Amid rising tension over teacher compensation, a member of the Montezuma-Cortez District Accountability Committee has voiced concerns about transparency and equity in how the district is providing raises to teachers.
While the district approved a $7,000 raise for teachers through the voter-backed levy, the DAC member and a school board member said the increase is being used to replace, not supplement, what they say are necessary cost-of-living adjustments, excluding teachers and paraprofessionals from adjustments granted to other staff.
The issue has sparked broader concerns about administrative pay practices, oversight committee appointments and the district’s commitment to honoring the intent of the mill levy and maintaining public trust.
In response, The Journal reviewed district and state policies to understand how the district is required to pay and provide raises to staff. It found that policies from the school district, Colorado Department of Education and Colorado Association of School Boards supported district authority over salaries.
Ballot Issue 4-B was meant to improve student outcomes by increasing teacher and paraprofessional salaries, specifically by raising base pay closer to market averages to reduce turnover and retain qualified staff.
In a letter written to The Journal, DAC co-chairperson Laura DeWitt expressed her concerns about how raises have been rolled out and added that the DAC was not permitted to review the salary schedule before it was adopted.
The Montezuma-Cortez School District updated salary policies after the mill levy was approved in November 2024. Key updates included raising teacher base salaries from $40,000 to about $47,000 starting in July 2025. Paraprofessionals will receive a $2,000 increase.
Revisions published in January reflect a structured pay progression but may include exceptions or adjustments based on board decisions. Additional salary increases for other positions were approved by the board in April 2025.
“I was surprised and concerned that the proposed salary schedules, typically reviewed by DAC before being sent to the school board, were approved this year without DAC review,” DeWitt said. “This departure from standard practice, combined with the district’s decision not to provide teachers a cost-of-living adjustment, raises questions about transparency and accountability.”
DeWitt added that denying teachers this raise damages the trust of voters who approved the mill levy to improve pay for teachers.
“The justification given, that the mill levy doesn’t require a cost-of-living adjustment, may be technically accurate. However, the spirit and public messaging around the mill levy clearly emphasized improving teacher compensation,” DeWitt said.
DeWitt dove deeper into concerns about accountability and transparency, saying that Superintendent Tom Burris misled the DAC by saying that membership on the mill levy oversight committee was “closed” to new members, including the DAC. However, DAC member Kasey Hamerschlag was later admitted to the committee.
“The process of forming the oversight committee lacked transparency, there was no open application process, and it appears members were handpicked, including individuals with close ties to the superintendent and a controversial former board member with a history of offensive public statements,” DeWitt said, referring to former board member Rafe O’Brien.
Former Board of Education member Cody Wells also is on the committee. He represents business owners.
5.
“My concern, as a parent and as a DAC leader, is that community trust is being eroded. If we fail to uphold basic expectations around transparency and fair compensation, it undermines public support for future funding and disrespects both our educators and our voters,” DeWitt said.
At the Board of Education’s meeting April 22, board member Mike Lynch also raised concerns about the proposed 2025-26 salary schedule.
Lynch said he was concerned that the salary schedule included cost of living raises for all staff except for teachers and paraprofessionals. He argued that mill levy raises should not replace or supplant cost of living and other raises.
He said the raises given to staff were meant to approximate a 9.3% cost of living increase.
“The MLO (mill levy override) is meant to supplement, not supplant, the salary program,” Lynch said. “By excluding teachers and paras from a district-wide salary increase, the MLO is supplanting or replacing the salary program, and I don’t think that’s right. Are teachers and paras not worthy of protecting their salary from inflation also? As the rest of the district would be?”
Lynch argued that using the mill levy override to forgo cost of living raises goes against the intent of the mill levy override and voters’ intent.
“That was not to happen. That was not the intention of the MLO, for teachers to be considered differently while district-wide salary raises were made,” Lynch said.
As a matter of fact, the ballot does not require cost-of-living adjustments, though it emphasizes raising and sustaining teacher and paraprofessional compensation as a central goal.
Despite Lynch’s request to delay approval of a 2025-26 salary schedule, it was approved by a 4-2 vote. Leland Collins, Sheri Noyes, Ed Rice and Rhonda Tracy voted to approve the schedule, and Paul Beckler, Mike Lynch votes against it. Jennifer Sanchez was not present.
The Journal reached out to Lynch after the meeting.
“I have to be careful that I do not undermine nor subvert board decisions. I am trying to vocalize my concerns, my pros and cons, my reservations and any undesired consequences during the meetings,” Lynch said. “Once the board has voted, I am bound and expected to support the decision. Anything I say contrary to a board decision would be counterproductive.”
The Journal emailed Burris regarding the raises, asking for details about the exclusion of teachers and paras for the cost of living raise.
“In education, there is typically no cost-of-living raises per se,” Burris said. “The teachers will get a step on the salary schedule in addition to the mill levy funds for next year.”
According to Burris, the step for teachers on the schedule is $600. Typically, raises are between 1% and 3% of the base salary. A 1% raise would be $470. A few years ago, the salary schedule was frozen for three years, and no step raises were given.
“The use of the verbiage cost of living was brought up by Justin (Schmitt) to discuss the cost of living increases that have been seen across the United States based on inflation,” Burris said. “Again, the two pieces of raises are typically what is handed down by the state and the steps. In the ‘23 and ‘24 school years I gave the raises to get us to a $40,000 base. I overspent what the state revenue was. This resulted in a $1.8 million shortfall to the district budget. We are working to address this deficit in a time of falling student enrollment and increased expenses.”
The Journal followed up to ask about the district’s plan for raises, the district’s partnership with the DAC and the mill levy oversight committee.
Burris said the district began working on salary schedules and a plan for raises in January or February to provide contracts to teachers before the last day of school.
Regarding the DAC, Burris said they were “an advisory arm to the school board.”
“The board chooses items for them to research and study during the school year,” Burris said. “Some of their duties are to review applications of charter schools and to review the budget.”
He added that he would like to see them become more involved in student attendance and achievement.
“I would hope that the DAC would become more involved in student attendance, student discipline and student outcomes based on CMAS, PSAT and SAT,” Burris said. “Our PSAT scores only applied to high school, but it’s concerning that those are significantly below the state average.”
According to the Colorado Department of Education, the average scores for the PSAT statewide (2023-24) were 882 for ninth grade and 919 for 10th grade. The district’s averages were 797 for ninth grade and 824 for 10th grade.
Burris also spoke of the role, function and creation of the mill levy override committee, was required by the approval of Ballot Issue 4-B.
“The board established the makeup of the committee and also made recommendations for that committee,” Burris said.
The members of the committee were announced at the board’s April meeting. The committee is made up of business people, parents, community members and teachers.
| Name | Role |
| Ed Merritt | Banker (retired Dolores State Bank president) |
| Cody Wells | Business owner (Xtrov Real Estate owner/agent and former school board member) |
| Roxanne Stevens | Teacher (Mesa Elementary first grade teacher and team lead) |
| Julie Engel | Teacher (Mesa Elementary gifted and talented program) |
| Kasey Hamerschlag | DAC representative |
| Melissa Carver | Charter School representative (Pleasant View Charter School director) |
| Jenny Todacheeny | Parent |
| Rafe O’Brien | Parent (former school board member) |
| Allen Maez | Community member (former Montezuma County Republicans chairman) |
| Kelli Hargraves | Community member (Montezuma County Department of Social Services director) |
There is no Colorado law that mandates cost of living raises for teachers, and these adjustments are usually determined by each school district, according to articles written by Chalkbeat and Colorado Public Radio after a dispute over cost of living wages for teachers in Denver earlier this year.
Colorado’s average teacher salary is $60,466, according to Zip Recruiter, with schools in the Denver area hitting higher figures and rural districts much lower.
The Colorado Association of School Boards outlines policies for Colorado school districts regarding staff salaries and salary schedule, without mention of a cost of living raise in Section 22-63-401.
“The board of a school district shall adopt by resolution a salary schedule that may be by job description and job definition, a teacher salary policy based on the level of performance demonstrated by each teacher, or a combination of the salary schedule and salary policy. … The schedule, policy, or combination schedule and policy shall remain in effect until changed or modified by the board.”
CASB also provides insight into where teachers are placed on a salary schedule.
“If a district chooses to adopt a salary schedule, the board shall place each teacher in the school district on the salary schedule at a level at least commensurate with, but not limited to, each teacher's education, prior experience and experience in the district as provided in the salary schedule.”
The Journal spoke with CASB Communication Specialist Bryce Reedy in December about salary schedules and concerns from community members about staff members potentially being allowed to “skip steps.”
“Based on the language in the law I would guess that every district does their salary schedule differently, but there isn't a restriction (per my reading of the law) on ‘skipping steps,’” Reedy said.
Similarly, Jeremy Meyer, director of communication at the CDE, told The Journal, “Section 22-32-109(1)(f), C.R.S. in state law gives local boards the authority to ‘employ all personnel required to maintain the operations and carry out the educational program of the district and to fix and order paid their compensation.’”
The district’s policies regarding teacher pay echo that of CASB and the CDE.
“The board annually shall adopt a salary schedule for its regular teaching personnel and shall place each teacher in the school district on the salary schedule at least commensurate with, but not limited to, education, prior experience and experience in the district. The schedule adopted by the board shall remain in effect until changed or modified by the board in accordance with law,” the policy reads. “Placement on the salary schedule shall be in accordance with requirements developed by the administration and approved by the board. … The district shall comply with statutory provisions regarding salary schedules.”
District HR Director Justin Schmitt also spoke with The Journal about the raises.
“Only teachers and paraprofessionals receive mill levy raises,” Schmitt said. “The board approved a raise of $7,000 for teachers and $2,100 for paraprofessionals. This went into effect for the second half of their 2024-2025 contracts ($3,500 for teachers and $1,050 for paras) and it will be in place for their full 2025-2026 contract ($7,000 and $2,100).”
Schmitt added that additional raises such as cost of living raises for teaches and paras will be given if the budget allows and they are approved by the school board.
“This is common practice,” Schmitt said. “A COLA is a specific type of salary adjustment that has not been proposed. Teachers salaries at the Montezuma-Cortez school district, like many rural Colorado school districts, have been very low for quite a long time. The raises given to teachers over the past three years were not COLAs.”
From the 2009-10 school year to 2021-22, 12 years, the base salary for teachers only increased by $2,597, according to Schmitt. From 2021-22 to 2025-26, five years, salaries have gone up $15,443.
“This is a testament to the advocacy of Superintendent Burris and the school board and to the support the community showed to the teachers of the district through the passage of the MLO,” Schmitt said.
| Year | Base Salary | Work Days |
| 2009-10 | $28,960 | 178 |
| 2019-20 | $31,557 | 179 |
| 2020-21 | 31,557 | 179 |
| 2021-22 | $31,557 | 179 |
| 2022-23 | $36,000 | 163 |
| 2023-24 | $40,000 | 163 |
| 2024-25 | $43,500 | 163 |
| 2025-26 | $47,000 | 163 |
