MEETING OF THE
MONTPELIER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS December 16, 2015 MINUTES Minutes Approved: January 6, 2016 Present Board: Sue Aldrich, Bridget Asay, Michele Braun, Steve Hingtgen, Ken Jones, Tina Muncy, Lowell VanDerlip Administration: Superintendent Brian Ricca, Principals Pam Arnold, Chris Hennessey and Mike McRaith, Curriculum and Technology Director Michael Martin, Facilities Director Thom Wood, Support Services Director Mary Lundeen, Business Manager Cindy Rossi Students: Brynn Bushey, Theresa Noonan Public: Brian Carlson, Theresa Murray Clasen, Christopher Curtis, Jamie Duggan, Greg Hebert, Lisa Hebert, Deidre Hodgson, Mary Hooper, Keith Jones, Jen Matthews, Samara Mays, Lyn Munno, Brian Murphy, Jean Murray, Leif Richardson, Nathan Suter, Tanya Waters, and others Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Item I – Public Comment Public comments were reserved for during the budget presentation section of the meeting. Item II – Consent Agenda Minutes of December 2, 2015 School Board Meeting Approval of Warrants for Payroll for December 24, 2015 (Limitations Policy 2.4) Mr. VanDerlip moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the consent agenda including minutes of the December 2, 2015 regular meeting and Warrants 30, 31 and 32 dated December 23, 2015 in the amounts of $874,412.24, $17,189.28 and $138,209.78 respectively. Motion carried unanimously. Item III – Budget Development Process (Limitations Policy 2.4) FY17 Budget Presentation Superintendent Ricca and the Leadership Team presented the FY17 draft budget. The budget development process and Board priorities were reviewed. The proposed budget assumes a 7.9% increase for health insurance, equalized pupils of 1027.63, a 56% reimbursement rate for support services, state tax rates of $1.00 and $1.54, a state property yield of $9,955 per pupil, and a 95.26% common level of appraisal. Proposed reductions and additions were reviewed. Reductions included $29,066 for playground aides at UES, $15,209 for a 0.2 FTE CBL teacher at MSMS, $18,464 in moving the SAP position at MSMS to the grant fund, and a $36,250 reduction to the Community Connections program. Additions to the proposed budget at the district level included $11,186 for a 0.2 FTE webmaster, a full-time behavior analyst, $2,916 for a 0.25 FTE EEE teacher, $15,000 for Pre-K room renovations and furniture, $93,181 for Pre-K teachers and +$148,030 for Pre-K payments to other providers. At Montpelier High School, the proposal adds $1,647 for a Solon Strength advisor, $6,117 for girls’ lacrosse, $5,417 for boys’/girls’ track and $1,508 for an orchestra advisor. At Main Street Middle School, a 1.0 FTE sixth grade teacher will add $74,545 and baseball will add $3,647. At Union Elementary School, a 1.0 FTE third grade teacher is being added at $74,545. The FY17 proposed budget also reflects a reduction of $70,914 for the final payment under the capital improvements performance contract. Following the presentation, there was discussion in regard to the Board’s priority around foreign language. Mr. Hingtgen expressed a desire to see incremental progress in this regard and noted the importance of moving forward rather than just playing defense. There was also discussion in regard to the reserve fund. It was suggested that specific discussion in regard to use of the reserve fund be deferred until after the budget process is settled. Public comments were heard. Concerns were expressed about the cut to the Community Connections program, as well as the idea of protecting the face of a budget and maintaining the status quo while sitting on a fairly large reserve fund. There was mention of the need for continuing to support special education funding, as well as the importance of strengthening language programs in the early years. Lyn Munno asked for a discussion about the possibility of using some of the reserve fund for the UES playground. Following the public comment period, there was continued discussion in regard to the proposed cut to the Community Connections program. Mr. Hingtgen recognized after-school care as a community value. With that in mind, and upon completion of the budget process, Mr. Hingtgen requested that the administration provide the Board with a plan for designing a program for the 3-5 p.m. time period. Mr. Jones requested and Superintendent Ricca provided the rationale for the proposed addition of a sixth grade teacher at MSMS. K-4 class size projections were discussed. Superintendent Ricca requested the Board provided the administration with a direction for the next meeting on January 6, 2016 in relation to the draft FY17 budget. He said he believed it would be wise to be very thoughtful and careful about going for additional resources. Mr. Jones suggested providing the administration with a specific number and requesting the rationale for how the additions they suggest affect the ends. By doing it that way, the Board could then assess if the progress towards the ends is worth asking the taxpayer to accept that much more tax responsibility. Mr. Hingtgen expressed disappointment with the Board’s unwillingness to use some of the reserve money to build the District, saying there needed to be a plan built into the budget to make significant drawdowns on the reserve. Following further discussion, Mr. VanDerlip moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, that the Board direct the administration to come back to the January 6, 2016 meeting with a budget that reflects an additional $90,000 in expenditures, which represents half the distance between where it is and the threshold on per-pupil spending, in order to enhance the school program in ways that improve the pursuit of the three areas the Board previously identified as goals, i.e., facilities, the arts, and foreign language. Mr. Hingtgen said he would not support the motion, saying the number was too arbitrary and too low. Mrs. Braun said she did not support the restriction to the Board goals. Mr. Jones offered a friendly amendment to the motion saying should the administration choose to use the additional money to enhance the school program in ways that are different from the three goals previously identified by the Board, then the administration must provide the rationale for rejecting putting the money into those three areas and explain why they chose the path they did. Mr. VanDerlip accepted the friendly amendment and the motion passed 5-2, Mrs. Braun and Mr. Hingtgen voting against. Item IV – Meeting Evaluation Mr. Hingtgen expressed appreciation for the work of Superintendent Ricca and the Administrative Team. He said any conflict or frustration expressed by him was with the process itself and not with the quality of work of the Administrative Team and Superintendent Ricca. Ms. Muncy said she appreciated the explanation on things that were added. Mr. Jones apologized for letting his emotions overwhelm the evidence and information provided in regard to the proposed cut to the Community Connections program. Item V – Motion for Approval for Executive Session for the Purpose of Contract Negotiations Mr. Jones moved that the Board find that discussing contract negotiations in open session would put the Board at a substantial disadvantage. Mr. VanDerlip seconded and the motion carried unanimously at 9:48 p.m. Motion to Move to Executive Session for the Purpose of Contract Negotiations Mr. Jones moved that the Board enter into executive session in accordance with 1 VSA §313 to discuss contract negotiations. Mr. VanDerlip seconded and the motion carried unanimously at 9:48 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to leave Executive Session at 10:40 p.m. Item VI – Adjournment On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. Heather Michaud Recorder MEETING OF THE
MONTPELIER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS December 2, 2015 MINUTES Minutes Approved: December 16, 2015 Present Board: Sue Aldrich, Bridget Asay, Michele Braun, Steve Hingtgen, Ken Jones, Tina Muncy, Lowell VanDerlip Administration: Superintendent Brian Ricca, Business Manager Cindy Rossi Students: Brynn Bushey, Theresa Noonan Public: Mike Donofrio, Lyn Munno, Jim Murphy, Mike Segale, Nathan Suter Call to Order and Motion for Executive Session for the Purpose of Contract Negotiations The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Item I – Move to Executive Session for the Purpose of Contract Negotiations Mr. Jones moved that the Board find that discussing contract negotiations in open session would put the Board at a substantial disadvantage. Mrs. Braun seconded and the motion carried unanimously at 6:31 p.m. Ms. Muncy moved that the Board enter into executive session in accordance with 1 VSA §313 to discuss contract negotiations. Mrs. Braun seconded and the motion carried unanimously at 6:31 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to leave Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. Item II – Return to Open Session 7:06 p.m. Item III – Public Comment Mike Donofrio recognized Commissioner Asay as having argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier in the day and thanked Ms. Asay for her service to the Montpelier community, as well as to the State of Vermont. Item IV - Consent Agenda Minutes of November 18, 2015 School Board Meeting Approval of Warrants for Payroll for December 11, 2015 (Limitations Policy 2.4) Approval of Co-Curricular Contract (Limitations Policy 2.7) Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mrs. Braun, to remove the minutes of the November 18, 2015 regular meeting from the consent agenda and to approve Warrants 28 and 29 dated December 10, 2015 in the amounts of $523,113.43 and $21,739.82 respectively and a co-curricular contract (see listing). Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jones requested a revision to the November 18, 2015 minutes. The revision involved a change in wording in Item IV from "per pupil increase" to "per pupil cost." Mr. VanDerlip moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2015 regular meeting as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Item V – Budget Development Process (Limitations Policy 2.4) Audit Presentation – Mike Segale Mr. Segale provided a summary of the FY15 audit report. There were no significant findings, financial statement disclosures were neutral, consistent and clear, and there were no proposed adjustments due to audit procedures. Mr. Hingtgen requested and Mr. Segale provided a brief sketch of how an audit works. There was discussion about the timing of the audit report. Mrs. Braun pointed out the fact that the school district actually spent a little bit less in FY15 than it did in FY14. Thanks and appreciation were expressed to Business Manager Rossi and her staff for their work. Item VI – Superintendent Evaluation Update from Superintendent Evaluation Committee (Commissioners Muncy and Hingtgen) Mr. Hingtgen explained his understanding of the committee's charge as being: (1) to complete a pressing or immediate evaluation process for this year based on last year's; (2) to design a process to bring back to the Board for a more exhaustive process the next time; and (3) to push the execution, not just the design, of the plan. Proposed questions for this year's survey were provided and discussed, as well as a method of delivery, targeted respondents, and next steps. Item VII – Superintendent MHS Staffing Analysis Per Commissioner Hingtgen’s motion, discussion of class size report A written report was provided. Superintendent Ricca provided a general overview of the report which included the rationale for offering small classes at the high school, an analysis of why enrollments are low in these classes and to what extent enrollments in these classes are expected to change over the next three years, a fiscal analysis of the cost of these small classes relative to the cost of other classes and resultant budget implications, and innovations for providing equal or better educational outcomes at a lower cost. Online learning opportunities were discussed. A request was made for the class size report to be made available online. Item VIII – Board Governance (4.2.4) Update, if any, on responses to letter from Chairwoman Aldrich to ONSU, WCSU and WSSU Superintendent Ricca and Mrs. Aldrich reported on their recent meeting with WCSU Superintendent Bill Kimball and Stephen Looke, Chair of the WCSU Executive Board. WCSU is in the early stages of a 706 study for their own unification. At this point they are interested in following up with Montpelier, but have not even established a timetable for their own work. Mr. Hingtgen extended a request for an explanation of the VSBA's forecast of education tax rates at the next meeting. Item IX – Meeting Evaluation Board self-evaluation (Limitations 4.0) Mr. VanDerlip announced his decision to not seek re-election in March. Mr. Hingtgen said he thought board members were interrupting each other a lot but somehow it's working and he's willing to be told he's interrupting. Mr. VanDerlip believes the questions raised by Mr. Hingtgen at the last meeting in regard to class size and the work done by Superintendent Ricca answering those questions resulted in good conversation and a greater understanding of what things look like. Ms. Muncy appreciated Superintendent Ricca's quick overview of the class size report. Item X – Adjournment On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:11 p.m. Heather Michaud Recorder Co-Curricular Appointment MEETING OF THE
MONTPELIER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS November 18, 2015 MINUTES Minutes Approved: December 2, 2015 Present Board: Bridget Asay, Michele Braun, Steve Hingtgen, Ken Jones, Tina Muncy, Lowell VanDerlip Administration: Superintendent Brian Ricca Students: Brynn Bushey, Theresa Noonan Public: Elmira Behzadikia, Mike Donofrio, Val Gardner, Alissa Matthews, Jen Matthews, Jim Murphy, Nathan Suter, Tanya Waters, and others Absent: Sue Aldrich Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Vice Chairwoman Michele Braun. Item I – Public Comment Montpelier residents Mike Donofrio and Nathan Suter expressed support for the idea of the Board creating an appropriate budget to serve the needs of the community even if it means enduring some pain by way of increased taxes. Item II - Consent Agenda Minutes of November 4, 2015 School Board Meeting Approval of Warrants for Payroll for November 27, 2015 (Limitations Policy 2.4) Approval of Co-Curricular Contract (Limitations Policy 2.7) Mr. VanDerlip moved, seconded by Ms. Asay, to approve the consent agenda including minutes of the November 4, 2015 regular meeting, Warrants 25, 26 and 27 dated November 25, 2015 in the amounts of $785,875.59, $24,434.74 and $2,075.72 respectively, and a co-curricular contract (see listing). Motion carried unanimously. Item III – Budget Development Process (Limitations Policy 2.4) Review scenarios of 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5% increases in salaries, with no other programmatic changes Review budget priorities within light of this discussion Updates from any Board members who had public meetings or contact regarding FY17 budget The requested budget scenarios were provided and reviewed. There was discussion in regard to per pupil calculations and the possibility of using some money from the fund balance for the FY17 budget. In terms of direction for the superintendent in preparing a budget, Mr. Hingtgen said he believed the Board at a minimum had an obligation to provide the funding necessary to maintain current programming and should start at that number and test it to see if it allows for accomplishing some of the long range improvement goals. Mr. VanDerlip suggested looking at programs that may no longer be viable or perhaps looking at other ways to deliver those programs. In light of the Board's current efforts to build a budget that is cost effective and achieves its mission, values and ends; and, as a follow-up to the report on individual class sizes the Board received from the superintendent at its last meeting, Mr. Hingtgen moved, seconded by Mr. VanDerlip, that the Board direct the superintendent to provide, at its next meeting, a reporting providing further analysis of small class sizes in the high school. For the purposes of this report, "small class sizes" shall be those that fall significantly below the minimum class size parameters established by the District's Class Size Policy. Mr. Hingtgen further moved that, at a minimum, the report include the following elements: A rationale for offering these small classes based on educational outcomes and the District Ends Policies. An analysis of why enrollments are low in the classes and to what extent enrollment in the classes are expected to change over the next three years. A fiscal analysis of the cost of these small classes relative to the cost of other classes and the resulting budget implications. A discussion of innovations that may provide equal or better educational outcomes at a lower cost. Mr. Hingtgen further moved that time be designated on the next Board agenda so that the superintendent may present his findings fully. Mr. Jones moved to amend the motion to define "small class sizes" as those with ten or fewer students. The motion to amend carried unanimously. The motion as amended carried unanimously. Mr. Jones suggested that the Board direct the superintendent to present a budget that provides the same services, same programs, etc. and that any additional programs the administration would like to present be balanced by reductions through innovation or through choices the administration makes to allow for the resources to fund those additional programs. Mr. VanDerlip believes a decision on the use of fund balance money would be required before any decision on a per pupil number could be made. There was discussion in regard to funding for capital improvements. In terms of creating a budget, Mr. Hingtgen suggested the approach of spending the minimum required to keep the District running correctly and to execute the long term plan and figuring out how to pay for it subsequently. Mrs. Braun said she was uncomfortable working with the per pupil cost at all because of the missing pieces that go into figuring that number, saying it was like trying to stand on shifting sand. Mr. VanDerlip suggested gauging the interest of the Board on the possibility of starting programmatically and seeing where the numbers come in. Superintendent Ricca acknowledged the difficulty of building a budget on just the programmatic approach and, absent a per pupil cost as required by policy, urged board members to provide some parameters within which to fall. He confirmed that program consistency would require additional staffing. The Board heard input from the community in regard to the FY17 budget. Both Nathan Suter and Tanya Waters asked the Board to maintain the "do no harm" value and to spend what is necessary to meet the needs of the students. Ms. Asay, Ms. Muncy and Mr. VanDerlip shared feedback from their budget discussion meetings with community members and groups. Item IV – Budget Development Process (Limitations Policy 2.4.1) Discuss possible per pupil cost increases for FY17 budget Set per pupil cost increase for FY17 budget Superintendent Ricca reminded board members that by policy they are set to set a per pupil cost which he shall not exceed in developing a budget. Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Ms. Muncy, that the Board direct Superintendent Ricca to return with a per pupil cost of $15,131 which is the maximum education spending per equalized pupil for Montpelier as established by Act 46. Mr. Jones acknowledged that this would require cuts, but at the same time would help the public understand what it meant to get to that number. Mr. Hingtgen said that would be an austerity budget and one he could never support. Following discussion, the motion was defeated 2-4, Ms. Muncy and Mr. Jones voting in favor, Mrs. Braun, Ms. Asay and Messrs. VanDerlip and Hingtgen voting against. Mr. VanDerlip again suggested use of some money from the fund balance for the FY17 budget. Mr. VanDerlip moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, that the Board direct the administration to come back with a budget at the next meeting for FY17 with a per pupil expenditure of $15,631 representing use of $500,000 from the anticipated fund balance. Following discussion, the motion failed 3-3, Ms. Muncy and Messrs. Jones and VanDerlip voting in favor, Mrs. Braun, Ms. Asay and Mr. Hingtgen voting against. In the interest of producing a budget that supports current programming but does not exceed a bearable amount, Mrs. Braun moved, seconded by Mr. VanDerlip, to charge the administration with preparing a budget based on a per pupil expenditure of $15,850. Following discussion, the motion passed 4-2, Mrs. Braun, Ms. Asay and Messrs. VanDerlip and Hingtgen voting in favor, Ms. Muncy and Mr. Jones voting against. Superintendent Ricca confirmed that the budget presentation on December 16th will include the criteria contained in limitations policy 2.4. Item V – Approve Special Education Line Item Transfer A written memo was provided. Mr. VanDerlip moved, seconded by Ms. Asay, to approve a line item transfer in the amount of $20,067.00 from tuition to supplies in the special education budget for the purchase of an additional reading intervention for Union Elementary School. Motion carried unanimously. Item VI – Board Governance (4.2.4) Update, if any, on responses to letter from Chairwoman Aldrich to ONSU, WCSU and WSSU The Board has received a letter back from Northfield expressing interest in engaging in a $5,000 study committee with Montpelier. We have been notified that there is a letter en route from Roxbury. Superintendent Ricca is in the process of scheduling a date for Mrs. Aldrich to meet with Stephen Looke, Chair of the Washington Central Supervisory Union Executive Board. To date there has been no formal response from Orange North Supervisory Union. Once the Board has the letter from Roxbury, they can retain a consultant to assist in applying for a $5,000 grant from the Agency of Education. Item VII – Meeting Evaluation Board self-evaluation (Limitations 4.0) Mr. Jones – The Board did what they were supposed to do in regard to a very difficult and painful topic, i.e., the budget. Mr. Hingtgen – Mrs. Braun did a great job facilitating. Mr. Hingtgen – The Board is doing a better job following policy and trying to hold themselves to it. Item VIII – Executive Session Motion for Approval for Executive Session for the purpose of Contract Negotiations Mr. Jones moved that the Board find that discussing contract negotiations in open session would put the Board at a substantial disadvantage. Ms. Asay seconded and the motion carried unanimously at 9:12 p.m. Motion to Move to Executive Session for the purpose of Contract Negotiations Mr. VanDerlip moved that the Board enter into Executive Session in accordance with 1 VSA §313 to discuss contract negotiations. Mr. Hingtgen seconded and the motion carried unanimously at 9:12 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to leave Executive Session at 9:45 p.m. Item IX - Adjourn On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Heather Michaud Recorder Co-Curricular Appointment MEETING OF THE
MONTPELIER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS November 4, 2015 MINUTES Minutes Approved: November 18, 2015 Present Board: Sue Aldrich, Bridget Asay, Michele Braun, Steve Hingtgen, Ken Jones, Tina Muncy, Lowell VanDerlip Administration: Superintendent Brian Ricca Students: Brynn Bushey, Theresa Noonan Public: Greg Abare, John Bloch, Chris Curtis, Carolyn Desch, Sue Gilmore, Toni Hartrich, Greg Hebert, Barbarina Heyerdahl, Mary Hooper, Leah Jones, Jane Kast, Kelly McCracken, Lyn Munno, Carol Paquette, Jill Remick, Richard Sheir, Nathan Suter, Roberta Tracy, John Van Deren, and others Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. Item I – Public Comment Montpelier resident Nathan Suter urged the Board to move forward in good faith and quickly in regard to ongoing teacher contract negotiations. Item II - Consent Agenda Minutes of October 21, 2015 School Board Meeting Approval of Warrants for Payroll for November 13, 2015 (Limitations Policy 2.4) Approval of Co-Curricular Contract (Limitations Policy 2.7) Ms. Muncy requested to remove the Minutes of the October 21, 2015 meeting from the consent agenda. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to approve Warrants 23 and 24 dated November 12, 2015 in the amounts of $535,960.37 and $21,499.98 respectively and a co-curricular contract (see listing). Item III – Budget Development Process (Limitations Policy 2.4) Review implications of staying within and going above the variable rate threshold of 1.87% Review budget priorities within light of this discussion Review of various percentage scenarios Superintendent Ricca presented the following budget scenarios using the 1.87% variable growth threshold allotted under Act 46 and with health care costs built in at 7.9%. He explained that amounts above the threshold would be subject to double tax. *At this point, health care alone consume more than 70% of the allowable growth threshold. Mr. Hingtgen noted the importance of determining the cost of a "no cut" budget as a baseline, i.e, a budget with no programmatic changes and the 7.9% health care increase reality. There was discussion about the difficulty doing this in light of pending contract negotiations. It was suggested that scenarios be created using a range of numbers for labor costs so as to not prejudice negotiations. Mr. Hingtgen moved, seconded by Ms. Asay, that the Board direct the superintendent to provide a variety of budget scenarios which include no cuts to current academic programming, a 7.9% increase in health care costs, and a range of compensation increases from 0-5% so that it can determine the actual cost of a 0% budget. Motion carried unanimously. The requested budget scenarios will be provided at the next scheduled meeting on November 18th. The Board will provide Superintendent Ricca with further directives in regard to FY17 budget target numbers and priorities following receipt of this information. The first presentation of the FY17 budget is scheduled for December 16th. Item IV – Variable Growth Threshold Provision of Act 46 (Limitations Policy 2.8) Review VPR article on Act 46 Decide next steps, if any There was discussion about the intent and consequences of Act 46. Following discussion, Mrs. Braun moved, seconded by Mr. Hingtgen, that the Board charge Mrs. Aldrich with drafting a letter to the Speaker of the House and to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate requesting that they delay implementation of Act 46 based on the statewide conversation and referencing the negative impacts it is having in the Montpelier community. There was discussion about the excess spending provision of Act 46, as well as the request to delay versus rescind. Following discussion, Mrs. Braun moved, seconded by Mr. VanDerlip, to amend her motion to move that the Board charge Mrs. Aldrich with drafting a letter to the Speaker of the House and to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate notifying them that the Montpelier School Board would like them rescind the allowable growth percentage, section 37, of Act 46. Motion carried unanimously. The Board heard public input in regard to the FY17 budget. Item V – Review Draft Work Plan Draft work plan from Vice Chair Braun (Limitations Policy 4.3) A draft work plan was provided for review and discussion. Mrs. Braun explained the process for generating the document. There was discussion about reports on monitoring of the governance process policies. Mr. VanDerlip suggested principal visits and evaluation items as possible additions to the work plan. Mr. Hingtgen reminded other board members that the Board supervises only one person and the need to be clear about that. Ms. Muncy suggested voting on accepting the calendar as a work in progress. Mr. Jones suggested February as the time to formally review policies, citing their relationship to the budget. Mrs. Braun disagreed, saying she was more inclined to take them as they come. Mr. Hingtgen questioned the reason for spreading out reporting on the ends policies. Ms. Muncy moved, seconded by Mr. Hingtgen, to adopt the calendar as written as a starting point with the ability of the Board to add to the calendar as it goes along. Mrs. Braun explained that her reluctance to approve the work plan as written was because she did not think the Board would have time to deal with the items on the schedule for November. Ms. Muncy said she did not want to wait until next November to evaluate the superintendent. Mr. Jones moved to amend the motion to adopt the calendar and consider where in this school year to include 3.4, recognizing that it probably will not take place in November. There was discussion about the process for evaluating the superintendent. Mr. Hingtgen suggested a process of putting this on the calendar for December, establishing a committee of 2-3 board members and having the committee both lead the evaluation this time and also develop the process for the coming year so that the Board begins a full year process with a beginning, a middle, and an end. He said the Board needs to get through a quick evaluation now, while at the same time develop a process for the coming year. Ms. Muncy restated her motion, seconded by Mr. Jones, to adopt the calendar as written with moving 3.4 from November to December. The motion passed 6-1, Mrs. Aldrich opposed. Mr. Hingtgen moved, seconded by Mrs. Braun, that the Board appoint a committee of two people to build a plan and bring back to the Board in December as to how to do an evaluation of the superintendent for the current year in a somewhat streamlined process and to also create a plan with some help from the VSBA as to how to do an evaluation of the superintendent for the next year in a more ideal way. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Muncy and Mr. Hingtgen agreed to serve on the committee. Ms. Muncy requested information from the prior evaluation of the superintendent. Item VI – Approve Minutes of October 21, 2015 School Board Meeting Ms. Muncy requested to correct the information contained in the Minutes in regard to her availability for meeting with people to discuss the budget. She said it is her plan to be at the designated locations every other Thursday and Friday in November and December rather than every Thursday and Friday in November and December. Ms. Asay moved, seconded by Mr. VanDerlip, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Item VII – Meeting Evaluation Board self-evaluation (Limitations 4.0) Ms. Muncy expressed appreciation for tonight's public input on the budget, including the fact that everyone who wanted to speak had an opportunity to do so. Mr. Hingtgen complimented Superintendent Ricca on jumping in and answering the administrative question posed during tonight's meeting. There was discussion about questions directed toward individual board members during public comment. There was consensus that the Board Chair should be the responder during public comment. Ms. Muncy requested a place for agenda review and amendment on the agenda itself. The Board thanked Mrs. Braun for her work on the calendar. Item VIII - Adjourn On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:11 p.m. Heather Michaud Recorder Co-Curricular Appointment MEETING OF THE
MONTPELIER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS October 21, 2015 MINUTES Minutes Approved: November 4, 2015 Present Board: Sue Aldrich, Bridget Asay, Michele Braun, Steve Hingtgen, Ken Jones, Tina Muncy, Lowell VanDerlip Administration: Superintendent Brian Ricca Students: Brynn Bushey, Theresa Noonan Public: Kiki Adams, Michael Donofrio, Kristina Kane, Sarah Mele, Lyn Munno, Nathan Suter, and others Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. Item I – Public Comment Union Elementary School teacher Kiki Adams urged the Board for a fair contract and a quick, reasonable settlement. Regarding the FY17 budget, Montpelier resident Nathan Suter expressed concern about unmet needs in the District and encouraged the Board to have the courage to spend what is necessary to achieve excellence, not adequacy, rather than worry about the state-imposed 1.87% artificial threshold. He promised that the Board could count on him and others to be advocates for spending what is necessary to achieve excellence in the District. Item II - Consent Agenda Minutes of October 7, 2015 School Board Meeting Approval of Warrants for Payroll for October 30, 2015 (Limitations Policy 2.4) Approval of Co-Curricular Contracts (Limitations Policy 2.7) Approval of Quarter 1 Financial Report (Limitations Policies 2.3, 2.4) Mr. VanDerlip moved to approve the consent agenda including minutes of the October 7, 2015 regular meeting, Warrants 20, 21 and 22 dated October 29, 2015 in the amounts of $867,720.71, $29,125.37 and $16,361.05 respectively, co-curricular contracts (see listing), and the FY16 first quarter financial report. Mr. Hingtgen questioned the appropriate time to request to add something to the agenda outside of the consent agenda and quickly concluded that the appropriate time might be following approval of the consent agenda. Ms. Muncy seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hingtgen moved to add meeting evaluation of the prior meeting to the agenda since the Board committed to doing that. Mrs. Braun pointed out that this would be covered under the next agenda item. Mr. Jones suggested that perhaps the heading for that agenda item should be different. Ms. Muncy suggested that another bullet item of "evaluate prior meeting" should be added to the next agenda item. Having received clarity in regard to the intent of the next agenda item, Mr. Hingtgen withdrew his motion for an addition to the agenda. Item III – Meeting Evaluation In regard to the prior meeting, Mr. Hingtgen said he believed the public felt discombobulated by the Board's explanation about the public comment period and also by its response to public comment. He said he believes the Board needs to be clear in terms of how it responds to public comment generally, including what is and is not appropriate. Ms. Muncy presented the following proposal for consideration. She asked that when someone comes to a board meeting and asks for clarification about a procedure that is not purview of the Board, the superintendent answer the question publicly because it's been asked publicly. Mr. Hingtgen expressed support for the proposal provided board members were clear and in agreement about their inability to weigh in on procedural issues at that point. He cautioned against putting the superintendent on the spot and the need to be careful not to undercut the authority just given to the superintendent. Ms. Muncy agreed, saying if it's a procedural issue it should be the administration that responds. Following further discussion there was consensus that if a question is asked during the public comment portion of the meeting, the Board Chair will first establish whether or not it is a procedural question and if it is, the superintendent will be directed to answer. Ms. Muncy welcomed Bridget Asay to the Board. Present survey results Survey results were provided and open for discussion according to Mrs. Braun. Mr. VanDerlip questioned and Mr. Jones explained the math behind the averages. Mrs. Aldrich commented that the results did not really scream anything out loud. Mr. Jones noted the amount of range on some of the answers related to procedural issues and the need to work on a few things. Mr. VanDerlip believes the survey represents a good listing of things board members need to remind themselves of from time to time in regard to expectations for board behavior. Superintendent Ricca confirmed the recommendation for this type of self-evaluation more than once a year and said he believed it would be wise for the Board to do so, especially since they now had baseline data to refer to. Mr. VanDerlip suggested putting this on the Board work calendar. Assign two Board Members to do Monitoring of Limitations Policies 4.1-4.3 Ms. Muncy asked and received confirmation that this is actually monitoring of the governance process policies. Ms. Muncy and Ms. Asay volunteered to do monitoring of policies 4.1-4.3. Mr. Hingtgen inquired as to the responsibility for monitoring these policies, asking if the idea was to go through all of the governance process policies and assign monitoring for each. Superintendent Ricca confirmed that it was, and that a good starting point might be a recommendation as to how often the Board self-evaluation survey is administered, to what end, and how it could be used to further inform the Board's work. Mrs. Braun explained that a report on compliance with these policies will be scheduled into the Board's work plan which is currently being worked on. The reporting calendar contained in current policies does not really work and the intent is to better align things. Mr. Jones recognized the need to add reporting on the ends policies to the schedule. He said he needs a report on the ends policies before considering the next budget. Mr. Hingtgen agreed, asking how you build the next budget without having a summary of how you did the year before. Discussion regarding a reporting schedule and indicators for the ends policies ensued. Item IV – Budget Development Process Commissioner reports on community outreach results: three minutes per person to summarize themes they heard from community Mr. VanDerlip is signed up for two meetings yet to happen. He and Ms. Muncy will be meeting with people at the Senior Center on November 3rd from 3:00-4:30 p.m. and 6:00-7:00 p.m. On November 4th, he, Mrs. Aldrich and Mr. Jones will be meeting with the Montpelier Business Association at approximately 8:30 a.m. Superintendent Ricca noted the need to warn this meeting since there will be three board members attending. Ms. Asay questioned the need for warning a gathering of board members absent a quorum. Superintendent Ricca said it was his understanding that this is required under Vermont's new Open Meeting Law. Following discussion, it was decided that Superintendent Ricca will follow up on this and reconfirm. Mr. Jones convened two meetings – one where only verbal responses were received and no one actually attended, and another at a local establishment that two people attended. He said the values question is challenging. Mr. Jones reported that the response was uniform with one variation. Everyone wants excellence but some people think it can be done at a lower cost and are very concerned about their property taxes, while others feel any cuts will harm excellence. Mr. Jones heard from seven people total. Of the seven, five were state employees. Mrs. Braun collected responses to the Front Porch Forum questions. There was a compilation of eight messages. Of those eight, one said absolutely no going over the 1.87%, a few said they did not love the idea but they did not want to make cuts that might harm the schools, and five said maintaining excellence is top priority and they do not care about the threshold. Mrs. Braun said she received seven additional responses after the initial eight, all of whom said the Board needs to maintain excellence regardless of the threshold. Mr. Hingtgen reported that he had spoken with approximately 10-12 different people, including a group of 5-6 at a restaurant. He said rather than talking about the results which were very similar to what Mrs. Braun experienced, almost all of every conversation was spent talking about the 1.87% threshold and trying to understand what it meant. Mrs. Braun said one interesting trend in the email responses she received was that people who identified themselves as having kids who had already graduated from high school tended to have a perception that the District has declining enrollment, bloated staff, a staff-to-student ratio that is out of kilter, and that there is ample cutting to be done, while people who have kids in the schools tended to express that they felt programs have already been cut and cut and they are seeing a decrease in the quality of services provided. Ms. Muncy spoke with twelve people in two different groups. She reported that she had a very similar experience to Mr. Hingtgen in that she spent a lot of time trying to explain what the 1.87% meant. Many people said the issue of values was hard because they did not know enough to say what should or should not be affected. A majority of the people said they would like to stick with the 1.87%. One person said to not even consider the 1.87% and to level fund. Everybody said they wanted to keep the quality of education in Montpelier as high as it is but they simply cannot afford more taxes. Mrs. Aldrich reported on her meetings with Phil Dodd, Jean Olson and a guidance person at the high school regarding class size. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Olson recognized the need to know more but do not suspect there are areas where huge cuts can be made. They do not believe anybody wants to do anything to harm the schools, but said the residents of Montpelier are in a really bad place to be double taxed. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Olsen urged the school board to be really clear about what they are spending or cutting and to continue to look for creative ways to fund things including the importance of keeping conversations with other school districts open. Scheduling and a desire to meet diverse needs often result in small class sizes at the high school. There was discussion in regard to the importance of getting a representative sample of people for input on the budget. In that regard, Ms. Muncy announced that beginning Friday, October 30, and every other Friday in November and December, she will be at LaBrioche from 8:00-9:00 a.m. to talk with anybody who would like to talk about the budget. In addition, beginning Thursday, November 5, and every other Thursday in November and December, she will be at North Branch Cafe from 5:00-6:00 p.m. for the same purpose. Mr. Jones said people will be much more interested in talking once there is a draft budget. Mrs. Aldrich encouraged board members to reach outside of their friend/comfort zone to gather input on the budget. Priority-setting exercise facilitated by Vice Chair Braun Mrs. Braun facilitated an exercise to assist the Board in identifying priorities for the FY17 budget. Thirty items were identified. Items rising to the top of the list through a voting process included facilities, expanding foreign language back to kindergarten, and the arts. Other items receiving high votes included students already identified as not achieving academically grades 5-12, maintaining or achieving low teacher/student ratios, and a variety of offerings. Board members shared their thoughts and concerns on the exercise and intent of the information generated and thanked Mrs. Braun for facilitating the process. Item V – Meeting Evaluation Board self-evaluation There was discussion about the process for removing an item from the consent agenda. Mrs. Aldrich told Mr. Jones she did not feel it was productive to criticize the Board's work. She said his earlier comment about the Board's budget work not being representative of the whole community made her feel bad as a board member and they work they are doing and was not helpful. Mr. Jones said his comment was not intended to insult anyone as a board member but was rather just an observation. Ms. Muncy said she agreed with Mr. Jones in regard to his comment about lack of whole community representation. However, she went on to say that she saw this as no fault of board members but rather because there is no better system in place right now that allows for better representation. There was discussion about the process for adding an item to the agenda and parking lot items. Mr. Hingtgen requested the draft budget calendar be updated with the changes approved at the October 7th meeting and distributed with the next board packet. Ms. Muncy reiterated her request for class size information. There was discussion about requests for information being made through a motion in order to ensure the information is a board versus individual request. Ms. Muncy moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, that Brian provide at the next meeting the class sizes for each individual class in all of the classes in the Montpelier school system to the Board. Following discussion, the motion passed 5-1, Mrs. Aldrich opposed, Mrs. Braun abstaining. Mrs. Braun moved, seconded by Mr. Hingtgen, to open and change the Minutes from the last meeting. Following discussion, the motion passed 6-0, Ms. Asay abstaining. Mrs. Braun moved, seconded by Mr. Hingtgen, to amend the Minutes of the last meeting to clearly state that Ms. Asay was appointed based on her number of votes received in the Town Meeting election, as well as her answers provided in the interview process. The motion passed 6-0, Ms. Asay abstaining. Mr. Suter extended a community member request that Superintendent Ricca provide him with information as to the number of students each teacher teaches, including a few representative examples. Mr. Jones emphasized the importance of last week's community forum regarding the future of education. He noted that critical changes are coming and the District needs to improve communication about this in order to ensure better attendance at the next two sessions scheduled for January 27, 2016 and March 23, 2016. Superintendent Ricca suggested that it be made an agenda item for an upcoming meeting if the Board is interested in having this conversation. Superintendent Ricca recognized and congratulated Susan Koch on her Vermont Teacher of the Year award. Item VI – Adjourn On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:01 p.m. Heather Michaud Recorder Co-Curricular Appointments |