Casey Smith wrote an ad in the  Idaho County Free Press on Wednesday November 1st, 2023 challenging the then Teachers Union President,  Valarie Phefforkorn, stating the following points and offering to rescind his comments if she would simply promise that Levy funds will never be used for dependant healthcare. She never responded to the challenge.

Unbeknownst to the public for many years, while a $2,663,246.00 levy continued to be pushed on the public, over a third of that levy amount went to paying healthcare coverage for MVSD employee’s dependents. With the implementation of Obamacare, the cost continued to rise.

In 2020 a unanimous vote of all five board members voted to discontinue that costly practice. In March of 2020, a levy was run in the amount of $1,700,000.00 that was an unnecessary levy since we were flooded with COVID funds, so much so that we are still spending COVID funds today. We had so much money that we handed out $280,000.00 of bonuses to MVSD employees using those funds.
The $1,700,000.00 levy was intended to cover and reinstate dependent healthcare coverage.
Following that levy defeat, the superintendent at the time expressed to me his frustration about the levy failure stating that, when he was hired, he was promised healthcare coverage for his family. Soon after that failure, he resigned and, at the end of his contract, went elsewhere.

It’s a small community, and folks talk. Both a former union president and a former union negotiator have expressed to me personally that reinstating dependent coverage is an absolute must. I encouraged in a paid ad during the last levy attempt for people to contact the current union president to assure the public that no levy money would be used to cover dependent care and to sign a statement to that effect. Not a peep from her.

Since the last cost we had was $1,700,000.00, doubling it would be $3,400,000.00. That, out of a $5,800,000.00 levy for two years.

I’m happy to retract any and all claims that the union intends to push for dependent healthcare once the levy passes if they are willing to so state. Come out with a pledge that no district funds will ever be used to pay this coverage as long as levies are supporting the district. A simple commitment from the union eliminates any further discussion. Clean and simple! Speak up Valarie: pfefferkornv@sd244.org

Casey Smith
Clearwater

Here’s an added comment by Casey as to why you won’t find any proof that the Union was going to do this:

There is no paid dependent health care in the 23-24 negotiated agreement. Of course not, there is no levy to pay for it. When the levy went away so did the paid health care.

From what I keep hearing, the negotiated contract will of course change when and if there is a levy to compliment it.

No levy, no dependent care.

I believe the tax payers have a right to know if the union will ask for dependent coverage if a levy passes.

Is that asking too much?  Why should the tax payers flip the bill for insurance that they themselves probably don’t have.

They have a right to know.