Teachers and union representatives urge larger raises, cite cost of living and staffing shortfalls

Board members heard more than a half‑hour of public comment from teachers and union representatives pressing the district to increase a proposed 1.25% salary raise and to address staffing and benefit gaps.

Isaac Cuevas, speaking on behalf of a teacher who wished to remain anonymous, said the 1.25% proposal “does not keep pace with the rising cost of living” and described educators as “exhausted, overwhelmed and increasingly feeling unappreciated.” He asked the board to “start discussing fair compensation for the teachers working in El Monte.”

Garrett Ching, a member of the El Monte Elementary Teachers Association, said the union moved its proposal to 4.75% as a bargaining compromise and urged the board to increase its offer. Ching also asked the board to direct the district “to fully cover the highest single medical premium, so that every single employee has the ability to choose the medical plan that best meets their needs without being forced to make that decision based on an out‑of‑pocket cost.”

Pedro Galindo, representing the union’s bargaining position, cited Bureau of Labor Statistics figures and local CPI rates, called for cost‑of‑living adjustments to be treated as baseline “pass through” amounts and said the union awaits a report on 30 newly added management positions. Several speakers, including Jeanette Anaya and Chantal Cravens, described long careers in the district and warned that stagnating wages push experienced teachers out of the profession.

Other commenters asked the district for more classified staff and substitutes to reduce safety and workload risks in special‑education classrooms. Special‑education teacher Mariester Espinosa said staffing shortfalls leave classrooms without proper coverage and described an on‑the‑job injury when an inadequately trained staff member covered a complex student need.

Retiree Elaine Graff said a benefits‑heavy package that increases benefits but not salary does not help workers who need salary increases to protect pensions. The session closed with the board stating it listens to public comment but does not respond during the public‑comment period.

The board did not adopt a change to its offer during the meeting; several speakers requested follow‑up from the board and district negotiators.