The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1944-04-06
TEACHERS BONUS
EFFORT DEFEATED
Bristol Educators Refuse
to Ask Finance Body for
Appropriations

Bristol teachers to secure a bonus
or cost of living adjustment to be
paid during the current school year
apparently ended in failure when
the Board Of Education meeting
Wednesday night refused to reapply
to the Board Of Finance for an APP
preparation for its payment.
The finance board two months
ago rejected a recommendation
that all Board of Education en-
ployees be given a $100 bonus, the
same as had been paid the previous
two years. The Bristol Teachers
Association had asked for a $500
payment.
A committee from the teachers
association appeared before the
board Wednesday night to report
that the teachers felt "keen disap-
pointment and bewilderment" at the
action Of the finance board. Bonus
es were granted in the previous two
years, but refused this year when
the need is greatest, the commit
tee continued. The finance
board, according to Miss Lillian Ro-
berge, one Of the committee spokes-
men, refused to deal directly with
the teachers, saying they had to
present their case through the Board
of Education.
Malcolm Let's, another member
of the committee, said the teachers
would like to get more support from
the board to bring pressure to bear
on the finance board. Miss Gene
We've Hamilton, president of the
teachers association, cited the Gro
ton case in which the courts held
that the finance board in that town
had no recourse but to appropriate
funds to pay contract entered in
to by the school board for the
transportation of pupils. She asked
If such a situation would prevail
between the Bristol Board of Edu-
cation and the finance board.
Justice Newell Jennings, board
chairman, said that ut is not as
simple as that" and that in his
opinion the Board of Edudcation is
dependent upon the finance board
for teachers salaries. According to
state statutes, he continued, the
Board of Edudcation is the agent of
the state only so far as carrying on
essential educational activities.
AS spokesman for the board, JUS
tice Jennings said that from his
conversations with members of the
finance board, no teacher would re-
ceive less this year than last year.
Justice Jennings also pointed out
that the teachers had expressed
satisfaction with the proposed new
salary schedule for next year and
to go before the finance board
might jeopardize the chances of
having the finance board include in
the new budget sufficient funds to
carry out this program.
He promised the committee that
its plea would be gicen due con-
sideration later in the meeting.
When the committee asked permits
sion to question other members of
the board, Justice Jennings said he
did not think board members should
be subjected to cross examination
and added that if the committee
had nothing further, 1--WE would
like to get on with the meeting"
When the matter was brought I'D
again later in the meeting after the
committee had left, it was decided
to drop the matter after board
members agreed they had no new
arguments to present to the finance
board.
The proposed new salary sched-
ule, as explained bv Superintendent
of Schools Karl A. Reiche. provides
as a permanent measure' starting
with the next schcool wear. raises of
$225 for teachers earning less than
$1,000. raises of SOM for those re-