Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

During a packed and emotionally charged meeting last week, the Mesa County Valley School District 51 Board of Education heard more than an hour of public comment as it entered its first contract impasse with the Mesa Valley Education Association (MVEA) in more than 40 years.

Union members accused the school board of failing to communicate and failing to collaborate. 

Board members countered that they typically have an empty room at board meetings, and they sat through months of committee meetings designed for collaboration before contract negotiations without receiving any proposals.

District’s Perspective: Budget Strains and Shrinking Enrollment

District 51 Finance Director Melanie Trujillo laid out the financial pressures bearing down on the district. She cited a $2.8 million increase in insurance costs this year, with another $1.4 million projected next year. On top of that and other cost increases, she mentioned possible funding losses from changes in student-count averaging in future years, because overall enrollment continues to decline.

According to Board President Andrea Haitz, the district previously had the lowest reserve-fund balance among comparable districts in the state, but it has since worked to rebuild it for one-time emergency costs, even while fiscal challenges remain severe. It’s something the district is working to maintain for potential economic shifts or enrollment drops to be able to give the district a soft landing if facing extreme challenges, including layoffs. 

Several teachers criticized the board for not being present in the negotiating room. That practice was changed in 2021 when the board at that time decided to delegate contract negotiations to professional staff. That decision was supported by then-board members Doug Levinson and Karie Sholtes, along with current members Haitz, Angela Lema and Will Jones.

Haitz explained the reasoning: Board members are not contract experts. She said most Colorado school districts use professional staff to handle negotiations, and District 51’s previous model of board-member involvement was actually the exception. She said board members are involved in the process by viewing all negotiation sessions and providing input when needed.

Union members Concerns: Classrooms, Compensation, and Communication

MVEA President Amy Sue Javernick and union members advocated for smaller class sizes, improved safety protocols and salary-step increases. 

Kaci Cole, a former teacher and negotiations participant, criticized the board’s decision to stop paying half of the MVEA president’s salary, describing it as a break from long-standing tradition that has fueled distrust between the district and the union and contributed to the current impasse.

Teacher Kerry Hicks acknowledged progress on safety language in the master agreement. She also criticized the district’s offer of a one-time payment in place of the contractual step increase, calling it “a pay freeze that causes teachers to fall further behind financially.”

On class sizes, Hicks shared a personal story of managing 29 first-graders without timely support, calling the current system inadequate and unacceptable.

 “There is a clear disconnect,” said Sean Henry, a district teacher. “We brought ideas and proposals to solve problems. What we got in return was silence or rejection.”

Middle school teacher Amber Shannon added, “We’re not just here to get raises; we’re here to make classrooms safe and manageable. I have 35 kids in a class and no support. That’s a failure of leadership.”

Veteran teacher Shelby Fredson voiced frustration at the board’s absence from talks, saying, “You’re making decisions that impact us without even hearing what we’re dealing with.”

Tracy Seremak, another former negotiations team member, added, “If the board really wanted to solve problems, they’d be in the room with us. Instead, they’re hiding behind procedure.”

District 51 school psychologist Mo McDougall described increasing burnout and lack of support in her job.

“We asked for a small stipend to attract in-person psychologists. The district wouldn’t even consider it. Instead, they’re paying contractors more to do less for our kids,” she said.

Another teacher, Kelly McKay, said, “We’re not asking for luxury; we’re asking for support. The message we’re getting is that we don’t matter.”

A Dissenting Voice

Christy Anderson, a teacher and former MVEA member, offered a counter-narrative regarding the board, reminding the room of previous pay increases.

“My pay has gone up 30 percent,” Anderson said.

She accused the union of using the negotiation process as a political strategy. She said past boards that were financially backed by the union didn’t face this level of hostility when decisions didn’t go in the union’s favor. 

Board Response: Defending Process, Facing Pressure

Jones responded to criticism about not communicating, saying, “Most board meetings are empty. Now we’re being accused of not listening?”

He emphasized it’s difficult to be transparent and collaborative when few people show up or engage, noting that meaningful dialogue requires consistent involvement.

Haitz responded to the idea that the board was not collaborating, noting she and others sat through months of Educational Research and Proactive Collaboration committee meetings, waiting to hear proposals that never came.

“We didn’t get a single policy proposal on class size or safety until negotiations began,” she said. 

Lema pointed to the scale of union requests and the district’s limited resources.

“We’re ranked 174 out of 178 districts in Colorado for funding. If someone knows how to change that, show me the way,” she said.

“Step increases alone cost $3.4 million,” Lema added. “We only received $1 million in additional funding this year. That’s not sustainable.” 

“I don’t even want to talk about what happens if we don’t get that money the next year, because that means reductions. And nobody wants to go backwards.”

No standing room

The meeting drew a large crowd that resulted in dozens of attendees being unable to enter the building, as the district enforced a no-standing-room policy, citing safety concerns. That decision heightened tensions with the emotionally charged crowd outside, and its cheers and boos could be heard from within the boardroom. 

Jessica Herns, who previously ran against board member José Luis Chávez, used her public-comment time to announce she’s running again for the District A seat. Applause erupted from the crowd outside.

Lema said the policy has been in place at recent meetings, and that overflow rooms were used in the past during winter months. Staff rotated attendees into the room to fill seats that opened. Some chose to stay outside. Staff also informed scheduled speakers that it was their turn to comment.

Moving forward 

The district said impasse mediation will happen July 14. The budget has to be approved by June, but there can be an amendment if there is a fiscal agreement that requires it.