June 15, 2026 Special Business Board Meeting

June 15, 2026 Special Business Board Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DISTRICT NO. 40,
YAMHILL COUNTY, McMINNVILLE, OREGON

The Board Business Meeting was held June 15, 2026, both in person and via Zoom at the McMinnville School District Office, 800 NE Lafayette Ave.,
McMinnville OR 97128

The link was https://msd40.zoom.us/j/215496199

At 6:31 p.m., the Board of Directors of McMinnville School District opened the special board session meeting in Regular Session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Larry Vollmer.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Chair Larry Vollmer
Vice-Chair Gerardo Partida
Director  Lu Ann Anderson – via Zoom
Director  Christine Bader
Director  Jason Bizon
Director Jasmin Juarez

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
None

ADMINISTRATION
Kourtney Ferrua, Superintendent
Cherice Bowden, Board Secretary

AUDIENCE
Brian Crain, Jason Hall, Lauren Berg, Hiran Amerasinghe, Autumn Foster, Emily Linnertz, Chris Starr,  Stephanie Kaupa and Rebecca Konefal.

Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Larry Vollmer.

1.0  Discussion of Board Candidates
The Board members discussed the four finalists for the vacant board position and expressed appreciation for all 11 community members who applied. Members emphasized that the strong applicant pool demonstrated the community’s commitment to supporting McMinnville schools and students.  Board members agreed that all four interviewed candidates were highly qualified, making the decision difficult. Several noted that there was no “wrong choice” among the finalists. Members expressed gratitude to all applicants and encouraged those not selected to remain involved with the district, noting that their experience and commitment are valuable to the community.

Board members highlighted the unique qualifications of each finalist: Kristian Frack was recognized for his 19 years with the district and his work with English Learner and migrant families, Mary Dressel was praised for her decades of service to the district and ongoing participation on the Budget Committee, Kelly Sheppick was noted for her extensive involvement in schools through substitute teaching and PTA leadership and Brielle Houston was commended for her governance experience, board service, focus on board culture, thoughtful leadership approach, and commitment to effective governance practices.

Several members stated that the board would benefit from a member who could strengthen governance and board culture rather than bring additional operational or historical district knowledge. Some also expressed a preference for adding fresh perspectives rather than continuing a pattern of appointing former district employees.  Members also stated the importance of maintaining representation from individuals with children currently attending district schools, similar to the perspective brought by former Director Abby Warmbier.

Following discussion, board members completed an informal polling process. The results showed Brielle Houston receiving five of six votes. The board then moved toward the formal nomination and appointment process, with a motion made to nominate Brielle Houston to fill the vacant board seat.

On motion by Director Christine Bader, seconded by Vice Chair Gerardo Partida, to approve the nomination of Brielle Houston to fill the vacant board seat.  It was approved on a unanimous vote 6-0.  Director Christine Bader – aye, Chair Larry Vollmer – aye, Vice-Chair Gerardo Partida – aye, Director Jason Bizon -aye, Director Lu Ann Anderson – aye and Director Jasmin Juarez – aye.

2.0 Legal Framing for Board Grievance
Chair Vollmer explained that the purpose of the hearing was for the Board to receive information from both the Association and District Administration regarding a grievance that had been appealed to Step 3 of the grievance process.

He outlined the Board’s responsibility to review the grievance record, determine whether the collective bargaining agreement had been violated, and decide whether any remedy was warranted under the agreement. He clarified that the hearing was not a trial and that the Board would not hear witness testimony or consider new evidence. Instead, both parties would present summaries of their positions based on information already provided during the grievance process.

Chair Vollmer reviewed the hearing procedures, noting that the Association and District Administration would each have 15 minutes to present their cases, followed by 5 minutes each for closing remarks. Board members would then have the opportunity to ask questions for clarification. After questions were completed, the Board would convene in executive session to deliberate before returning to open session to announce its decision.

• McEA Position:

Rebecca Konefal, representing the Oregon Education Association and the McMinnville Education Association (McEA), appealed the superintendent’s Level 2 grievance decision regarding conference scheduling and conference preparation time.  She stated that the grievance centered on a disagreement over contract language negotiated during 2024 bargaining. She explained that McEA proposed language requiring evening conferences to be scheduled on days with a half-day release for students followed by a half-day of uninterrupted preparation time for educators. She cited bargaining discussions in which the purpose of the language was described as ensuring teachers had adequate time to prepare so that parent conferences would be as effective as possible.

According to Rebecca Konefal, the district accepted the proposal during bargaining and documented its agreement that evening conferences would be scheduled with a half-day for students followed by a half-day of uninterrupted educator preparation time. Although both parties understood and agreed to the language, she said the provision was inadvertently omitted from the final contract document during the contract finalization process.

She argued that both the district and the association continued operating under that shared understanding. She referenced a joint district-association statement and subsequent district communications that described conference preparation time as a 3.75-hour block for educators.

McEA maintained that the spring 2026 conference schedules failed to provide the agreed-upon preparation time:

• Elementary educators received only 3.25 hours of uninterrupted conference preparation time after accounting for lunch and other scheduled periods, rather than the expected 3.75 hours.
• Secondary educators received only 2.75 hours of uninterrupted conference preparation time, which McEA argued was one hour short of the agreed-upon preparation block.

Rebecca Kondfal further asserted that although conferences ran from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., no administrator-scheduled dinner period was provided. While some educators were able to take dinner breaks, others with continuous lines of parents did not receive a dinner period.

McEA argued that when the district cited transportation constraints related to bus schedules, the association worked collaboratively to propose multiple alternatives, including shortening the student day, using other staff to supervise students, hiring additional buses, or adjusting educator start times through a memorandum of understanding. Kondfal stated that these proposed solutions were ultimately rejected.

As remedies, McEA requested:

• One hour of regular pay for all elementary teachers.
• One to one-and-a-half hours of regular pay for secondary teachers, depending on whether they received a dinner break.
• Adoption of future conference schedules that provide a 3.75-hour conference preparation block and a scheduled dinner period.
• Addition of the previously agreed-upon conference language to the collective bargaining agreement to reflect the parties’ original intent.
• Any additional relief deemed appropriate by the Board.

Rebecca Konefal also objected to the superintendent’s Level 2 decision, which suggested that conference preparation time could be accumulated from various periods throughout the day. McEA argued that the bargaining discussions clearly contemplated a dedicated block of uninterrupted preparation time between teaching responsibilities and evening conferences. She emphasized that duty-free lunch and dinner periods should not be counted as work time and concluded by asking the Board to resolve the issue and clarify expectations for future conference schedules

• District Position:
  Superintendent Ferrua outlined the district’s position regarding the grievance over conference scheduling and preparation time, stating that the district did not violate the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Superintendent Ferrua reviewed the grievance process, noting that the issue had been discussed in liaison meetings, heard at Level 1 by Human Resources Director Emily Leonards, at Level 2 by the superintendent, and was now before the Board at Level 3.

She identified three primary questions before the Board:

1. Whether the district violated Article 5B2D of the CBA in scheduling spring conferences.
2. Whether duty-free meal periods were required to occur outside the 3.75-hour student-free preparation window.
3. Whether the district failed to provide required meal periods during evening conferences.

She emphasized that elementary, middle, and high school schedules are fundamentally different due to contractual work hours and transportation schedules. She explained that elementary teachers have more contract time after students leave, while secondary teachers have more contract time before students arrive, making conference scheduling inherently different across grade levels.

The superintendent stated that the district’s position must be based on the actual language contained in the signed contract, rather than bargaining discussions or proposals that were not included in the final agreement. While acknowledging that bargaining conversations occurred regarding conference preparation time, she noted that the contract language ultimately adopted in September 2024 did not require a continuous 3.75-hour preparation block.

Using conference schedules from spring 2026, Ferrua argued that educators received the required release time before conferences:

• Elementary educators received 3.75 hours of release time during contract hours and 4.25 hours of duty-free time before conferences.
• Middle school educators received approximately 4 hours of release time during contract hours.
• High school educators received more than 4 hours of release time during contract hours.

Regarding meal periods, the superintendent stated that the contract requires a designated dinner period of at least 30 minutes during evening conferences and that this requirement was communicated districtwide through administrative updates and staff communications. She acknowledged one exception at Willamette Elementary, where a communication error occurred regarding the dinner period. The district offered a remedy by allowing affected staff to submit timesheets for the missed 30-minute period.

The superintendent shared an overview of the contract language regarding the association’s argument that preparation time must be provided in one uninterrupted block. The district’s interpretation is that the contract requires educators to be released from duty for at least 3.75 hours before conferences, but does not specify that the time must be contiguous or that meal periods must occur outside that window.

She also addressed the association’s criticism of the district’s interpretation, stating that the district was not attempting to “nickel and dime” preparation time, but was instead following contractual work schedules that differ by educational level. She argued that the district must honor the contractually agreed-upon start and end times for educators and students.

The superintendent concluded that:

• The district did not violate Article 5B2D.
• The contract does not require duty-free meal periods to occur outside the 3.75-hour preparation window.
• The contract does not require preparation time to be provided in a single continuous block.
• The district provided required meal periods and conference preparation time.
• The only substantiated issue involved a communication error at Willamette Elementary, which the district addressed through compensation for affected staff.

Superintendent Ferrua emphasized the district’s commitment to maintaining a positive relationship with McEA and expressed hope that both parties could continue working collaboratively on future conference scheduling. She noted that the district had already begun exploring alternative conference models that could better accommodate preparation time while addressing transportation and scheduling constraints.

• McEA Closing
  In her closing remarks, Rebecca Konefal argued that the parties were interpreting the term “duty-free” differently and sought to clarify McEA’s position.  She emphasized that the contract language stating educators shall be “released from duty” for a half day when evening conferences are scheduled refers to the Friday afternoon conference schedule and exists to ensure educators do not exceed a 40-hour workweek. She stated that this language is common contract language used across Oregon and is unrelated to the structure of the evening conference day itself.

She stressed that, under the contract, “duty-free” means time when educators have no work responsibilities and are off the clock, such as lunch periods, dinner periods, or the Friday afternoon release time. By contrast, she argued that conference preparation time is still work time, even though students are not present. According to Kondfal, preparation time should be considered non-student contact time, not duty-free time, because educators are actively preparing for conferences.

Rebecca Konefal also challenged a district-proposed alternative conference schedule that would have shifted conference preparation time to a non-student day in January. She argued that such a proposal would conflict with Article 6’s requirement that the workday be a continuous eight-hour period. McEA members reviewed the proposal and, through a membership vote, rejected amending the workday structure.

She reiterated that the parties’ original understanding during 2024 bargaining was a conference-day structure consisting of:

• A half-day for students,
• A dedicated educator preparation period,
• Followed by evening conferences.

She maintained that this intended structure was the basis of the grievance and that preparation time should not be combined with duty-free lunch or dinner periods when calculating the agreed-upon conference preparation block.

• District Closing

In its closing response, Superintendent Ferrua reiterated the district’s position that the grievance should be denied. She stated that Article 6 (Workday) was not modified during the most recent bargaining process and explained that the conference schedule has operated in essentially the same manner for many years.  She outlined the longstanding conference structure, explaining that educators work a regular day followed by evening conferences, a noon-to-evening conference day on the following day, and a shortened conference schedule on Friday that offsets the additional evening conference hours worked earlier in the week.

She argued that the additional conference release language was intended to provide educators more preparation time before evening conferences, not to alter the existing conference structure. She emphasized that the district’s interpretation has been consistent since the language was added in September 2024 and that the district has continued to follow both the contractual language and established practice.

The superintendent maintained that:

• The contract does not require the 3.75 hours of release time to be contiguous.
• The contract does not require lunch or dinner periods to occur outside the 3.75-hour preparation window.
• The district met both the letter and spirit of the contract by providing educators with adequate preparation time before conferences.
• The only substantiated issue was the communication error at Willamette Elementary, which was addressed through compensation for affected staff.

During board questions, a board member asked for clarification regarding differences between elementary and secondary preparation time.  Superintendent Ferrua explained that elementary schools do not operate on a modified schedule during conference half-days and continue to use regular specialist schedules such as PE, music, and library. As a result, preparation periods vary by teacher depending on specialist schedules. Secondary schools, however, run shortened class periods on conference days, allowing all teachers to receive additional preparation time through the adjusted schedule.  Board members asked additional questions, which the superintendent addressed.

7:43 Recessed to Executive Session and will  reopen the special session once the executive session is finished.
At 8:24 p.m. the June 15, 2026 special business meeting was called to order by Board Chair Larry Vollmer.

3.0 Discussion of Grievance
The chair asked for a motion.  Director Jasmin Juarez read the following motion: 

I move to deny McEA’s Level Three grievance submitted to the Board, uphold the Superintendent’s Level Two decision, and authorize the Board Chair to work with legal counsel to issue a written decision to the Association.

On motion by Director Jasmin Juarez, seconded by Director Christine Bader, to deny McEA’s Level Three grievance submitted to the Board, uphold the Superintendent’s Level Two decision, and authorize the Board Chair to work with legal counsel to issue a written decision to the Association.   It was approved on a unanimous vote 6-0.  Director Christine Bader – aye, Chair Larry Vollmer – aye, Vice-Chair Gerardo Partida – aye, Director Jason Bizon -aye, Director Lu Ann Anderson – aye and Director Jasmin Juarez – aye.

4.0  Board Directors Comments
Director Bizon clarified that his earlier remarks regarding remote participation in executive sessions were not directed at any individual board member. He requested that the topic be placed on a future board agenda to provide clarity regarding the board’s expectations, best practices, and the precedent it wishes to establish for future boards.  He emphasized the importance of protecting the confidentiality and privileged nature of executive sessions and stated that establishing clear expectations would help strengthen board governance moving forward.

Director Bader expressed her enthusiasm for welcoming Brielle Houston to the Board and thanked all applicants who sought the vacant position. She encouraged those who were not selected to remain involved with the district and community. She also shared her anticipation for the upcoming board retreat, noting its importance in helping the Board stay focused on its priorities and continue moving forward effectively. 

Chair Vollmer welcomed Brielle Houston as the Board’s newest member and shared that he would work with Board Secretary Cherice Bowden to assist with her onboarding. He noted that they would review board practices, policies, and working agreements, while coordinating with district staff to establish her technology access, including IDs, logins, and email accounts.  He also thanked the Nutrition Services Department for inviting him to assist with food service during the eighth-grade Oaks Park trip. He commended the department for its outstanding work and noted that other districts commented positively on McMinnville’s provision of on-site food service for students.  He reminded board members about the upcoming board retreat on June 20, including meal selection arrangements, and noted the optional year-end celebration scheduled for June 25. He concluded by recognizing that the district would begin a new fiscal and school year on July 1.

Meeting Videos  

The meeting adjourned at 8:31p.m.