Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Holidays topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board approves first reading to expand 12‑month employee holidays to 20 days
Summary
The Washington County School Board approved on first reading a policy change increasing staff holidays for 12‑month employees from the division's baseline to a 20‑day schedule. Public commenters urged the board to reject the change, and administrators defended it as a recruitment and retention measure tied to regional pay disparities.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Holidays topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Washington County School Board on first reading voted unanimously to advance a revision to policy GCBDM that would set 20 paid holidays for 12‑month employees.
The proposal, presented by Superintendent Dr. Perrigan, would list a 20‑day holiday schedule drawn from a menu of dates (Independence Day, Labor Day, fall break days, Thanksgiving, winter break, spring break, Memorial Day and Juneteenth). The board approved the item on first reading after discussion and a motion; the clerk recorded the vote as 7‑0.
The matter drew public comment and questions from board members. Tom Musick, speaking during public comment, urged the board to follow its own policy on policy adoption and criticized moving personnel issues out of closed session without adequate public identification. "No resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation, or motion adopted, passed, or agreed to in a closed meeting shall become effective unless a public body, following the meeting, reconvenes an open meeting and takes a vote ... that shall have its substance reasonably identified in the open meeting," Musick read from the Code of Virginia (section 2.2‑3711), and urged transparency.
Elizabeth Lowe, addressing the board later in public comment, urged rejection of what she called a proposed change to employee holiday policy that would raise annual holidays from 14 to 20 for 12‑month staff. "I think this change would be reckless, and I think it'd be fiscally irresponsible," Lowe said, adding concerns about management, public perception and payout liabilities.
Superintendent Dr. Perrigan acknowledged an administrative error earlier on placing a related item on the consent agenda and apologized: "That was completely my fault. I apologize. I take ownership of that mistake, and I guarantee you that it will not happen again." He and Chief of Staff Dr. Wallace described the recommendation as an effort to make total compensation more competitive where the division has limited salary budget room.
Dr. Wallace walked the board through regional pay comparisons and payout mathematics used to evaluate fiscal impact. He described Washington County's position in regional salary rankings (for example, step‑1 principal and clerical differentials) and noted that while the district has little flexibility to immediately match top regional salaries, an expanded holiday schedule is an additional benefit that does not appear on salary tables. He also presented historical practice: vacation and holiday days for 12‑month employees had varied in recent years (16, 18, 20 and at one point 22 days), and the proposed policy would align written policy with the calendar the division intends to issue to staff.
Board members asked clarifying questions about how the 20 days would be selected and about limits on taking large blocks of leave. Administration said the superintendent would designate the annual holidays (from the listed set) and that remaining days could be chosen by employees with supervisor approval. The policy draft also includes a cap on payouts tied to state law limits and internal rules; administrators provided modeled payout examples showing higher potential separation payouts for higher salaries if many days were banked, and they reported current accrual patterns: 36 of 204 12‑month employees (about 18%) had banked more than 30 days.
After board discussion the motion to advance the policy on first reading carried 7‑0. The policy will return for additional readings and final action at a subsequent meeting. Public commenters who asked the board to reject the change said they wanted more fiscal analysis and clearer public identification of items discussed in closed session before the board took formal action.

