Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union leaders press district over bargaining transparency; district says it recommended ongoing funding for supports
Summary
CSEA/RTPA representatives told the board they were surprised board-authorized bargaining options for ongoing funds never entered the bargaining room; Superintendent Stock said she recommended allocating about $1.4 million in ongoing general-fund dollars to continue reduced intervention services and that staff will provide more specifics on reductions.
Union and employee representatives used the board meeting to press for clarity about bargaining options and school supports. Elizabeth (Liz) Salazar, identifying herself as interim CSEA/CSCA vice president, said membership believed the board had authorized multiple bargaining options including ongoing money, but that only one-time offers were discussed at the table. "The only offer or offers that we discussed at all were exclusive to onetime money," Salazar said, pressing whether the district had brought board-authorized options into negotiations.
RTPA president (identified in the meeting as President Travis Mo) raised similar concerns and asked whether the district and the board intended to continue collaborative bargaining or move to positional bargaining. He framed the questions around trust: he said members had asked whether the district was bargaining "in good faith" if some board-authorized options were never presented in bargaining sessions.
District response: Superintendent Stock and district negotiators acknowledged a "rough patch" in labor-management collaboration but said they remain committed to working through it. Stock clarified earlier remarks from a March meeting and told trustees that she "did recommend to the board that the district allocate approximately 1.4 million of ongoing dollars from the district's general fund to continue a reduced amount of these services next school year," adding that ending one-time pandemic funds had required re-evaluation of support services and that the district avoided staff layoffs.
What participants asked for: The union asked whether the contract could be reopened to vet board-authorized options and whether an unfair labor practice filing would be considered if bargaining in good faith could not be confirmed. District staff said they would take the concerns under advisement and provide more detail on what was reduced and what remains.
Status and next steps: The meeting recorded a public exchange of claims and responses; the board did not take formal action on reopening the contract. Staff committed to follow up with specifics about which intervention positions were reduced and to continue discussions with bargaining teams.
Ending: Both sides framed the meeting as a chance to restore trust; union leaders signaled they would consider additional steps if necessary and the district said it will provide requested detail.
