Tonight we had our board reorganization meeting, closed session and our regular meeting. We were still done by 8:30 due to the light agenda of our regular meeting.
The board reorganization meeting went as I expected with only one change.
President - Susan Fox received 4 votes and Peter Sobol received 3 votes.
Vice-President - Jessica Ace received 6 votes (not sure why not seven as she was the only nominee after Susan Manning declined the nomination).
Treasurer - Susan Manning received 4 votes and I received 3 votes. (Peter declined nomination)
Clerk - Lionel Norton received 4 votes and Peter received 3 votes (Jill List declined nomintation)
Fox, Manning and Norton remain in their current position, while Ace replaces Sobol.
The board then voted to reinstate the standing committees. Those committees will be the Business Service, Policy and Curriculum committees. There was some discussion on possibly adding some additional ad-hoc type committees, but that will be discussed at a future board meeting to get into specifics. With the committees returning it was decided that the board would return to one meeting a month on the 2nd Wed of the month. Those dates will be subject to holiday and school schedules. The meeting will also continue to alternate between Glacial Drumlin and the District Office.
In the abreviated regular meeting the 2 topices for discussion and approval were the walk zone as it related to the budget and board policy 185. The walk zone was removed as a potential budget cut on a 7-0 vote. The board policy was revised on a 6-1 vote.
I was the lone dissenting vote because I believe the policy puts too much control of the committee appointments in the hands of the board president. Neither the former version nor the new version require board approval of the appointments. I think that should be a requirement. While I think it would be a formality I still think it should be part of the policy. Otherwise I think it is a sound policy.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Potential Staff Reductions
Jeremy Duss, Jonathon Farris, Carol Graves, Jeanette Heitman, Garret Jones, Jeff Kasparek, Cindy Rudie, Ryan Thompson, Hong Tran, Ginger Veith, Deidre Bradford, Jill Jensen, Kate Mennenga, Steve Rhoads, Lea Spaay-Kessich, Kris Tudor
Above are the names of staff that were give PRELIMINARY layoff notices. Again, these are PRELIMINARY! Some of these notices were reductions in hours and some are full layoff notices. These notices were approved to be given as part of our last meeting.
Many have asked me if these individuals would have received their notices if we had consolidated Maywood and Winnequah. The answer is maybe. Some of these individuals probably would have been giving notices based on our budget situation and the limited cuts the board did make. The increased time teaching time and reductions in OT/PT contributed to this list. Would these have been saved by consolidation? I will not venture to guess since I cannot predict how the board would vote on an issue.
Additionally, the board has received many concerns over the staffing of strings next year. While it is true our 2 most experienced strings teachers are on this list, that does not necessarily mean we won't have a good program in the future. When administration determines final staffing needs they take into account, among other things, the educational requirements the staff must have and staff seniority. Those two issues single-handedly drive many, if not most, staffing decisions. Therefore, one or both of them may be retained after administration determines final staffing needs.
It is my belief that each year the district should issue some layoff notices, so that it has some flexibility in staffing for the upcoming year. Because the notices have to be given by mid-April and not all staffing levels are firm this is a necessary evil. My concern for flexibility comes out of concern over giving our Administration the ability to maneuver staff as it sees fit. While they have a very good idea of where/how the staff will be made up giving them this flexibility allows them more time to finalize their plans. We have a great set of teachers and we need to keep them to the best of our ability. However, we operate under a pre-determined set of rules and we need to follow those rules. Unfortunately the preliminary layoff notices are one of the unpleasant aspects of those rules.
I know how this negatively impacts our teachers and do not take this emotional toll on them and their family lightly. I had a teacher ask me the other day if the cuts not made this year would be made next year? His concern was that if they are he would be out of a job and wanted to know if he should start looking for a new job this year. I told him that it was too early to tell exactly what cuts would be needed, but potentially yes they would be made. This fear of will I be cut or won't I has a real impact on these individuals lives and I hope as a board that we consider this when we begin looking at cuts next year.
Above are the names of staff that were give PRELIMINARY layoff notices. Again, these are PRELIMINARY! Some of these notices were reductions in hours and some are full layoff notices. These notices were approved to be given as part of our last meeting.
Many have asked me if these individuals would have received their notices if we had consolidated Maywood and Winnequah. The answer is maybe. Some of these individuals probably would have been giving notices based on our budget situation and the limited cuts the board did make. The increased time teaching time and reductions in OT/PT contributed to this list. Would these have been saved by consolidation? I will not venture to guess since I cannot predict how the board would vote on an issue.
Additionally, the board has received many concerns over the staffing of strings next year. While it is true our 2 most experienced strings teachers are on this list, that does not necessarily mean we won't have a good program in the future. When administration determines final staffing needs they take into account, among other things, the educational requirements the staff must have and staff seniority. Those two issues single-handedly drive many, if not most, staffing decisions. Therefore, one or both of them may be retained after administration determines final staffing needs.
It is my belief that each year the district should issue some layoff notices, so that it has some flexibility in staffing for the upcoming year. Because the notices have to be given by mid-April and not all staffing levels are firm this is a necessary evil. My concern for flexibility comes out of concern over giving our Administration the ability to maneuver staff as it sees fit. While they have a very good idea of where/how the staff will be made up giving them this flexibility allows them more time to finalize their plans. We have a great set of teachers and we need to keep them to the best of our ability. However, we operate under a pre-determined set of rules and we need to follow those rules. Unfortunately the preliminary layoff notices are one of the unpleasant aspects of those rules.
I know how this negatively impacts our teachers and do not take this emotional toll on them and their family lightly. I had a teacher ask me the other day if the cuts not made this year would be made next year? His concern was that if they are he would be out of a job and wanted to know if he should start looking for a new job this year. I told him that it was too early to tell exactly what cuts would be needed, but potentially yes they would be made. This fear of will I be cut or won't I has a real impact on these individuals lives and I hope as a board that we consider this when we begin looking at cuts next year.
Paralysis by Analysis
Someone asked me to post this a talking point so here is my response to a comment left in another thread.
"so gathering information is a bad thing??? Shouldn’t tough decisions be made with the most information and research possible?"
Having information and being able to make a decision with that information are 2 completely different topics. The administration has done yeoman’s work on research and information gathering, specifically around the budget and the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation. In my opinion stating that you need more information is a cope out for not wanting to make the tough decisions. It is very easy to say I need more information and without it I feel I cannot vote on a specific measure.
Did the administration provide us with all of the information they had? I would venture to say no, but only because we did not hear the conversations that they had as they compiled the information into the packets that we received. I am sure that some pieces of information or rationale where stated verbally and so we missed out on those. Instead we got the most relevant and important pieces of information that the administration discussed. The opportunity for us as a board to gather any pieces we felt was missing was thru the question and answer sessions that we had with the administrators. They too attended all of the budget meetings and stood up and answered our questions.
If after all of that anyone felt they still did not have enough information then they were looking for a reason not to have to vote in my opinion. Does any board member like that we have to vote on these tough issues? NO! However, this is what we are elected to do. The biggest single source of frustration for me with this board is the inability or unwillingness to act on the hard decisions. Two particular items that emphasize this point are the lack of budget cuts since we are about $190k short of our stated deficit of $1M and the fact that we voted not to keep Maywood open or closed, but that we delayed having to make the decision.
Sometimes too much information gives you paralysis by analysis.
"so gathering information is a bad thing??? Shouldn’t tough decisions be made with the most information and research possible?"
Having information and being able to make a decision with that information are 2 completely different topics. The administration has done yeoman’s work on research and information gathering, specifically around the budget and the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation. In my opinion stating that you need more information is a cope out for not wanting to make the tough decisions. It is very easy to say I need more information and without it I feel I cannot vote on a specific measure.
Did the administration provide us with all of the information they had? I would venture to say no, but only because we did not hear the conversations that they had as they compiled the information into the packets that we received. I am sure that some pieces of information or rationale where stated verbally and so we missed out on those. Instead we got the most relevant and important pieces of information that the administration discussed. The opportunity for us as a board to gather any pieces we felt was missing was thru the question and answer sessions that we had with the administrators. They too attended all of the budget meetings and stood up and answered our questions.
If after all of that anyone felt they still did not have enough information then they were looking for a reason not to have to vote in my opinion. Does any board member like that we have to vote on these tough issues? NO! However, this is what we are elected to do. The biggest single source of frustration for me with this board is the inability or unwillingness to act on the hard decisions. Two particular items that emphasize this point are the lack of budget cuts since we are about $190k short of our stated deficit of $1M and the fact that we voted not to keep Maywood open or closed, but that we delayed having to make the decision.
Sometimes too much information gives you paralysis by analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
