Scottsdale school associations present bargaining priorities as board begins interest‑based negotiations

Scottsdale Unified School District held a special meeting to review the districtinterest‑based negotiation (IBN) process and to hear priorities from four employee organizations representing certificated staff, administrators, district administrators and classified employees.

The presentations, delivered publicly before the governing board, summarized survey results and member concerns and set the stage for bargaining. The board then recessed to executive session to "consider its position and instruct its representative regarding negotiations with employee organizations regarding the parameters of interest based negotiations" and for discussion of superintendent goals and an informal quarterly evaluation, and later returned and adjourned the special meeting.

The meeting opened with a short overview of IBN and the process Scottsdale Unified intends to use. The districtpresenter explained IBN as a process that seeks interests rather than fixed positions, encourages brainstorming of options, evaluates them against mutually developed criteria (including student outcomes, legality, implementability and fiscal responsibility), and seeks consensus (thumbs up/sideways/down) before formal agreements move to the board for approval. The district noted it has used a third‑party facilitator, Alexis Wilson, in recent years to run the process.

Scottsdale Education Association (SEA) president TJ Buckley, representing certified teachers and related certified staff, said the association had surveyed members Sept. 10through Sept. 24 and received 470 responses and "2,400 unique responses" to open‑ended questions totaling about 153 pages of comments. Buckley said SEA narrowed this yearits interests to four priorities: fair compensation and benefits, safe and secure work environments, workload manageability, and job security. Buckley summarized the tone of the feedback: "We are people doing this difficult work," and urged transparency in bargaining.

SEA provided headline survey figures that it asked the district to consider: 71% of respondents reported they did not feel financially secure as SUSD employees; 56% said their selected health insurance plan did not adequately cover them and their families; 34% said they were likely or highly likely to leave the district if compensation and benefit trends continue. SEA speakers read representative anonymous comments that described living paycheck to paycheck, holding second jobs, and skipping medical care because of cost.

SEA also presented workplace safety and respect concerns: the union reported a range of responses about feeling valued by administrators and parents (percentages varied by question), and specific percentages for harassment or intimidation: 9% by colleagues, 13% by administrators, 18% by students and 26% by parents in the last school year. On workload, SEA cited that 61% of staff reported a high level of professional burnout and asked the district to reduce unnecessary tasks and provide more individualized professional development.

The newly recognized Scottsdale District Administrators Association (SDAAA), representing roughly 60 non site‑based administrators, asked the board to proceed with careful, transparent school repurposing decisions to protect long‑term fiscal stability and to prioritize a forthcoming compensation study. SDAAA also urged the board to explore "budget‑neutral" benefits and other low‑cost incentives that can improve retention while the district works on compensation and insurance costs.

The Scottsdale Support Professionals Association (SSPA), representing more than 1,100 classified staff, outlined four priorities: higher wages and lower insurance costs; standardized and more equitable paid time off (PTO) accrual across work calendars; improved, job‑relevant professional development and mentorship; and clearer, updated job descriptions and assignment rules to avoid staff performing duties outside their paid roles. SSPA pointed to turnover risk in entry level classifications and cited the Maricopa County living wage figure when urging wage competitiveness.

Representatives of the Scottsdale Administrators Association (site principals and assistant principals) said their surveys showed many site leaders are working 50to60 hours per week and asked the board to consider nonfinancial, low‑cost changes to improve working conditions, including clearer policies for transfers and mergers, reinstating or protecting breaks, flexibility for remote work on non‑student days, and contingency planning for facilities needs. The association also urged that administrators who may be affected by repurposing be given timely notice and clearer procedures.

Board members asked clarifying questions about the surveys, the mechanics of "surplus" placements (how staff are reassigned when positions are reduced), and whether some IBN outcomes can be multiyear. The district attorney's office staff responded that Arizona law places limits on multi‑year financial commitments and that multi‑year contracts are uncommon; no statutory citation beyond the meeting speakerwas provided in full in the presentation.

Before moving to executive session under the public‑meeting statute, the board recorded procedural motions to approve the agenda and later to recess for the two stated executive session purposes. The board and district staff said the management team (named at the meeting as Shannon, Heather and the superintendent) will carry board guidance back to association bargaining teams after the closed session.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to approve the meeting agenda: moved by Amy Carney, seconded by Mike Sharkey; result: passed (aye recorded by board members present; tally not specified beyond unanimous vocal approval). - Motion to go into executive session to discuss interest‑based negotiations parameters and superintendent goals: moved by Donna Lewis, seconded by Mike Sharkey; result: passed (board recessed to executive session). - Motion to adjourn (and to resume from executive session): moved and seconded as recorded at the meeting; result: passed.

What happens next: board members said the IBN process and survey results will inform upcoming bargaining sessions and budget deliberations; the board indicated the management team will relay the board's interests to associations and that formal proposals emerging from IBN will return to the board for ratification. No binding financial commitments were adopted at the special meeting.

Closing: speakers thanked association representatives for the preparation and the large volume of staff responses; the meeting record shows the governing board moved into an executive session to further discuss negotiation parameters and superintendent performance matters.