CHSD 94 board hears presentation on interest-based bargaining used in recent contract talks

Community High School District 94’s Board of Education received an overview of interest-based bargaining during a special meeting, where facilitator Lynn Adler described the collaborative process the district has used in past contract negotiations with support staff and teachers.

Adler told the board that “we do interest based bargaining because it's more of a collaborative approach as opposed to a demanding type approach,” and walked members through the steps the district uses when teams meet: sharing topics in advance, telling a story to explain why a topic matters, identifying underlying interests, brainstorming options without judgment, and using a thumbs-up/thumbs-down method to test consensus.

The presentation outlined how teams sit in a circle to reduce an adversarial posture, break into caucuses when needed, and assign pairs from each side to convert agreed options into conceptual, contract-style language. Adler said the conceptual or tentative agreements are then reviewed by the district’s attorney and by representatives for the association before final ratification by both sides.

“We start out the day with this check-in process,” Adler said, describing an opening round where participants state their name and how they are feeling to set the tone for the session. She also emphasized meeting-management rules she said are typical for IBB sessions: start and end on time, maintain transparency, and minimize distractions — “it is truly a no cell phone zone,” she said.

Board members and staff described IBB as a way to build trust and reduce gridlock. A board member who participates in the sessions, Rich (staff member), said the format allows teams to separate into smaller groups for private discussion and then return to exchange information, which can speed progress while preserving transparency.

Presenters said the district has used interest-based bargaining in multiple past negotiations. Adler described this as roughly the fourth time the district has attended IBB trainings and said previous agreements included two support-staff contracts and at least one previous teachers’ contract; she and other participants said the current teachers’ round would be the second teachers’ negotiation conducted under IBB.

Adler and other participants cautioned that conceptual or tentative agreements can change while negotiations continue, and that details are often kept within the bargaining teams until language is finalized and attorneys have reviewed it. Adler said that teams sometimes issue a short, generic progress report after a session describing topics discussed but not disclosing detailed language.

The board did not take any substantive formal action on bargaining at the special meeting; the only recorded motion on the transcript was to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The session closed after the presentation, with staff and board members saying they would continue bargaining sessions and bring tentative agreements back for legal review and later ratification by both the district and the association.