Ludington School Board and Teacher's Union Express Their Positions on Contract Terms at August Meeting

[XLFD]

The August 18, 2025 meeting of the Ludington Area School District (LASD) Board was held for the first time in years at the Peterson Auditorium, a good block-plus away from the usual venue at the Administrative Building.  An action item from the meeting's agenda packet was to move all other meetings in the school year to the auditorium in order to accommodate more people and improve accessibility.  Eventually, this was passed by the five trustees present, Stephanie Reed and Alan Neushwander being absent.

The Peterson Auditorium is where folks from Ludington go to check out school theater and there was plenty of that going on this evening with the local teacher's union, the Ludington Education Association (LEA), showing up in full force to commandeer the public comment period with the talking points of their positions on what was going on with collective bargaining efforts between themselves and administrators in order to achieve an elusive contract for the upcoming school year.

But first, they provided an interpretation of unity in entering the auditorium as a group, with roughly a hundred union members coming into the auditorium with an air of solidarity, commencing with seating themselves as a bloc, much like political parties will do in a congressional setting.  As the minutes ticked off towards the start of the meeting, high-spirits and bravado pervaded in this group, which would be about half of who would show up. 

The administrators and board wisely anticipated this dramatic play by doing two proactive moves beforehand to get their own message out first.  Board President Dr. Bret Autrey earlier in the day posted an open letter to the LEA and general public, politically explaining their position as far as raises were concerned in the contract, proposing a 2.5% raise over each of the next three years, indicating that the district was investing in teachers.  Then they placed the superintendent's annual State of the District Address summarized in a power point format at the forefront of the meeting before anyone was able to speak.  

This address would have the primary purpose of explaining the district's rationales in the matters of negotiating with the union and secondarily to suggest why their offer was more than fair.  A few of the more relevant slides show the delicate tightrope the district needs to walk to provide good wages to teachers (including non-union and administrators who also get 2.5% raises if approved) on one side and be fiscally responsible on the other side. 

The state advises that schools should maintain a 15% fund balance to be considered financially sound, and if they have anything less than 5% for a couple of years in a row, they face state sanctions in order to up those numbers.  We see from expenditures that wages of all staff likely fall in the range of $20M per school year, so a seemingly nominal 2.5% raise would cost the district about $500,000, with each additional raise of 1/2 percent adding another $100K and exponentially affect future expenditures on wages.  

Autrey's letter hinted at a lot of uncertainties existing in school financing, including an impasse in the state legislature over education funding (with their focus shifting more to fixing the damn roads in Gretchen's last two years), reevaluations of the role of the federal government in education in the Trump Administration, and unknown future trends of the cost of living.  We see that 2.5% per year wage growth is an average of the last four years of contract, and is a relatively safe bet when we look at keeping up with the cost of living over the last 30 years:

Knowing this before the public comment period started, the Ludington Torch looked forward to hearing from the other side, and heard a lot, about 16 union members and former teachers spoke during the public comment period.  

One would expect teachers to be able to get in front of an audience and lay out a lesson plan cogently and orate proficiently any points they have to make.  Most did not disappoint in this regard; there were some excellent comments that appealed to both logic and emotion.  The audience heard of other districts that pay out more than LASD, how the board used a Thrun attorney with a bad reputation for handling negotiations, how the superintendent wasn't following through with his various boat-rowing analogies, and many other things, drowning out some of the positive anecdotes and testimonials to other teachers and their caring for students.  

But among all of these speeches cultivated for this very board meeting, it always seemed to be geared towards the audience of fellow unionized teachers, and not with the fiscal realities and uncertainties of the situation and its effect on the delicate district fund balance metric or on the public whose wages would ultimately be tapped to cover the higher wages they were looking for.  The Ludington Torch never heard any comments with any empathy towards the public or any solutions that would allow for a healthy fund balance.  This rather selfish lack of empathy solidified this reporter's belief that the administration's proposal of 2.5% over each of the next three years was more than fair to teachers in this climate.  

This reporter would not comment at this meeting, not because I hadn't prepared a speech, not because it would have presented an unpopular notion suggesting the proposal was fair, but because I accidentally left it at home.  I would also have tapped into my belief that the hike of school breakfasts and lunches was not justified, as I did beforehand here. 

Whitmer and state Democrats embraced free meals for all students back in 2022 in order to protect young families from inflation caused by government overspending by inefficiently putting it on every other taxpayer's back with a new government program, worsening inflation in the long run.  When the school board considered raising school lunches by 50% over a period when inflation was only 10%, the only rationale given was by Dr. Autrey who claimed that it would allow the district to get more money from the federal program because the district would get more reimbursement for each free and reduced meal.  

The problem with his assertion is that the LASD will receive $2.94 ($2.54) for each free (reduced) breakfast offered to a needy pupil regardless of how much it costs without reductions, according to the federal authority.  Raising breakfast prices by 50% to $3 is still unjustified and found to be even above the current reimbursement amount for free breakfasts.  

In other school business, the board would approve payments of $790K to 2019 bond projects, incorporate individualized student medical plans into the bylaws, and approve absent Trustee Neushwander as the board's representative to the MASB's Delegate Assembly being held in October in Acme.  Although, the packet says that roof repairs in the district will take place in two areas and cost $278K, other areas of the MS/HS complex were identified for repair at a total cost of $820K.  

The final action of the board was to go into closed session to discuss collective bargaining strategy; the five present voting to do so.  Before that took place, Trustee Mike Winczewski, former LASD teacher, made a statement claiming he had a reaction similar to mine as to what he heard that night from the LEA commenters and the superintendent.  While Superintendent Kyle Corlett had stressed unity amongst both sides of the bargaining units in his address and later in his comments after some tough assertions by LEA members, he hadn't heard much from those he heard from stressing goodwill and unity between parties.  

Unfortunately, collective bargaining in the public education domain leaves out the general public from any negotiations.  We want what's best for our kids and all understand the importance of retaining good teachers and keeping them well compensated for their worth, but we also know how to handle our household budgets and how to live with them in a responsible manner if we want to prosper.  To do this, we can't get everything that the children hound us for, no matter how much we want to-- especially when some of the future household income may be in doubt.  Children grow to understand this, some of the older and retired teachers seem to have never learned this lesson.

[stump]

When I stopped for gas at the down town Wesco today I seen someone from our community stuck on a poster "Support OUR TEACHERS" on the gas pump.. Real class act It looked as if someone tried to peal it off but it was totally glued on.

[XLFD]

There isn't anybody who doesn't like a good teacher, except for maybe some of the jealous bad teachers.  That said, some of these teachers who think that a reasonable pay raise of 2.5% over the next three years is disrespectful or just not enough should realize that districts have limited resources and that is limited by the tax base.  For their wages to go up by more than the inflation rate comes at the expense of other education budget items doing the same.  I would like to see the school board or administrators explain to the teachers what programs would need to be eliminated or reduced if the teacher's desired pay raise was enacted.  One can't simultaneously support teachers and teaching infrastructure without finding a good balance between the two.