RockTheCapital.org

From the Patriot News:

Every court appearance and labor relations board session has ended in a clear victory for the bus drivers.

Even the district is starting to admit its folly.

After the Commonwealth Court ruling, the district called it quits and decided not to appeal again to the state Supreme Court.

The vote was wrong last summer and the wrongs have only compounded over the past 12 months.

With a new school year only weeks away, it’s time for the board to admit its error, settle up and move on.

Read more

From the Patriot News:

Representatives of Central Dauphin School District and its bus drivers union both claim victory in the Commonwealth Court decision last week about the district's outsourcing of transportation.

The former school board president and former school district lawyer said the decision means the district can outsource because it already has complied with the court-ordered procedures.

The Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association business agent said the decision means the district can't outsource because it hasn't followed those procedures.

Read more

Sept. 19, 2007 – Bus drivers vote 113-11 to be represented by the Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association.

Oct. 1, 2007 – Union is certified by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

Early 2008 – Negotiations begin for a new contract

July 14, 2008 – School board announces plan to form a finance committee. Meetings start soon thereafter. 

Sept. 8, 2008 – Union and the CD school district sign a new three-year contract that expires on June 30, 2011.

Jan. 12 2009 – CDBDA files an unfair labor practice charge, later amended, against the district. In the claim, the union says that almost immediately after the signing of the three-year contract, the management of the transportation department, with consent of human resources department, “engaged in a program of discrimination, intimidation and retaliation toward the association in general and the officers of the association in particular.” In the filing, it says “it appears that the school district would like to outsource the transportation department. To that end, the school district, through the transportation and human resources departments, in addition to a blatant disregard for the terms of the contract, engages in daily bullying of the drivers.”

January to June 2009 – CD district contacts representatives from Rohrer Bus Service, First Student and Student Transportation of America to discuss outsourcing, according to testimony of Karen McConnell, business manager, at an unfair labor practice hearing. During this time frame, there is no discussion with association about privatizing the transportation system, McConnell says.

Feb. 9, 2009 – Board president Kathy Stone announces at board meeting that finance committee will become a committee of the whole with meetings publicized.

May 2009 – Discussions about outsourcing become very serious, although they are done in private. Billing records for Rhoads & Sinon LLP, the district’s solicitor, show research on transportation department privatization began around May 21.

June 2009 – Bus drivers receive letters from school district asking them if they intend to return to work for the next school year.

June 8, 2009 – School board gives the go-ahead for placing an ad seeking requests for proposals (RFPs) for outsourcing services, according to McConnell’s testimony.

June 11, 2009 – School district tries to contact Donna Ricupero, union president, to advise her of the planned RFP. Ricupero is on vacation in New Jersey (school ended a week earlier) and cannot attend a meeting district would like to hold on June 12.

June 13, 2009 - RFP is advertised in local newspaper.

June 18, 2009 – Union meets with school district and is provided with a draft copy of the RFP.

June 24, 2009 – District holds a walk-through with prospective bidders. Union members are in attendance. Four companies participate in the walk-through.

June 25, 2009 – Union and district meet again for negotiations.

July 1, 2009 – Bids are received from three of the bidders that participated in the June 24 walk-through.

July 24, 2009 – Union and district hold another negotiations session.

July 30, 2009 - Union and district meet again. As at the previous session, the union complains about receiving inaccurate and incomplete information regarding union members’ pay data, length of service and benefits. Union said solicitor James Ellison indicated at meeting that there was an impasse. Ellison denies this. “I don’t know where that came from,” he says at unfair labor practice hearing.

Aug. 4, 2009 – Union files unfair labor practice charge, saying district has not provided information that is accurate and complete to enable it to bargain. Union also says it has advised school district it is available for bargaining on Aug 11, 12, and 14.

Aug. 6, 2009 - Ellison advises union that there is an impasse 

Aug. 10, 2009 – Union files a request for mediation under Act 88, saying such service is required by law before any privatization decision can be made.

Aug. 10, 2009 – The school board meets and decides in a 5-1 vote, with three members absent, to accept the proposal from Durham School Services of Downers Grove, Ill., for bus transportation services for five years.

Aug. 11, 2009 - District turns over to Durham personnel information such as names, addresses and phone numbers of bus drivers, even though district has not entered into a contract with Durham. Union files an amended unfair labor practice charge against district, saying district did not exhaust impasse resolution procedures before deciding to privatize its bus transportation services. It asks that the privatization decision be rescinded.

Aug. 12, 2009 - Durham and school district officials hold a meeting with bus drivers on school property, advising them - according to testimony from union representatives at the unfair labor practice hearing - that they will be furloughed on Aug. 23 and become Durham employees on Aug. 24. District also sends out a letter to eight bus mechanics represented by AFSCME Council 90 that they will be furloughed effective Aug. 21.

Aug. 13-14, 2009 – Procedures begin to process bus drivers as Durham employees. Procedures include drug testing, fingerprinting and physicals.

Aug. 14, 2009 - School district requests mediation under Act 195.

Aug. 19, 2009 – Bus drivers are informed that they are still employees of the school district. Mechanics receive letter from district that the previous furlough date was “incorrectly stated.” No contract has been signed with Durham. Around this time, district residents start receiving a mailing from the district about the partnership with Durham.

Aug. 27, 2009 – Unfair labor practice hearing begins.

Aug. 31, 2009- School year begins. Union files a second amended unfair labor practice charge.

Sept. 1, 2009 – Second day of unfair labor practice hearing.

Sept. 25, 2009 – Union and school district begin a mediation hearing. Five sessions are to be held.

Oct. 14, 2009 – Central Dauphin School District files a lawsuit against the Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association, asking Dauphin County Court to declare that Act 88 does not apply in the dispute regarding bargaining timelines and impasse procedures.

Oct. 15, 2009 – Eric Epstein, business agent for the bus drivers union, receives a call from state Bureau of Mediation saying the district wants to declare an impasse even though there have been no joint mediation sessions. Two mediation sessions had been held with the parties meeting in separate rooms.

Oct. 20, 2009 – Union is served with the lawsuit that the district filed six days earlier.

Oct. 21, 2009 – District signs outsourcing contract with Durham. No announcement is made until the school board meeting on Oct. 26.

Oct. 23, 2009 – Union hears rumor that contract with Durham has been signed. Union’s lawyer asks district solicitor for verification or denial, and receives no response.

Oct. 26, 2009 - District admits it has signed a contract with Durham, effective Nov. 9.

Oct. 30, 2009 – District sends out letter to bus drivers telling them they will be furloughed effective Nov. 9. Furloughs are “purely for economic reasons,” the letter states. Drivers are advised they are eligible for continuation of benefits through COBRA, but they will have to pay the full COBRA premium beginning in January. They also are advised to contact human resources office if they are contemplating retirement.

Also this day, bus drivers union filed an additional unfair labor practice charge relating to the furloughs and refusal of school district to bargain in good faith. Union also requests appointment of fact finder under Act 88.

Nov. 2, 2009- Union files a lawsuit in Dauphin County Court requesting an injunction to prevent the start-up of the Durham contract on Nov. 9.

Nov. 5, 2009 - Dauphin County President Judge Richard A. Lewis issues a preliminary injunction restraining Central Dauphin from implementing its outsourcing agreement with Durham on Nov. 9. He also enjoins any sale of the school buses, although attorneys for CD said in court filing that the buses have already been sold. Lewis schedules a hearing for Nov. 10 on the district’s request for a declaratory judgment that state Act 88 does not apply to the bus drivers dispute.

Nov. 18, 2009 – Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board appoints a fact finder in the CD/bus drivers dispute.

Nov. 20, 2009 – Judge Lewis issues a ruling denying CD’s request for a declaratory judgment that Act 88 does not apply in the dispute. CD later appeals the ruling.

Dec. 15, 2009 - The bus drivers association’s attorney is advised by the CD superintendent of its new policy to deny drivers representation while they are being investigated. The policy is contrary to provisions in drivers’ contract.

Dec. 28, 2009 – Fact finder Robert C. Gifford issues his report with two recommendations to resolve the dispute between the district and the union.

Dec. 29, 2009 – School board meets at 7 a.m. with five members present and votes 5-0 to reject the fact finder’s report.

Dec. 31, 2009 – Union members accept one of the options suggested by the fact finder. This option would require the district to receive proposals from the union that would allow the district to rescind its decision to outsource its transportation services during the duration of the collective bargaining agreement through a revised agreement that would either defer or modify compensation and benefits as currently provided.

Jan. 29, 2010 – CD signs an agreement with Durham for the leasing of 150 buses from Durham, at a total cost of $395,655 through June 30, 2010. District must pay Durham $79,131 a month on Feb. 1, March 1, April 1, May 1 and June 1.

Feb. 2, 2010 – A hearing examiner for the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board finds that the Williamsport Area School District committed an unfair labor practice when it decided to outsource its bus transportation services. Williamsport’s contract with its bus drivers had expired in the summer of 2008, and the school board decided in June 2009 to outsource at the start of the 2009-10 school year. (Other details regarding Williamsport are found on rockthecapital.org, a report on “Haste Makes Waste: The Central Dauphin School Board’s decision to privatize its bus transportation service and the flawed process to save money.”)

March 5, 2010 – CDBDA files a harassment complaint under district policy covering events from April 15, 2009, to Feb. 8, 2010. The complaint alleges that bus drivers are being denied due process, runs are being shortened or eliminated to cut accessibility to health benefits (by cutting hours worked), and members of the association are targeted for discrimination and termination.

March 9, 2010 – CDBDA files an unfair labor practice complaint against the district over allegations that the district has not provided necessary information for bargaining purposes and has refused to meet with association representative (business agent Eric Epstein) as chosen by the association

Late March, early April 2010 - Bus drivers receive information from Durham regarding 401(k), even though they remain employees of school district with no apparent change in sight.

April 7, 2010 – At an unfair labor practice hearing, district admits it cashed the $2.26 million check from Durham for its bus stock. Until then, it was generally believed the district had placed the money in escrow due to restrictions in Judge Lewis’ injunction that was issued in November. One of the conditions of the injunction was that the buses not be sold. Buses were actually turned over to Durham in late October.

April 12, 2010 – At regular board meeting, CD board issues statement that faults the bus drivers for failing to resolve the dispute and help the district save money with its outsourcing decision.

April 26, 2010 – CD School Board selects Shaffer and Engle Law Office LLC as its new solicitor, replacing the firm of Rhoads and Sinon LLC.

May 18, 2010 – In a 23-page ruling, with no dissent, a panel of the Commonwealth Court upholds Judge Richard A. Lewis’ Nov. 20 ruling that Act 88 governs the school district’s dispute with its school bus drivers.

June.16, 2010 – In an article published in The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, board president Ford Thompson said the district will not appeal the Commonwealth Court ruling.

July 1, 2010 – Revised rental fees kick in for Durham. District now pays Durham approximately $49,000 a month for rental of the bus fleet.

July 1, 2010 - In a response to right to know request, CD School District provides information on the updated costs paid to Rhoads and Sinon LLC for its legal work on bus outsourcing. Legal fees from May 2009 to May 2010 (when Rhoads and Sinon was replaced as board solicitor) are $279,922.50.

July 13, 2010 – Bus drivers association and school district announce they will pursue mediation to explore a possible settlement of the ongoing dispute. Because of this, both sides are temporarily halting all legal proceedings until mid-August. District says it hopes to reach a settlement before the start of the school year for students on Aug. 30.
 

From the Linglestown Gazette:

Today a state court threw out an appeal filed by the Central Dauphin School Board to break a labor contract with bus drivers to clear the way to privatize transportation services.

The decision forces the district to either negotiate with the bus drivers to bring in a contractor next school year in an effort to save taxpayer dollars, or appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

Read more

The Board continues to plan for a 2010-2011 budget under  the illusion that all of its assumptions will come to pass.

Historically, this Board does not have a good track record handicapping revenue, reserving Rainy Day funds or securing public support for drastic staffing and program cuts.

Some of the problems you inherited from the “old Board.” And some you perpetuated by outsourcing responsibility and decision making.

Please take the time to look at the proposals you support. You can not honestly feign surprise about outsourcing transportation or curriculum reductions when you keep giving blank checks to this administration to do what they want, when they want.

I think some of your assumptions will come to pass. But I also believe that it is folly to continue to pretend that this budget is not flawed. The proposed budget continues to assume:
 

• The District's $8.1 million short fall will magically disappear;
• A timely 2% increase in state funding will arrive from a Governor who has presided over seven late budgets;
• Health care costs will only increase 7.25% rather than 14.25% spike predicted by your carrier - Highmark;
• Curriculum reductions and staffing cuts valued at $2.45 million will be implemented;
• PPL’s proposed distribution rate increase will not impact electric bills;
• Outsourcing of transportation will be resolved by June, and there will be no student transportation costs;
• The $80,000 a month lease back arrangement with
• Durham School Services will evaporate;
• Legal fees will be stabilize; and;
• Rate swaps will provide a fiscal safety net.

Hopefully, tonight you will make some necessary adjustments.

We are in desperate need of an exit strategy from the vanity  and pride that has pinned the District into a no-win situation.

Leadership means demonstrating the behavior you want others to replicate. Some of you have advocated running the District like a business. In the real business world, management pays a price for poor performance.

If you want to make cuts, start with the folks that drove the District off the cliff.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Board should eliminate duplication at the management level, freeze wages for administrators, and switch management to a defined contribution pension plan and limited “Wellness Program.”

You recently developed and implemented RFPs for auditing and legal services. These were important and positive developments.

Likewise, you need to issue RFPs for a new Superintendent, a new Director of Curriculum, a new HR Director, a new Business Manager, and a new Director of Transportation.

Your job may be to put a camera on me.

But my job is place a mirror before you.

Do you like what you see?

From the Patriot News:

Christian Malesic wants taxpayers to know that the Central Dauphin School Board isn’t wasting money in the board’s outsourcing of transportation, a dispute that has dominated school board meetings for nine months.

Malesic, the board president, says that the board voted to outsource transportation “so we could save the taxpayers $12 million over five years.”

He said savings include $2.2 million from sale of the bus fleet to Durham School Services; $775,000 each year in operational costs; and the rest in what it would have cost to repair and replace the fleet of aging buses.

The district buses average 13 years of age, which Malesic called the “life expectancy” of a school bus

The district will see savings despite its ongoing legal battles with the Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association, the union that represents the district’s 130 bus drivers, Malesic said.

Read more

March 22, 2010

 

A lot of folks have used the terms “reckless” and  “irresponsible”  to describe bond swaps, and taxpayers being  used to collateralize debt service. It seems like public finance  has evolved into a real life extension of “Let’s Make a Deal.”

Last August, the District published a Transportation  Alert and reported outsourcing transportation would save  $775,000 annually, and promised: “Detailed information  regarding Durham Transportation Services will be coming  in our district-wide community newsletter, entitled,  ‘Working Together’ this fall.” There was even a headline  entitled, “What does this mean to you as a taxpayer?”  The District failed to deliver the newsletter, but  it’s time to answer the question.

Lets see what’s behind the savings’ curtains. Curtain #1:  Legal costs. Rhoads & Sinon billed for 27.82 hours for  outsourcing transportation in May, 2009, billed for 99.45  hours for outsourcing transportation in June, 2009, and  billed for 205.73 hours for outsourcing transportation in  July, 2009 for a subtotal of 330 hours or $59,400. Rhoads & Sinon’s bill for outsourcing transportation from  August, 2009 to January, 2010 was $145,786.89.

The dedicated legal cost to taxpayers to illegally outsource  transportation from May, 2009 through January, 2010 is  $205,186.89.

Curtain #2: Administration costs. The District  has refused to disclose the amount of money or time the  Administration has spent on court preparation and legal  appearances, meetings with Durham, dealmaking, and  “strategy” sessions.

Curtain #3: Bus fleet savings. This curtain is  really a tent since the District attempted to sell off its  fleet under the cover of secrecy on October 21, 2009.  The District's fee for leasing its own vehicles back from  Durham is $79,131.00 per month through June, 2010  or $395,655.

Rather than save $775,000, the District has cost taxpayers $600,841.89 for legal fees and a lease back deal. This fiasco has proven to be cash cow for Rhoads &  Sinon and Durham School Services.

But the Board keeps running up a legal tab. At the  District’s request, the Labor Relations Board (“LRB”)  conducted hearings on March 8 and 9 in which two  attorneys from Rhoads & Sinon and two administrators  were present and being paid. The District asked for  another day of hearings  (April 7) to cross examine  Eric Epstein, although the District doesn’t recognize  Mr. Epstein as the bus drivers’ business agent. The  District is also going to bring Mark Harrington in from  Durham in Illinois to testify.

Hopefully, the District won’t ask taxpayers to lease  Mr. Harrington’s jet.

On March 15, 2010, the District appealed Judge Lewis’  Order of November 20, 2009 in Commonwealth Court.  The LRB, the Bureau of Mediation, and the Fact Finder  all found that Act 88 applies to this dispute. Yet the District  performed legal gymnastics, reversed course, and  introduced new legal strategies that were not certified in  the record. The taxpayers of this District should not have  to pay for Rhoads & Sinon’s legal learning curve.

The new Board is now behind an Iron Curtain. You  saw a mistake, pledged to fix it, but instead you hunkered  down into duck and denial mode. Denial is not an exit  strategy. Not to own up to past bad decisions is “reckless”  and “irresponsible” governance.
 

From the Patriot News:

The heart of the Central Dauphin School District bus drivers’ dispute is not about the merits of outsourcing, it’s about honoring a contract.

The three-year agreement the district signed with its 130 bus drivers expires in June 2011, now just over a year away.

Rather than honoring that agreement and taking the time necessary to work out the details of outsourcing, the school board did the exact opposite and charged hastily ahead without thinking through the issues.

Instead of cost savings, the school board has racked up legal bills and court challenges. The district’s outside law firm, Rhoads and Sinon, has already billed Central Dauphin almost $200,000 and the meter is still running.

Read more

Sept. 19, 2007 – Bus drivers vote 113-11 to be represented by the Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association.

Oct. 1, 2007 – Union is certified by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

Early 2008 – Negotiations begin for a new contract

July 14, 2008 – School board announces plan to form a finance committee. Meetings start soon thereafter. 

Sept. 8, 2008 – Union and the CD school district sign a new three-year contract that expires on June 30, 2011.

Jan. 12 2009 – CDBDA files an unfair labor practice charge, later amended, against the district. In the claim, the union says that almost immediately after the signing of the three-year contract, the management of the transportation department, with consent of human resources department, “engaged in a program of discrimination, intimidation and retaliation toward the association in general and the officers of the association in particular.” In the filing, it says “it appears that the school district would like to outsource the transportation department. To that end, the school district, through the transportation and human resources departments, in addition to a blatant disregard for the terms of the contract, engages in daily bullying of the drivers.”

January to June 2009 – CD district contacts representatives from Rohrer Bus Service, First Student and Student Transportation of America to discuss outsourcing, according to testimony of Karen McConnell, business manager, at an unfair labor practice hearing. During this time frame, there is no discussion with association about privatizing the transportation system, McConnell says.

Feb. 9, 2009 – Board president Kathy Stone announces at board meeting that finance committee will become a committee of the whole with meetings publicized.

May 2009 – Discussions about outsourcing become very serious, although they are done in private. Billing records for Rhoads & Sinon LLP, the district’s solicitor, show research on transportation department privatization began around May 21.

June 2009 – Bus drivers receive letters from school district asking them if they intend to return to work for the next school year.

June 8, 2009 – School board gives the go-ahead for placing an ad seeking requests for proposals (RFPs) for outsourcing services, according to McConnell’s testimony.

June 11, 2009 – School district tries to contact Donna Ricupero, union president, to advise her of the planned RFP. Ricupero is on vacation in New Jersey (school ended a week earlier) and cannot attend a meeting district would like to hold on June 12.

June 13, 2009 - RFP is advertised in local newspaper.

June 18, 2009 – Union meets with school district and is provided with a draft copy of the RFP.

June 24, 2009 – District holds a walk-through with prospective bidders. Union members are in attendance. Four companies participate in the walk-through.

June 25, 2009 – Union and district meet again for negotiations.

July 1, 2009 – Bids are received from three of the bidders that participated in the June 24 walk-through.

July 24, 2009 – Union and district hold another negotiations session.

July 30, 2009 - Union and district meet again. As at the previous session, the union complains about receiving inaccurate and incomplete information regarding union members’ pay data, length of service and benefits. Union said solicitor James Ellison indicated at meeting that there was an impasse. Ellison denies this. “I don’t know where that came from,” he says at unfair labor practice hearing.

Aug. 4, 2009 – Union files unfair labor practice charge, saying district has not provided information that is accurate and complete to enable it to bargain. Union also says it has advised school district it is available for bargaining on Aug 11, 12, and 14.

Aug. 6, 2009 - Ellison advises union that there is an impasse 

Aug. 10, 2009 – Union files a request for mediation under Act 88, saying such service is required by law before any privatization decision can be made.

Aug. 10, 2009 – The school board meets and decides in a 5-1 vote, with three members absent, to accept the proposal from Durham School Services of Downers Grove, Ill., for bus transportation services for five years.

Aug. 11, 2009 - District turns over to Durham personnel information such as names, addresses and phone numbers of bus drivers, even though district has not entered into a contract with Durham. Union files an amended unfair labor practice charge against district, saying district did not exhaust impasse resolution procedures before deciding to privatize its bus transportation services. It asks that the privatization decision be rescinded.

Aug. 12, 2009 - Durham and school district officials hold a meeting with bus drivers on school property, advising them - according to testimony from union representatives at the unfair labor practice hearing - that they will be furloughed on Aug. 23 and become Durham employees on Aug. 24. District also sends out a letter to eight bus mechanics represented by AFSCME Council 90 that they will be furloughed effective Aug. 21.

Aug. 13-14, 2009 – Procedures begin to process bus drivers as Durham employees. Procedures include drug testing, fingerprinting and physicals.

Aug. 14, 2009 - School district requests mediation under Act 195.

Aug. 19, 2009 – Bus drivers are informed that they are still employees of the school district. Mechanics receive letter from district that the previous furlough date was “incorrectly stated.” No contract has been signed with Durham. Around this time, district residents start receiving a mailing from the district about the partnership with Durham.

Aug. 27, 2009 – Unfair labor practice hearing begins.

Aug. 31, 2009- School year begins. Union files a second amended unfair labor practice charge.

Sept. 1, 2009 – Second day of unfair labor practice hearing.

Sept. 25, 2009 – Union and school district begin a mediation hearing. Five sessions are to be held.

Oct. 14, 2009 – Central Dauphin School District files a lawsuit against the Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association, asking Dauphin County Court to declare that Act 88 does not apply in the dispute regarding bargaining timelines and impasse procedures.

Oct. 15, 2009 – Eric Epstein, business agent for the bus drivers union, receives a call from state Bureau of Mediation saying the district wants to declare an impasse even though there have been no joint mediation sessions. Two mediation sessions had been held with the parties meeting in separate rooms.

Oct. 20, 2009 – Union is served with the lawsuit that the district filed six days earlier.

Oct. 21, 2009 – District signs outsourcing contract with Durham. No announcement is made until the school board meeting on Oct. 26.

Oct. 23, 2009 – Union hears rumor that contract with Durham has been signed. Union’s lawyer asks district solicitor for verification or denial, and receives no response.

Oct. 26, 2009 - District admits it has signed a contract with Durham, effective Nov. 9.

Oct. 30, 2009 – District sends out letter to bus drivers telling them they will be furloughed effective Nov. 9. Furloughs are “purely for economic reasons,” the letter states. Drivers are advised they are eligible for continuation of benefits through COBRA, but they will have to pay the full COBRA premium beginning in January. They also are advised to contact human resources office if they are contemplating retirement.

Also this day, bus drivers union filed an additional unfair labor practice charge relating to the furloughs and refusal of school district to bargain in good faith. Union also requests appointment of fact finder under Act 88.

Nov. 2, 2009- Union files a lawsuit in Dauphin County Court requesting an injunction to prevent the start-up of the Durham contract on Nov. 9.

Nov. 5, 2009 - Dauphin County President Judge Richard A. Lewis issues a preliminary injunction restraining Central Dauphin from implementing its outsourcing agreement with Durham on Nov. 9. He also enjoins any sale of the school buses, although attorneys for CD said in court filing that the buses have already been sold. Lewis schedules a hearing for Nov. 10 on the district’s request for a declaratory judgment that state Act 88 does not apply to the bus drivers dispute.

 

From the Patriot News:

Eric Epstein considers a Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board decision about school transportation outsourcing in Williamsport "eerily similar" to a dispute involving the Central Dauphin School District. James Ellison says they're not related.

Epstein, Central Dauphin Bus Drivers Association business manager, and Ellison, Central Dauphin School District solicitor, don't see eye to eye on whether the Williamsport case impacts the transportation outsourcing issue that has dominated Central Dauphin School Board for more than six months.

"The gig is up," Epstein told Central Dauphin School Board on Monday night. "You need to map a new route."

Read more