On August 31, 2020, Brooklyn Friends School Board of Trustees and Head of School updated their frequently asked questions regarding their petition to the National Labor Relations Board. Members of the BFS Union have written up responses to their answers. Below you’ll find the original text from the School (indented and italicized) followed by our comments.

—Organizing members of the BFS Union, September 3, 2020

Frequently Asked Questions in Response to Brooklyn Friends School Union Petition (Updated 8/31/20)
Over the past few days, the School leadership and the Board of Trustees have heard from many of our colleagues and families, expressing both support for and opposition to our petition to the National Labor Relations Board concerning the future role of United Auto Workers Local 2110 at our school. It is with deep respect for the free exchange of ideas that we took substantial time to review and reflect upon every message we received.

In order to explain more fully our actions and address some of the misunderstandings and untruths that have come through in the feedback, we have created the following Frequently Asked Questions list. We will continue to add to this list as new questions are raised.

Why have you filed this petition?
Federal courts have long held that NLRB regulation of religious organizations cannot conflict with the religious protections in the First Amendment. Our mission statement opens with "Guided by the belief that there is a divine Light in everyone" and makes clear that we are a religious or spiritually centered community. It is our belief that such a community is created best through deep conversations between colleagues, students, and school leadership, often on an individual basis, to reach unity about what it means to promote spirituality at a Friends School and then to develop action steps to implement what they conclude. Based on our experience, we believe that a collective bargaining relationship regulated by the NLRB is inimical to the Quaker decision-making process that is essential to achieving unity about our spiritual community, and thus to providing the best education for children. We believe unity is present in our community but out of reach until we can directly communicate with each other.

In our experience, Quaker processes have been largely absent in situations where they could have been used for decisions that affected teachers, kitchen staff, maintenance, and office workers. While the decision to petition the NLRB was arrived at unity amongst members of the Board of Trustees, it most certainly does not reflect the desires of the overwhelming majority of union members at the school, who were not aware of this decision-making process let alone asked to share their perspective during it. 

Contrary to the claim above, the decision cited by the School is a very recent one from the Trump-appointed Labor Board. The Trump decision undermines a “long-held” precedent that workers at religious and faith-based organizations who are not clergy and do not work for a church, have the right to unionize. Thousands of such workers—at faith-based organizations, hospitals, schools, universities, and more—have organized unions and engaged in collective bargaining. Quaker organizations themselves, notably the American Friends Service Committee and Friends Seminary, are unionized. 

Deep conversations and a union are not mutually exclusive. The process of collective bargaining embodies deep conversations and to imply that care for children’s education or spirituality are in any way inimical to unionization is disrespectful to our membership. 

It is notable that such religious exemption arguments have been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people and against reproductive rights. It is not possible to separate how religious exemptions are being used more broadly at this political moment from BFS’ desire to use this tactic against its workers’ right to organize a union. By pursuing this petition, the BFS Board is legitimizing these other applications of Trump administration policies that enable institutions to eschew civil rights protections.

Was this petition filed in retaliation of teachers who do not want to come back to school due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
No. The filing of the petition is to maximize direct communication between colleagues and restore flexibility to efficiently and effectively provide the best education for our students. 

We are in agreement that the petition was not a response to health and safety concerns raised by our members. The Union has never asserted that the petition was in retaliation to this. It should be noted that concerned Lower School faculty sent a letter requesting a remote start to the year after the School informed us of its petition. 

However, the School has since failed to provide requested information about its reopening plans or its health and safety protocols, nor have they responded to requests for accommodations. In recent Zoom meetings on health and safety, the “chat” function was disabled so no one could ask questions. As unionized workers, we have the right to meet and bargain with the School over our conditions and for information concerning our conditions of employment. Without a union, the School wouldn’t have to share any information with us nor would it need to consider our views as employees. The School’s actions do not demonstrate that they wish to further communication.

Unions fight for the rights of workers. How can that be inconsistent with Quaker values? 
We strongly believe that the process of Quaker decision-making involves a commitment to authentic and open communication between individuals as well as groups within the BFS community. In that communication we collaboratively seek creative solutions and engage in deep listening with humility and respect to reach unity on concrete ways to move forward. Unfortunately, the law that applies to an NLRB-regulated collective bargaining relationship places limits on employers’ ability to deal directly with employees on certain important topics. We believe these limitations are inconsistent with Quaker decision-making principles. 

The Union does not prevent Quaker decision-making from taking place nor does the Union prohibit consensus-building. Rather, a union guarantees certain baselines for worker rights and is in fact a collaborative method for doing so. 

Furthermore, the school’s history of “direct dealing” with individual employees has resulted in significant inequities in evaluation, salary, termination, and grievance procedures. These inequities consistently mirror those found in society at large. Prior to our unionizing, decisions were simply made unilaterally by management and there was no recourse available for any worker. The lack of collaboration with employees is particularly evident in a pandemic situation where labor/management cooperation is vital.

Will BFS honor the severance agreements the School negotiated with the Union concerning the recent workforce reduction? 
Yes. The School has never wavered from upholding the negotiated arrangement concerning the workforce reduction, including severance payments for affected employees, and all other terms of that agreement.

The School's lawyer confirmed with the Union that the severance agreements would be honored. Without a union, however, adherence to the agreements is not binding.

Citing the pandemic as its reason, the School laid off or reduced the hours of several dozen dedicated employees. These teachers and staff members lost their livelihoods and many colleagues are forced to assume even more work. In contrast to other organizations in which executives voluntarily reduced their own pay, we have heard of no similar sacrifices from School leadership. 

BFS employees had valid reasons to seek union representation in the first place. Why should they trust BFS now?
The Board of Trustees acknowledges that some colleagues have held valid frustrations about School management issues in recent years. In hindsight, we could have – and should have – promptly addressed those frustrations. Candidly, our colleagues deserve better. The Board of Trustees has carefully considered this reality, and – simply put – we will do better.

The petition to the NLRB has further eroded trust. The School’s poor communication about its reopening plans, lack of health and safety protocols and training, and refusal to answer legitimate requests for accommodation or for information do not inspire confidence. A promise to “do better” in this context is hollow. 

The Board and BFS administration have had ample opportunities to demonstrate an interest in hearing the concerns of the colleagues. Through the dissolution of the School Affairs Committee and failure to meaningfully engage with the Faculty-Staff Council, as well as through repeated unwillingness to meet with colleagues to hear concerns and address grievances, the Board and the BFS administration has shown a persistent indifference to addressing colleagues’ legitimate frustrations. In the absence of any voluntary recognition of colleagues’ voices, the union compels the Board and administration to give colleagues a meaningful seat at the table. 

Has BFS been negotiating in good faith with the union, as required by law?
Since the Union was certified to represent BFS colleagues in May 2019, BFS has at all times negotiated in good faith toward a collective bargaining agreement and fully met all of its legal bargaining obligations. The School has not been found to have engaged in any unlawful conduct with respect to its relationship with the Union. 

We believed we were making good progress toward a short-term contract that would take us through this next School year. We were extremely disappointed by the School’s petition. When Brooklyn Friends needed to switch to remote learning in March 2020 due to the pandemic, we offered to continue our negotiations remotely, but were understanding that administrators were busy with the emergency transition. By mid-May, the School had not responded to our requests to meet. Meanwhile the Head of School announced at a Lower School Meeting that faculty would be required to work over the summer explicitly without compensation. Consequently, we filed —and later withdrew—an unfair labor charge. 

We were never inherently opposed to the idea of additional professional development for faculty, but a change to conditions of employment cannot be made unilaterally in a unionized workplace. Bargaining over an issue like this allows for workers to have their concerns raised without fear of retaliation and for us to offer proposals that mitigate those concerns. (For example, once we resumed negotiations, we had even suggested additional personal days for employees in the subsequent academic year since the School was arguing it wasn’t in a financial position to offer additional pay for these extra work days.) 

Will this situation impact the reopening of school?
No. We are working as hard as we can on our reopening plans. The safety of our students and colleagues have been at the forefront of this planning. As you may have seen in our reopening roadmap, we have conducted extensive research over the past several months to ensure that the planned strategies, practices and protocols we have developed represent best practices from across New York and are based on the most current scientific and medical knowledge and guidance about COVID-19. We will continue to update our approaches to health and safety as we learn more, and the official guidance develops. Our community’s commitment to these practices not only safeguards the entire BFS community but plays an important role in the safety, health and well-being of our broader community. 

On the contrary, the Board’s decision to pursue this petition to remove our right to organize for our own protection, in the wake of layoffs, in the middle of a pandemic, is severely impacting morale and diverting our energy from the work we need to do to prepare for the start of school. 

The School has not been forthcoming with information about its reopening. Most telling is that there has been little to no opportunity for staff or teachers to give input about their conditions or even to ask questions. During a pandemic, when the health and safety of all are at risk, this lack of collaboration is particularly concerning.

Can you provide examples of what you have been prevented in doing for the school because of the UAW?
To effectively plan for the possibility of additional remote learning this school year, we hoped, like all other Independent Schools in New York City, to engage with our teachers around professional development which is especially crucial given the current pandemic. Some schools asked colleagues to stay an extra one to two weeks after classes ended, some asked for time throughout the summer, and some asked for colleagues to return early. Federal labor law prohibits us from asking colleagues to commit time over the summer, including for professional development, without first bargaining with the Union. Unfortunately, we did not reach an agreement with the Union about this issue before the end of the school year. Consequently, we’ve had to schedule a condensed Professional Development plan during the previously scheduled opening days, and delay the start of school by several days.

During our planning for the school year, we explored creative scheduling options to maximize the face-to face-time with our students. We hoped to brainstorm with teachers about these options as well as to learn from them their preferences for these options and what kind of flexibility they wanted. However, the National Labor Relations Act prohibits the School from directly soliciting such input from teachers, because they are represented by the UAW. And, even if we pursued a new scheduling approach without colleague input, it would require bargaining with the Union prior to implementation. These requirements prohibited the School from efficiently preparing for such potentially innovative reopening approaches and also have the time to plan and implement them before the start of the school year.

Our reopening plans began with the establishment of planning task forces created to incorporate all voices and opinions as we made important decisions for the year. This work would take place throughout the summer. At most, anything that we needed support on had to be accomplished through a "voluntary only" request. Because we could not ask our colleagues to work on these committees over the summer, colleague input was not at the center of our planning.

One of the most difficult aspects of planning to reopen for the upcoming school year was our inability to communicate about reopening plans with families earlier in the summer. Budget shortfalls required layoffs and reductions for a number of employees, which were inextricably linked to elements of our reopening planning. The School was required by law to bargain with the Union over both the decision to implement the workforce reduction, and how it would affect employees. In order to meet our bargaining obligations with respect to the workforce reduction, we went into the negotiation process with an open mind and a true desire to reach an agreement with the Union about how the reduction would occur. If we had communicated to families about planning programmatic changes for the upcoming school year before bargaining the reduction with the Union, it would have signaled to colleagues and the Union that the School had already decided to cut or reduce certain positions. As a result, we needed to wait to share some elements of our reopening planning until they were settled in negotiations with the Union. 

Employees at BFS elected a union to be their collective bargaining voice. Undermining that voice is undermining employees’ collective power; this is why direct dealing is prohibited. A union regulates negotiations and bargaining, but it does not prohibit communication. For example, the school sent a survey to colleagues about their remote work needs early in the summer. 

The Union was open to the creation of additional professional development days, and we were close to reaching an agreement on our first union contract which would have spelled this out. However, the administration did not talk to us during negotiations about the scheduling options referred to above. As with changes to health care benefits, nothing would have prevented the school from finalizing negotiations specifically over extra work days before the rest of the contract; indeed, the union negotiating committee never raised objections to the principle of summer work or the assignment of colleagues to task forces. The concern was that the administration circumvented the Union to ask employees to work extra days without compensation at the same time that the School was ignoring requests to resume negotiations. 

Our bargaining committee, composed of elected members of the bargaining unit, was meeting regularly over the summer and available to discuss any creative plans the School had. Instead, the School decided to eliminate task forces and stopped sharing any information with the elected union representatives or with the bargaining unit membership.

The School came to the Union on July 22 with a list of affected employees (lay-offs, reductions, role modifications) and we came to an agreement on July 31. We advocated for severance, recall rights, and other benefits. Without a union, the School could have simply laid off these colleagues who lost their livelihoods without any benefits, or done so in an inconsistent manner to those impacted.

What are examples of ways the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is affecting how Crissy and other school leaders can communicate with BFS colleagues?
The NLRA prohibits employers from engaging in “direct dealing” – i.e., engaging directly with employees about certain working condition issues without the presence of the union. For example, the NLRA has ruled the following types of employer conduct unlawful direct dealing:

Manager asking employees what they wanted to see in a collective bargaining agreement and offering to answer related questions

Establishing employee committees for employees to submit ideas and concerns to management for consideration, and for the purpose of joint problem solving

Forming and consulting with a smoking policy “task force” of employees and management as part of a process for implementing a workplace smoking ban

These three examples are not prohibited by the existence of a union. Rather, management cannot negotiate changes to terms and conditions of employment on an individual basis without discussing those changes with the Union. “Direct dealing” is prohibited because it is collective bargaining that balances the power between employer and worker. Unionizing prevents perpetuating the inequities and favoritism that have taken place at our school all too often. When managers approach individual employees directly to solicit information about collective bargaining, this places undue pressure on employees to respond in the favor of the administration due to fear of retaliation.

The School is not prohibited from communication, and many contracts can and do include joint labor-management committees. In fact, we proposed these types of committees in bargaining. We voted by 80% for a union because we wanted the School to bargain collectively with us over our terms of employment. We elected representatives from our own unit of teachers and staff to represent us. In every one of the examples above, the employer could meet with such elected representatives and bargain over the subject.

What limitations, specifically, do you believe NLRB regulation places on your ability to engage with colleagues? And on what specific topics? You need to be more clear and honest if you want to convince us that this decision is motivated by anything other than your desire to maintain the power relationship you enjoy with your employees.
BFS firmly believes that the primary consideration in organizational decision-making should always be what is best for our students – now and in the future. Our experience with the UAW over the past 15 months is that in some cases, we have not been able to keep that core priority as the primary focus of administrative decisions. For example, we believe that the needs of students should drive our approach to course and programmatic offerings, scheduling, and ensuring the best and most secure environment possible for our students. Throughout the School’s relationship with the Union, we have been asked to make decisions that prioritize the desires of colleagues over students – and, in some cases, certain groups of colleagues over other colleagues. This is not consistent with our mission and organizational principles. We know that upholding the needs of all colleagues in our community is important and allows them to do their best job on behalf of our students. However, placing the needs of adults first in ways that detract from our focus on our students' needs is not reflective of our ethical and moral obligation.

 Working conditions at our school are the learning conditions of our students. To pit students against workers in this manner is manipulative and suggests that the well-being of students must come at the expense of the well-being of the workers who care for them. It’s not “adults first” or “students first”; it’s us together. Bargaining over health and safety conditions directly benefits students. Ensuring job security means that we have our needs met and can therefore more effectively take care of the needs of students. With respect to prioritizing some colleagues over others, our union has a democratic and legal responsibility to represent all of its members. We specifically opted for a wall-to-wall union to ensure different workers’ issues were addressed.

The “programmatic offerings” mentioned above refers to discussions in negotiations about reappointment of teachers specifically. Currently, teachers are hired on a year-to-year basis, which puts us in a precarious situation. The School sought to maintain this system arguing that it should be able to make decisions based on program needs, such as under-enrollment meaning fewer teachers being needed. As this summer has shown, however, layoffs can be negotiated when such needs arise rather than depriving us all of job security. 

Treating the School’s workforce fairly and respectfully, by recognizing our choice to unionize, is better for everyone at the School. 

 Why are you trying to decertify the Union after it was approved of by a majority of BFS colleagues?
BFS is not attempting to “decertify” the Union. BFS filed a petition with the NLRB seeking clarification on whether and how, in light of recent NLRB decisions affecting religiously-affiliated educational institutions, NLRB procedures apply to BFS. School leadership filed the petition based on our belief that getting an answer to this question is in the School’s current and long-term best interest.

Federal courts have long held that the NLRB regulation of religious organizations conflicts with the religious protections in the First Amendment. Our mission statement opens with, "Guided by the belief that there is a divine Light in everyone" and makes clear that we are a religious or spiritually centered community. Creating such a community cannot occur through negotiations, but rather through deep conversations between colleagues, students, and school leadership, often on an individual basis, to reach unity about what it means to promote and implement spirituality at a Friends School. Our experience with the UAW has made it much more difficult to use the Quaker decision-making process to achieve unity about our spiritual community, and thus to provide the best education for children. We believe unity is present in our community but out of reach until we can directly communicate with each other.

We also acknowledge that our responsibilities as a Board of Trustees include not only preserving and nurturing our religious mission, but also the complexities inherent in governing an independent school. These responsibilities make a Friends school different from a Meeting and include supporting our Head of School by establishing a context for her to exercise her leadership independently and flexibly; planning strategically for the future of BFS; and, as fiduciaries, pursuing the School’s long-term organizational and financial stability. We seek direct communications with colleagues through Quaker decision-making practice to inform us in fulfilling our governance responsibilities, but the UAW’s role as colleagues’ exclusive bargaining representative has inhibited such communications. 

Further, we seek to restore flexibility for the Head of School and leadership team so that they can effectively and efficiently respond to the ever-evolving environment we find ourselves in now or in the future. While following Quaker decision-making practice is foundational to our school, we must be nimble when the times demand that we be so. Operating within the confines of a union relationship has chipped away at the nimbleness we need to meet our duty of care, also a foundational Quaker principle.

 The Union has not interfered with the School’s communications nor prevented it from practicing Quaker decision-making. The School has not consistently practiced Quaker decision-making and has had significant communication issues prior to as well as during the existence of our union. These communications issues have been evident at the bargaining table with elected representatives, with parents who have sought information and answers, and to individual employees. The School needs to examine and address this problem instead of trying to blame our union.

Negotiations are specifically over the terms and conditions of employment. A union prevents unilateral decision-making and ensures due process; it does not prevent consensus. The administration should not be making decisions about working conditions without input from us in a manner that applies fairly to all workers involved. Without a union contract, there is no guarantee of equitable representation, and the decision of whose voice to amplify and whose voice to silence is determined by the administration. The long-term organizational and financial stability of the school will be established once equitable hiring, termination, and salaries are established through a union contract.

Is BFS anti-Union? Why are you saying unions are not Quakerly, when Friends have supported them so actively over the past century or more?
Brooklyn Friends School is not anti-union or anti-worker. The petition does not reflect any broader opinion about unions generally, and BFS acknowledges that unions have played an important role in the history of the American workforce. However, we do think that restoring individual colleague voices in place of that of the United Auto Workers is in the best interest of the School. A union relationship in a Quaker school makes for a negotiation-based relationship where one side prevails over the other. This results in an adversarial relationship that detracts from the relational and personalized nature of our community as we seek to center children. It should be noted that the School accepted the results of the union election when it occurred and has been bargaining in good faith toward a collective bargaining agreement – and fully complied with all of its legal bargaining obligations – ever since.

 The relationship is not necessarily adversarial or one where there are “winners and losers”. We come to an agreement together, and the contract is signed by both parties; the purpose of a negotiation is specifically in order to prevent one side from prevailing over another. UAW Local 2110's role is to ensure that all workers’ voices are represented at the negotiating table. The Union is comprised of colleagues’ voices, not a separate entity. The School is trying to decertify a union its employees voted for by eighty percent. The School is citing a recent anti-union decision from the Trump-appointed Labor Board. This is a repudiation of what Brooklyn Friends School stands for and is at odds with why many families send their children here. 

How did the union get approved?
The union won a majority of votes cast by the colleague body in a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in the Spring of 2019. Notably, our relationship with the Union is not a result of Quaker consensus. Quaker consensus allows every individual’s voice to be heard, and if they do not agree, those involved take the time to discuss, reflect and discern. Quaker decision-making does not involve voting, and certainly not in secret. Coming to unity requires us to share our voice and perspective, acknowledge where we have differences, and work through those issues to reach unity openly, not in secret. The very process by which the Union was certified in itself conflicts with Quaker decision-making because a secret ballot process doesn't allow for openness or the ability for dissenting voices to be heard. Prior to the Union vote, the Board of Trustees came to unity about maintaining neutrality and not campaigning against the vote.

 The decision to petition the NLRB was made by the Head of School and the Board of Trustees, who did not consult any members of the union negotiating committee nor any other union members. Imposing a unilateral decision, which clearly conflicts with the desires of the overwhelming majority of BFS workers, is not consensus, nor does it build unity. Without a union, BFS can unilaterally decide on everything with respect to terms and conditions of employment. 

Why wasn’t the parent body given an opportunity to weigh in? Will there be an open forum to hear more from leadership about this decision?
We deeply value the views of all members of the BFS community, including our families. We have received—and continue to receive—a lot of feedback on this issue from many members of the BFS community, and we intend to continue responding to that input by regularly updating these Frequently Asked Questions and responses. While the Quaker process typically allows for input from the community, there are some decisions, like tuition, budgets, and other operational aspects, that the community does not weigh in on ahead of time. This matter was one of those cases determined by the Board of Trustees. We do not plan to hold a live group forum on this matter in the near future.

 The School is selective in choosing when to engage in deep conversations, hear dissenting voices, or use Quaker process. It does not use Quaker process to make decisions over finances or operations, the two things that are at issue in the collective bargaining process. The administration’s refusal to engage with parents on this issue, and their response here, mirrors their response to colleague’s individual and collective inquiries.

What benefits would removing the Union have for the School, and how do these benefits outweigh countermanding the clear desire of the teacher body to be unionized?
As we have said, it is the desire of the Board of Trustees and the Leadership of the School to work together with our colleague body to offer the best possible educational experience for all of our students. The Union’s role requires it to advocate for certain colleague priorities over others. We believe that we must engage with the entire colleague community in structuring program, curriculum, and schedule and that we will be able to hear the voices of our colleagues more fully without the Union. Removing the constraints that negotiation places on decision-making will allow us to center on what is best for our students as well as to re-engage in decision making processes that honor the individual voices of all in our community. This will allow the leadership team in partnership with all colleagues to foster a positive school culture that aims to focus on program structure and delivery, curriculum design, schedule development, and essential professional development and growth.

The union does not negotiate and has not negotiated about program, curriculum, or individuals’ schedules. The union negotiates terms and conditions of employment: pay, benefits, job security, due process, etc. The union is a way to hear the voices of all colleagues (not just the teacher body) who overwhelmingly said we wanted a union.

Financial Information

Several questions have been raised regarding the financial status of BFS this school year. Below we have provided a brief explanation of how finances work in independent schools in general and BFS in particular. We want you to have a context for the information that follows.
The Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees works collaboratively with the Chief Financial Officer, the Head of School, and the Finance Office Manager in creating an annual budget and doing long range financial planning for the School. The Committee is comprised of the mentioned administrators, members of the Board of Trustees, and parents from the community, is clerked by the Treasurer (a Board member), and reports to the full Board of Trustees, which approves the Committee’s recommendations in its role as fiduciaries for the School. The driving principles of the Committee’s work are stability and sustainability in finances to support the multiple needs of the mission-based educational program which serves students now and in the future so BFS will thrive. Those needs, or expenses, include, but are not limited to, compensation and benefits for colleagues; financial aid for students; program planning and implementation; professional development; building maintenance; infrastructure and technology; and health and safety. On the revenue side of the budget, the large buckets include tuition income, an annual draw from our modest endowment, annual and capital fundraising, and auxiliary program income.

All recommendations of the Finance Committee are reached through unity using Quaker decision-making, and the approval of the Board of Trustees also follows Quaker process. The budgeting process is year-long and begins in the fall. The preliminary budget is approved in January so that parents can be informed of tuition before reenrollment. The final budget is confirmed in September once final enrollment figures are known and adjustments are made to account for any changes in conditions. The Finance Office and School Leadership implement the budget as approved and report to the Finance Committee on a monthly basis so there is steady monitoring of the financial health of the school. There are many moving parts in the School’s finances, and the Finance Committee seeks to keep those in balance so that we achieve stability and sustainability in our educational program.

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed our finances through a decline in enrollment and an increase in costs arising from a need to create the safest possible learning environment and provide extensive technology tools for the delivery of educational program, both on-campus and virtually. The changes in the workforce were a result of, first and foremost, a careful consideration of the needs of the educational program, especially health and safety, and, second, a smaller enrollment. The current budget does not anticipate further changes in the workforce, though in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding , the agreement covering the reduction in workforce, reached with the UAW, if health and safety reasons and/or increased enrollment require more staffing, we will increase the workforce in accordance with the agreement.

Our enrollment currently stands at a projected 843 students for 2020-21, subject to change, compared to 909 for 2019-20. Some of that decline, 8 students, is a result of shrinking the numbers in the Family Center to comply with federal and state health and safety guidelines. Because we are more than 92% dependent on tuition revenue, the decline in enrollment has a larger impact on BFS compared to other independent schools with more substantial endowments, annual and capital fundraising, and auxiliary income. The decline in enrollment revenue and the decrease in the workforce essentially offset each other at about $1 million dollars. The single largest expense to the School is compensation and benefits, which comprises approximately 70% of our $35M budget. Expenditures for plant and facilities makes up 13% of annual spending, followed by Program, at 6%.

However, in 2020-21 the other costs associated with COVID-19 are substantial and contribute to a current shortfall of approximately $3M in the budget for 2020-21. The COVID related expenses are as follows:

Health and Safety for Students and Colleagues: $330K
(PPE, Cleaning and Disinfecting, Safety Items, all in keeping with best practices of federal and State guidelines based on the latest scientific and medical information)

Technology Hardware and Infrastructure: $430K

Classroom Changes and Storage: $90K

Upgrades to Ventilation Systems and Replacement of Main Chiller Unit at Pearl Street: $1.6M

Severance Costs as Stipulated in the RIF Agreement: $600K

Total: $3,050,000

To elaborate on one point above, all current ventilation systems are being upgraded to MERV 13 filtration, and the older HVAC unit at Pearl Street will be replaced during the school year with no loss of function or disruption to school operations. We will update the community about this project after the design and planning phase is complete by the end of September. We are working with The Stone House Group in Bethlehem, PA, a preeminent consulting firm in the area of independent school health and safety planning, deferred maintenance (which this project is), and campus infrastructure. The Stone House Group has confirmed through extensive studies and testing that we have ventilation and air flow, including in winter months when windows are closed, that meets or exceeds the current COVID-based standards.

The anticipated shortfall and numbers above all raise the legitimate question about the status of school finances. First, the Finance Committee has done long-range financial projections through 2025-26 based on the most conservative assumptions, and BFS finances meet the sustainability criteria over that time frame. 

Second, while 2020-21 and 2021-22 present the greatest challenges in the long-range financial plan, we are confident that our finances are stable, despite the deficit this year. We currently have an endowment of approximately $10M, $3M restricted and $7M unrestricted. Endowments are intended to provide intergenerational equity for schools and to serve as a shock absorber in extraordinary times such as the current pandemic. While we prefer not to draw down the endowment, we are prepared to do so if necessary. Further, the Finance Committee is vigorously exploring alternative options for covering the shortfall, especially working to determine whether or not the PPP funds to which we are entitled under the CARES Act and its update in June and August are forgivable according to the criteria of the legislation. We do not want to accept these funds if that creates an encumbrance with the federal government that risks opening BFS to government intrusion in our independence. We are working closely with the School’s accounting firm concerning these potential funds. 

We will keep the school community updated about how we will manage the budget shortfall, but the Finance Committee, after much deliberation over several lengthy meetings including last Thursday, is confident in the stability of BFS finances despite the unprecedented challenges we face. We will monitor all of this carefully and regularly.

In conclusion, BFS has the resources to meet the needs of 2020-21 budget in serving students and colleagues, and our financial planning shows that BFS will continue to thrive in the future. 

The union negotiating committee has been reasonable and recognized the financial strain COVID has taken on the school so we offered to pivot to a short-term contact which would leave economics largely the same for this school year, but would provide some basic workplace rights and protection for employees. When the School said they had to lay employees off in July, we worked hard to come to an acceptable agreement. The School has already received PPP funding which it will not have to pay back if it uses the money to maintain workers who earn less than $100,000 per year on payroll. It is also notable that, in many other organizations, leadership has taken pay reductions during the pandemic.