Board, teachers and public press for immediate talks after mayor’s reported $225,000 offer

Board President Huey told the committee that, while the mayor and others have repeatedly stated publicly that a one‑time $225,000 payment would settle the teachers’ contract, the district’s negotiations committee did not understand that figure to be sufficient to finalize an agreement.

"We have never been under the impression that the mayor's offer of a single one‑time payment of $225,000 would settle the contract," Board President Huey said, recounting March 26 negotiations and an April 3 fact‑finding mediation session.

Huey said that if the mayor’s stated offer combined with the district’s proposal would indeed resolve outstanding matters, "let's settle it tonight" and invited negotiators to meet immediately after the special session. Several board members expressed support for that readiness to meet and settle quickly if the parties are in agreement.

Multiple public commenters—many of them teachers and CEA representatives—urged a professional, timely negotiation process and expressed frustration with public discussion of negotiation specifics. Crystal Ward, a resident and teacher, said she was "flabbergasted" by public pronouncements that the $225,000 would resolve the contract without clear, prior communication among negotiating parties. Mike Palucci, vice president of the CEA, said negotiations require a draft MOA and closed‑door work: "This has to be drafted behind closed doors. An MOA has to be signed. This is not the way to do it."

CEA negotiators at the meeting urged the board and union leadership to communicate directly and professionally; Danielle Patterson, who identified herself as on the CEA negotiations committee, asked the district to reach out "in a professional manner" and offered to negotiate. Several speakers linked rapid settlement to stabilizing staff morale and preserving programs.

Board members and the superintendent repeatedly framed the contract dispute within the district’s broader budget pressure. Huey and others noted recurring, compounding personnel costs and past staffing reductions—citing 11 positions left unfilled and 21 positions reduced in prior years—and emphasized that long‑term recurring compensation commitments could require future staffing cuts if additional, sustainable revenue is not found.

No formal motion or vote on the contract was taken at the meeting. The discussions and public comments concluded before the board moved to its Buildings, Grounds and Finance committee item and eventually voted on the tax‑levy incentive aid application.