Caldwell bargaining teams approve salary-schedule language, agree to meeting track to resolve June 30 placement dispute

Union and district bargaining teams for the Caldwell district spent much of a tense session disputing whether new contract language tied to a June 30 career-ladder “snapshot” improperly froze teachers’ salary placement at last year’s designations.

“ The issue before us stems from a change in contract language,” Andy Arnold, a union negotiator, said, arguing that moving documentation deadlines from Sept. 1 to June 30 meant salary placement for the 2025–26 school year would be based on prior-year career-ladder designations rather than current standing.

Nut graf: The union asked for a limited reopener of the contract to correct the section it says is out of compliance with state law and has already harmed morale and retention. District officials disputed the suggestion of bad faith bargaining, said the September 1 deadline remains in the master agreement and emphasized the parties had discussed the language in prior sessions. The group approved the new language that will sit under the district’s revised salary schedule and agreed to a two-meeting follow-up plan—an immediate working session to clarify working agreements and financial implications, and a separate session to prepare a limited reopener request for the board.

Union negotiators said the change in the placement date has practical consequences for teachers’ pay. “ Teachers are furious; morale is suffering,” a union member who spoke to the group said, and the union cited a membership survey in which roughly 70 teachers reported they were considering not returning. The union said some staff already have resigned and that the change places Caldwell at a disadvantage compared with neighboring districts.

District representatives pushed back on the union’s characterization of events. They said the September 1 deadline for submitting transcripts remains in the master agreement and that the June 30 language was co-constructed with association members and explicitly set as a June 30, 2025 snapshot. “ I am absolutely committed to reopening the conversation,” district negotiator Megan said, describing a preference for a collaborative, co‑constructed approach and asking that the initial letter prompting the dispute not be the sole basis for reopening.

At the meeting staff read aloud the proposed salary-schedule provisions, including placement rules for R/P/AP rungs, the June 30, 2025 designation as the career-ladder snapshot, and the requirement that CPEs submit transcripts on or before Sept. 1, 2025 to validate placement. After discussion, Julie moved to accept the proposed language that will appear under the new salary schedule; the membership voice-voted the language approved in the session.

Several participants urged clarity on whether employees are currently being paid correctly under state rules; district officials said placements reflected state listings as of the meeting but noted some career-ladder updates will not be finalized until November and that any associated salary adjustments would be reflected in later payroll disbursements (the district said February would be the date for some changes). District staff also said the district used fund balance to make the salary schedule work in the short term and asked to calculate financial implications before seeking formal board approval for any limited reopener.

Because of time and the emotional tenor of the session, participants voted to hold a short caucus and then agreed to schedule two follow-up meetings: an IBB working meeting to reestablish working agreements and to gather financial data, and a subsequent meeting to prepare and present a limited-reopener request to the board within a week to 10 days (board approval is required before formal reopening of bargaining). Several speakers emphasized the follow-up meetings must produce clear proposed language and an analysis of cost implications so trustees can make an informed decision.

Josh, one bargaining-team member, recused himself from voting on the day’s actions, saying he did not feel he was of one mind with his union and therefore could not fairly participate in decisions.

What’s next: The teams set an immediate IBB working meeting (noted in the record as targeted for the next day at 5 p.m.) to address trust and working agreements and committed to scheduling the limited-reopener preparation meeting within about a week so members can present a co‑constructed request and the district’s financial analysis to the school board.

Sources: Transcript of the Caldwell district interest-based bargaining session on Sept. 4, 2023; statements and readouts made by union and district negotiators at the meeting.