The most pressing topic of the meeting was the proposed changes to the officers’ pay structure. The district representatives highlighted a plan to integrate the attendance supplement into the base salary. This change was proposed to enhance transparency and consistency, as well as to improve overtime rates and pension contributions. Currently, the attendance supplement costs the district approximately $60,000 annually and primarily benefits bus drivers. By reallocating these funds into base salaries, the district hopes to create a more straightforward and equitable salary system. The proposed changes would not cost members anything for the first two years and were expected to result in compounded salary increases in the long term.

One of the main drivers behind these changes is the recruitment challenge faced by the district. The district acknowledged that entering at a base salary was not enticing for recruits from other agencies and expressed a need to improve the inclusivity of the pay structure. Concerns were raised about the potential for new recruits with comparable experience to surpass the salaries of existing officers, prompting a call for further dialogue on the matter.

The conversation also touched on the fiscal implications of these proposals, with a spending authority of up to 4% for officers being mentioned. There was a concern that additional funding requests could decrease the proposed salary increases. A representative expressed surprise that the planned salary increase might only result in a 3.5% raise for many officers, which was seen as insufficient compared to teachers’ potential $10,000 annual increase through referendum funds. The board defended its staffing decisions, asserting that every campus was adequately covered and that officer numbers were nearing 250, the highest in the department’s history.

Another topic discussed was the evaluation tool and performance pay system. A speaker characterized the current evaluation tool as “arbitrary” and “ridiculous,” suggesting that it does not accurately assess employee contributions. The board considered implementing an award system to recognize exceptional work without financial incentives and emphasized the need to streamline the evaluation process. Concerns were raised that the current system could result in unfair penalties based on the discretion of new supervisors, prompting a call for a more straightforward evaluation method that focuses on job performance.

The meeting also delved into the management of absence requests and the accountability of supervisors within the TeleStaff system. Participants noted inconsistencies in how requests were handled and emphasized that management should have the right to adjust the submission process. It was proposed that captains should be responsible for approving absence requests, with a structured timeline to ensure timely responses. The discussion also covered extended duty hours for officers, with a proposal to clarify that officers should only be compensated for actual time worked, rather than being guaranteed a minimum payment for short shifts.

Finally, the board discussed a career ladder path program that had stagnated. Participants expressed a desire to rejuvenate discussions around this program to create a clear pathway for career advancement, as current guidelines were viewed as vague and convoluted. The importance of timely information exchanges in future negotiations was emphasized, with participants acknowledging that proactive communication would benefit the advanced state of negotiations.