Maryanne Levine is a full-time elementary school teacher with the Chippewa Valley School District who was elected to the Michigan Education Association board of directors. The district releases her from teaching responsibilities so that she can deal 100 percent with union issues. But Chippewa Valley still pays for $103,807 of Levine’s $145,117 total compensation.  The union pays the remaining $41,310.

Larry Schulte, another of the district’s full-time elementary teachers, is allowed to spend half of his time involved in union business. Chippewa Valley pays $104,480 of his $125,135 total compensation. The union pays the remaining $20,655.

Statewide, there are 39 school districts that paid teachers to work at least half their time on union activities, with 25 of those districts paying for full release time. These 39 districts combined to pay at least $2.7 million to cover the costs of teachers who work on union business. Two weeks ago, the MEA sent a survey to its membership that included a request to seek approval to initiate a “work stoppage.”  Teacher strikes are illegal in Michigan.

Michigan Capitol Confidential sent a Freedom of Information Act request for the details of the arrangements between school districts and their local union officials.

Taylor School District pays Wayne Woodford $96,419 in total compensation and allows him to spend 75 percent of his time on union business. The other 25 percent of the time he teaches at Truman High School. Linda Moore is a middle school science teacher in Taylor with $88,016 in total compensation, and she is allowed to spend 50 percent of her time on union business.

The superintendents at the Chippewa Valley and Taylor districts didn’t return messages seeking comment regarding why the district would subsidize the cost for union-related activities.

Michael Van Beek, director of the education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the cost is two-fold for districts.

“Taxpayers pay twice when districts grant unions these privileges,” Van Beek wrote in an e-mail. “They’ve got to foot the bill for the union boss’ pay and for the pay of somebody else to actually teach while the union boss enjoys release time. It’s an arrangement that has no positive impact for students, parents or taxpayers.”

Not all districts absorb the cost of teachers with union responsibilities. In the Dearborn Public Schools, the union pays for 100 percent of the cost.

But other districts pay the entire salary. Troy paid its union official $139,340 in total compensation, which includes salary, benefits and retirement contributions.

Troy School District spokesman Jasen Witt said the district pays for the union representative because it was included in the union contract “decades ago.”

“Given its current status as a collectively-bargained benefit for the union membership, any change to this provision is subject to the collective bargaining process,” Witt wrote in an e-mail.

Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, said districts paying teachers to do union work is similar to a cozy relationship between municipalities and unions. He said many municipalities are charging taxpayers for the expense of collecting property taxes. Yet, many municipalities will provide unions the benefit of taking out union dues from employees’ paychecks at no cost.

“They have no problem gouging taxpayers for every penny they can extract, but there is nothing they won’t do for free for the union bosses,” Drolet said. “Why is it? Most school boards know who they work for. They work for the union. … They are the ones that control the elections. They have plenty of money to spend on union organizing stuff. But when it comes to the students, ‘Oh. No. We don’t have anything left.’ ”

Public rhetoric about public school funding has heated up recently with several school districts announcing that they are making much more significant cuts than their own budgets show. News organizations have been parroting the claims.

In a March board meeting, Rochester Community Schools Superintendent David Pruneau told his board of education that they had cut $13 million in services and programs over the past three years and congratulated them on negotiations with some of the employee unions. He then bemoaned a $16 million budget shortfall the district was facing, saying the administration and board hadn’t been “shortsighted.”

However, according to the Michigan Department of Education and the district’s own website, general fund expenditures had increased — not been cut — from $154 million in 2007-08 to $158 million in 2010-11. And about four months earlier, the district approved a new contract with its teachers that allowed for significant raises.

The new contract spells out in an example how a teacher with a master’s degree would go from $65,772 in salary in 2010-11 to $71,273 in 2011-12. This is an 8.3 percent annual increase. Newer teachers would see raises ranging from 7.1 percent to 9.9 percent.

“They don’t live in the real world,” said Charles Owens, state director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “The fact that they are getting those kind of increases in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression … shows how out of touch with reality they are.”

Pruneau didn’t respond to emails seeking comment. His office said he was out sick Thursday and Friday.

Rochester isn’t the only school putting a public face on its financial plight that differs significantly from what its own union contracts and budgets show.

“These school officials are getting away with it because the media isn’t doing their job,” Owens said.

Other examples:

• Saline Superintendent Scot Graden told AnnArbor.com that his district had cut $6.8 million in expenses over the last three years. But Saline’s general fund expenses climbed from $51.2 million in 2008-09 to a budgeted $51.8 million for 2010-11. The information was available on the district’s website, located in their annual audits. Graden didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.
• Godfrey-Lee Superintendent David Britten was quoted in the Grand Rapids Press saying that the school had cut $1.4 million from its budget for 2010-11. However, budget documents show the district’s general fund revenues increased from $16.4 million in 2009-10 to $18.7 million in 2010-11. In an email, Britten said the increase in his budget was due to federal dollars awarded after the planning of the budget.
• Walled Lake Superintendent Kenneth Gutman claimed that his district had cut $31 million from its budget over the past 10 years. But that district’s budget increased from $119 million in 2000 to $159 million in 2011.
• An East Grand Rapids Public Schools letter to Michigan legislators claimed that the district has “removed $3.5 million from costs from our system” since 2005-06. However, overall, East Grand Rapids’ general fund expenditures have increased from $23.8 million in 2005 to $28.1 million in 2011.