At a special meeting of the school board of Kenosha Unified School District No. 1, committee members reviewed a 436‑response staff morale and retention survey and discussed proposed nonmonetary changes to the employee handbook that district leaders say could help retain staff without new recurring costs.

The discussion matters because district leaders tied the review to the failure of a recent referendum and said they are looking for low‑cost or no‑cost ways to keep employees after budget constraints limited pay or benefit changes.

District staff member Tanya Reuter summarized the survey work and recommended categories of responses the district can act on quickly, items that need further study and items not supported because of legal or cost constraints. Reuter said the district received 436 responses and “we thought we’d kind of digest it a little bit for you.” She described a set of “done” or low‑hanging items already underway, including restoring an employee spotlight feature and reminding staff that “all Fridays are already jeans day.”

Committee members and staff discussed several proposed or possible handbook changes already under development. Staff described a plan to remove the existing employee dress and grooming policy (policy 4229) and insert new dress language into the handbook so the district can update guidance more flexibly. The proposed handbook wording uses the term “polished” to describe acceptable appearance and would allow supervisors discretion for event‑specific dress. The district said it will bring the handbook language and the old policy forward to the board for review; staff recommended a first reading in June and a second reading in July so any approved language would be in place before the new school year.

Reuter and other staff outlined examples of survey suggestions grouped into four categories: items the district can implement quickly; items under active consideration; items that require funding; and items not supported because they are legally or operationally infeasible. Examples staff labeled “doable” or already in practice include the employee spotlight, jeans reminders, staff discounts coordinated with local businesses, and reminding educators about discretionary building‑level classroom supply budgets. Items under consideration include expanding personal days and clarifying comp time use; items requiring funding include increasing prep time and offering salary movement for professional development; not supported items included reducing required IEP participation and eliminating state‑mandated professional development.

On personal days and sick time, staff said the district previously moved 10‑month employees from 2 personal days to 4 and is now discussing expanding to 5 personal days for that group; 12‑month employees continue to earn vacation and have a different leave structure. Staff cautioned that converting sick leave to a universal PTO bank would not be cost neutral because paid leave use can increase substitute costs.

Compensatory time was another focus. The handbook draft clarifies that comp time must be approved and used within the pay period or month in which it was earned; staff described practical problems when comp time accumulated without limits and then was requested all at once.

Work‑from‑home requests were discussed as a limited option for some employee groups, with staff noting inequities because some roles (for example, custodial positions) cannot be performed remotely and because not all employees have equipment to work from home. Calendar changes such as a four‑day week or shifting professional development days were described as items that would be studied by a calendar committee and could have broad operational impacts.

Staff outlined other nonmonetary ideas and constraints: painting and permanent classroom color changes can create long‑term facility upkeep costs; staff lounges could be redesigned using school‑level vision committees and community donations; health and wellness programs previously supported by UnitedHealthcare funds are no longer available without outside sponsorship; and RecPlex and other local providers can offer discounted — but not free — memberships. Reuter noted some one‑time projects such as auditorium lighting at Indian Trail are not funded in the current facilities plan.

Committee members spent considerable time on prep time and staff meeting practices. Several members said staff report that some meetings feel unproductive and infringe on teachers’ prep time. The committee discussed protecting collaboration and prep time, encouraging peer‑led professional development, and limiting building meetings to reduce burden while preserving necessary operational meetings.

The discussion produced several staff directions but no formal board votes. Staff listed next steps that include: bringing updated handbook language and the stricken dress‑policy text to the board for consideration; drafting clarified comp time rules; continuing outreach to local businesses for staff discounts; convening calendar and staff‑voice committees to study broader schedule changes; and preparing staff communications summarizing survey results and follow‑up actions.

The committee asked staff to return to the board with more detailed fiscal implications for items that would cost money and to provide attrition data at a future meeting. No formal motions or votes were recorded during the special meeting.