Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Collective Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sweet Home SD 55 board approves licensed professional agreement for 2026–2029 with 3–5% COLA
Summary
The Sweet Home SD 55 board voted to approve changes to the licensed professional collective bargaining agreement for 2026–2029, approving a 3–5% annual COLA tied to CPI and a $65-per-month increase in district-paid insurance contributions; the chair declared a conflict and did not vote.
The Sweet Home SD 55 board approved changes to the licensed professional collective bargaining agreement covering 2026–2029 at a special session, adopting a contract that includes a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of 3% to 5% per year tied to changes in the consumer price index and a $65-per-month increase in the district-paid insurance contribution.
The business manager summarized the compensation provisions, saying, “The contract would include a COLA cost of living adjustment of between 3 to 5% per year depending on the change in the consumer price index.” He also noted the district-paid insurance contribution would rise by $65 per month for each insurance year in the contract and that additional changes are detailed in the written report.
Board member Rachel Nathan moved to approve the changes; a board member seconded the motion. Before the roll call, the presiding board member declared a potential conflict of interest — noting a spouse is a member of the bargaining unit — and stated they would not vote on the agreement.
During roll call, Rachel Nathan, Amanda Carter, Dale Keane, Anna Northern, a member identified as Mary, and Robert Webster were recorded as voting yes. The board announced the motion passed with seven votes, with the chair declaring the conflict and not participating in the vote. Dustin Nicholson had not joined the meeting at the time of the vote.
The superintendent’s desire to complete the agreement before spring break was acknowledged during closing remarks. No amendments to the motion were reported at the session; the board approved the contract as presented.
The district did not specify an effective date for the contract during the session; additional implementation details and the full contract language were available in the accompanying written report.
