Teachers and union reps press board for larger pay relief; board tables IBN stipend recommendation

During the May 8 meeting of the Washington Elementary School District Governing Board, multiple teachers and union representatives used the public comment period to press the board for greater compensation relief than the IBN recommendation before the board.

Julie Even, a kindergarten teacher and IBN primary representative, said the IBN recommendation on the table that evening did not reflect the committee's original understanding and that prior recommended funds had been presented to the board incorrectly at an earlier meeting. Even told the board she had verified notes with former HR leadership and committee members and said that, under the proposed stipend, her 20 years of service would generate a total stipend far less than what would have been available had funds been set aside as discussed previously. "Many of my constituents have called the $100 retention and $23 longevity stipend an insult and complete joke," she said.

WDA President Britney Karbjinski, an eighth‑grade teacher, told the board the district's so‑called rainy‑day fund currently exceeds $18 million and argued the district could afford a larger raise or use a portion of reserves to make a meaningful increase across the workforce. "Our employees are drowning," she said, and asked the board to consider alternatives such as a districtwide percentage increase rather than a small one‑time stipend.

Other commenters, including a Washington attendance‑area employee who said she is in Tier 4 with 16 years of experience, described pay‑compression problems where new hires can out‑earn long‑serving staff, and urged transparency about published salary schedules. A public commenter referenced Auditor General resources showing salary trends.

Board discussion reflected those concerns. Vice President Lindsey Peterson said she considered the situation a de facto pay cut for many employees compared with last year's compensation structure and moved to table the IBN proposal to obtain additional documentation and options. Several board members echoed the point that a $100 one‑time payment plus $23 per year would not materially address basic needs for many employees and that the board should seek alternatives that mitigate long‑term pension‑related effects described by staff during the meeting.

The board did not adopt the stipend proposal that evening; rather, it directed staff to gather more detail and to return with options for consideration.