Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nashoba Regional School Committee ratifies three-year Unit A contract, 10–1
Summary
The Nashoba Regional School Committee voted 10–1 on June 18 to ratify a three-year Unit A memorandum of agreement with the Nashoba Regional Education Association covering July 1, 2026–June 30, 2029, including salary increases described at the meeting as 3% per year; one member opposed the contract over a schedule-veto provision.
The Nashoba Regional School Committee on June 18 voted to ratify a three-year Unit A memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Nashoba Regional Education Association, approving the contract by a 10–1 margin.
Scott, a committee member who moved the ratification motion, said the agreement represents a “good compromise” reached after “thoughtful and constructive” negotiations with the association. Lenny, a committee member who voted against the MOA, said he opposed language that he believes leaves too much discretion to faculty and could give them veto power over administrative scheduling decisions.
The motion as presented covered the full MOA for the period July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2029. Committee members stated during discussion that the agreement includes salary increases described in the meeting as 3% for each year of the contract. A committee member explained that a revised schedule clause would let administration propose schedule changes but that a faculty veto would require 51% of faculty to object to strike a proposed change.
Supporters emphasized the pay settlement and the broader negotiation work: "I would just like to thank the Nashoba region, the Regional Education Association for engaging in a thoughtful and constructive dialogue to arrive at this new contract," Scott said. He added that while the agreement is not perfect, it represents a fair settlement given current conditions.
Lenny said he remained uncomfortable with the compromise because it, in his view, still allows faculty an effective veto and could set a precedent for bargaining leverage. "I didn't like the original language because it left too much up to the faculty," he said, and noted he had not received the updated MOA via email before the vote.
The committee recorded the roll call votes: Scott — yes; Matt — yes; Chair — yes; Joel — yes; Lexi — yes; Lindsay — yes; Robin — yes; Shandor — yes; Sharon — yes; Jillian — yes; Lenny — no. With ten votes in favor and one against, the motion carried.
Committee members also noted that Unit C bargaining will be the next negotiation target, with work expected to begin in September. The meeting adjourned after the vote.
