A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the debate over how to allocate funds from a raise pool. The district had proposed spreading approximately $28,000 in raises across the bargaining unit, offering a $275 increase for certain grandfathered Western Zone employees or a $1% raise for others. However, the union countered with a proposal to redirect funds towards alleviating health insurance costs, arguing that this would be a more strategic use of resources given the rising costs of medical insurance. The MCEA highlighted the need for a structured proposal to adjust the health insurance supplement to offset these increases, which they believed would be more beneficial for employees than a modest across-the-board raise.

The insurance discussion included detailed considerations of health savings accounts (HSAs) and the implications for employees on different medical plans. It was proposed to enhance HSAs for those on high deductible plans by contributing an additional $75 per month, impacting 202 members. This proposal aimed to ensure all employees benefited from the adjustments, regardless of their health plan enrollment. Corrections were also made to previously shared documents, such as doubling the family credit amount from $600 to $1,200, impacting the 444 members enrolled in the HMO plan.

Contentious negotiations also revolved around Article 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. There were allegations of a clerical error that had supposedly necessitated reopening Article 2, despite a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in January 2023 that was believed to have replaced the article. The union questioned the necessity of revisiting language they considered settled and viewed the district’s insistence on renegotiation as unjustified. This led to heated exchanges, with one representative expressing frustration over the perceived lack of movement from the district, saying, “You guys haven’t moved at all.”

The revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) incorporated adjustments for health insurance and linked Western Zone salary language to the supplementary issue. However, dissatisfaction was voiced over the inclusion of Article 2, with claims that it felt like an attempt to force acceptance of contentious changes. The insistence on needing an agreement to amend Article 2 faced skepticism, as it was pointed out that unilateral changes had already been made without union consent.

Further complicating negotiations was the discussion of a clerical error related to Article 2, which one side argued should not be a bargaining point.

They highlighted that it had been utilized only twice and was seen as a safeguard for employees with political aspirations. The union viewed the district’s push to remove this language as unnecessary, especially in light of a recent arbitration decision supporting their interpretation.