Middletown council hears workshop on tentative administrators’ contract; Board of Education approved 5–4

Tom Mooney, an attorney representing the Middletown Board of Education, presented a tentative three‑year contract between the Board and the Middletown School Administrators Association (MSAA) at a Dec. 8 workshop of the Middletown Common Council.

Mooney said the agreement calls for general wage increases of 2.75% in year one, 2.75% in year two and 3.0% in year three and noted that when step movement is included the overall three‑year cost is slightly above comparable settlements. "In the first year, it's 2.75%. In the second year, it's 2.75%. In the third year, it's 3%," Mooney said.

The presentation stressed other cost items: employee health‑insurance premium share would move from about 23.5% to roughly 24.5% over the contract term; elementary principals would receive equity adjustments ($500, $750 and $1,000 in successive years); travel reimbursements were largely reduced or eliminated; and the athletic director’s pay classification would be raised (Mooney said the position moves from grade 9 to grade 6) to reflect an expanded scope of duties.

HR manager Harry Snyder explained the long‑term disability language in Article 7.f, saying the benefit is not new but the bargaining unit negotiated a ceiling that could allow benefit coverage up to 66.67% of salary in some scenarios. Snyder also said the contract caps the full premium cost for that benefit at no more than 0.5% of the bargaining‑unit payroll and that a claimant would face a 180‑day elimination period before becoming eligible.

Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Cannata provided the MSAA membership makeup and confirmed there are 28 members in the bargaining unit, including principals, assistant principals, directors and supervisors. Cannata and Snyder told the council that most administrators occupy step 4 (the maximum step) on the local salary schedule, with a small number on lower steps and two high‑school assistant principals at step 1.

Mooney advised caution about rejecting the settlement because, under the Teacher Negotiation Act, the council may reject the contract and force arbitration; he told members arbitration typically produces outcomes near prevailing settlements and would require additional expense. "If you reject the contract it will push the parties into arbitration," he said. "Arbitrators typically look to see where things are settling and you'll land where you are right now having expended money to do so."

The transcript records that the Board of Education approved the tentative agreement by a 5–4 vote. The record contains inconsistent statements about the date of that Board vote—one exchange references "October 19" and another references "11/19/2025"—and the minutes or administrative record should be checked for the authoritative date. Council members were told the Common Council has until Dec. 19, 2025 to act; staff scheduled a special council meeting for Dec. 18 at 6 p.m. for further consideration.

Council members asked for and were pointed to a redline contract and supporting salary listings in the materials provided. Mooney and staff said comparison data used in the memorandum focus primarily on principal positions; some non‑principal administrator roles were not compared because district structures differ across towns.

No formal action by the council was recorded during the workshop. The Board vote and the council’s upcoming deadline are the most consequential procedural developments; the council may choose to affirm the agreement, reject it (triggering arbitration), or take no action and allow the settlement to take effect under the statutory timeline.

Next steps: the council’s special meeting on Dec. 18 is the near‑term procedural event; the council must decide whether to act before Dec. 19, 2025, after which the contract’s status will follow the provisions described by counsel.