The discussion of the part-time release centered around the president of the MCEA and the need for a separate session to further discuss the matter, as it was not initially contemplated for the current session. The potential part-time arrangement was seen as a means to address concerns raised by the board and to meet the needs of both parties. In light of past arbitration issues, there was a strong emphasis on reaching a tentative agreement on the implementation of the leave for the upcoming school year. Additionally, there was a consideration of detailing the part-time release in a separate contract to avoid delays in reaching an agreement.

During the meeting, there was a debate on the proposed changes to the employment contract of an individual referred to as Mr. Theobold. The debate centered around whether Mr. Theobold should report to an individual determined by the superintendent and the evaluation process for Mr. Theobold in his role as MCEA president. Concerns were discussed about potential conflicts of interest in the evaluation process, especially evaluating someone in a temporary or part-time role. The conversation also touched on the need for clarity on the evaluation criteria and the potential impact on salary classifications. The potential implications of the part-time release versus full-time release were also examined in addressing these issues.

Technical issues arose during the meeting as one participant experienced difficulties using the chat function to upload documents, which resulted in confusion about how to share the redlined options. Despite these technical challenges, the board explored the financial components, proportionality, and the concept of the school board not bearing any costs related to the release. The discussions included workers’ compensation, leave status, and indemnification. One participant expressed concerns about the wording in the documents, particularly regarding health insurance determinations and potential recourse for the individual in question.

The board members also contemplated the possibility of creating a partial release for a staff member named Matt, with considerations for his temporary duties and evaluations. There was a discussion about finding part-time teaching positions and the timeline for making decisions before the school year starts. Furthermore, they scheduled a follow-up meeting for further discussions and presentation of proposals.

There was a preference expressed by some for prepayment of a month in advance rather than the buffer. Additionally, the evaluation of the union president was a contentious topic, raising concerns about the superintendent’s role in the evaluation process and whether it aligns with union principles. There was uncertainty about the evaluation process and the reporting of sick leave for the union president, prompting plans to seek further information and clarification.

Another element of the discussion was the indemnification for the MCEA president and the terms of his employment contract. The scope of indemnification was debated, with worries about the broad language used in the indemnification clause and the potential for the board to be held liable for actions of the MCEA president. Suggestions were made to rewrite the indemnification clause to ensure it aligns with the intent of the board and does not exceed the normal scope of indemnification.

The board also discussed the usage of social media by the president of the organization and potential consequences of such actions. There was concern over whether the president’s use of social media during the school day could be considered a violation of board policy, and the potential implications in terms of ethics complaints and indemnification. The limitations of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) were discussed, as well as its impact on future bargaining related to the 2024-2025 contract.

Lastly, the logistics of posting the agenda for the next meeting were deliberated, with the board considering the time constraints of the schedule. The possibility of a special board meeting to address these concerns and vote on the MOU was also discussed. The board members decided to schedule a meeting via Teams for the following Monday to continue the discussion and agreed to exchange draft documents with a watermark during the bargaining session.