The central point of contention revolved around the board’s counterproposal to distribute the remaining raise pool of $28,833 as an across-the-board raise to all members of the bargaining unit, diverging from previous discussions focused on the Western Zone supplements. Terry Harmon, the negotiator for the school district, presented this counterproposal structured as a memorandum of understanding, emphasizing the board’s intent to exhaust the raise pool while covering an additional amount from the board’s budget. Harmon clarified that the board did not intend to accept the three previously proposed options but sought a practical resolution to the ongoing salary and supplement discussions.

Further complicating matters was the proposed language related to Article 2, which incorporated elements from prior agreements concerning the Western Zone supplement. Additionally, Article 11’s provisions regarding leave were discussed, with Harmon noting that retroactive pay language was no longer sought for inclusion. The board’s new position focused on retaining existing language concerning presidential leave provisions while proposing the removal of certain elements from the leave section.

A representative from the bargaining unit immediately rejected the proposed language in Article 11, asserting no interest in weakening the collective bargaining agreement by eliminating the president’s opportunity for a leave of absence. In response to the counterproposal concerning supplements, the representative requested a caucus for further deliberation. After a brief recess, the representative communicated their team’s decision to advance towards the impasse process, having contacted the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) and been assigned a mediator to oversee the ongoing negotiations.

The representative characterized the board’s decision to move forward with ratification on a mandatory subject of bargaining, while issues related to supplements remained unresolved, as an unfair labor practice. Copies of Chapter 447 were provided for the board’s review as a reference for these claims. The representative concluded by mentioning their intention to contact the assigned mediator, Randy Lawson, to address the ongoing concerns regarding the negotiation processes and the perceived discrepancies in how the board was handling the bargaining situation.

The discussion also touched on the initiation of a mediation process aimed at avoiding impasse, highlighting potential misunderstandings that could arise, similar to those experienced in the previous year. The speaker emphasized the need for an impartial representative from PERC to clarify the issues at hand, particularly in light of the belief that the board would not take the speaker’s claims regarding violations of Chapter 447 seriously.

A sense of frustration emerged regarding the board’s lack of willingness to address specific concerns. The speaker noted that while the board had expressed a desire to be number one in terms of salary supplements, the counterproposals made by the board did not adequately reflect the priorities of the bargaining unit. They felt that the proposals made by the board were dismissive of the issues presented and insisted that their previous proposals were designed to be fiscally responsible and in line with the available funds.

The speaker articulated that the board’s approach had been to propose across-the-board raises without addressing the specific concerns highlighted by the bargaining unit. They argued that their proposals were more aligned with the needs of the bargaining unit members, contrasting this with the board’s suggestion of a 1% raise, which they felt did not adequately address the issues. The speaker expressed dissatisfaction with the board’s handling of the salary pool, stating that the board was attempting to allocate funds to solve problems that the bargaining unit did not see as priorities. They insisted that the money available should be allocated to more issues rather than distributing nominal raises that would not impact members.

The speaker emphasized the importance of allowing PERC to evaluate the arguments from both sides and determine which proposals were more sound. They underscored that their options would not result in additional expenditures beyond what was available in the raise pool. The speaker expressed frustration about the board’s perception of the bargaining unit’s priorities, reiterating that the unit’s representatives had a better understanding of their members’ needs than the board.

As the conversation transitioned, the speaker clarified that not all items presented at the meeting would be taken through the mediation process, particularly mentioning that the president’s leave was a permissive subject of bargaining and not required to go through impasse. They specified that they were focused on two main proposals: Article Two and the supplement proposal, which are mandatory subjects of bargaining.