The board’s discussion on the career ladder reforms sought to address the previous ambiguity in criteria for officer advancement. The existing process was criticized for its lack of clear definitions, with one participant comparing it to “throwing spaghetti at the wall,” highlighting the arbitrary nature of the previous system. The proposed reforms aimed to introduce specific, defined criteria to guide officers in advancing through the ranks. However, the communication of these proposals sparked controversy. One member labeled the process as “very unprofessional,” suggesting that it might constitute an unfair labor practice. They argued that the policies, evaluations, and career ladder should be open to negotiation, as past practices had set expectations for such bargaining. The lack of “redlined” changes to the proposals made it difficult to discern what modifications were being implemented, adding to the frustration.

The conversation also touched on the role of volunteer work in career ladder qualifications. A suggestion to include community involvement, such as participation in youth sports teams, as part of the career ladder achievements was met with resistance due to the current policy’s inflexibility. The discussion revealed a perceived rigidity in accepting union-side suggestions, further straining the negotiation atmosphere.

A significant concern was whether the career ladder changes would apply exclusively to officers or also include lieutenants and sergeants. The absence of a formal process for lieutenants’ advancement was highlighted, as some had previously advanced through informal agreements. This raised issues of equity and clarity within the ranks, necessitating further clarification and adjustment of the policy.

In addition to the career ladder discussions, workers’ compensation proposals were a focal point. The board considered allowing officers to use their accrued sick leave to supplement workers’ compensation pay when injured on duty. This proposal came in response to officers experiencing delays in receiving full compensation due to medical appointment scheduling issues. A member shared personal experiences, underscoring the need to extend the timeline for receiving full compensation beyond the current two-week period, which they deemed insufficient. The inability to access accrued sick leave could potentially lead to increased reliance on workers’ compensation attorneys, escalating costs for the department.

The meeting also examined wage adjustments and the use of sick leave for employees on light duty. The school district’s policy of not allowing employees to use accrued sick leave to supplement income was defended as aligning with state law. However, this explanation was met with skepticism, with one participant questioning the lack of flexibility and understanding of employees’ circumstances. The district reiterated its stance on maintaining a consistent approach but offered no further justification.

Another topic was the sergeant promotion process, which required all qualifications to be completed by December 31st of the testing year. There was consensus on this requirement. A performance-based pay plan was adjusted to reflect a rate of 80%, with representatives expressing satisfaction and willingness to forgo a previously proposed $10,000 signing bonus in exchange for a 3% base salary increase.

The conversation also addressed a proposed “me too” clause, ensuring that if Classroom Teachers Association members received a raise exceeding 3%, Police Benevolent Association unit members would receive the same increase. Differences in evaluation ratings between teachers and officers were clarified, highlighting distinct structures in salary adjustments.

A time-sensitive issue emerged concerning payout arrangements. The urgency was noted ahead of the December 10th school board meeting, with a push to finalize agreements to facilitate payouts before the winter break. A potential payout date was discussed for December 19th, contingent on reaching an agreement in time.