Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Terrebonne board delays vote on expanded sick‑leave payout after legal, cost questions
Summary
A proposed revision to sick‑leave policy that would have allowed up to 20 additional paid days at retirement was debated July 5; board members asked for attorney review and cost clarification and voted to table the measure to the August meeting.
Terrebonne Parish School Board members on July 5 paused consideration of a revised sick‑leave policy after heated debate about cost, timing and whether the change could be applied retroactively.
The board was presented a draft revision to policy file F‑11.4 that would add up to 20 additional paid sick days toward severance at retirement. A staff member presented an estimate saying the change would have cost the district about $232,764.58 for the 2021–22 school year if it had been in effect for that year.
Board members said they supported measures that reward long‑service employees but raised repeated legal and fiscal questions. “I’d like to move that we table this item until the August board meeting,” Board member Matthew Ford said. Ford and others said they wanted a written opinion from the board attorney about whether the change could be applied to employees who had already retired or whose retirement dates were imminent.
Several members noted that the district’s Teachers’ Retirement System (TRSL) representative told a board member that TRSL believed the policy could not be applied retroactively. “The answer was an emphatic no,” said Board member Clyde Hamner, recounting his conversation with TRSL officials and urging attorney review.
Superintendent’s timing also factored into the debate. A board member reported that the district’s recently retired superintendent’s TRSL retirement date had been recorded as June 30 and then changed to July 1; several members said that raised concerns about the appearance of last‑minute timing and reinforced the need for legal review.
After discussion, Board member Matthew Ford moved to table the item to the August board meeting; the motion, seconded by Clyde Hamner, passed. One board member registered an objection before the vote was recorded as passing; two members were reported absent during the tally.
The board directed staff to obtain the board attorney’s written review and to return the item to the August agenda with the requested clarifications, including confirmation of whether the policy could be applied to retirements that occurred before a stated effective date.
Background: the committee first considered the policy in late June and returned it to the full board July 5. The staff presentation included a three‑year comparison of hypothetical costs if the benefit had been in place in prior years.
Board members said they remain open to a policy that rewards long service but emphasized that legal clearance and clearer cost forecasts are needed before taking final action.
