All right, morning everybody. Think >> we're good to get started. All right. Uh well, thank you all for being here today. Um, I do recognize today's the last day of September and uh, you know, right ahead of the deadline by the state to reach an
agreement regarding the state salary increase allocation funds. Uh, we've been able to reach this past few years. Hoping that we're able to work together today, reach an agreement. And, uh, with that, Mr. Longhoffer, I'll turn it over to you.
I believe uh you all sent over some documents that were somewhat responsive to some information that we had presented initially earlier. um a uh with some uh preamble language, uh some assault language,
uh assault in the line of duty language and uh items pertaining to um the uh the committees that were functioning last year and the removal of those and someou list. Is that correct?
I have not for today. >> We have we have proposed language, but I believe >> I believe you might want to have a counter from our last session. Am I correct? >> Uh on on other items not pertaining to those. Yeah, we do have that. Didn't know where you wanted to start first if
you wanted to present any language things that you had pertaining to those. >> Uh we we don't have a whole lot of language changes that we're looking to make. We we will work through salary today. So, we're I think we we shared our position on things last session.
>> Well, then we do have some counters. So, let me get plugged in here so that uh the display will be active and uh we'll show those and then pass out some documents after that. Um and I'll let the gentleman There we are.
Okay. Um, so let's go ahead and start with um the uh the language side of this. Um, right here. Um, you'll recognize this document from when we passed it out before. Um, so we'll skip down. Uh, we had preamble
language. Um, I think our preamble language mounts probably is going to be agreeable to you all, but we'll come back to that. Um we are here at uh children of employees um as a counter to what we talked about before. Uh we do believe that this is valuable to
teachers to be able to have that discount um when they are already spending the great part of their day uh working with the students in Palm Beach County. Um and so we've lowered that amount to 50% um that could be in implemented as you know this year
obviously would be preferable. Um so that would be one counter. Um, this may not take a lot of time to get through. Um, the contract year, um, we've altered this to be a full day and two half days. And I know it matches the exact same amount of time, but in consideration of
time, given that time is literally the most valuable commodity to a teacher when they're working with students or preparing to make sure that the work is being accomplished. I want to let one of our members over here speak to that particular issue today. Um Allison Meelli um is in fact situated in an
elementary school that made a change this year in the amount of time and I think her story is compelling and informative in this particular discussion. Allison >> um good afternoon. Um I'm very fortunate. I work at Timber Trace Elementary. Um, I know just with, you
know, we ended last year very much with a push for testing and scores and everything. Um, our morale as a staff was pretty low. Um, we have a fantastic building, but it was really just difficult to get everybody to kind of work together. So, this year when we started school, typically our first day
is meetings pretty much all day. Um, this time we started off with meetings in the morning. we were given the opportunity to go down to our rooms um and kind of start getting things situated and then we came back as a staff at the end of the day to go over some basic things. Um we did have
Tuesday was the district training so everybody attended that. Um Friday was set aside we have meet the teacher which lasts for about three three and a half hours and then the afternoon we had staff meetings. Um Wednesday and Thursday we were allowed to be in our
rooms um to get things ready. Um the expectation being that we met as teams and planned that we had plans ready to go. Um the impact I would say that that has had across the year so far has been fantastic. Um I know with admin a lot of
things that they're kind of pushing out that need to happen. The staff has not been giving as much push back for that. Um, everybody really has been very willing to work together to get things done and I really think it had a huge impact on just our morale overall as a
staff. And for elementary, you're prepping, you know, all different areas and all different subjects. So, it allowed us to not just be room ready, I guess, for Friday, like I feel like a lot of our time is get your room set up, make it look cute, make it look nice, welcoming to families. um when we started on
Monday, we actually were ready for students and ready for instruction. It would just was a huge difference. >> So um as you can see that that was something that when I heard about it first from Allison, it was very telling to me that that the time that they had to be prepared for instruction meant
that their weekend was not spent with that. And so they were literally there on the first day of attendance for students ready to teach, ready with the materials and did not feel burdened by the additional uh things going on that quite honestly can probably all be filtered in and covered um over the
course of the next two to three weeks. They focused on room readiness and planning for student engagement and student learning. Um and that's really the reason for this particular request uh to go from one day reserve to two days but in this case giving some
flexibility to position that over the course of multiple days depending upon other needs. Um I think the time is well spent by teachers when they get that opportunity. I think the testimony is clear that they have the chance to feel ready and confidently teach on day one
and it's a no cost item. It literally will not change the district's uh balance of uh expenditures versus um in versus funds funding provided uh by a dollar. Um it literally allows the teachers to be ready to do the work that
they're hired to do in the first place which is directly responsible for the district's A rating. So that's the reason for that particular proposal. Um and I felt that her information was very valuable at this point. Thank you Allison. Um
our next counter um it's not really changed. Uh we'll ask one more time with respect to this also no cost item. We're talking about the January duty day. I I heard your response about principles being concerned or being wanting to have
that time for uh some things that they felt were necessary at the beginning of the year. In the same vein as the request for the time at preschool, this again is time for teachers to be ready, student instruction ready when the students arrive the following day. And
there is an equity factor here as well. That equity factor is that in middle and high schools, they have two professional development days and three days in order during throughout the year to be prepared for students. And following such a lengthy break as the winter
holidays, giving elementary teachers that same additional day, uh, while still preserving two full professional development days throughout the year for all teachers, regardless of where they're situated, um, at their work sites, um, that's in equity across the board for everyone. And it again
provides that most valuable commodity, time, as I said earlier, to be student ready when the students walk in the uh, the day uh, the following day. Uh so we'll we'll ask one more time on this if the district will consider this uh given
it's a nocost item. Um during the voluntary transfer period uh which you all were clear that uh you believed that it was already too long. We didn't think it was long enough because teachers come up against the issues that they have. We're not
discussing that anymore. But we did realize in conversations and I did as well that perhaps the last part of this down here under 2C was not really addressed by your response and that is when student or when teachers would be allowed to be on the voluntary transfer
list uh in order to move schools. Um it's easy to understand that when we're asking for them to be available to voluntarily transfer after one work year, one complete year, their probationary contract time, uh it's easy to understand that that would be
objectionable at times uh to district leaders and to work site leaders. Nevertheless, this was language this language in the contract was crafted at a time when teachers once they reached three years of employment and were renewed for a fourth enjoyed a professional services
contract, meaning the due process rights guaranteed them under the law at that time were necessary to be adhered to before a teacher could be terminated. Um, we are in a day and age since 2000, the 2011 legislative session where there is no such thing as a professional
services contract. Any teacher may be may have their contract or the district may choose to not renew a contract for any teacher on an annual contract yearly for no reason. That's what the law allows. And we're not here to litigate that or to debate against that. But we
what we are here to do is to recognize a new circumstance that exists. and that is the three-year rule applying to keeping a person in one place until they earn that PSC no longer applies. Um, and it hasn't now for some time, roughly 14
years. Um, moreover, um, we're running into a culture of uh, younger adults that if they don't like the work that they're in, they simply quit. They go do other work. And even with our 50-day rule, what we're that
they have to be out 50 days before they can be considered again there, some are very content to go ahead and leave the job that they're at if they're not satisfied with no chance to change for 3 years and come back in 50 days and see if they can get a job at another
building. And if they don't get interviewed at the building or a building they want to go to, they stay doing whatever new work that they chose to do. And I think in the day and age where we're trying to recruit and retain highquality teachers, if we get one in and they literally have determined, I'm
not really the best fit here, uh, and I think I need to find another place or my life situation changed and I need to be a little closer to home, then I think it's something that we ought to be able to consider with those teachers and give them the opportunity to transfer. So,
we're looking specifically for a reply from the district today on 2C here uh in this particular proposal. Uh article 5B, specific paid leaves. We've dropped this to four weeks of paid parental leave and we'd appreciate your
reply to that one. Uh given that uh as we've discussed before, Bvard County and Orange County we knew of has paid parental leave. Uh we hear that there may even be now paid parental leave that's been tenatively agreed to in another county. So this is something that has gained traction. I think you
kind of hearkened to that a little bit in our first session. And so we'd like your response to reducing that to four weeks as a starting point. Um next is article uh 8 section G the Glade supplement. We've dropped that request
to 4555 and 65. That's been dropped by $500. That's a 40% cost reduction over the per first estimate that you provided. Article 8 M. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. >> Can you go back up to it?
>> Sure. I'm sorry. If you want to get those that that information, uh, we've got we've got those documents if it helps. Um, we have article 8 M was the uh language on advanced degrees. Um, I do recall the
statement that you made about the cost for ed leadership degrees and the cost for all advanced degrees total. Um, I don't recall that there was uh much of a response specific to how how these individuals might be might qualify for
an advanced degree. We've got some advanced degrees out there besides ed leadership that may not get paid. Um, we see this particular language request as bringing our contract into a greater uh, shall we say a greater alignment with
state law on advanced degrees. The language we currently have in the CBA here in Palm Beach County for teachers is quite much is significantly more restrictive than what the law requires. Um, this would be one of those things that would allow teachers the incentive,
a better incentive to do additional study to broaden their skill set. Um, maybe even in multiple areas of certification, making them versatile on a particular work site. Um, as opposed to I'll just use myself as an
example. There was a point and while it's not an advanced degree, there was a point in my life where all I was certified to teach was music. uh K12. And yet, as a vocal music specialist, I could have easily looked at Mr. Brooks over there and said, "Don't ever hire me to do your band. I might know how to get
a band to sound better if they're real skilled players. But if you want somebody to really teach kids to play those instruments well from the ground up, I could do it, but there are better people than me to do it. Put me in your choir room." And then I added math certification to my certificate as well
because I saw the alignment of the two, but I also saw a potential need at times. And since that time, I've actually fallen in love with math education and stayed in that lane a lot more. So I think multiple certification areas for individuals and maybe manifesting them through an advanced
degree gives that teacher an opportunity to provide variety in their life. um provide uh versatility to the administration to meet student needs on the campus and they should have a financial incentive to get there. So uh I think this is worthy of you all giving
us maybe a little more uh specific response to language that might open it up and uh and we would appreciate uh anything that you might add to the discussion on that uh as well. Um and I'll leave that for you all to look at. Again, it gets all printed here
and we'll provide that to you. Um, next at the advanced degree supplements, we have recreated this ask to cover a three-year period. I know that each one was 1,500. So, if we reduced it to $500 per year, so what you see up here in
this particular section, which is now grade, is literally what we had to start with, but reduced only to 500 per supplement for the first year. And that date is given for you there effective July 1 of this year. In number three
below that we have incorporated July 1, 2026 where each of these then moves up by the same 500. So the 3500 right here would be reflective of this 3500 here uh when we have that connection moving
forward. So that each year you see the 500 increase and then the final one in number four. um metering that out, giving the district the opportunity for a much lower cost in year one and then the opportunity to plan and prepare for those items in year two. We see this as
necessary um in some way, shape or form this year or if not this year, the year after for sure. We are woefully behind the most expensive districts uh in Florida for producing uh education
results. Um there are a couple of three counties that actually are more expensive than us. And then the large counties, we literally are not competitive with them. And as I hearken back to the the desire of the district to raise certain supplements a couple of years ago, it was to be highly
competitive with other districts in those areas. Um we're not there to be honest. We are not there in southeast Florida running to our south. and and some work on this particular part of the agreement is absolutely necessary to
show teachers their worth as holders of advanced degrees. Um and so in the interest of moderating this at a on a cost basis, we've provided a three-year option to get there. Um 504 coordinator uh the opportunity to
create a new supplement here. Um we've dropped that to $1,250. That's a 38% reduction in cost. Um we've done the same with the um SLPA supervisor offer and again specific know
replies to these um whether the district would consider either of those uh general supplement increase. We've pulled the supplement increase as a cost item for this year. This new proposal proposes the same construct that we did
before, but it doesn't begin it until the 2027 uh contract year. So, we'll just read through it to explain it in full detail. Effective July 1, 2025, all supplements in this section that did not receive an increase due to the 2023 revision of
this agreement uh shall be increased a total of 10% over the 2027 and 2028 contract years at a rate of 5% each year. Again, that's everyone that had no increase whatsoever. Additionally, any supplements that were increased at least
5% but less than 10% in the 2023 revision will only receive an increase in the 2027 school year sufficient to match the 10% total spoken of above. And then finally, any supplements that were increased less than 5% in the 2023
revision will receive an increase in the 2027 contract year sufficient to match the first 5% increase for that contract year. and shall also receive the 5% increase for the 2028 contract year. So, it becomes a no cost item for this year,
but it lays out an opportunity for the district to recognize things that do need to be addressed in equity and as value for those teachers and the opportunity to plan and prepare for those expenses in the future. Um, a commitment, again, a commitment to the
teachers who are doing that work. An additional tool for principles when they're needing to look for supplements. they've got slightly a little more money to offer those individuals where they might have problems securing interest based on what they um are looking at currently in the agreement.
Um the additional period supplement um have to double down on this one as a matter of value for teachers. The minimum teacher salary in Palm Beach County produces a $365 per hour rate.
And the current $30 is asking teachers to do additional work for undertime pay, if you will, overtime work of sorts for undertime pay. Um, and that's just not respectful to the work that they do. >> I wouldn't say that it's overtime work. It's still within their working hours.
If you assume that they are going to be able to do the exact same work or do the additional period of instruction with the related uh work that is necessary for tracking student uh success and preparing for any needs that those additional period students may have,
then you're assuming that the remaining time in the workday is sufficient to do that. And I dare say that if they're giving up a planning period that they normally use, they're probably going to be working at home beyond what they already do. So, um I think it's probably semantics, but it literally is getting
additional value because when you take a single teacher whose average salary by the district's numbers is a little over $62,000 a year, and even if it's the minimum at $53,000 a year, and you divide that duty up amongst five teachers to do those five class periods,
uh the the aggregate pay even at the new rate is under $35,000. Meaning there is roughly 30 $20,000 saved on top of any savings with respect to health care benefits which right now are probably on the order of9 to $10,000
a year. So the district literally by doing the additional period supplement at the higher rate is still saving a good $30,000 a year on the cost of a single position while filling that position with six with five other willing teachers who will take on an
additional period of instruction. and at this point at at least a minimum value that is defensible given the construct of our salary schedule. Um the last is the uh salary increase proposal. Um we've moderated this to 6%.
You can see that right over here. Um it's a similar structure that we've uh seen produced before though we haven't uh had too many conversations with on either side about this. Um but it is a significant drop from our first ask of six and a half. Um there is uh I realize
where it is but we are here to negotiate and to do some back and forth if possible uh in order to find an agreement. I do want to share somewhat about where some of this money probably should be coming from. In this particular spreadsheet, I'm showing u
attrition savings for a recent couple of years. In uh fiscal year 2024, the s the budget for a teachers position was 57,800 and uh when I looked at uh feeds of information that were available for the
number of FTE, it was within 15 or 20 of 12,900. So I use that as an estimate. That salary alone at the beginning of the year was $7445.5 million. Benefits factor was 23 and uh point85%. The raise that the district uh produced
that year was uh with in concert with negotiations with CTA was a blended 7% raise. So a 7% increase left a total co uh cost of those 12,900 FTE at $988
million. That $988 million produced n would have produced $9 million in nutrition savings versus the cost the next year for the same 12,900 at 60,400. And then the 4% raise brought the total
expenditure, same calculations to a billion18 million. There was right here an increase noted by all of us on the benefits factor cost. Um I think a big chunk of that if not all of it was tied to FRS that year.
Um since that time but but anyway the the billion18 million. Then here is this year's $62,200 average salary. This is actual FTE from the uh second from the first pay period
in uh September of this year. um this is actual FTE but this is the actual total of the listed salaries for that particular time. So by either of these metrics with the same calculations but also with a reduction this year in
the cost of benefits because of a reduction in the requirement for F FRS we see potential attrition savings based on the estimate and the budgeted amount of 19 million or based on the actual of 20 million. In both of these cases,
there's another $6 million that's from the state. So, with very little additional funds, the district can easily come up with an offer well above the 2% total that has been put on the table already. And for that reason, we've come down to six. And we're looking forward to your offer or your
counter to that today that might be able to produce an agreement for us within the state's deadline. Um, and we'll pass out the documents now. And if you want to take some time and uh develop any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. [Music]
All right. We're >> No, that's okay. Uh, thank you. We We're going to go into caucus and we'll come back. All All right. Thank you all for giving us some time to talk through some things. Um,
before I get into responding to your proposals, I'm going to turn it over to our CE CFO, uh, Heather Frederick, to respond to some of the things that were presented before the caucus. So, I wanted to start off by saying that
the district understands the importance of all employees and and I I do want you all to to understand that. But I do have to correct some of Mr. Longhoffer's assertions that he made here today. The challenge that we're facing is a lack of funding. Our funding is set by the
state. It does it is does not align with the increase in property values. So, we're looking at an increase of 1.3% in per student funding. Even though property values are increasing at 5% in at least the school district valuation at the county school district property
valuations are increasing I think at closer to 6%. So when you're in a county or municipality if they just hold their millage rate the same then they're going to see an increase in their revenue of five or 6% whatever that increase in property values are. We do not have that
same opportunity. The state sets our property our per student funding and if we have an increase in property values we have a reduction in the amount of our state funding. So we end up getting the same amount per student. So we are looking at an increase one of our lowest
increases of only 1.3% per student. Mr. Long hoffer, you are correct that there have been savings due to attrition, but those savings are one-time savings. And those savings we used, we were able to to take some of that funding, $30
million, and increase and infuse some money into the health insurance reserve so that we could meet the statemandated requirement or so that the plan could meet the state mandated uh uh requirement. I need to explain though why we've had attrition savings and why
those savings are one-time and why they cannot be used for recurring increases. The district average salary already includes and assumes we will have vacancies. So the average salary includes a 2% vacancy rate. That 2% vacancy rate equates to approximately
$800. So when you look at our average salary, it's $800 less than what the actual average is because we assume that we are going to have vacancies and then we also have to add in the additional cost of substitutes uh because there there should be
substitutes that are filling those vacant positions. Now we need to take a step back and say well why have we had such large attrition savings the past few years? The result the reason for that is the pandemic. So if you look back at our historical vacancy rates in
FY23, our vacancy rate was the highest that it had ever been at 7.7%. And that was a result of the pandemic. Our prior to that, if you look back historically, our vacancy rate averaged about 3% a year. So we knew we were
going to slowly get back to that 3%. And so we in FY23, it was 7.7%. In FY24, it was 6.8%. In FY25, it was 6.1%. I projected that in FY25 or FY26, our vacancy rate would average
about 5%. And that we'd be back to that 3% by FY28, but you don't know what's going to happen, right? So, we had a decline in enrollment of 5,500 students this year. Our district projected we'd have a decline of only 400 students. It was
unanticipated that we would have a decline of 5,500 students. A loss of 5,500 students results in a loss in revenue of the district of $45 million. We always align, we have a very specific staffing formula. So, we go through the
count day process and we realigned our staffing at the schools based on enrollment. We as a result of the decline of the 5,500 students, we removed 232 vacant teacher positions out of the district budget.
Even with those changes with staffing u changes of of teacher staff as well as support staff at the schools that resulted in savings of only $20 million. So we have a projected loss of revenue of 45. Based on realigning staffing based on our current staffing formulas,
we only save $20 million. We are facing a $25 million shortfall going into FY27. That doesn't even include a potential future decline in enrollment in FY27 and potentially into FY28.
Based on eliminating those 232 teacher positions, our new projected vacancy rate is 2.7%. So that means the attrition savings that we had are no longer there. That is why you cannot budget one-time funds for
recurring salary increases. The district has committed to an increase in health funds of $73 million over a 4-year period, 43 million in FY25, 19 million in FY26, 8.6 million in 27,
and 2.6 million in FY28. The increase in FRS was only nominal in FY25 and a $5 million increase in FY26. And I don't anticipate that those increases are going to be as low as they have been going forward because again F FRS is not
set by the state. It's I mean it's set by the state legislature. It is not something that is set set by u the the school districts. So we are told by the state legislature each year what we have to fund with a 1.3% increase in per
student funding decline in enrollment resulting in a loss of revenue of $45 million increase in in health investments of 73 million increases in our FRS the salary offer that we have presented today
encompasses all available funds >> right so getting into that. Uh, first I just want I do thank you for your counter proposals and you know we knew right from the start we were pretty far apart in in our wage proposals. Um, and we do
understand how important raises are for for all of our employees. Um, and really if funding is available uh we would have brought a larger offer. Uh, and we've demonstrated that for years. a couple years ago, we came out recognizing that
we had excess funds from referendum and and things like that and and we had a 10% package and if we continued to have things like that, then we'd be bringing larger offers. But we remain committed really to to putting forward the best possible offer we can within the
resources that we have available. And as Heather has mentioned this year, we face a couple, you know, two major challenges. the the very low increase in allocation for teacher raises uh and per student funding and uh being down 5,500
students, $25 million shortfall for the previous years, we were going up even just a little bit enrollment, but it was still in the in the right direction. Um and I'll be honest, when I was made aware of those realities, I was not expecting to have much if anything
available beyond the TSIA money for raises. That's really what I expected. I'm $25 million shortfall is is pretty significant. Um I will say though our board, our superintendent uh really pushed us to prioritize employees and and search for different ways to to find
to put a better offer on the table and that's what we're going to do today. Um and so in response to your proposals for the language um our our position for the language supplement increases, parental leave, after school discounts and all we
our position remains the same as it did in the last session which is status quo or rejected if it's a new in response to the salary offer. Um and rather than going back and forth um knowing recognizing we don't have this very
large uh salary proposal um to to really go up in increments like you typically see in a lot. We're just coming out with what we think is a good offer given our situation, but it's our best and final salary proposal also. Okay. So it's a 3%
total package. This includes a one and a half percent recurring increase plus a one-time cash payout of the current base salary. We'd love it to be five or 10% like we've done before, but that's just not our reality this year. And at the
end of the day, what this means is that employees will go home with 3% more earnings than they did last year. So that is our our best and final offer. And with that, I'll turn it over to the union. one and a half% uh recurring salary increase, one and a half%
uh lump sum bonus. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Um status quo on all language offers unless it's a new proposal a new which was rejected. >> Correct. >> Uh will caucus.
>> Okay. We have um room D available. Are you ready to come back? Uh we are um we did receive uh parts of the tenative agreement package that you put uh over here during the caucus. Um
we've passed that out. Uh Mr. Katz will address the parts that we received by way of email um earlier this week. So I'll I'll turn it over to him for now. >> Thank you, Gordon. Um, as it relates to the tenative
agreement documents that were passed by the district, um, final dates pending, we have no objections. We could ta the the preamble as it relates to
language regarding employee authority and protections, specifically assault language. Um, we'd like to maintain status quo at this time on those proposed changes on the scrier's error that was identified where a half a sentence had
been omitted as it related to the the UAT um that you presented. We can TA that correction to that provision of the contract. we can TA the sunsetting of all joint study committees that have that have uh
have sunset. Um the same we can ta obviously the removal of any expiredus the inclusion of any previously signedus um and renewedus that have been identified and then we can also ta the uh fixing of
the numbering in article 8 section h that we had uh we'd identified offline and the district has has brought forward the reing of those items. Um, as for the remaining items, um, we had some time to talk about this. We
considered information that we've been able to acquire, uh, annually, um, in our surveys of members before we sit down, uh, to bargain. Um, we're extremely disappointed that the district uh will not consider changes to the
agreement in areas where there literally is no dollar cost to make those changes. No dollar cost to provide additional time during preschool to be student ready. No dollar cost to provide a day at the beginning of the second semester
so that teachers can be student ready. no dollar cost to give teachers the flexibility to be able to seek a transfer sooner when the district by virtue yes of state law can literally separate employment
with that person by choice. They should have the same choice to find another place to be more productive. Um we get spoken to by teachers regularly about those matters. time is the time is right there with money uh for compensation to
pay their bills so they can be ready for students. Um we've spoken uh going further, we've spoken to members every year and received information through surveys every year about the need to modify
supplement amounts across the board. And granted, most of the items that we did present for a cost did have something to do with some supplement at one level or another. Um, those conversations amped up when the small, very small number of
individuals received large supplement increases in the deal reached in the fall of 2023 for the 2024 uh contract year. And people have continued to request that we address that. Um, we sought to address it that year. We sought to address it last year. We're
seeking we've sought to address it again this year. And so we are again extremely disappointed that the district declines to consider ways to fix this even in the face of the offers that we made in order to address it even at little or no cost
this year and then know that it can be prepared for and planned for. Um, with respect to the salary offer, members are clear to us year-over-year the bonus monies are taxed at a higher
rate and they see less of that. They also do nothing to enhance their ability to have a more secure retirement and they're very concerned about that. the bonus numbers don't really uh do anything for their purchasing power when
uh seeking a loan for a home or for a car because that money is not considered part of their salary. Um they do not have an interest in bonus payments, lumpsum payments based upon their current salary. Um, we are willing
to drop our offer of 6% to 5% again in the interest of going as often as we need to, as long as we need to to reach a point in the middle that we believe the members, the teachers will support unilaterally, and have it be a number
that we believe reflects their commitment as realized every year with the maintenance of the district's A rating, their commitment to student education. in Palm Beach County. Um, we don't believe that a 1 and a.5% salary
increase provides that uh that level of recognition or that level uh that that recognizes the work that they've done. And the cash payment of another one and a half% is respectfully less than 1 and a.5% when they end up getting to take it
home and do something with it. Um, but we are here to negotiate today. We are not here to walk away from the table. We are here to see where we can get um knowing that both sides would have to work hard and do a hard thing accepting
a number they would rather not accept or producing a number that they believe is going to be a stretch. So, uh but that's where we are at this time. >> Thank you, Mr. Long Offer. So in in addressing what you say, you know, what would be a stretch,
our position is that that is our our offer is a stretch. That's so we do not have a anywhere else to go. When I I said it was our best and final offer on salary, I I really meant it. Um I know
it's not what you know, we we would love to, as I mentioned earlier, we'd love to be over sitting here putting 5% on the table. We'd love that. that's we if we could we would but that's not a reality we have this year. Um it it it just
isn't and um you know unfortunately with with supplements I know you addressed you know years ahead of time our position really hasn't changed. I mean this is probably the fifth cycle that I've been on and our position's always been the same that we'd rather push mo
any money that we have towards um salary and something like that than supplements. Um, so our our position on that, we don't know what next year is going to look like. Um, we're hoping that this year stands out as something unusual and and next year our enrollment
uh doesn't have a decline, but we don't know that right now. So, we are right now in a situation where our our 1 and a half% recurring and and 1.5% uh lump sum payout is our our best and
final offer. the um when a teacher looks at that one and a half percent going into their check, what they're going to find is $3460ome a pay period. And come January 1, because cans were
kicked down the road by both sides. We've agreed that at in insurance negotiations last year because we uh because of how we got to that point. We have an agreement that come January 1, they're going to pay $18. They're going to lose more than half their raise
uh their reliable recurring raise to rising insurance costs, which they knew of and we knew of as well. And both sides agreed to that because it was in the interest of securing the plan. Um, I stand I stood on that several months ago
and I continue to stand on that that deal that it was something that was necessary and u sure everybody would have loved those numbers to always be zero but we knew that that couldn't happen. Um my fear is that we're doing the same thing with
some of these other supplement pieces, but even that notwithstanding um guaranteeing a 1 and a.5% pay raise increase only does leave member does leave teachers wanting to understand how they're supposed to take care of their additional costs. Uh it
was a the big speech that I gave to the school board. uh their costs to live in order to go go to work are fixed costs. And and I do feel like today we're we're presented with an offer that allows the
district to meet their fixed costs without really stretching what they're going to have at the end of the day, but teachers are having to figure out how to meet their fixed costs with a number that probably isn't going to get the job done for them. Um, and I know I'm
declining to consider much in the way of the bonus because once that number is once that amount is spent, it doesn't exist. And and I think I've been fair though in pointing out the reason they're not interested in the bonuses is not because of the hit that, you
know,500 or $600 might have at one lump at one point in time. It's just that as little as six weeks down the road, it has zero impact on their life. and it is six weeks down the road when their expenses are going to rise. So like the
district, we don't know what's going to happen. And so we're faced with a point uh or faced with this particular point in time where we have to continue to argue for a process and a result that
will not eliminate the uncertainty because we can't do that. We couldn't do that two years ago with 7% money. um we can't eliminate that uncertainty, but we can certainly do something more
to manage it. And again, we're prepared to continue to discuss further um if there is any willingness on the part of the district to do that today. >> So, I I understand everything you're saying. Um it's an expensive place to live. We we get it. We understand that
the recurring increase is Yeah. better than than a onetime lum sum. But we didn't want to come out with a one and a half percent only. We we stretched and said we'll go into our reserves and and throw another one and a half% in so that at the end of the day it's a 3% package.
Um but I get it. It's expensive. It's it's difficult. It's a it's you know we I think we all kind of got used to larger raises than that and if we could we would. Um but this year that is just not
that year. The as you know for 1% more it's $10 million for the for the teacher bargaining group. It's the largest unit by far. $10 million on top of our for each percent that we're different right now on top of the $25 million shortfall
that we have and our efforts were really right from the start to make sure that our kid our our our employees kept their job, right? We didn't we didn't put anybody out of their job. We know that those people have children in our system, right? And so that's our
priority right from the start. And and and you know, trying to make up the amount of money that we're short by by reducing jobs would have would have cut real deep. And um that just wasn't an option on the table for us. Um I know we were used to getting better raises um
recurring raises uh for many years. recurring raises plus bonuses, but that's just not our reality this year. And as much as I wish I I had the ability to go more, I don't. I just
don't. So, that's where we're at. >> Do you believe that conversations with the school board members would be fruitful going forward? We have we have met with our board already. Um before we come to bargaining with with any groups
uh we do meet with our board and and chart out a a course and some recommendations. >> But as I said, do you believe that further conversations will change that landscape? >> Can't speak for the board. That's I I'm speaking I I have my responsibility right now and and that's exactly what
I've done. Um which is show you our best and final offer today. And that's where that's where we're at. >> We we put five. We're prepared to continue to discuss. Um I would insist if at all possible to have further discussions with the board members. >> I could I could bring that back to the
superintendent. That's not my decision. So >> understood. Um um shall we consider any additional dates to meet given maybe some time to approach the superintendent?
>> Uh we we can um we we can put some dates on the on the SK. Um we're happy to continue to meet even if you know we weren't move you know we're we're happy to schedule more dates in October. Sure. Um I know the deadlines today we will have to notify the state if we don't
reach an agreement today. Uh but you know, we're we're happy to continue to meet and and discuss if if there's something, but I you know that I really right now I don't have anywhere else to go, you know, on on our I'm I'm not
saying our best and final and oh well, all right, if you get closer to it, I'm I'm going to change that. I I just don't have that. We'll uh we'll receive whatever dates you can produce um for the for the short term. Okay.
>> Uh send those over and we will consider those. >> We'll do >> uh otherwise I thank you very much for your time today. >> Thank you. Bye.