Citrus County bargaining teams open full‑contract talks, set calendar and roles

CITRUS COUNTY, Fla. — Representatives for the Citrus County Education Association and Citrus County Schools convened Aug. 11 to open bargaining for the 2025–26 school year, agreeing to a year‑long, full‑book contract review and setting interim roles and a meeting calendar.

Sal Smith, chief negotiator for CCEA, said the district uses interest‑based bargaining that is incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement and described the first meeting’s purpose: “Typically, our first meeting consists of creating a list of general interests that we can then use to develop agendas for subsequent sessions.”

Why it matters: negotiators said the contracts have not been fully reviewed in years and contain formatting errors, misplaced clauses and ambiguities that affect interpretation and day‑to‑day practice. A thorough cleanup could change how terms such as seniority, probationary status and grievance steps are read by members and administrators.

What was decided and who will do it: the group selected Heather Greenberg as timekeeper and a district representative to monitor speaking order; negotiators set a roster capture date of Aug. 11 to be used for costing and requested a roster validation and vacancy update at the next meeting. The teams tentatively scheduled follow‑up bargaining sessions for Aug. 25, Sept. 8, Sept. 22, Oct. 6 and Oct. 20, each to start at 4:30 p.m.

Key priorities placed on the table included modernizing dress‑code language, addressing inequities in paid holidays for classified and professional‑technical staff (noted as an economic item), refining student‑discipline and removal procedures tied to statutory teacher authority, reviewing support‑staff evaluation instruments, and clarifying definitions (for example, probationary year and seniority) across both instructional and support contracts.

Negotiators said a contract‑cleanup committee has prepared marked‑up drafts and a change log; those materials will be circulated to bargaining members ahead of future sessions for review. The teams also agreed to homework: members will review grievance flow and come prepared to propose a clear, step‑by‑step process, and staff will draft a grievance form to be appended to the contracts to aid clarity.

What remained for later sessions: economic topics — including pay, compression and paid‑holiday inequities — will be scheduled after the teams confirm roster counts and vacancy data needed for accurate costing. Several participants requested that student‑services staff attend when the group discusses student‑discipline procedures to ensure correct statutory interpretation.

Next steps: negotiators said they will circulate the marked‑up contracts and change log, provide a roster sample with hourly‑rate breakdowns for cost modeling, and bring appropriate subject‑matter staff (student services, finance, HR) to future sessions. The teams will also continue to refine meeting cadence to accommodate school schedules and extracurricular conflicts.

The session ended with those agenda items and dates noted; no formal agreements were reached at the kickoff beyond assignments and scheduling.