Sioux City board rejects Air Force ROTC memorandum as written after extended debate over cost and staffing

The Sioux City Community School District Board of Directors voted 4-3 on March 2025 to decline the United States Air Force memorandum of agreement (MOU) as it was presented to the board, after an extended public and board discussion about program enrollment, staffing and district costs.

Board members questioned whether the MOUwhich sets instructional staffing and allowable duties for Air Force Junior ROTC instructorswould leave district-paid instructors with large portions of their workday unavailable for other school duties and whether enrollment levels support the expense. The board earlier approved a motion to "engage the process of considering" the MOU and then later approved a motion that the district does not accept the agreement as currently written.

Why it matters: Board members said the MOU's staffing and scheduling rules could cost the district roughly $140,000 annually for two instructors (a figure discussed in the meeting) while limiting those instructors' ability to perform other school-day duties. At the same time, participation in the ROTC program has declined to about 45 students this year, well below thresholds discussed during the review.

Board action and outcome: The board first voted to open the review process of the Air Force MOU and then, after discussion and public input, voted in a roll-call 4-3 decision that the MOU in its present form is not acceptable. The roll call recorded "yes" votes from Director Greenwell, Director Myers, Director Michaelson and Director George; "no" votes from Director Lee, Director Miller and Director Emke.

Key points from the meeting: - Participation and thresholds: Board members and staff presented enrollment history showing the program had been well above 100 participants years ago but is at 45 participants this year; multiple speakers said this is the lowest 10-year participation point. Board members noted the Air Force previously required 100 participants but had reportedly operated with waivers and that a 50-student threshold has been discussed informally. The transcript contains multiple references to enrollments and waiver history. - Staffing and costs: Board discussion included the district's share of instructor costs (board members stated the district pays 75% of the instructors' salaries and quoted a total annual cost figure of about $140,000). Several board members said the MOU would restrict district use of the instructors during non-instructional time, leaving them unavailable to perform other duties the district currently assigns. - Contract terms and flexibility: Board members reviewed MOU language (including a paragraph noted in the meeting as restricting amendments) and were told the Air Force had indicated limited willingness to change key provisions. Directors asked district staff to make a final outreach to Air Force contacts before the board's next meeting. - Community input and next steps: Board members repeatedly invited community comment and said they wanted public feedback. The board president and superintendent said district staff would inform the board as soon as they had further information from Air Force officials.

Discussion vs. decision: Board members framed the issue as largely constrained by the Air Force's MOU terms rather than district practice. Several directors argued the program's decline in enrollment and the inability to use instructors outside specified duties made the MOU unsupportable in its current form; others noted the program's historical value to the community and the district. The board's final 4-3 vote means the MOU will not be accepted unless its terms are changed and returned in a materially different form.

What happens next: District leadership said it would inform the board and public if the Air Force offers changes; the board may revisit the issue at a future meeting only if the agreement is altered. In the interim, board members discussed scheduling implications and asked staff to proceed with student scheduling if the MOU is not amended.

Ending note: Multiple board members urged public discussion and community outreach on the future of the ROTC program and on whether the Air Force will revise the draft MOU to allow continued partnership under terms district leaders can support.