Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Teacher appeals to Plum Borough board to fix step freezes that reduced pay step

Plum Borough School District Board · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A district teacher, Vincent Russo, told the board his pay was frozen at step 12 following a 2019 contract freeze and urged the board to consider a memorandum of agreement to restore affected teachers to the correct steps when retirements occur.

At the June 16 Plum Borough School District meeting, Vincent Russo, a teacher in the district, used the public‑comment period to urge the board to revisit pay‑step freezes from a prior contract that he says left him at step 12 instead of step 17.

Russo described taking the step freeze in 2019 and said he later supplied the administration with a memorandum of agreement he believes would restore affected teachers to the correct contractual step as retirements occur. “This has hurt me financially and a lot of other teachers,” Russo said, asking the board to review the proposed MOA and the underlying contract language.

Board and the chair reminded the public‑comment rules (name, residency, three minutes). Paul Michael, the property tax collector, also spoke during public comment and invited residents to visit his office in the coming weeks to learn about the tax‑bill process.

Context: Russo said the step freeze is in the district contract history and that he submitted a proposal to administration to correct placement for affected teachers; he characterized the proposal as fiscally doable and said it would not increase district costs compared with other staffing scenarios.

Next steps: Russo asked the board to look into the contract language and the MOA he provided. The meeting record shows his request as part of the public‑comment record; no board vote was taken on the MOA during the meeting.

Provenance: topic introduced SEG 254; citizen comment concluded SEG 326.