D91 teachers vote not to ratify contract; issue vote of no confidence in superintendent and finance director
Published at | Updated at
IDAHO FALLS — The Idaho Falls Education Association (IFEA) voted not to ratify the teachers’ 2024-2025 master contract with Idaho Falls School District 91 Wednesday afternoon and issued votes of no confidence in two of the district’s top officials.
According to IFEA President Julie Nawrocki, 67% of members voted against ratifying the teacher’s contract during the meeting held at Taylorview Middle School’s auditorium. Thirty-one percent were in favor with the remainder abstaining.
“We always want to get the best contract we can. We want to get the best teachers. We want to keep the best teachers for our students,” she said. “To have everybody have our backs and want to still support us was very encouraging.”
The decision not to ratify the contract was followed by discussion about whether or not to issue a vote of no confidence in Idaho Falls School District 91 Superintendent Karla LaOrange and Director of Finance Lanell Farmer.
Ultimately, 97% of respondents recommended a vote of no confidence in Farmer, while 58% supported a vote of no confidence in LaOrange.
“What happened tonight is hard. It’s very heavy,” Nawrocki said. “Because teachers are going to show up no matter what. We love our students, and we love teaching, and we’re going to do that. But I think teachers deserve to be respected, and throughout this process, the superintendent and finance director have shown no respect for our team.”
In response to the votes, LaOrange said, “The district will continue to work with our teachers, our students, parents and staff to provide an excellent education for all of the children who attend school in District 91. We’ve accomplished a lot together with the board this year, and we’re going to continue to finish strong and plan and prepare for next school year.”
Idaho Falls School District 91 Board of Trustees Chairwoman Hillary Radcliffe expressed support for the district’s leadership.
“I believe that Superintendent LaOrange and Ms. Farmer, along with the negotiation team, followed the Board’s directives during negotiations to maintain the district’s financial stability for the upcoming year. They have worked diligently to meet the needs of all of District 91 during this challenging year and we look forward to finding a resolution,” she said in a statement.
The decisions by the Idaho Falls Education Association followed four hours of negotiations Tuesday in which the teachers’ and administration’s negotiation teams had tentatively agreed to a 1.8% base salary increase.
According to the district, the proposed package would have “included the following financial agreements for certificated staff:
- “Average raise of $2,632.50
- “Salary increases range from $1,299 to $4,205, which includes steps.
- “This is a 1.8% to 7.31% (raise) depending on placement on the career ladder.
- “$300 one-time payment for full-time staff and $150 for part-time staff
- “$150,000 dedicated to continuing leadership stipends
- “Increase in co-curricular and extra-curricular stipends.”
IFEA lead negotiator Jake Snarr said the district would have saved $1.992 million with the new contract compared to 2023-2024, including insurance savings from personnel reductions.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Nawrocki said, “I know that the money is there. But I’m going to tell you that I am 100% certain that they are not going to give us more money.”
“… The staff wants transparency. The staff wants professionalism from the district team and the staff wants accountability. They want to know where the money is. They want to know why they aren’t getting any, and they want to know why the process is being disrespected,” she said.
District 91’s Board of Trustees countered back in a news release Tuesday evening, “District 91 Board of Trustees values and respects its teachers who work tirelessly to support students daily. As elected officials, we must answer to the voters and honor our stewardship to ensure that the district stays solvent.
“The funds simply do not exist to give our teachers the additional raise they have requested. Funding for the district is controlled by the state and our supplemental levy. This is a funding issue, not a performance or appreciation issue.
“Despite the constraints, District 91 is proud of several factors regarding teacher compensation:
- “Teacher salaries are higher than all surrounding school districts.
- “Teachers were offered a raise between 3.64% to 7.32%, with one outlier group at the top of the salary range receiving a 1.8% increase plus a $2,000 longevity enhancement.
- “Two years ago, the district adopted the state insurance plan, saving teachers thousands in out-of-pocket costs but increasing district premium costs by $2.8 million annually.
- “The contract hours teachers are required to work daily is 7 hours, whereas surrounding districts require 8 hours.”
Nawrocki mentioned that on Tuesday, teachers at Bonneville Joint School District 93 settled for a 1.8% base salary raise while Jefferson and West Jefferson districts received a 1% bump.
However, she said District 91’s initial offer of a pay freeze really “blindsided and offended” its teachers.
After the decision not to ratify the contract was made public, LaOrange issued a statement Tuesday evening.
“We are committed to providing competitive compensation within our means,” LaOrange stated. “While we cannot meet the current raise request, we value our teachers tremendously. … The District and the Board will continue to work with the Teachers Association to bring an agreement for their approval. Throughout this school year, the Board and Teachers Association teams have partnered to support teachers in the important work of helping all students learn. We look forward to coming to a resolution.”
At this stage, the district and teacher’s association face three options. They can return to negotiations, reach an impasse or decide to enlist a federal mediator.
Snarr said negotiations are likely to continue.
“At this point, the association does not have a contract for next year,” he said. “That means that we still have work to do to negotiate a better master agreement for our members of our association and the other staff that applies to. We will likely go back to the table and continue to work over the summer and try to get a contract in time for when the teachers return in the fall.”
