PROVIDENCE — Prompted in part by the long-running conflict between the East Providence School Committee and its teachers’ union, legislation keeping the terms of expired teachers’ contracts in effect until new agreements are reached is moving through the General Assembly.

The Senate passed the bill last week on a 32-to-2 vote. The Senate referred the bill to the House Labor Committee on Tuesday.

The Senate bill, and a corresponding bill in the House, were introduced in February after the School Committee unilaterally cut teacher salaries and raised health-care contributions for teachers in January after they couldn’t agree on a new contract despite mediation and nonbinding arbitration.

School Committee Chairman Anthony Carcieri said the school district was running a deficit of nearly $9 million. Union leaders said the action was illegal and a series of lawsuits and appeals to the state Labor Relations Board followed. The last contract expired at the end of October 2008.

“The contentiousness of the East Providence situation — the fact that the community was being severely injured by the contention — was certainly in mind when the bill was proposed,” said Sen. Charles L. Levesque, D-Bristol and Portsmouth, a cosponsor of the bill. The House bill was sponsored by Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston.

Levesque said, “I know we hoped that the School Committee and teachers would be able to resolve their differences prior to us taking any action. But, as it is late in the session, the need for action became evident.”

Opposing groups, such as the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition, a confederation of taxpayer organizations, say the bills are a “disgrace” and give “unions full control of your tax bill.”

“This obviously removes any incentive for unions to negotiate, and comes close to transferring the largest element of town budgets from town councils to the unions,” according to a coalition news release. “Unions could run forever with their current contracts without town governments having any ability to modify the terms, other than by declaring bankruptcy.

“This law would set a precedent for other government unions and thereby lock town and state budgets into permanent cost-of-living increases, minimal health-care co-pays, and the other lopsided union benefits that could no longer be negotiated because the existing contracts would remain in force forever, regardless of their nominal end dates.”

If set into law, the coalition believes bankruptcy would be the “only effective method left for negotiation of union contracts” and six communities would have to take that measure.

Levesque said the intent is to help clarify the issue so a community’s resources, financial and otherwise, aren’t wasted.

“I believe that the proposal codifies the current understanding of the law,” he said. “I do think it is wise to do, so that the community will move on to resolving the issue, and not [spend] hundreds of thousands of dollars on finding out that a court will rule that existing contracts do continue. Even if they are successful in destroying that principle, what would the School Committee have gained?”

Lawyer Daniel Kinder, who represents the East Providence School Committee, said the law on teachers’ contracts has been clear for about 40 years: they cannot extend for more than three years.

“Do you understand the significance of this mind-blowing piece of legislation?” said Kinder. “I fumed over [the Senate’s passage] over the weekend. … We have turned over the fiscal well-being of every community in the state to the teachers if this becomes law. It is absolutely astonishing.”

apina@projo.com