Haysville school board declines to ratify tentative teachers' contract over placement‑schedule errors

The Haysville Board of Education voted 7–0 on July 13 to decline ratification of a tentative agreement with the Haysville Education Association and instructed the district's interest‑based bargaining (IBB) team to return to the table to fix two placement‑schedule problems that would reduce pay for some newly hired teachers.

The district's HR lead, who presented the case to the board, said the package negotiated May 13 would cost the district just over $906,000 — a 3.44% package increase — but that an adjusted placement schedule sent to the bargaining unit created unintended consequences. "That proposed salary schedule . . . would reduce compensation for 14 of our newly hired teachers," the HR lead said, adding that reductions ranged from about $211 to roughly $2,000 for most affected candidates and that one offer would be reduced by $8,267.

Administration told the board several offers had already been made, verbally and in writing, before the tentative agreement was complete. The HR lead said those written offers were relied upon by candidates for housing, resignations and other life decisions, and the district believed it should honor those offers rather than reduce pay after the fact.

The specific legal tension, the administration said, comes from language in the negotiated agreement (Article 5, Section A, Paragraph 2) that places new educators "according to comparable current certified staff based upon experience and education level," while the new‑hire placement schedule adopted in the tentative agreement would, in multiple cases, place new hires lower than comparable current staff. "The tentative agreement provides no direction on which of those provisions are we going to follow," the HR lead said, calling the conflict a known defect.

Board members pushed the administration on procedure and consequences. One member noted that under the IBB rules a tentative agreement remains tentative until both the bargaining unit and the board vote; the HR lead said HEA had asked the district to bring the ratification question to the board before returning to the table because the bargaining unit had already ratified the adjusted package.

Board members asked whether verbal offers were enforceable; the HR lead said verbal agreements are recognized under Kansas law but that a negotiated agreement governs district obligations, producing the present conflict. The administration said a practical fix could include aligning the placement rows (extending the schedule to the same letter, for example) but that the negotiations team would need to determine the precise remedy.

On operational impacts, administration said the overall salary schedule did not decrease and current staff would not be harmed; base salaries were estimated to increase by about $4,000, an estimate the HR lead cautioned might change depending on negotiations. The presentation said 3 open positions remain to be filled immediately and noted the district often begins hiring in January–February to capture a broader candidate pool; delaying final contract approval, administration said, could make it harder to fill dozens of positions during the summer hiring window.

After discussion, a motion was made to decline ratification and to ask the IBB team to resolve the two placement issues. The motion passed by voice vote, recorded as 7–0. The board directed the negotiations team to reconvene under the IBB rules and to return the corrected package for consideration.

The administration said meeting materials and the recorded presentation will be posted to the district's public agenda and its YouTube channel. The board adjourned and noted the next regular meeting and an upcoming special meeting schedule.