Okay, we're live. So, welcome. Here we are on video, so let everyone know. All right. Welcome to SASPA in the ration. Welcome. We're glad you're you're here to be a part of this. Okay? So, we're
going to introduce everybody cuz we have people that might be watching that don't know who those of us at the table are. And go ahead and come come get set up. We're just kind of doing introductions. Your person's here. Okay. I didn't know she could get in the door.
Okay. So, all right, John, if you'll introduce yourself from the district team. >> So, I'm John Mesko. I work in the IT department. >> I'm Don Posey. I'm the CFO. >> Brenda Chapman, human resources. >> Jeff Fryer, human resources. >> And Jason Martin is our other person on
our team, but he is on vacation. >> Oh, how nice. >> Yes, enjoying a little time before teachers come back next week. All right. So, your team? >> Oh, okay. Aaron Flint from W.E. Cherry Elementary. >> And she's our secretary. She writes everything down. That's great. >> I'm Vicky Kidwell, president of CCA.
>> Heather Weaver, I'm secretary and treasurer for CCA. >> I'm James Hall. I teach at OPHS and I'm the CCA vice president. >> Michael Vandewater, Lexington High School. >> All right. Okay. So, this is our next session. We're very
hopeful and then we believe that with what the district has got to bring today, that we have the expectation that we will have a deal by Wednesday. We do have another session coming up this Wednesday. Okay? So, but before we begin discussing the
specifics, I have a some things that I'd like to comment and kind of set the meeting up being that we have other people that might not be used to how we we operate that are watching this time. So, I think it's important for everyone
to know who's here. And thank y'all for those who are here and those who may be watching, that when we bring proposals across the table, they all were discussed with the board and the superintendent >> [clears throat] >> in what we call executive session, okay?
And then the team brings these proposals to the meeting. So, the proposals are not what we do right here at the table. That's why when we go to caucus, there's times that the district can bring things back and there's times you'll hear me say that I've got to go back and have
executive session. So, but during those discussions, the impact on our employees is part of every single discussion, especially this year, okay? Particularly to the health insurance premiums because I know that that's a big ask for all of us because
it does affect it has a real impact on each of our household budgets. So, this reality is discussed during every executive session. Our goal throughout this process has been to make meaningful investments in our employees while ensuring those investments remain sustainable for years
to come. Every proposal reflects careful consideration of employee compensation, >> [clears throat] >> the rising cost of our health care, our regional competitiveness, and the district's long-term financial outlook. All of these factors have to be part of
the decision-making process. We recognize that our employees continue to face increasing financial pressures and we have not lost sight of that reality. In fact, one of our priorities has been to minimize those impacts whenever possible. That's why, despite the significant
increases in health care cost over the past several years, our employees in Clay County have not experienced an insurance premium increase in over 8 years or in 8 years. Unfortunately, the current environment, we're unable to
continue with that huge investment because it's just it's not sustainable. At the same time, the district is managing significant financial challenges including declining enrollment and the approximate $34 million in reduced state funding
associated with the family empowerment scholarship program. And we know you're aware of that because FEA is part of the big fight for that to try to equalize how that's impacting districts not just here in Clay County, but across the entire state.
So, while these realities affect our overall budget, they have not changed our commitment to our employees. Instead, they have required us to make thoughtful decisions about how to best allocate our limited resources. Fiscal responsibility and caring about
our employees are not competing values. They are both responsibilities of the district. >> [clears throat] >> Our challenge as the district is to find the balance between making meaningful investments in our employees today while ensuring we can continue to make those investments in the future.
We know that not every proposal will satisfy everyone at the table, but I hope it's clear that these recommendations were developed thoughtfully by the board and the superintendent. I can tell you Mr. Brosky has been heavily involved in these decisions and has fought very hard
for each of us. So, during that time, he's also has the responsibility of supporting not just employees, but the district's financial stability for the future. So, but we're confident that when we bring the proposals across the table
that you'll see that commitment, okay? Because it's different than the one we brought last time. There are some significant changes that were brought about that Mr. Brosky has said, "No, we just we just can't do that." So, um I appreciate his backing and I
appreciate his support for all of us. We also have with us today we're doing things that we have Hannah from the Bailey Group. She's here because insurance is huge and there's some misconceptions about our insurance. Some people don't understand the different
plans. So, we thought especially being that it was taped would be a good opportunity not just for those of us here cuz I myself have had some misconceptions. Like I said, I've learned more about insurance doing this bargaining than I would have thought I needed to know.
But, it also opened my eyes as to some of the personal um health issues that some of our employees face and the decisions they have to make as far as their health care, okay? So, that's why
um Hannah's here and she's going to try and do a real quick synopsis of the plans. We we will have time if if y'all are in agreement for her to answer some questions, okay? Um there's also a virtual benefits meeting scheduled on
the 29th. If you have specific questions about your own health care, that might be the better time or to get with Miss Isaiah. Chris is here also to do that, okay? All right, Hannah. It's all yours. >> Where should I
>> Um anywhere for the I think you're fine there. >> Okay. Okay, great. I have a couple copies of this document >> Okay. >> pass over. I'm pretty sure the board of education doesn't she have to be down there? I think I can do that.
>> Okay. Well, I know Mr. Bruskey is here, but that's fine. >> Okay, is this good? That's good. It's good. Okay. Okay. >> [laughter] >> So, like uh Mr. Mr. Chapman said, I just want to do a really simple overview of the medical plans and address perhaps
some some misconceptions that some employees and members of the community have had. So, on the page in front of you, it has a side-by-side comparison of the three medical and pharmacy plans. Up at
the top, a couple things that I wanted to address that have changed from the last from a few years ago it changed. At one point, your medical and pharmacy was with the same carrier. And when the district became self-funded, it became two two carriers.
So, right now you have Blue Cross Blue Shield for medical and Express Scripts for pharmacy. One point of confusion that I hear is, you know, what card do I use? And there are two separate ID cards. I I just wanted to address that, too, because people, you know, they may
send pharmacy items through their Blue Cross insurance and pharmacy or, you know, prescription costs should be sent to or through their Express Scripts insurance. When employees enroll in their medical insurance, through their enrollment, they're automatically covered with
pharmacy under the same plan. So, you can't have one medical plan and then separate pharmacy plan. So, I have that noted at the top there. And then, in the main table here, we have the low plan, the Choice HDSP, the Choice HMO, the mid plan, and the Choice
Plus PPO, the high plan. Overall, for several years, these plans have not had any changes. There were a couple changes along the way, and there are actually a lot of positive changes this year to the plan design. And I'll I'll note those in a few minutes, but for the most part, over
the last, you know, decade or so at least, the plans haven't changed that much. Let's see. I want to hit just a couple high points, but not read the not read all the pages to you. So, the Choice HDSP and the Choice HMO plan have one network. This is These plans are
in-network only. So, you only get coverage when you're in network. If you go to your provider that's out of network, there's there's no coverage. There's not even less coverage, there's no coverage available, and you'll pay the whole cost. On the Choice Plus plan, it is in and out of network coverage.
So, that's what we call a PPO plan. Um so, the the mid the low and the mid plan are in network only, and they use the Blue Care of Florida network. So, Blue Care um or sometimes you'll see it as Florida Blue HMO, but Blue Care is the best way to search for it. And I'll
address this on the open enrollment meeting um this Wednesday, but there are lots of instructions, different places where you can learn how to search for your providers in network, um or, you know, confirm that they're out of network. So, low and mid plan use the same network, the high plan uses a
different network, but it's a really broad network. And one misconception that that I've heard that I want to address is there's, you know, far less providers in with the Blue Cross Blue Shield, and it's it's almost a complete match, and there are more providers on
the high plan um compared to what you had with United Healthcare. On the low plan, it was a 97% match for all the providers that that members, you know, under the plan used the the last year whenever we conducted the RFP. Um
let's see. While I'm addressing the network, I'll address the Mayo Clinic. So, um another point of confusion that I've heard is where is the Mayo Clinic in network and where is it not? So, you have the Mayo Clinic with your primary care physicians, and then you have the Mayo Clinic with your specialist. So, on
the low and the mid plan, the Choice I just named, the Choice HMO, you cannot see a primary care through Mayo. Um even if you're existing pace even if you are an existing patient, you have to go to the Plus plan, the PPO plan, if you want
to see a Mayo primary care provider. If you want to see a specialist, specialist with Mayo are in network on all of the plans, but um you have to be accepted by Mayo's criteria. So, you know, Mayo may not accept you as a patient. If you're
an existing patient, it shouldn't be an issue. Um but you can see Mayo specialist on any of the plans. We're going to do questions after. All right, good. Okay. Um so, uh really simple differences between the three plans. If you can think about why would
I choose this plan over another, on the low plan, this is going to be the least amount of money out of your paycheck, but then you have the deductible to meet with, you know, most of most of the services. You don't have copays on this plan. So, while you're going to be paying less out of your paycheck, you know, you sometimes aren't
sure how much you're going to pay whenever you go to the doctor because it's dependent upon the doctor and what price is that day set. And you would pay a portion of that coinsurance. On the mid plan, it's a mix of coinsurance and copays. So, coinsurance is when, you know, you would
pay 20% of the cost and the district would pay 80% of the cost, for example. So, the mid plan, you have a mix of coinsurance and copays. On the high plan, you'll see more copays. So, you'll pay more out of your paycheck, but then you know exactly how much you're going
to pay whenever you go to your primary care physician or your specialist or urgent care. Um so, for some people, it's easy to think, "Okay, do I want to pay more now out of my paycheck or do I want to pay more later whenever I go to the doctor?" And so, you know, comparing
the plans in that way, on the low plan, you may pay more later. You may pay less out of your paycheck now, you'll pay more later whenever you go to the doctor or whenever, you know, you get perhaps have a hospital bill. Um and then on the high plan, it may be more I'm going to pay more now, but then I know I'm going to pay less whenever
whenever I go to the doctor because instead of paying, you know, 20% of the cost of my specialist, which specialist can sometimes be a several hundred dollars for an appointment, you would pay that copay. Um one misconception that I definitely
want to address are uh specialist referrals. There are no referrals needed for specialists on any of the plans. Historically, when you heard HMO plans, you would think, I need a referral to see a specialist, but with the Blue Cross plans, you do not need a referral
to see a specialist on the low plan, the mid plan, or the high plan. And then again, I want to address the deductible um and how that applies to not just the medical plans, but the pharmacy as well. So, whenever you look at the Choice HSP, which is the low
plan, you'll see that there are copays here um for, you know, generic, brand, specialty, but you'll see deductible first. So, similar to the medical cost, whenever you go to get a prescription on this low plan, you pay the full price up
to your deductible. And then after you've met your deductible, which is $4,000 for one person, then any cost after that, you pay 20% and the district pays 80% until you reach your out-of-pocket maximum. If someone reaches their out-of-pocket maximum for
that plan year, then they don't pay anymore and the district covers 100% of the cost. On the high plan, you won't This is again, just a really quick snapshot. There are still some benefits on the mid and the high plan that have a coinsurance share
um instead of a copay. Um but whenever coinsurance is applied, it does apply to towards your deductible, and everyone has that out-of-pocket maximum to meet. Most people don't meet their out-of-pocket maximum, um Um, but it does go towards your deductible and your out-of-pocket maximum. Co-pays do not
apply to once your deductible or your out-of-pocket maximum. So, that's important for people to know. Um, but, you know, I understand that it is nice to go into a doctor and know I'm only going to pay $40 for for this visit. Um, I mentioned earlier that some of the
co-pays have changed and the plans have been, you know, enriched in some ways. So, for the mid and the high plan, primary care physician, um, urgent care cost and some mental health care pays have been decreased. Um, uh, so, you know, that's something that
we rarely see. We usually see co-pays going up and so, definitely a lot of thought, um, by the district went into lowering those co-pays to make sure that that, you know, that, um, that benefit was more accessible. Uh, that care is more accessible. Um, you'll see higher
co-pays for your emergency room visits. Um, preventive visits, which are, you know, your your your annual vaccines that you're eligible for, um, just going to your annual checkup, things like that. These are covered 100% in network on all of the plans. As long as you're
going to a provider that's in network, it's no cost. It's, you know, should should be should be no cost. Um, one misconception that I actually want to address there is sometimes when you go into your primary care provider to have an annual checkup, um,
and you definitely are expecting to pay nothing for your annual visit. Depending on the provider and how they code things, if you stay there longer, if, you know, they feel that it's going into, you know, more of your annual checkup and you're discussing extra
things, they may code things differently and add more things onto the visit. And that's something that is up to the provider. Um, if they add things on. So, it's just important to be really communicative with your provider and say, "Wait a second. We seem like we're talking more on this specific, you know,
diagnosis. Like, we're talking about specialists, we're talking about, you know, um maybe scheduling you for a surgery or something. If this is going to go beyond what's included in my annual preventive visit, can you let me know because I may, you know, pause and,
you know, schedule another visit. Just there have been surprises sometimes when providers, you know, they have you in for an annual visit, but then they they code additional cost in. Um and that's again a provider issue and typically not not a Blue Cross or any
kind of medical carrier issue. And then I I have a quick um just note here on what what the plans are best for. So, low plan, you know, I definitely think lowest uh cost out of your paycheck. The mid plan is when you have a little bit more flexibility when you have the copays, you know that, you
know, for your primary care physician uh primary care visits, your specialist visits, your you're going to have a copay to pay. So, you're not going to go around guessing what you're going to pay. And then the high plan is just more provider flexibility, too. Um definitely more providers, but there are plenty of
providers on the on the the low and the mid plan as well. And again, during the RFP, it was a 97% match to um the current providers that that Clay employees are using. On the other side of the page, I know that everyone not everyone has a page,
but I have just a quick um uh definition of premium, deductible, copay, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximum that that people can look at. I'm going to be going over this in detail again at the open enrollment meeting that's virtual this Wednesday at 3:00. And then I have some examples too for
all of the plans. Um I'm not sure if it would be helpful for me to go over a couple of the examples. >> Do you think they would need it or wait for the virtual? >> I'll pause there. I don't want to I don't want to, you know, take up too much time, but I can answer some questions if that would be
>> Like here, Heather, at the table, do you all have any questions? And then we'll go to the others. >> I don't have any. No, I have no questions. >> I actually do. Um so, currently on like I have the Choice plan, and we were looking at possibly going to the HSP.
Um some of our prescriptions are zero dollars now even though they're supposed to have a copay, they're they're not having a copay. If we switch, will that continue or is that kind of >> So, right now there is a what's called a
preventive drug list in the place um where there's a long list of preventive drugs um that are generic brand, and they cover a variety of different types of medications medications for diabetics, for, you know, asthmatics. And right now that list is a zero dollar
copay for those. That may change in the future. Um we don't know for certain whether or not it's going to change right now. Um but there is a list of preventive drugs that are available. However, I will say if you were to switch plans, that wouldn't um that
wouldn't impact the the that preventive drug list. >> Okay. >> Did anyone else have a question for Hannah? Okay. All right. Hopefully it hopefully it helped a little bit, but I would encourage you if you're trying to make your decision because open enrollment
closes fourth the fourth, okay, to um get a part of that virtual meeting. And again, as I know CCA put on their site, you have to make sure you're enrolled in a plan. We do, you know, we understand that that's kind
of scary, you know, either continue with your current plan and then after we have an agreement on premiums, okay, after all things settled and the contract's done, then there will be uncontrolled enrollment because we have
to do that, okay? Legally, if things are changing, you have to have the option to change plans [clears throat] or you might say, "Hey, I can't do any of this." So, just know that you will not be able to enroll at the time. So, you have to
enroll before the 4th. You can make changes later. All right? So, I wanted to make sure everyone understood that. Okay? >> Is there anything that I can answer or anything that I didn't address that would be helpful to you? >> No. Everyone sure? Cuz otherwise, Hannah's
going to go. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you so much for coming. >> Thank you. >> All right. Do you all have anything else you want to say before we jump into the actual bargaining? >> Okay.
Okay. >> Do you all want to do a language first or do you want to start with >> We have some language to bring back. >> Okay. >> We're bringing back 18 evaluations and 22 insurance. And we do want to discuss the in-service and the pre-planning that
you had brought >> previously. Um so, we can start with evaluations if you're good with that. >> I'm fine. >> Yep, that's good. Why don't we talk >> Well, we could do that. I just need to hear it written out. >> Okay. >> Now, we're we're right here.
>> We're closer now. How about we do the extras and then we'll go back to that? >> I thought that's a great idea. >> So, we have gone back and forth with Article 18 and evaluation. And we know that what we hear
about non-reappointments is probably a little bit different from what you hear. We hear the personal accounts. And one of the number one things that we hear is that I was non-reappointed because I didn't get along with my principal. I was
non-reappointed because something that has nothing to do with instruction or the way that I teach. So, we need some kind of clear parameters for renewal decisions that can't be based on things like that. So, that's kind of what we're
trying to do. We're not trying to take away a principal's right to have the staff that they feel would do the best job at their school. We're trying to make sure that those decisions are not made outside of what is best for
students. And are they an educator? Can they be made into an amazing educator? Because as we all know, that first year as a teacher is one of the hardest. So, we've taken a little bit of time to look at this language. And you'll see it. It's annual contract
teachers. And the first thing that we want to pinpoint is if a principal feels like an annual contract teacher needs some help somewhere, that they are giving them that help. Now, we know that they have conferences of deficiency, and they'll
go in, they'll have a conference with the teacher, and they'll say, "You're not doing this." But nothing is given to help that teacher to be able to do their job effectively. So, what we're asking in this first one is that administrators will give them the help that they feel
like that they need to become the rock star teacher that we know that they can become. So, that's one of the first things. We want some kind of documented measures taken to support those annual contract teachers. Now, that could be a plethora of different things. The administrator comes in and says this is
how you do it. They could have a mentor teacher that comes in and shows them how it's done. They can visit other classrooms, right? When I talk to people who have been non-reappointed, I've often asked that, "Have you visited a stellar teacher's classroom?" Their answer is no. So, some of those things
we do every day, our teachers do them, our administrators do them, we just want them documented so that we'll have that that clear perimeter, okay? >> Would you like to read what you're proposing on P? >> I sure can. I sure can. >> That way people watching, cuz I thought about that, and I thought we can see it, >> Mhm.
>> but they can't see it, and the people can't see it. >> So, we're [snorts] adding two additional pieces to the evaluation article, P and Q. P states, "Annual contract teachers displaying performance issues shall be afforded targeted collaborative
professional learning on a consistent basis in addition to the weekly PLC. It shall be the responsibility of administrators to document the measures taken to support annual contract teachers. Administrators shall solicit and document feedback from mentor
coaches and master teachers supporting the developing educator prior to making the decision to non-reappoint any annual contract teacher." I had a case where a a coach was shocked
that the teacher was non-reappointed. Shocked. >> We've had more than one case like that. >> So, that's all we're asking for is documentation. We are not taking the ability of a principal away to non-reappoint someone who is not good
for their school or their students. >> Okay. Okay? Q. The parties agree that it is in the best interest of the district to reappoint highly effective and effective annual contract teachers. To meet that goal, principals will automatically recommend
reappoint to the superintendent for any on annual contract teacher who receives a spring evaluation of highly effective. And we did change that from highly effective and effective because one of your arguments was that you can have a 60 and still be effective. So, we're
saying highly effective only, compromising. And has no documented actions rising to the level of discipline concerning interactions with children during the school year. If such interactions with children occur subsequent to the
reappoint and before the end of the school year, the automatic reappoint can be rescinded. That was another thing that you had a little bit of a angst about. You were worried that if, you know, it's not always evaluation. Sometimes there's discipline and sometimes there's some other things. So,
we put that caveat in there as well. If the teacher meets these qualifications and the principal still deems them not a good fit for their school, that annual contract teacher will be offered a transfer to a position for which they are qualified. If a teacher refuses the transfer, the
employee will be responsible for interviewing and securing another position themselves. That's very similar to our brief language. This provision shall be administered in a manner consistent with the Florida statutes. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, diminish, or waive
the district school board's statutory authority regarding annual contracts. That is another angst that you have. We don't want to go against Florida statute. >> And I I think it's really important that you know that many districts have this language and that we borrowed it. >> And Florida statute is a baseline,
right? You can always go above and beyond for the employees. That's what the statute's a baseline. We can give them some protections and some job security. One of the things
that as a district we need to remember that research suggests that educators are life are very likely to leave districts when they are worried about their job security. That's higher turnover. That's loss of experienced teachers and that's increased cost for
recruitment and training for you. Right? You have to do the new teacher orientation. You have to do the job fair. So, that's going to help with cost for the district. Um another thing that I think's really important is without job security
teachers and when they are worried about upsetting their principal, teachers are less likely to advocate for their students. They're less likely to raise any kind of concerns about what's going on in school cuz they don't want to upset their principal. And they're less likely to report any kind of safety or
compliance issues because they don't want to be quote unquote a cop stirrer in their school. They're very nervous to do anything like that because they don't want to lose their job. So, that kind of hurts them being able to advocate for
their students and do the right thing. So, that's what we're asking. We are not proposing anything that would hinder a principal from getting rid of an employee who is not doing their job. Let me say that again because I know that that was a bit of a contention. That's not what we are We are not
advocating that bad teachers be left in play. We are not. What we are advocating for is that our leaders do their job and do their coaching and create their rock stars because that's what a good principal does. >> And and in our conversations together,
it was said over and over again that the majority of the non-reappointed get picked back up. I mean, you said that yourself. Um the reality is is a lot of them don't hang out here till they get picked back up, and they go and jet I mean, even said that in our last
meeting, and they go on to be very successful in other schools. But, why do we have that gap? Why do we have that inconsistency of they didn't get the support at one school or they weren't a good fit. Why Why would we cut them loose when we know, I think we've
got 578 teachers that are year 1 to 4. I think that knowing that those teachers need time to grow. And we have to do the job. We have to make sure our our administrators are And most
of them are, but some of them aren't. And this is a a little bit of security for those teachers that are in positions where the administrator maybe isn't being as supportive as they need to be. >> Okay. I'm I want to reiterate what I said at the last meeting. Out of almost 3,000 teachers, we had 29
non-reappointed. 29. That is 1.02% of our teachers are non-reappointed. I think that is showing that our administrators are doing a very good job of coaching and helping our new
teachers. First, second, third, fourth, any annual contract teacher. These are not just your first year teachers. Out of all of our annual contracts, 29 were non-reappointed. That speaks volumes. >> Mhm.
>> The other thing is that if a principal, if you had someone tell you that my principal let me go because they didn't like me, because we've had this before. All you had to do was pick up the phone and say this is what the teacher is
saying. We go into that evaluation. We look to see if those conferences are there, where they met with that person, they talked with them, they shared with them how they were not meeting their expectations. The conferences are there the majority of the time.
And y'all have even told them hey, they they've spoken to you numerous times throughout the year. They told you you had you need to work on this, you need to work on that. They provided guidance here, they provided guidance there. So, to say that our principals, I think
is just incorrect to say our principals are letting people go because they don't like them. We have language to protect our teachers from that. And if those deficiency conferences are not there, and a deficiency conference no is not in the hallway, they have to sit down, they have to have a meaningful
conversation with them. And give them the opportunity to prove We want to keep our teachers. We want them to grow. I mean, that is both of ours it is our responsibility, I said. Now, if there was that opportunity
to work with a principal to say, "Hey, I don't see where you had those deficiency conferences." There's contract language that protects that teacher. So, all it takes is a phone call to bring it to our awareness if that is occurring. But, with again, 29 teachers
were non-reappointed. >> So, what I hear you saying is that our principals are already doing the things that are that we have outlined. So, it would not >> I'm saying our principals are doing a really good job. So, having this language >> They're perfect?
>> No. >> My Are there people Our point even one person is too many. Even one person is too many. If they're already >> No, if they're not meeting the expectations of of the >> Even one person who is non-reappointed
because their principal does not like them. >> We're not having people reappointed because their principal doesn't like them. That is a direct violation of current contract language. We'll look it over. We'll totally open at it. I'm open for any way to improve and to do those things. That's why when we brought that
language before, both of us we worked on it was in the cast manual. We worked together on that to improve that because there was an issue before where there were a few. But like you said, if it's inappropriately done, a few is too many. >> Right. >> Where they maybe were having a
conference in February telling them that hey, you you haven't been meeting my expectations all year. We totally agreed that's inappropriate because it doesn't give them time to grow. Okay? Because they knew they do need time to grow. We all we all should
be that should be our goal no matter how long we've been in education. The true educator is always looking to grow and learn. So, we're we're totally open to looking it over but I just wanted I feel like it's important for people to know
I I I just don't like the comment that our principals are letting people go because they don't like them. >> I think that when we see instances where a conference of conferences of deficiency is very loose. We've talked about that before. We said could there be a checklist? Could there be
a piece of paper that you have to sign and there's been resistance to that. I think that conferences of deficiency anyone who's a brand new teacher in year one or two is going to have deficiencies. They're going to have issues that they don't want to work on.
So, conference of deficiency could be I think you need to put more standards in your lesson plan. I mean, we there's no there's no bar for conference of deficiency and that's the problem. >> So, maybe that's what we need to look at is to make sure that it is a But it's
documented in the evaluation and do you all look at that? >> are giving them support. >> That's what we want. I mean, every time we we talk about this and we we know there are teachers who get picked up picked back up afterwards, and then they go on to be rock stars because they've
got a supportive administration. Maybe it's a better fit. Maybe they are Maybe they just can't handle elementary, need to be high school, or vice versa. Whatever For whatever the reason, we've cut them loose, they've given clay, they've said, "I'm going to try again." They get back in, and they and they get in a good position, and they do fine.
Those people we would argue should never have been let go. They should have been The principal either did not support them which in the way they needed to be in a way that they that was significant. And principals are busy. We get that. They've got a lot of stuff on
their plate. What we're saying is the district would agree that principals need as a educational leaders need to support teachers, right? Brand new teachers. You They have to build capacity for the future of clay. The less turnover we have, the better. So, why wouldn't we put in language in
here saying, "This is what principals Hey principals, we know we know you heard this in the principal meeting, but here, you need to document how you're supporting these teachers even though you're super busy. Do Do these things, or reach out to the district." And we talked to a district
coach, and she's like, "One of the things we were going to put in there is get them a district coach." She's like, "The coaching staff's been cut. You know, all we have is curriculum coaches left. We don't have new teacher coaches." >> we did have to cut. >> So, so >> That was part of the big riff. >> Well, but that's So, that's less off
That's less of resources for principals to grab at. Like, "Okay, I'm good." So, we have stepped up, and we're offering new teacher mentoring. Um we've been training. We want to have one at every site, etc. But the regardless, we see the importance of the
district and CCA supporting new teachers. Otherwise, we're going to continue to have turnover that's not good for our kids. >> Well, we I agree. We need to support them. >> that will help stop lessen the turnover, we feel is a positive thing. >> And again, if this is already being done
and as I heard you say our principals are doing these things, then there should be no problem putting it in. >> Well, we just need to make sure we're looking at the language that it's not where it would like you said, you don't want to tie the principal's hands to to non-reappoint someone that just isn't the right fit.
>> And that's fine. >> And you know, it 1% non-reappointed is a pretty doggone good. That means they're working with people cuz I guarantee you you're not going to find another district in the state that reappoints less than 1%
unless maybe it's one of the districts that has two or three schools. >> But to be fair, and non-reappoints is probably your one to four, correct? Because you can conclude employment on an on an in a in a zero year. Like for any reason during the year, right? >> During the year.
>> not considered non-reappointment. So you're not counting >> Non-reappointment is people that make it through their make it through the contract. >> They've made it through their all year. >> Yes. >> So they're year one to four. So that's 529 >> Well, there could be some. There are some probationary annual contract that are they've worked with them through the
year, they didn't let them go during the year cuz they kept working with them, working with them, working with them and maybe they made the decision they have to know by May 1st according to the law. >> 29 would include zero year, the zero year? >> They possibly could. I I don't have that but yes, it's possible for a pack.
>> I thought this would conclude employment instead of non-reappoints. >> Not if they go through the Not if they go through the year. Yes. If they if it's during the year before the last day of school, okay, then like in
January or in December, you know, then that would be a concluded employment. But if they're not given a contract for the next year, that's a that's a non-reappoint. >> Okay, take it back. If it's already being done, there's no
problem in having contract language. So, our next article is 22, insurance. You got it. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And then Michael, will you get the extras please? >> So, previously we proposed that the
district would absorb the increases if negotiations are not settled. You brought back that the district will not absorb the increases if we don't complete bargaining in time. >> We brought back original language. >> Original language, exactly. Original language. And the original language for
anyone who is at home is that the employee will absorb any increases. So, what we decided was a compromise, and we would like to share that burden 50/50.
Um this way, if there is an increase and it is substantial, our teachers and educators can still put food on the table while they're waiting for negotiations to be completed. So, our language is um
Let's see. If a contract with new premium contribution amounts is not ratified by September 15th of each year, the school board and employees shall split the increased premium amounts equally until a new
contract is ratified by both parties. >> Okay. >> And that's we've gone back and forth quite a bit about that section. That's the only thing in that one that's different. >> All right. >> Okay. And >> We wanted to talk a little bit about
um in-service and pre-planning. At our previous sessions, we gave a challenge to the district that we are looking for language brought by the district that would help our
teachers during pre-planning and during the in-service. Now, we are very excited that August will be open now for all of those uh pre-planning things that you need to do, you know, Florida safe schools, all of that different stuff with the blood
borne pathogens. I saw a great meme about that the other day. A lady was on a plane >> [clears throat] >> and she was like, "Anybody need a tourniquet? I think I could do it." Um so, we are very excited that we have August for that. For the PLC time, right? And and that's great. And we do
actually we put this in there now for this is the in-service. And Vicki, I'm going to let you speak to this a little bit. >> So, we read through your um proposed changes to the in-service um article and um this keeps all of your
changes except we did want to put in um I know we noticed you struck every place where it said weekly and we did feel like at least um that we should include weekly in there. And so, you'll see that uh
your changes are the same for C. For D, we have teachers will participate co- in collaborative professional learning around the school's vision and student needs of um of the district for not more than 1 hour weekly as outlined in state
approved Clay County District School Professional Learning System. Said hours shall be within the contracted day. School leaders will prioritize PLC dates during August to allow this time to be used for mandated training. And then um again we
>> Can I pause for just a moment? So is the blue >> The blue is what we put in and the red is yours. >> Okay. >> I I wasn't sure how to >> That's good. >> I just cuz I don't have my copy of >> So we we thought it was important that we still um
sort of have at least one place where we talked about it weekly and so instead of striking all the weeklies. >> Yeah. And that was from the year before when we talked about doing that but we didn't get to it. So you're adding student needs for not more than 1 hour weekly. Right. Instead so that people
know what it was. It was student needs of 1 hour as outlined. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. >> And then the other thing is I felt like it was redundant at the very bottom. I think you had put collab um
this provision supersedes article blah blah blah blah blah that when applied to meet the need for weekly instruct collaborative professional learning time of 1 hour. I took out of the 1 hour cuz I felt like it was redundant. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Those should be easy to work on. >> But we were um we did want to um uh we got a lot of feedback about pre-planning. You know, some of the pre-planning schedules are coming out right now and so we're getting those emails >> Yeah, 1 week from today.
>> I know about about the time and people are counting the hours of time that they're going to have in the classroom. >> They are. They are. And I will tell you that some principals have heard the message to prioritize teacher time in their classroom.
We know that because we know that some principals have revamped their pre-planning week to prioritize that classroom time. However, that is not something that is happening across the board. I have an example and I'm not going to call out any names, but we can talk
about it later if you like. >> I would. Yes, because I do know that was a priority of the superintendent and he sent an email out stating so. >> And some [snorts] of our principals have revamped and given them more time in their classroom. We're very excited about that. >> Some maybe think they did, but they just
need a little more. >> And we'll talk >> persuasion. >> We'll definitely talk about that after >> Okay. >> with specifics, but I do have one pre-planning elementary agenda that is giving teachers 17.5 hours. >> Out of the 45? >> Out of 45 in their classroom.
>> Okay. >> So, we're >> That's cuz I know I saw one from last year and I don't know if it's this one, so I'm not going to say names, but I know that there were trainings that were listed sometimes for the
it took almost the whole day, but they list were listed as optional on the calendar. Is this Are these Are these all required trainings that they have to go to or somebody got the optional on there? >> I do not see optional. >> Cuz there was one who had
she only had like an hour or two training in the morning, but then every all the time after lunch, there were two different trainings and it was listed as optional. Um >> I know. >> I I had some people might be interested in it.
So, some people might be interested in the classroom. So, I'm just wondering if they if they did that. But we'll talk afterwards on details. >> Okay. So, just a couple of questions. Okay. For thoughts. Has the district reviewed the pre-planning schedules? >> I do know that they were requested to be
sent to the superintendent. >> Um >> I don't know if it's him personally or if it would be like Dr. Tito and Dr. George reviewing them that, but I do know that they were asked to submit them. >> Okay, so that would be great if we can get someone to review those.
Yeah, it's I mean I think it it would be important for the >> And that is that might be being already done. >> I mean that that would be great. I mean I talked to the Yeah, so it seems like that it would be best if you elementary continue the elementary but I just think that if we're really serious about
messaging this, we need to have accountability. I would hope. >> And you said that Brosky sent an email asking principals to prioritize that time.
What expectations or guidance was given to the principals? >> I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to review that and do that because it wasn't it wasn't sent to human resources. It was sent out to the schools. >> Right. And this is just questions that we're getting. Right. We want to put out
into the universe. >> Okay. >> Um so you don't know if there was any kind of accountability to ensure that >> Well, I think they were told they had to submit them. >> Okay. >> I would I would say that's giving them accountability. >> Yeah, but if as long as they're reviewing them I was just about to say
if they're doing something with them. >> Well, I don't think the superintendent would ask you to submit it if he wasn't planning on reviewing it. >> Okay. And if the district agrees that additional pre-planning time that is teacher directed is beneficial,
is there a reason that we haven't got language to show that? >> Not off the top of my head. I'd have to go back and review the language that we have because I haven't looked at that since last year other than what is in this. >> And that was that was the challenge that
we had issued because we here the district wants what's best for our teachers and and so we gave the challenge to have the district bring over some language that's beneficial to the teachers. So so that's the part >> did and I brought language that was
beneficial to the teachers and I'll be fully transparent because that's the way I am. We don't usually bargain in July and every meeting I had has been probably with y'all too. I've been swamped with TSI but more with the insurance.
And full transparency, I have not had time to look through the entire contract to see what other language I could bring because we're focusing on having to get a completion for this. We don't necessarily have to have a full completion on language but we do have to have a completion on this.
>> Um can we entertain the thought of possibly bringing an MOU on pre-planning hours? >> It depends on what I I don't I can't answer that because I don't know what you're referring to about pre-planning hours. Because there are things that principals Principals have to have some time to meet with their faculty because
you're talking about all these new teachers need support. Number one, they need to start out day one knowing what their leaders' expectations are and guidance for that. So there are things There's the required meetings, the required trainings, there's the CAST meeting that There's a lot of things
that have to go over and that's what they've been instructed to do is minimize the amount of the required trainings, okay, to go over expectations. You know, there's Now we have to have the human trafficking, you know, which is
important. It's very important for people to spot that possibly in school because it is occurring here in Clay County. You know, there's the self-reporting and there was a in fact an email that was sent from the state, from the Department of Education, about
increased responsibility for self-reporting. So, we want to make sure that all of our employees are aware of their responsibility to self-report if they see or hear something. So, there are some things that are required, that's already been the directive of the
superintendent is to minimize, only do the required training, do a training of your expectations. Um so, it depends on what it is. No, we're not opposed to it as long as it allows principals the time to meet and provide the expectations needed.
>> So, pre-planning starts next week. >> Mhm. >> So, our teachers are looking for some kind of assurance that they are not going to be in meetings that are not beneficial to our students,
our schools, and themselves. >> I don't know anyone who has time for meeting that's not beneficial to the schools or students. >> Okay. >> So, if there's those meetings like the let's just meet to talk about how we're going to paint flower pots, then we need to know.
>> Okay. So, everyone's heard that. So, okay. >> But, expectations are important for students and the school. >> So, we still as CCA challenge the district to bring that language. Um we do feel that it's important. So,
>> Absolutely. >> Okay, so that is our language piece. We do have a compensation piece. >> Okay. >> I did want to touch on what we started touching on last week. Um we discussed the amount being different, right? You
had come with 2.1 million, we had 2.3 million, and when we asked why, it was stated that FES was taken off of the top of that. >> So, >> Family Empowerment Scholarship. >> That's an acronym. Sorry. I know. Acronyms ever >> Does everyone know what that means? That is a family empowerment scholarship.
That is our vouchers. That does come out of our base allocation funding. We understand that. However, um state law does not include FPS in the amount to be deducted from TSIA. It clearly defines the amount as 1.06%
of the base funding allocation. It does not say 1.06% of the base funding allocation after we take out FPS. Um Columbia tried to do this last year and the DOE ruled that they cannot do
it. I know that I have heard several um accountants from different school districts were told that they can do this, but it is not panning out. And our legal says that you cannot do it and the
DOE is on record stating for Columbia that you cannot do it as well. Um if the district is insistent on doing this, we are going to have to request where the DOE says that this is okay in writing because we have it in writing
that says that it is not okay. >> Can you provide that? >> I sure can. >> Thank you. >> So, that is >> And that was last year? >> Last year, Columbia County, yep. >> Okay. >> I have a friend who works in Columbia County.
>> Okay, thank you. >> The statutory language is very clear with that 1.06% of its base FEFP funding amount must go to TSIA funding. So, that that number
I know that they put the TSA in the base student, but still that number is very clear in the >> [clears throat] >> in the language. >> Okay. So, our compensation proposal does not include the FPS being taken off
the top. So, we are going with the $2,378,685, and we are also not doing 24% benefits. We are doing 23.36% benefits, which is what the county used last year. I know it doesn't seem like a lot, but as we all know, we are going to
fight for our teachers and get every penny that we can. Every penny, cuz it it does make a difference, right? So, here is the compensation proposal. Now, this does not have insurance in this. As we all know, we are still working very
hard. The district and CCA are on insurance. So, This is a little while ago. >> Oh, you got it. Sorry. >> I didn't PASS IT AROUND. SO, WE DID TIER IT. I KNOW, JOHN, YOU WERE working on banding this as well. As you can see, that is how we have
decided or we tried to band it to get as close to the 1.9 million after the benefits were removed. We also um did note that there was that little snafu about um TSIA only being for
people with 10 years plus of Florida experience, but we do not want to use that as a banding. So, what we did instead, and Trevor, who is in England, took my email and he even built us a table, so we knew it could be done. Uh first identified all those who are
eligible for TSIA, and then banded them according to all experience, and as well as because we want parity, we wanted equality, we did the same for all veterans. >> And we tried to keep the non-eligible,
as well as our people below 10 years, as close to 1 million. We were pretty close, 1.79, or 1,179,963. And that includes giving the same increase to those people with those years of experience, as well as keeping
the $600 that the district proposed for those people under 10 years. And we absolutely want to point out that this CCA proposal is not a supplement. Um a supplement has to be
[clears throat] renegotiated. So, basically, that is a one-time $600 payment. We are proposing that this goes on the base salary for everybody who receives these increases. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay.
>> So, is the total of this, if I'm doing this correctly, looking at the two totals correctly, 3,107,598? >> We did not cost it out that way because we TSIA is separate. >> I've got >> But I'm counting the two
>> I'm looking at 3,429,527. >> Okay, but are they including the TSIA? >> That's TSIA. >> Yeah, we didn't have the TSIA. We counted the general fund portion. >> Yeah, we only counted the general fund portion. >> So, I'm for the general fund portion, I'm seeing 1,088,000. So. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> And I I redid my model to match the 23.36%. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Would it not be the total for this top box, and the total for this box is total of your proposal. >> top box not
>> Right. Correct. Okay. Yes. Yes. My 31 is with TSIA. >> With TSIA? >> Yes. So, John, I don't know where I mean the numbers on this page, where are you getting 34? >> I would imagine >> I'm doing the 19. I'm I'm looking at her totals on her page, not on your not on your spreadsheet.
The totals on her page are 19 and then 117. >> A little over 3 million. >> Right. >> With TSIA. >> Okay. Okay. That's the That's I just want to make sure it's those two totals. >> And originally when the district proposed their proposal, there was a million taken out of general fund.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> So, we tried to >> We tried to close. >> Correct. Okay. All right. That it? >> Yes. And for those watching who can't see this, obviously, um >> to tell them what your increments were? >> Sure.
Um we um of course because we bargain for fairness, um everyone eligible for the TSIA um is banded by years, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 and above. Um we took the
entirety of the TSIA and split that into bands um based on how many people in each of those bands would get would get it. So, 10 to 14 years is uh 1425 increase. 15 to 19 years is 1525 increase. 20 to
24 is 1625 increase. And 25 and above is 1730 increase and that put us very close to the TSIA um total which was uh 1.9 million after benefits are taken out. We did the same We We are proposing that
the district do the same for any teacher who is not classroom based, but also has the 10 plus years um even though they uh might not be 40 years, for any years that they have. So, we We're counting all experience. so they would be the same. If you have 10 or more years,
you're getting the same as the TSIA, 1425, 1525, 1625, and 1730. And then, for those under 10 years, 5 to 9, uh well, actually, it 1 to 9 would be $600. So,
there's no decompression there, but it is what it is. >> Okay. I want to ask, just to make sure I understand, please. On your TSIA, from what we spoke about after the workshop the other day, when you have like the 20 to 24 years total
experience, >> We fixed that with this chart. >> Okay. So, this is Because what we were talking about, just so everyone understands, is there could be someone that falls into the TSIA bucket that might have 24 years of experience,
but maybe 15 of those are Florida public school, and that's all TSIA was counting. And so, I spoke to because we both were concerned about that. That then you would have someone that had 24 years experience that maybe wasn't categorized
as a classroom teacher. So, now, that person gets all of their years of experience, whereas if we stuck strictly to the TSIA, that TSIA teacher's only going to get 15. Hopefully, that makes sense. So, we were talking about that for both of us to look at how we could
[clears throat] make sure that they were getting all their years, even if they were in the TSIA bucket. >> And that did change the numbers quite a bit, and that's why those numbers came down quite a bit, because I was more There were more years, but we felt that was the fair way to do it. We are all
pri- trying to prioritize the veterans. That's what we heard from our people over and over again. We wanted We think it's fair, and I think the district thinks it's fair. >> for discovering that, [laughter] too. >> Absolutely. We didn't even think of that. >> Now, now, the variance between my numbers and yours, I ran fresh numbers
on 7/22. So, I pulled down our current hiring and where we're at. >> Oh, okay. >> So, [clears throat] it's >> And there's always a little variance coming >> Always changing fresh numbers. >> It's going to change tomorrow. >> Yeah, it's I if I ran tomorrow, they'd be different. So, >> Especially this time of year. >> It's always in the ballpark, right?
>> Right. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Excited for y'all. Okay. All right. So, we are going to start with insurance. I want to preface all this with the board's proposals. We have insurance, kinda.
Okay? And I'll clarify that when I get into it. We have insurance, we have a compensation proposal that I can tell you Mr. Brusky fought very, very hard for. And um and we bring it back the same millage proposal for
this year's, okay? For the 25-26, not the millage that's being voted on, okay? And we'll get into that. But, all of this is a package deal, okay? So, they're all all one. So, we're going to start with the insurance.
And this is more like just an open discussion. So, cuz I think it's important for everyone to understand what we're up against with this with this insurance that both CCA and
SASPA SASPA's here. And um that we're all facing with this. So, what I did on this is first of all, I put a chart showing the health of our current plans, okay? And this chart shows the Choice HSP, the
Choice HMO, and the Choice Plus. And as you can see, and this is from 10/1 of '24 through 3/1 of '26. So, the HSP plan is a very healthy plan, okay? It basically that what that means
is that the premiums that are being collected cover the claims that are being submitted, okay? As self-assured, the district, which means all of us, are paying the claims, all right? There's not a us and them on this. It affects
the entire health of the entire plan. The Choice HMO, some months are better than others, okay? But you can see that it also runs a deficit of 2.7 million dollars. What that means is that we're paying out 2.7
In that time frame, we paid out 2.7 million dollars more than the premiums brought in, okay? The Choice PPO does not have a green month in it at all. What that means is that $6.5 million
deficit during that time, the district played out $6.5 million more than what both the district and the employees were contributing, and that money has to come out of somewhere, okay? Because those claims must be paid.
So, this shows you where we are in our current plan. And what ends up happening is that the PPO, the money's for it it's we're all funding that higher cost plan. Now, for some people, is that higher cost plan a
necessity? Probably so, okay? But it's still an unhealthy plan, which cost the entire district. And when I say entire district, I'm talking about employees and all of us, because that's where the actuary looks at the overall health
of the plan and says, "We need 22% to keep this plan afloat." So, that's part of that. And I'm going to read this so that other people can see the um Well, they can't see. They'll know what's on the document. So, as reflected
I do the summary below two of the district plans, like I just went over, are operating at a deficit. To maintain coverage, the district has been absorbing those funding shortfalls. Rising healthcare costs, significant reductions in available funding, just
it's it's not sustainable for us to as a district to continue totally taking on that entire funding. We recognize that increase in employee premiums have a financial impact on everyone that's part of the plan.
In an effort to lessen that impact, the district we have looked at, cuz we told you we would go back and I told you that I felt like I was going to be able to come back with a better plan. So, we reduced the proposed employee contribution and the district
contribution, okay? Remember the actuary said you need 22% to stay afloat. We got with the board, we met with the CFO, and we were able to drop it where each side, remember we were splitting
the increase 50/50. So, the district was coming up with about 4 million, employees were coming up with about 4 million. We were able to drop that to a 16%. So, 2.77 50/50, okay? So, each will take
on 2.77. Now, will that ensure the plan stays afloat? Who knows, it depends on things. All right? The actuary still says that we should have 22. So, the district is willing to say,
"Okay, with the things we have in place, you know, hopefully the new clinic, if we can get that clinic available 5 days a week, that'll reduce some of the claims of people going to their doctor or going to the urgent, they'll go to the clinic, okay? So, we have things in
place that we're very hopeful, because this is all of us have to absorb this cost. So, we're planning on minimizing so this will help minimize what we're going to try to do to responsibly fund the health plan.
Because it is it's born by all. So, what we are proposing and I've already had this conversation with both Heather and Vicky is we're committed to working collaboratively with our bargaining units. We've heard you and any additional reduction in the funding for
health would jeopardize the district's ability so we have to do something. So, we have to share it, okay? And the goal is to provide affordable sustainable health care and we're proposing the joint subcommittee. In fact, we had it
scheduled for this afternoon. All right? We have people here that are going to be on it because this is the devil in the room is costs going up. But how can we minimize that impact on
all of us that hold this plan, okay? Is the goal of the subcommittee. It is not going to be an easy task because we got to get to 2.7 so we got to determine who's going to bear the cost.
We sent a proposal across and it wasn't I mean it wasn't good for some for some people it was good for some people it wasn't. Maybe the subcommittee can still find a way to provide some zero cost increase
to some depending on what plan they have but the bottom line is the the plan that's costing the district to be in the financial position it's currently in has got to increase the premiums most likely the most and that's
going to be the determination of subcommittee is how do we do this, okay? How do we bring this across? So, we're going to we're going to provide the subcommittee. We have an example for those at the table to see. There's a spreadsheet that calculates and we're going to get in
there and play like if we Okay, if we have a zero cost for the HSP still, who's going to absorb that so we get to the 2.7? Okay? And the district is absorbing their 2.7 as well. And anything above that with the claims.
So, that's our proposal today for health insurance is that the subcommittee that we agree all agree that the subcommittee is going to work on that this afternoon. The goal of the subcommittee, I say that with high expectations, is that we can
come up with premiums to share Wednesday. Because our employees need to know what their premiums are going to be. That's the goal of the district side and I'm sure that it's the goal of your side as well because we all know employees need to know what their premiums are
going to be so that they can make educated decisions for their families. So, any questions on what we're doing today or on this? I'll give you a minute to look over There's a lot on there. >> Will we know at the meeting That's a
good question. Will we know at the meeting how many of each employees take which plans? Yes. >> Yes. Yes, that's part of the spreadsheet because that's the calculations work. It's going to go up or down. So, yes, absolutely that information's on there.
And it's based on the current plan. The numbers. Okay, any other questions on that? Okay. So, we're sending the millage. It's the exact same thing we said before, okay? So, this is what
Miss Posey has done is delayed because we're talking about money out of the 25-26 like we said last time. The millage that's being voted on November where we are and we need every single person to get out and campaign for this
and I know that y'all have a training coming out to help people get out and educate the public on it because y'all can do that. The district cannot educate the public. We can only inform. >> You can educate, you can't advocate. >> Okay, we can educate, not advocate. We
They can Y'all can advocate and we are counting on you to do so. Um because that has language that explicitly says that it's going to be used for to recruit and retain highly effective employees, okay? We're talking
about all employees. So, but what Miss Posey has done is taking some safety and security projects this year and has delayed them to come up with a $6 million total bucket, okay? That's being shared for all employees.
And this is the proposal for the teachers, all right? That would come out if the mill is passed because we if we don't get it passed, we know that there's not going to be that incoming fund so there wouldn't be money to finish the
projects that are currently delayed to allow for this money, if that makes sense. The purpose for doing this is that we all realize that when people go out and vote in November, a lot of them aren't going to have the mindset that that money's not being collected until
2026-2027. And they're going to think, "Oh, well, I voted for salary and retention." This is supplemental money because it cannot be recurring money because it has to be voted on every 4 years.
So, for those who didn't see the proposal from last time, 0 to 5 years is 875, and this is based on 10 month. Okay? So, if you're not a 10 month employee, it would be calendar corrected. 6 to 10
years is 900, 11 to 12 years 1,000, 13 to 17 was 1,100, 18 to 25 was 1,200, and 26 plus year was 1,300. So, it was tiered. The board wanted to tier it to show the um support for the veteran teachers. This
is the exact same thing that we passed before. So, are there any questions on that? >> This is a salary increase? >> It's supplement. So, mill money across the state is supplement. >> So, for 4 years? >> No.
>> No. No. There will be a new MOU. This is just for the 2025-2026. >> Got you. >> Okay? So, there is We will have to do an MOU every year for 4 years for the new mill money. Okay? And I know that
we are currently working on one. Um the superintendent has met with Vicky, and that is something that has to be done. We're working on having it done. They're working on validating the numbers that y'all proposed. So, we'll have something. I'm not sure
if we'll have it by Wednesday, but this is for this year, and it's part of this compensation packet. >> Can I ask a quick question? >> Yes. >> Um this 6 million, does that already have benefits taken out of it?
>> Yeah, it would have been it would have been based on that. >> Okay, so it has benefits. >> Yes, it's based on benefits coming out. >> That's not like medical benefits. That's No, we're talking like medical benefits. >> It's the same exactly the same way. So, it's TIAA. >> Right. And Right. So, that 6 million has the benefits taken out of it. And is it
23.36 or 23.36? >> Off the top of my head, I don't know that I've redone it since then. >> Okay. >> It's Let me see if I can find it. >> It's okay. I was just curious. >> Yeah. I don't know that it's the full 24. It's probably somewhere in between. It was a Cuz what I gave you with the 23 the
23.36 was based on last year's actual through June 30th. Which I didn't have at the time of writing that. >> So, what did this actually cost out now? >> The total with the support people and I don't remember off the top of my head what support was. It was close to the 0
to 5 years experience. Okay? >> Okay. >> It cost out total to the six. >> Okay. Okay, so this is with Okay. >> This is the teachers portion. This has a small portion for because the mill money is for all employees. >> And does this also does that 6 million
also include classified employees and administrators? >> Yes. Yes. And the managerial class. >> Right. Okay. >> With the teachers getting because they're the largest group of employees getting the highest percentage.
>> Okay. >> Now, like I said, this is just that's just for this year. We'll have the MYU for the next. The goal of the superintendent is to have that done in time for your trainings. Vicky. >> Yes. >> So, that is his goal. >> Absolutely need to do that.
I think so. >> But he wanted he wanted me to make sure it was understood that that is not part of this package deal. >> Yes. >> And for the purpose of everybody watching, earlier you said that this would be paid out in November December and would be retroactive to
>> It's they would get this amount. Yes. >> And paid out in November or December. >> Well, as if if as soon as we can get it into meeting. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I know that you have said that >> More than likely December because it takes time to get it all done. >> Absolutely.
Yes. I just want to make that clear so people are have that understanding. Okay. >> And that is contingent on the mill passing. >> Correct. Cuz otherwise we won't have future money coming in and so the 6 million that she's kind of delayed, those projects have to be done and
she'll need the new mill for that. Or she'll have to come up with other funding for that. Actually cuz she won't have the new mill for that. >> Okay. All right. >> So, I have two >> I'm sorry. You muted us. >> No, you're fine. Throw that at you.
>> Feel okay. >> All right. I'm excited about this because fought very hard. The superintendent has fought very hard. Mr. has probably had several mini strokes. And um but I have two proposals here for you to
decide. Okay? The first one What First of all, what we did is it's it's been heard, okay? And the district also from the get-go we talked about how crazy this new TOSIA law is. All right? There's not a single person in the I don't think there's a
single person in the state other than those who voted on it think that that law makes sense. So, because it leaves out so many teachers, and there's not a single teacher in Clay County that's not important. There's not a single teacher
in Duval or St. Johns or anywhere that's not important. So, you're already pitting people against each other and creating more inequities. And then when if you talk about trying to make things equal like we were talking about before,
if you stuck two fully with them the parameters of the TSAA, and you did the same tiered schedule for others, now you're building in leapfrogging. So, it's just it it's and I don't like saying it on recording, it's a bad law
because I've sent it to the state. You know, we're a large military town, and it left out so many, not that other teachers that move in aren't important, but it's almost impossible if you're a military spouse and you're an educator, it's almost impossible for you
to get 10 plus years of experience in any state because you're supporting your spouse and you're traveling either abroad or somewhere else. And you know, I I sent it to Governor DeSantis as a retired military, I thought at least he would listen to that, but it fell on deaf ears.
So, the first thing we did was talking about that we want to make people We heard you and we agree. Let's find a way, and the board agreed when I took it back to them. We got to make things equitable, okay? It's just not fair. And yes, we're
stuck with a bad law, but it doesn't mean that we can't try to justify it. Hopefully, it will change because I'm sure they're hearing this all over. The other thing that we realized is that pay When you have a class of employees,
instructional employees, and you pay one person differently than another person, you're again creating in in you're creating problems, okay? There is a big concern about recurring expenses because of funding. You know, it just they they
The word is it's not going to get better. And you know, they just I'm sure you all probably all saw the post that Florida has the highest funding ever, okay, for the state. Trillions of dollar budget. Best funding ever for the state
of Florida. Well, what about the schools? You know, we all are in total agreement that that it just In fact, that was my first comment back, you know, when I saw that is, "Okay, you're talking about you've got the best budget you ever best budget of any state in the union, then
why aren't you funding our schools?" So, we realize that we do the superintendent agreed and took it to the board with the explanation that we cannot pay one group of people as a supplement inside the instructional unit. And just because TSI requires that
to be added to the base salary, that creates great inequities. So, this is coming back totally as a base salary. Okay. Okay? So, >> So, this is recurring. We do not have to negotiate this every year. >> Correct. This is added to the base
salary of every employee in the group. So, the first one is taking um the TSIA, okay, and making everyone and we did like I I mentioned earlier when I asked Vicky, if you've got 20 years, we
don't care if it's Florida public, we don't care if it's in Timbuktu, you're going to get your 20 years, all right? So, this is based on that. We got the 1 to 9-year teachers actually higher than what you put across the table. >> Your 25-year plus is a little bit lower.
>> And okay, but the 1.9 got nothing last year, so I won't argue with you. >> We absolutely 100% agree. >> So, we are passing across that the 1 to 9 year teachers get $875 plus they would get either 875 or 900
supplement from the mill, okay? That if it passes. We're going to go with positive outcome. The 10 to 14 is 1300. 15 to 19 is 1400. 20 to 24 is 1525 and 25 up is 1625.
So, all of this is recurring. This is higher than what you put across the table. So, I'm very excited to be able to say that the board is showing a true investment and continuing to prioritize their teachers. Or, you can flip the page.
This is where every one 10 plus year teachers would get 1440, okay? And the others would get 800. That comes to a also a total of 3,504, which is very close to the other. It just kind of balances it out, but
that was, you know, that was what I originally had until I went to the board to to take to the board to balance out. I will tell you the board has they they would like to prioritize the veteran teachers. The board prefers the top, okay? Where it is tiered.
But, the other one was before we thought we could tier it because of the problem we talked about. We didn't know if we could work it out and I thought, "Okay, I'll take you take both to you." This is a package deal. So, we're looking at the mill, the compensation, and insurance.
Hopefully to have a close on Wednesday is the goal. Any questions? Pretty doggone good. With considering the financial situation. >> We really appreciate the movement. You
know that we faced an impasse last year because there was no movement. So, we appreciate the movement. >> And I'm proud of our people for reaching out. I know that you all did so much work with all the emails, calls. >> Mhm. Absolutely. >> It matters. It really does.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Um also to clarify on the mill, I did calculate that at 24% um when I take it down to 2336, it's a savings of like $30,000 for everybody. So, I >> So, we can we can look at that for
Wednesday. >> Okay. >> Might get everybody another 10 bucks. >> Probably not. >> Well, let's >> Hey. $5 for a >> We were shocked and we were questioning >> $5 for a chicken >> I was going to say >> It doesn't matter what you say. >> I was going to say you get a four-pack
of chicken wing nuggets. All right. Any Any questions on what we have passed across the table? >> No. Do we need to >> Do you Do you have any have questions from the table? >> No questions. >> Okay. So, we're going to caucus. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Do you want to caucus and come back or do you want to I mean, y'all can caucus and and have the room in here and come back Wednesday? Um Because we can't TA this because it includes today because it includes I
can't TA a part of it. It includes the packet and we have to have the meeting this afternoon. >> Right. >> The commit sub committee meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we'll just have the room. We'll [snorts] continue on Wednesday and we'll we'll but we do want to spend time Wednesday. >> Okay.
Okay. >> Yes. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank y'all. And um we'll see some of y'all at 1:00 tomorrow. Did you all want to What time is it? Do you want to move that up? Did we get representation from someone who had the
family >> Yes, I'm Sarah. >> Good, good. Yes. Yes. Should we go? >> Um do you want to tell him we're done? >> Can you move it up? >> Do you want to move it up? >> I mean, at 1:00 is fine for me, but if you all I mean, cuz it is only 10:30.
>> Yeah, let's let's move it up. >> Um >> like That way you're not taking your whole day. >> Are you available? >> You know what I'm saying? Is Kyle available earlier? >> You want to give him a call right now?