Evidence of Board Assumptions on Wage and Benefit Increases
The Messenger’s article dated February 13, 2026, page 5, John Stark voters overwhelmingly support 95.5% raises for teachers [sic], making it quite clear that the John Stark contract negotiating team and the School Board assume that wages and benefits for teaching staff should increase annually.
“Board member James Newcomb said the increase reflected the fact that teachers worked this year with no contract and were getting two years of raises at once.”
Recommendation for Board Member Transparency
If this becomes the established practice in contract negotiations, it will severely weaken the public’s ability to negotiate a fair contract. Transparency is essential to maintaining trust with the voting public, who deserve to know each Board member’s stance on automatic wage and benefit increases.
Will automatic wage and benefit compensation correct the school’s poor performance record? Over the last 7-8 years, increases have produced no measurable improvement in performance.
Maybe we have an administration problem?
Board Member Declarations During Elections
As Board members seek election or re-election, WE THE VOTERS must demand that the candidates state their intention to support annual wage and benefit increases for employees. This ensures voters are fully informed about candidates’ positions on teacher and staff compensation.
REMEMBER, WE HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE…NOW USE IT!
OHB keeping it real…you be the judge…thank you, wise ole owl
Let’s start with the facts.
When a proposed teachers contract is not approved by the citizenry the teachers ARE NOT working without a contract the following year. The conditions of the existing contract remain in place until a successor contract is negotiated and approved by the voters.
Depending on the language of the existing contract monetary compensation such as step and track increases are honored going forward. This is often referred to as the existing contract remaining “as is” until a successor contract is approved.
The concept of bargaining a collective agreement is fundamentally based on the value of the services rendered and what the market will bear. The value that professional educators bring to every community is roughly the same. Each community’s ability to finance that value is very often disparate. Consequently, there is a range of salaries from community to community.
It is very important to not approach compensation analysis by comparing salary schedules only. Every contract has a Master Agreement imbedded in the document which specifically outlines benefits ( compensation) for teachers. Those benefits can,and often are, wildly different from District to District. Examples would be contributions to Health and Dental Insurance, Paid sick leave, longevity pay, early retirement bonuses, paid “ personal time off”
Etc.
Finally, the notion that a contract voted down by taxpayers last year should result in a contract this year that “ makes up” for last year’s failure to pass a contract is near folly from a logical perspective.
A 9.5% increase in wages alone in one year requires a significant explanation of the dynamic changes that currently exist in our schools or in our Towns. Absent those provable changes this proposed contract is based on a notion that is unsustainable for any community going forward and frankly suggests the JSRHS Board does not take the vote of the people seriously!