Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunnyside board reviews PTO buyback proposal amid concerns about absenteeism and cost
Summary
District staff presented a proposed PTO buyback policy, citing 3,243 teacher absences between July 2 and Aug. 21 and cost scenarios that could reach $2.1 million at maximum participation; board members asked for further analysis and stakeholder negotiations before any policy adoption.
District staff outlined a proposed PTO buyback policy — a program allowing current employees to sell back accrued paid time off — and presented data and timeline options to the Sunnyside Unified School District governing board on Nov. 7.
"The main purpose would be to minimize interruptions to student learning," a staff presenter said, describing the intent to incentivize attendance while minimizing substitute costs. Staff differentiated a buyback (annual sell‑back) from a payout paid at separation and said legal review and bargaining calendar constraints require careful timing: the goal is two readings in February and policy adoption by March so the program would apply the following year.
Staff presented absenteeism data drawn from the district's absence-management system between July 2 and Aug. 21, 2024 (the 60th instructional day): 3,243 total absences in that window and an average of 4.3 absences per classroom for that period. Projected across a 180‑day school year at the same rate, staff noted that average absences would translate to roughly 13 days per classroom. "If we continue with this trend ... it would be about roughly 13 days absences per classroom," staff said.
Walters and other staff ran cost scenarios showing a range of potential expense depending on eligibility, participation rate and payout percentage. In a maximum, high‑end scenario assuming five sell‑back days at full participation and full rate, the cost was estimated at about $2,100,000 per year; lower participation or percentage multipliers produced substantially smaller cost estimates.
Board members raised implementation and fairness questions. A member asked about accountability for habitual absences on Mondays and Fridays; another requested breakdowns by grade level and years of service; one board member observed that the district lacked a formal policy for three decades and urged caution to ensure affordability.
"We can't afford the $2,100,000 per year," a staff member said, noting the district must weigh buybacks against other compensation priorities and upcoming minimum wage and health‑cost changes.
Board members asked staff to continue refining scenarios, to consult legal counsel and employee groups and to return with more detailed models and proposed eligibility rules before any final decision or inclusion in contract negotiations.
