Opinion and Declare That the Action of the Common Council Was Most Unusual Say They Could Not Pro- vide for It In Last Years Contracts.

vide for 1t In Last
 Years Contracts.
 The Bridgeport Teachers As sociation today issued protest against the action of the Com mon Council in refusing to au- thorlze an issue of short term notes to cover the cost of the state aid to teachers. The teachers in the protest say that the action of the board was un- usual and extraordinary and they say that the board should not have dismissed the petition with such scanty considera- ton. The protest:
 ''on Tuesday, July 6, the Common council of Bridgeport refused to au- thorize the issuance of short term notes whereby the Board of Educa- ton would be enabled to give to the teachers their share of the state aid grant on the ground that it Is illegal to make a gift of the public funds. 'The Bridgeport Teachers Associa- ton respectfully protests this unfair disposition of a just cause.
 The teachers agree that it is illegal to make a. gift of the public funds. They define the term gift as an out right donation for which no return is l asked or expected. A loan is not a gift. The money which the teachers asked was not to be a gift, but loan for which they offered the sound se- curity of the State of Connecticut as prescribed by law in Chapter 343 of 1 the Public Acts of 1919.
 The teachers maintain that the en- l tire question submitted to the City Attorney is unfair. It is not aimed at the true issue: it is inaccurate; it gave tthe City Attorney no opportunity of deciding in favor of the teachers. The City Attorney stated his acceptance os | the question in his introduction, I have your request for my opinion as ' to the power of the Common Council by a special appropriation to vote to i the school teachers of Bridgeport a sum of money in addition to the con- tract price set forth In their several | contracts s 1 ~The Common Council was not asked to vote any sum of money di- rectly to the teachers. The entire matter lay between the Common Council and the Board of Education and origina ted in a request made by
 
 mon Council on June 2, that proper procedure be taken to place at the disposal of the Board of Educati A sum of $57, ,S97.60 for the school year 1919-20. The legislature of Connecti- cut had already laid down exactly the condition under which the City of Bridgeport was to be fully reim- bursed. In making this request. the Board of Education acted on behalf of the Teachers Association. The teach CTS believe that the Common Council has full power to authorize an emer-. lgency loan to any city board.
 Ut is signlfica mt that on June T. the allermanic body with 23 members present voted unanimously to provide for the full amount requested by the Board of Education within the time specified by law Ultimate action on this vote was halted by statement from the Board of Apportionment that the money asked for had been already included in the salary increases voted April 1. 1920.
 'The Tea chers Association here repeats it's already published answer to the statement that they have re- ceived their share of the state aid Il grant. The teachers believe that any
 additional salary received by them between April 1st and June 25, 1920, constitutes a direct increase in salary voted them by the Board of Educa- ton of the City of Bridgeport. They believe that the state contributed no part of this increase. Moreover, the teachers do not wish to accept any money from the state part of any contract price into which they enter
 with the City of Bridgeport. They originally agreed to accept the money
 on the assurance that T, was an ex- . traordinary grant, that it was to be , independent of any and all salary in- 1 creases and that it was to be equally distributed among the teachers. The teachers have consistently opposed any , incorporation of state aid with local . increase. Whatever virtue there may be in state control of, or participation
 in municipal contracts, the teachers of Bridgeport are not at this time ready to accept it.
 'arhe City Attorney further rules that ''the state aid grant should be anticipated in the contracts" Obvi- ously, such anticipation was tmpos- sible. The money in question was due for the year 1919-20. The legis-
 lature which passed the bill closed in 7 May 1919. The State Boarc Of Edu- ) cation did not rule that teachers could I legally claim the grant until July 1919. The Bridgeport contracts were
 signed early in June, 1919. Bridea- port teachers had no opportunity of
 contracting for state aid, had they so I desired.
 'tThe City Attorney states that "a
 grant of extra money is expressly
 prohibited by the constitution of the
 State of Connecticut" The teachers P direct attention to the fact that the Iegislatur of the State of Connec-
 ticut, provided for the grant. Chap ter 343 is part of the state law. Other townships and municipalities bound
 by the same Connecticut law as
 Bridgeport have paid the grant to
 teachers as an extra and independ- ent sum of money. Bridgeport must 5 pay it's share of the state tax wheth- : 1 CT or not its teachers share in the