Fountain Hills staff survey flags morale, pay and facilities as top concerns; union and district to negotiate state funds

The Fountain Hills Unified School District heard a week-long staff survey report showing strong participation but notable strains on morale and working conditions. Mr. Buckley, the FHEA representative, told the board that 69 employees responded to the latest survey, giving an 82.3% response rate among certified staff and about 19% among classified staff.

Buckley highlighted that 74% of respondents felt "valued and respected as a professional by site administration," a decline from the district's August results, and that personal job satisfaction registered 62% positive. He said the largest negative comments centered on student behavior and campus facilities—naming housekeeping and repairs at McDowell Mountain as an example—calling those issues "not okay for students and teachers" and urging district attention.

Board members and union representatives identified pay as the primary factor influencing employees' decisions to stay: in a district poll Buckley cited, 67% of respondents selected pay among the top two determining factors; respect as a professional and workload followed. Buckley said the employee group is developing a proposal for distributing additional state funds and urged the district to show a good-faith allocation "before the end of the calendar year."

Superintendent (referred to in the meeting as Dr. Jay) and board members discussed practical next steps: breaking down the survey by site to target supports, clarifying whether morale measures isolate school-level factors versus external issues (for example, student behavior), and exploring targeted pay or stipends for hard-to-fill roles. The superintendent said district administration and the union are "working on negotiating the additional funds that we got from the state" and are aiming to have something in place before the end of the semester.

The board identified retention, pay, and facilities repairs as interlocking priorities. Members asked administration to return with more granular, site-by-site data and with timelines for any proposed use of additional state money. No formal budget action or vote was taken at the meeting; the item remains under discussion and negotiation.