The Chambersburg Area School District Board of School Directors voted 8-0 to approve a negotiated contract for district support staff, drawing multiple public comments from paraprofessionals and school nurses who urged the board to reject the agreement.

Supporters of a no vote argued the contract reduces pay for many existing employees and eliminates previously earned longevity increases and spouse coverage from the district plan. Paraprofessionals and LPNs said those changes would make their current jobs unaffordable.

The board took the vote on agenda item 8.03 after public comment and limited board discussion. The motion to approve item 8.03 was made and seconded; the item passed on a roll-call vote recorded as 8 yes, 0 no.

Why it matters: dozens of district employees and community members attended to speak during the privilege-of-the-floor period, characterizing the contract as unfair to long‑service staff and raising safety concerns if staff leave because of pay or benefits reductions. The discussion prompted one board member to propose returning to executive session for further negotiation, but the full board declined and proceeded to a public vote.

What speakers said
- Brandy Bradshaw, a paraprofessional at Chambersburg Area Senior High School, said she received a recent pay slip indicating she will now be paid the starting rate for new hires — "$16 an hour" — despite three years of district service, and that longevity increases she previously earned appear removed.
- Chastity Ramsburg, an employee of almost 15 years, told the board: "Nothing was explained to us, especially with our pay raises," and said a spouse coming off district insurance would effectively erase her raise.
- Lisa Auker, an LPN at Chambersburg High School, said nurse staffing already is short and that low pay prevents the district from securing substitutes: "We can't get subs. The pay is too low compared to anywhere else where an LPN would work."
- Lisa Hall, an LPN, described operational impacts she said arose from shortages, including canceled field trips and frequent reassignment to buildings she does not know well, and urged the board to consider student safety when evaluating pay.
- Shannon Jaka, a district secretary and parent, said pay differentials across support‑staff levels were creating pressure on long‑time employees to leave: "I worked my way up to a level C, but I could go back to a TA and make more money."

Board action and procedure
The motion to approve the contract (item 8.03) was presented by board leadership, moved and seconded publicly. Board members debated whether to move to executive session for further negotiation; the chair said any additional negotiating would occur in executive session if the board wished, but the board declined to reopen negotiations in public. The roll-call vote recorded the motion as passing 8-0.

The board chair also noted internal concern about the bargaining process raised by speakers and reminded members that union representation and negotiation are governed by established procedures.

Authorities and governance references
Speakers referenced union bylaws and the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) governance documents when disputing how the union handled ratification and voting. One speaker said the local bylaws require sign-in and ballot verification; she said those steps did not occur in the way members expected.

What the district said in response
District leadership limited public discussion of bargaining details in open session, saying substantive negotiation should not occur in public and offering to meet in executive session if the board wished. The superintendent and other administrators did not change or retract the motion before the vote.

Ending note
After the vote the board moved on to other agenda items, including approval of a bond resolution and routine policy actions. Several speakers said they intend to continue advocating for changes to support‑staff compensation and transparency about future bargaining procedures.