The teachers union is asking for too much, according to a statement released by the Whitehall-Coplay School District.

The statement, issued to The Press early Tuesday afternoon, states the Whitehall-Coplay Education Association started negotiations on a "bad and overly aggressive stance" by requesting what would amount to a more than 10-percent annual increase. Teachers wanted annual increases of 8 percent plus step movement, which represents additional pay for continuing education credits or longevity. The association also didn't want to make changes to the health care contributions, although the district sustained a 15-percent increase in health benefit premiums for fiscal year 2014-15, the statement continues.

"The district is certainly mindful of its duty to compensate its valued professionals fairly and equitably over the term of the successor contract. Where we differ with the association is what is fair and equitable," said Jeffrey Sultanik, who serves both as school board solicitor and chief negotiator.

The current proposal on the table on salary is 2.75-percent raise for each year of contract plus step movement. However, according to the statement, the association seeks to eliminate certain steps in the contract which results in a 5-percent per year salary increase for each of the years of the contract.

This district would not be able to pay this because it would exceed the Act 1 index – a state law regarding how much a school district can raise taxes – even if the district seeks exceptions from the Pennsylvania Department of Education, according to the statement.

The school board contracted with Public Financial Management to develop a sophisticated five-year projection model for school district finances. This projection is tied to the Act 1 index and covers insurance increases, growth or reduction of the tax base due to assessment appeals and the cost of retiree benefit contributions toward the state's underfunded pension plan, among other things, according to the statement.

When the board shared a proposal, informally, that would have been substantively higher than any of the surrounding school districts' recent settlements, union President Joseph Kermpasky told Superintendent John Corby the parties were close and he felt the matter could be resolved, according to the statement.

The district is "completely baffled" about why the teachers are engaging in informational picketing and communications with the media complaining about their relative compensation in the Lehigh Valley, the statement says.

Initially, the school district was expecting teachers to vote to authorize a strike at a meeting today, Thursday, Sept. 25. By late afternoon Tuesday, however, the school district reported it learned that meeting had been canceled.

The school board statement says the teachers union made a case for large increases by comparing its pay scale to that of districts in Northampton County, rather than keeping the comparisons of those within the Carbon Lehigh Intermediate Unit, where the district has consistently measured itself.

The district has not had to resort to furloughing or demoting professional staff in order to meet budget expectations. This can cause a reduction in programming for students, the statement says.

The district doesn't believe that it has difficulty in either attracting and retaining high quality candidates either, the document states. The teachers union has pointed to certain bargaining unit members leaving the employ of the district, but most have left due to personal family situations that cause them to move, or retirements. Few individuals have left the district for greater compensation in another, according to the statement.

The statement also says the union is demanding that the teachers work a shorter work year, while getting more money.

"The association wants to make up lost ground in an environment where the district is not only capped as to how much in taxes it can raise, but also in an environment where the district continues to lose many dollars to assessment appeals," Sultanik said. "Though the board does recognize it has been financially prudent over he past few years and it has been able to maintain a strong fund balance, those monies are necessary in order for the district to weather the storm created by the state's underfunded PSERS/pension liability and to deal with the losses in assessment tax revenue."

The last three contracts in the district were decided either by fact finders or by the mediator, said Sultanik.

"If the contract results were so unfair, why did third parties propose the contract that we are currently living under?"

The district is hopeful that the union will "seriously consider" the board's newly revised counterproposal Sept. 30.

"If they cannot agree to the board's official counterproposal, the board has already expressed its desire to proceed to a fact finding where a neutral individual will examine the ability of the district to pay against the demands of the association and hopefully come up with a recommendation that will be acceptable to both parties and will not disrupt the educational program in the district," Sultanik said.