32nd Board of Representatives Personnel Committee Meeting - 12/15/2025

The Personnel Committee of the 32nd Board of Representatives convened to deliberatively vote on Item P32.002, concerning the rejection of a tentative collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Education and the Stanford Administration Unit (SAU). The committee heard presentations from Board of Education representatives and the Stanford Public Schools CFO regarding a three-year contract offering salary increases of 3.25%, 3.25%, and 3.5% respectively. While the Board of Finance had issued a negative advisory opinion citing cost comparisons, committee members ultimately weighed the financial implications against the critical need for administrator retention and competitive recruitment, resulting in a decision to not reject the agreement.

Consent Calendar

• Unanimous approval to withdraw Item P32.001 (rejection of the tentative agreement with the Board of Education and Parent facilitators of UPSEU Local 24 Unit 123) after counsel advised the Board of Representatives had no role in that specific decision.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Representative Pavia: Recused themselves from voting on this item due to a conflict of interest identified by legal counsel. Pavia abstained from the vote.
• Representative De la Cruz: Expressed a position against rejecting the contract. De la Cruz argued that while the salary increase might be perceived as generous, the cost difference ($140,000 over three years) is a "blip" in the context of the district's budget. The speaker emphasized that the primary goal is retention of high-caliber talent over mere cost minimization and that turning down the increase would risk forced arbitration, which could result in even higher costs.
• Representative Gross: Expressed a position in support of the tentative agreement. Gross stated skepticism at the outset but shifted to support after the presentation, citing the educational risk associated with unplanned turnover in principal and assistant principal positions. The speaker voiced that retaining current staff and avoiding the risk of forced arbitration was not worth the potential financial savings of rejecting the contract.
• Representative Pollack: Expressed full support for the tentative agreement. Pollack advocated to reject the rejection, highlighting the importance of retention strategies and noting that while setting a precedent for future negotiations is a concern, the immediate need to retain educators outweighed that risk. The speaker noted that the city is not just an average municipality and that the cost of training new staff is significant.

Discussion Items

• Contract Details: Dr. Fernandez and Ryan Feely presented the SAU contract as a three-year agreement (2025-2029) with General Wage Increases (GWI) of 3.25% in years 1 and 2, and 3.5% in year 3. They noted the total three-year increase of approximately 10%, compared to a state average of 9.81% for 29 settlements, and a Fairfield County average of 3.85% for the first year only.
• Insurance and Steps: Feely clarified that insurance premium cost-sharing would increase from 22.5% to 23% over the contract term. The committee discussed the concept of "steps," where administrators advance based on tenure, and the contract increases the value of these steps, contributing to the total cost projection beyond the base GWI.
• Board of Finance Objection: The Board of Finance provided a negative advisory opinion primarily because the third-year increase (3.5%) and the total three-year increase were higher than the average increases in comparable settlements and feared the long-term funding impact on pension and health benefits.
• Retention vs. Recruitment: Discussion turned to whether the contract addresses retention or recruitment. Representatives noted that while most hiring is "homegrown" (approximately 70-80%), the district does lose candidates to other districts. The consensus shifted toward viewing the aggressive salary increase as a proactive retention strategy to mitigate the risk of losing high-caliber administrative talent, rather than a reaction to a current retention crisis.
• Precedent Setting: Concerns were raised that approving a 3.5% increase could set a precedent that inflates future salary negotiations. However, counter-arguments suggested that failing to approve the contract would likely force arbitration, which typically favors the union and could result in even higher costs and terms beyond the committee's control.

Key Outcomes

• Vote Result: The committee voted not to reject the tentative agreement.
  • 1 Vote: Yes (to reject the contract)
  • 3 Votes: No (to accept the contract / not reject)
  • 1 Vote: Abstained
• Next Steps: The committee will report the "No on rejection" finding to the full Board of Representatives at its scheduled meeting on January 5th.
• Arbitration Status: By voting not to reject, the tentative agreement proceeds; if the full Board were to reject it, the process would move to arbitration.