Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Leave Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakota Local board hears first read on centralized unpaid‑absence policy for staff
Summary
Superintendent presented four draft policies to standardize unpaid‑absence approvals, funneling requests to the superintendent and requiring exhaustion of personal days; board members urged bargaining‑table discussion and flagged potential unintended consequences.
Superintendent Dr. Whaley presented four district policies for first reading designed to centralize and limit unpaid absences for staff, saying the proposals would route unpaid‑absence requests to a single approver and require employees to exhaust their three personal days before unpaid leave would be considered.
“Their 3 personal days have to be exhausted before an unpaid absence would even be considered,” Superintendent Dr. Whaley told the Board during the policy committee report. She said the district began collecting unpaid‑absence requests centrally this year because those requests had been handled inconsistently across 23 buildings.
Board members on both the policy committee and the full board pressed for more bargaining‑table involvement. Board member Miss French said she was “disappointed that this isn’t in a memorandum of understanding,” arguing that it would be more stable if the leave rules lived in negotiated contract language rather than district policy. Other board members warned the policy’s black‑and‑white language could eliminate manager discretion for rare, extenuating personal circumstances and might produce unintended consequences, including staff departures.
Superintendent Dr. Whaley said the draft policy would give the superintendent sole approval authority “so that I calibrate accordingly when things are denied or when they’re approved” and that the policy language was intended as an interim step until bargaining begins. The superintendent also said association leadership had not been willing to negotiate an MOU this spring and that similar language had been adapted from a neighboring district’s collective bargaining agreement with minor modifications.
Board members asked clarifying questions about specific cases discussed during the meeting, such as whether an employee could accompany a spouse on an incentive sales trip; the superintendent characterized spousal business trips as vacation for the non‑employee spouse rather than a district‑approved unpaid absence. Board members and the superintendent discussed adding parameters such as past attendance records, years of service and other negotiated safeguards if the policy proceeds.
No vote was taken tonight; the item was presented for first read and discussion. Board members indicated they expect further discussion with association leadership and possible revision before a second read or any implementation.
