When approving a new early bird labor contract with teachers Tuesday, the Butler School Board didn't promise that the new agreement wouldn't result in higher taxes.

But that is a valid concern for district taxpayers who, like most taxpayers across the nation, are feeling the effects of a deepening recession.

The pay provision of the three-year extension — salary increases in excess of 4 percent for each of those years — is excessive when stacked against what other workers throughout the economy are receiving. And, on top of the overly generous pay hikes, Butler teachers, unlike workers in other segments of the economy, aren't being required to increase their contribution toward their health care coverage — which also impacts property owners' tax bill.

More than the term "early bird," the new deal should come with the word "sweetheart" attached.

The board didn't act in district property owners' best interests, and the ramifications are more than what might be evident by this one vote.

Consider state lawmakers' pension grab of 2001, in which legislators increased their own pension benefits by 50 percent and increased pension payouts for teachers by 25 percent. It has been said that property tax payers can expect an especially big financial hit beginning in 2012, which, it must be noted, coincides with the early bird just approved.

This contract extension covers the fiscal years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. At Tuesday's meeting, the board ignored mention of the cumulative effects of the new pact — but that is information that the board should have been prepared to provide to the public.

But such a fiscal bogeyman would have dampened the giddiness expressed Tuesday by both sides in having worked out the agreement.

The negotiations began in August, after the expanded-contract process was initiated by the board.

Although the board didn't acknowledge it Tuesday, any tax increase necessary during the three fiscal years in question will be, at least in part, a product of the new sweetheart pact — no matter what the board says.

Even if the board lays total blame for raising taxes on the pension issue, for example, whatever increase might be necessary would be less if the district had not committed itself to excessive raises and overly generous health benefits under the newly approved contract.

This shouldn't imply that teachers should not receive pay increases. They should, consistent with the state of the economy and reflecting the challenges that the people who, via their taxes, pay their salaries are encountering.

The new early bird pact ignores all of that and, like it or not, district taxpayers are going to have to find a way to pay a significantly increased salaries obligation even though they, themselves, might be receiving the same or lower pay.

Perhaps the district has a big pot of surplus money on which it intends to rely, thereby negating any prospects for tax increases tied to the contract. It has neither confirmed nor denied existence of such a fund.

But it also hasn't said whether it has the financial wherewithal to weather the pension situation, which reportedly will require taxpayers to foot the bill for a projected tripling of the cost to subsidize teachers' pensions, beginning in 2012.

District taxpayers, already scrimping, are justified in being alarmed about the tax obligations ahead. Taxpayers are justified in being angry about the excessive giveaway by elected board members who should be representing taxpayers' best interests, not undermining them.

The board approved the early bird contract by an 8-0 vote, with Dr. Craig Lucas absent.

School board seats will be on the election ballots this year. It will be an opportunity for district voters to send a message about whether or not they condone the contract, which Superintendent Ed Fink described as fair for the staff, the district and the community.

"It was a pleasure working with the (teachers) association on this contract," said board President Diane Snyder.

Snyder didn't express any opinion about whether it likewise will be a pleasure for the taxpayers to pay for the contract's excesses.

The board could have done better. It should have done better.