Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Negotiators present a compact economic package: 2.5% general increase, step adjustments and insurance match discussed
Summary
Negotiators previewed an economic proposal with a 2.5% general increase, funds reserved for pay-for-performance, an increased board health-insurance match, and step additions for top-of-scale classified/PT employees; the rough estimated total cost including fringe was discussed.
Negotiators tabled an economic counterproposal designed to be compact yet targeted: a 2.5 percent general wage increase, a small pool for pay-for-performance, an increased board contribution for health insurance, and step adjustments for top-of-scale classified and technical staff.
Package outline: the facilitator summarised the package as a reduced ask that nevertheless aims to produce a take-home increase once health-insurance premium changes are accounted for. “A 2.5 percent would ensure that people take something home in their pockets after they've covered the health-insurance premium increases,” the facilitator said. The proposal includes a modest pay-for-performance pot and an updated board health-insurance contribution described in the draft as a board match increase.
Top-of-scale steps: negotiators discussed adding an extra step for certain classified and technical pay schedules so employees at the maximum step see further progression. The facilitator explained the district’s recent pattern of adding a step for top-of-scale employees to prevent stagnation: “By adding the step then takes the thing for next year, we have a place for those to go who have stepped to the top now to know that there will be a step increase.” The teams discussed harmonizing steps between classified and professional-technical schedules (for example, adding step 22 for classified vs. step 21 for other schedules) to maintain equity.
Health-insurance adjustment and opt-in figures: the draft includes increasing the board contribution to reflect a “board match” and an opt-in headcount assumption for premium-related calculations; the facilitator reported the round number used in the draft for people who might opt into coverage was 1,500 for budgeting purposes. The facilitator also presented an estimated total cost for the package including fringe: roughly 2.36 (in millions; the facilitator used shorthand “2.36” while reviewing cost exhibits), which the teams acknowledged as a working estimate.
Status and next steps: parties said they had verbally agreed (TA’d) on no adjustment to the instructional placement schedule and supplement schedule for the coming year; they confirmed that any final economic agreement will require returning to the placement and supplement schedules to ensure consistency. The facilitator asked negotiators to consider the package during the lunch caucus and return with questions for the next negotiating session.
Ending: no formal ratification or board action occurred in the session; negotiators treated the economic package as a working counterproposal pending further review of funding and placement schedules.
