Saint Francis community urges board to settle teacher contracts as health costs bite

At the April 13 St. Francis Area Schools board meeting, a steady stream of educators, parents and community members urged the board to finalize teacher contracts amid rising health-insurance costs and what speakers described as inadequate salary offers.

The board opened the night with a prepared statement noting a “significant multimillion-dollar gap” between current requests and available revenue and stressing the district’s commitment to a 12% unassigned fund balance. The chair also reminded the public that mediator guidance limits sharing details during active negotiations.

Public commenters largely centered their remarks on the financial squeeze teachers face. Keith Levinsky, a 32-year teacher and coach, warned that the current offer combined with soaring premiums amounts to a pay cut for many: “Bring us an offer that honors our work, protects our health, and secures the future of our schools,” he said.

Kim Preshek, who said she has taught in the district for 31 years, told the board repeated concessions have not been honored and urged officials to seek additional revenue if necessary: “If funding is the issue, then do your job. Go to the community. Advocate for an operating levy,” she said.

Other speakers recounted personal examples and broader consequences if contracts remain unsettled. Parent Nikki Kuzejdi described a teacher who provided sustained mental-health support to her daughter and said a strike would harm students. Dominic Piccadi, Brian Baumgart and Shayla Hiles warned that inadequate pay and rising costs are prompting experienced educators to leave and that losing staff would damage programs and community stability.

Anne Carter — introduced in the transcript as president of an education group — told the board that “97% of our teachers in this district support holding a strike-authorization vote” and urged the board to move into closed session after the meeting to finalize bargaining parameters.

The board’s initial remarks framed the negotiation as a fiscal problem: the chair described the need to preserve a minimum fund balance to absorb revenue shortfalls and said the district must be ‘‘disciplined’’ amid unpredictable funding and rising expenses. The chair asked the community to rely on official updates and noted the district is exploring revenue options that could include a voter measure.

Procedurally, the meeting concluded its public-comment and consent items and then the board approved a motion to recess and enter a closed-session labor negotiation strategy meeting under the cited open-meeting statute. The chair announced a five-minute recess and asked nonessential attendees to exit.

What’s next: The board went into closed session to discuss negotiation strategy; no public details or outcomes from that closed session were reported on the record during this meeting.