Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 2025 wellness incentive after heated debate over bargaining window
Summary
The School City of Hammond board approved a 2025 wellness incentive program aimed at offsetting employee premium increases after extended debate over whether the supplemental payment must be bargained; legal counsel told trustees the payment qualifies as a supplemental payment not subject to collective bargaining.
The School City of Hammond Board of Trustees voted to approve a 2025 wellness incentive program intended to offset rising employee health premiums after a lengthy debate over whether the payment had to be negotiated with unions.
Superintendent Dr. Wilson asked the board to approve the program to blunt premium increases for staff. CFO Eric Kurtz said the incentive would reduce a single employee’s increase by about $100 and reduce the family-plan increase to roughly $1,000 for participating employees, compared with a family increase closer to $3,000 without the incentive.
Trustees exchanged repeated legal and procedural objections. Trustee Blake King urged caution and said the item was introduced after the bargaining window and “It’s illegal,” arguing that wellness incentives are a negotiable fringe benefit under state law. "If you're saying it's illegal, then you have to tell this board member how that is illegal," King said.
Attorney Conrad replied that the district’s plan is structured as a supplemental payment that is not subject to collective bargaining, citing Indiana code and an order from the state body that oversees K‑12 bargaining. "Supplemental payments do not need to be negotiated," Conrad said, and read language saying a supplemental payment “is not subject to collective bargaining.”
Trustee Ellis moved to approve the measure; trustees debated amendments and clarification but ultimately took a voice vote. The board signaled approval after the vote; the meeting record indicates opposed voices were heard and the minutes will show the formal roll-call results. The motion’s proponents said the incentive is meant to provide near-term relief for lower-paid classified staff and to encourage participation in the district’s existing wellness program, which the board’s counsel said already appears in prior contracts.
The board also discussed that the district does not plan to use tax-anticipation or tuition-anticipation warrants in 2025 and reviewed year‑end grant closeouts. Attorney Conrad noted that the bargaining window will reopen Sept. 15, 2025, if parties wish to renegotiate terms then.
The board did not read a detailed tally aloud during the meeting; the minutes will contain the final vote record and any additional implementation details.
