Board tables negotiated agreement after dispute over certified salary schedule and IBB process

The Lakeland District Board of Trustees spent the bulk of the meeting addressing a dispute over the district’s negotiated agreement and a certified salary schedule approved at the June 11 meeting. Trustees and the LEA argued over procedure and whether separating the certified salary schedule from the negotiated agreement violated negotiation law or district procedure.

Board Chair Chairman Thompson said the board had not seen the negotiated agreement before it was presented for ratification to teachers, telling the meeting, “This board never saw the negotiated agreement that was going to go to the teachers until it was ratified.” Trustees said they had intended only clerical or contextual changes after June 11 but that content changes—particularly the removal or relocation of stipend and extracurricular items—had been made and, according to legal advice shared with the board, the salary schedule should not have been separated from the negotiated agreement.

The LEA president (identified in the meeting by first name) told trustees that when the LEA presented the negotiated agreement to its members, “the negotiated agreement, everything is the same,” and said the IBB team had earlier rejected a new extracurricular/co‑curricular pay proposal citing unanswered financial questions and an estimated district cost of roughly $35,000, attributed in the meeting to CFO Grantham. Trustees and LEA representatives discussed options including: ratifying the negotiated agreement as presented on June 11; reopening negotiations; issuing contracts under last year’s rates while negotiations continue; or issuing a counteroffer.

Legal counsel’s guidance—cited repeatedly by board members and staff—was that separating the salary schedule from the negotiated agreement can create legal risk and that the board should determine its negotiating procedures going forward. Brooke, identified in the meeting as the HR director, summarized counsel’s practical recommendation to minimize teacher disruption: “we can keep those contracts in place and still continue with negotiations,” allowing the district to issue contracts while the broader negotiated agreement is resolved.

A motion to ratify the negotiated agreement as presented on June 11 was made and seconded but failed on a voice vote. The board then voted to table the negotiated agreement and directed staff and counsel to provide a legal opinion on how and when the board may resume negotiations for the coming school year; trustees requested counsel’s response by the board’s August meeting (August 13). The board also asked staff to attach the version of the negotiated agreement that had been presented at the June 11 meeting to the August agenda and asked staff to circulate any documents the superintendent sent to the LEA.

The board and LEA discussed practical deadlines in the current payroll cycle: staff noted that some stipends (street coach stipends) must be issued by Aug. 15 for the Aug. 28 payroll; trustees asked that those be issued under the schedule that is currently in effect if necessary to meet payroll deadlines. Several trustees said they want clearer written procedures that place the negotiated agreement before the board before the LEA ratifies it in future cycles and proposed regular meet-and-confer sessions throughout the year to avoid year-end scramble.

Next steps: legal counsel will be asked for written guidance on whether the board can proceed with negotiations for the next school year before the current school year begins and on how to proceed with the already issued contracts; the August 13 board meeting will include legal counsel’s guidance and the June 11 negotiated-agreement document for review.