Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rockford bus drivers, union urge board to halt plan to outsource up to 75 routes
Summary
At a Committee of the Whole meeting, RPS 205 bus drivers and Local 1275 urged the board to reject RFP 26-13, warning it would erode the bargaining unit, threaten pensions and health benefits, and degrade route reliability; administration said it believes routes can be delivered but will continue vetting contractor pricing and route balance.
The Rockford Public Schools Committee of the Whole heard sustained public opposition and labor concerns over RFP 26‑13, an administration proposal that could outsource as many as 50–75 regular education routes over three years and subcontract summer, extracurricular and field-trip transportation.
In public comment, drivers and union leaders described the proposal as an "erosion of the bargaining unit" and said the district should negotiate changes in the upcoming contract rather than award a large-scale contract to an out-of-state, for-profit operator. Leah Robinson, president of Local 1275, said drivers are experienced, often work in difficult conditions and rely on defined-benefit retirement and district health plans that may not be matched by private providers. “If you vote to award a contract to Zoom, the only certainty is that they will earn our taxpayers’ money,” Robinson said.
Several drivers warned of attrition and service problems if benefits or wage levels drop under a contractor. Key Moresy, an RPS driver, noted that the RFP allows expansion of contractor-run routes in years two and three and said many drivers use summer and extracurricular trips for additional income that could be affected.
Board members acknowledged the gravity of the choice and urged more engagement. Miss Bennett and others said the decision changes the district’s transportation philosophy and should include earlier, broader stakeholder input. Administration officials said their goal is to reduce canceled routes and the district’s frequent need to assign non-driving staff to cover routes.
Dr. Jarrett and Dr. Brown told the committee the administration believes district routes can be delivered under the proposed model but that outstanding work remains on contractor pricing and finding the correct balance between district-run and contractor-run routes. The board did not take a vote; several members asked administration to continue discussions and to return with additional analysis before a March board vote.
The meeting also included a formal notice from drivers that a step‑three grievance had been filed over the process; union representatives said they are prepared to pursue remedies if the board advances an award without bargaining or further discussion.
What happens next: administration will continue to work with board members and report back; the record shows strong public opposition and a pending grievance but no formal contract award yet.
