Teachers’ union, school board yet to reach agreement on levy spending

Two general-fund levies totaling $591,454 for Bigfork High School and Elementary School passed in May on the grounds that the majority of the funds would be used to bring teacher salaries in line with those of other area schools. But the Bigfork School District 38 Board of Trustees and the Bigfork Area Education Association teachers’ union have clashed over specifics of how the levy dollars will be allocated and have yet to come to an agreement after meeting twice to negotiate. The board held a workshop Aug. 5 to discuss progress thus far and their approach to the next negotiations meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for late August.

“I don’t think, without our teachers and the emphasis we put on this going to our teachers, that it would have passed,” trustee Julie Kreiman said of the levies, which each passed by 30 or fewer votes. She further noted that letters that went out to the community from the trustees were primarily focused on using the money for staff salaries and benefits. The first letter, dated Feb. 1, did mention a variety of uses for levy funds, including teacher salaries and benefits, in addition to expanding course offerings and “budgets for supplies, textbooks and curriculum.” However, the April 14 letter included no mention of restoring line items with levy funds and instead stressed the importance of bringing Bigfork’s teacher salaries and benefits closer in line with other Flathead County schools.

“Passage of the levies will allow us to narrow, although not completely eliminate, the significant disparity in wages between our teachers and those in other local districts,” the letter states.

Superintendent Matt Jensen said the letters were a form of outreach for the board and noted the trustees “have held a dozen or so meetings and workshops over this topic” and “the first letter, I don’t think it could have been clearer.” He viewed the second letter as an update to the initial letter and said both “speak to what’s going on” — that the majority of funds were destined for teacher salaries and benefits.

“I think any reasonable and logically thinking person can come to these meetings and do the math and say ‘this seems right,’” Jensen said.

Yet during the negotiations process, more than 40% of the levy dollars have tentatively been allocated for things other than teacher salaries and benefits, including raises for classified staff and administration and restoring previously cut line items.

The latest offer presented by the negotiations committee, representing the trustees, included a sliding increase for teachers ranging from 5 to 8% based on years of employment, plus a master’s degree stipend, an additional step on the salary schedule and increased health insurance. This offer would utilize 57% of the levy funds for teacher salaries and benefits. Factoring in a 7% salary increase for classified personnel and administration would amount to 75% of the levy, leaving 25% for other expenses, such as restoring previously cut line items such as textbooks and curriculum. Classified staff include teachers aides, custodians, secretaries, route drivers and lunchroom staff, while administration includes the superintendent, principals, food service director, transportation direction, school nurse, speech therapist, maintenance personnel and district office personnel.

The majority of board members at the Aug. 5 workshop felt that using 57% of the levy funds constituted a majority and was fair to teachers, while also providing other staff members a boost and leaving money to restore expenditures that had been slashed over the years rather than cut staff. Jensen also noted the board’s finance committee originally had included other items apart from teacher salaries on their wish list when planning for the levy, such as the school resource officer, textbooks and curriculum materials. He said the committee whittled down that list in favor of allocating more funding for teacher salaries and benefits.

“The last offer we made was on a sliding scale percentile-wise, the top being 8%, which we thought was fair because we want to shore up the top end and not so much the bottom end because we’re already competitive at the bottom end,” said board chairman Paul Sandry. Bigfork’s starting pay of $41,391 is comparable to other local districts, ranging from $41,286 at West Valley to $50,113 in Columbia Falls and to other class B schools, which average in the low $40,000s. However, the disparity is much greater at the top end of the salary scale, with Bigfork sitting at $69,892, where maximum pay at other Flathead area schools ranges from $76,840 in West Valley to more than $88,000 in Whitefish.

The teachers’ union has issued proposals ranging from a 15% salary increase for teachers, which would utilize 87% of the levy funds, to its latest offer of a 9% increase for teachers, classified staff and administration. Under their proposal, teachers — not classified staff or administration — would also receive additional steps on their salary schedule and stipends for longevity and a Master’s degree, totaling more than the amount of the levy at $604,272 or 102%.

While trustee Christina Relyea agreed the majority of the funds should go to teacher salaries and benefits, she pointed out that it takes more than teachers alone to run the school and other employees who have been working hard should also benefit from the levy.

“I don’t see how we can do 102%, but I do think that the lion’s share should go to the teachers. But I also want to say that I think it takes every employee of the school to make the school work so I do think that every employee should get something from the levy,” she said. “I don’t think that certain groups should be excluded because everyone worked hard … especially during this crisis.”

Trustee Dan Elwell said he thought the board’s latest offer of a 5 to 8% raise plus other benefits was fair. He was also in favor of restoring line items in the school’s budget to provide some “cushion” in uncertain times.

“What do you think the Legislature is going to give us next year? There’s already a 30% deduction in tax revenue coming in. The Legislature’s not going to have a good number for us … You guys need money, I understand that, but I also want to keep the school running,” Elwell explained. “I just don’t like the risk factor of overextending ourselves. Putting back some line items is also insurance for teachers because we can cut line items instead of cutting teachers. We couldn’t trim anymore — we had to let people go last year.”