Business Finance Proposall by gck10622

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 10

More Info
									Official
                                  Monroe BOARD OF EDUCATION
                           1275 North Macomb Street, Monroe, Michigan 48162
                                         Minutes -April 28. 2009

President, Mr. Yeo                          David Taylor, Superintendent
Vice President, Mr. Vensel                  Rick Arnett, Executive Director of Human Resources
Secretary Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor              M. Christine Butler, Assistant Superintendent, Elcmemary Curriculum
Parliamentarian Mr. Mason                   Kenneth Laub, Assistant Superintendenl, Business & finance
Trustee Dr. March                           Randall Monday, Assistant Superinlendem, Secondary Curriculum
Trustee Dr. McNamee                         Lynda Castiglione, Administrative Assistanl 10 Supt. and Board
Trustee Mr. VanWasshenova

                                              MINUTES


Roll Call and Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:06 PM by Mr. Yeo

     Board Members Present:        Board Members Absent      Others Present:
    •   Mrs. Knabusch -Taylor                                •  Mr. Taylor
    •   Dr. McNamee                                          •  Mr. Arnett
    •   Dr. March                                            • Mrs. Butler
    •   Mr. Mason                                            •  Mr. Laub
    •   Mr. Vensel                                           •  Mr. Monday
    •   Mr. Yeo
    •   Mr. VanWasshenova


Public Commentary:           The following addressed the Board of Education with concerns about
closing Lincoln Elementary School:       Mr. and Mrs. McGhee and Ms. Vernatter.  The following is
a generalization of their concerns:
Great teaching staff
Great Principal
Building usage and redistricting
Teachers really care about the students
The stigma of "that school on that side of town"
Bank closed,-Fire station closing and now a school all on the east side
Bank closed as well on the east side
Teachers know their families
Worried about where students will end up
Consider doing something with the Lincoln Building if closed down, inclUding talking to Orchard
East residents and a new group who is working on improving Orchard East with grant money.

Mr. Pat McElligott approached the Board about the lack of information that has been proVided
regarding building closures. He indicated that he felt the Board and Administration were not
transparent enough. He also raised concerns that there was no way for the community to directly
email any Board Members. He also had concerns about the recent survey and the questions on it
as well as the inability to write any other comments on the survey.

    Approval of Minutes
Move to approve the April 7, 2009 Board Meeting #18 Minutes.
Motion made by Mr. VanWasshenova; support by Dr. McNamee.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0 roll call vote.
    Teacher Layoffs
Move to approve the "Resolution for Notice to Layoff Teachers", as attached, for the layoff of Nicole

Adams, Jill Angelo, Angela Ashcraft, Krystal Barnes, Sue Birdwell, Emily Bundon, Kyle Christensen,

John A. Clark, Jennifer Davis, Miranda DeBruyne, Valerie Delekta, Brian DeMaggio, Staci Dreger,

Alison Drougel, Kate Dunlap, Polly Fraser-Juarez, Catherine Furnari, Lindsay Gaertner, Patricia

Geiman, Jenna Groves, Rachel Gutenberg, Melissa Hoffman, Sherry Hunt, Amanda locoangeli, Dawn

Kimble. Julie Lindsay, Maribeth Lore, Amy Lynn. Patricia McClain, Kari McCormick, Amanda

McGovern, Ron Motyka, Kendan Myers, Larry Nocella, Chessica Oetjens, Michael Olsen, Erin Otter,

Alka Pandya, Kim Pearch, Amanda Perkey, Jennifer Reed, Angelina Roberts, Stacey Sachs, Sonya

Samona, Jonathan Scharf, Lisa Scheich, Delsle Sissoko, Alisa Smith, Timothy Smith, James St.

Pierre, Meghan Stabile, Vanya Steel, Teresa Stewart, Laura Strube, Christine Trapp, HoW Weaver,

Cassidy Wodke, Mary Wolf, Andrea Wylie, Stacey Wylie, and Stephanie Ziegler, due to economic

reasons, effective at the end of the 2008/09 school year; and to provide the appropriate notifications as

required by statute.

Motion made by Mr. Mason; support by Mr. Vensel. Vote: Motion carried 7-0 roll call vote.


    Proposall(a): Move to approve Proposal 1 (a):
That the Board authorizes the closing of the following elementary schools: Lincoln, South

Monroe Townsite, Christiancy and Riverside. That the Cantrick Learning Center be utilized as a 3-6

elementary facility in partnership with Hollywood Elementary which will house grades K-2. The CLC will

relocate to Riverside Elementary. As part of the building consolidation, students across the district may

be reassigned to other elementary schools to minimize transportation costs and balance bUilding

capacity. Savings: $1,093,905.


 Mr. Laub reviewed with the Board that not much has really changed with all of the things that have

been discussed at this point. He indicated that he chose to move cautiously with the reductions. He

knew that during Phase I of the cuts; he had some comments come back that there were some things

missing that were on the original list. Mr. Laub indicated that this was done on purpose since we

really don't have a good idea of some significant variables within the school district and the state.

Enrollment: He indicated that we did have our second count day in February and we are down an

additional 50 students from September. This now brings us to the 6400'5 which is the enrollment

Middle Cities estimated for Monroe for next school year and not this school year. It is very possible,

based on early predictions he felt that we would be down an additional 100 in September and possibly

more.

Stimulus Money: State of Michigan - what we heard in January was that the state was projecting a

three~hundred-million dollar deficit which they were going to cover with the stabilization money. What

we heard today it is actually eight-hundred-million dollars. It is expected that Governor Granholm will

issue executive orders as soon as tomorrow. Mr. Laub indicated that Dr. Martin was doing some

research on different states and their stabilization money. He chose three different states and the

only state sharing stabilization money with school districts was one of the Dakotas.


Mr. Mason asked if Mr. Laub could comment on bUilding usage based on comments asked by Mrs.

McGhee. Mr. Laub indicated that we have had several people (groups) who have shown interest in our

bUildings such as Head Start, Salvation Army and the Monroe Middle College through MCCC and

MCISD. He indicated that it was not to our benefit to demolish or raze a building. Unfortunately, the

market is not there to sell the bUildings like in the past.


Mrs. Knabusch~TaylQr reminded Mr. Laub and the audience that even though Proposal 1 (a) indicates

we are closing 4 schools, we are really only closing 3 schools since we are moving students from

Cantrick to Riverside. Riverside would still be our building.


Move to reject proposal 1(a).

Motion made by Dr. McNamee; support by Mr. Vensel.

April 28, 2009

Discussion:     Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor indicated that she did not think that this motion was the most

viable for the district at this time and in fact; thought the motion was somewhat out of order. Other

comments by Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor:

Two years ago, we tried to close schools and it did not go very well and she felt the staff and everyone

have looked at everything very closely. This includes the cost of utilities that are going up every year

and if proposal 1(a) passes we would save money just in heat and electrical. If we save in these areas

we can save the curriculum which is best for the students.


Mr. Mason: Commented that he is thinking down the line like we tried to do 2 years ago. We are

starting with bigger numbers and it is going to take a lot of motions to get where we need to be. Even

if you look af proposal 1 (al compared to 1 (b) you are talking about approximately a $300,000

difference. It's a lot of programs- things like parts for transportation - a lot of those things can add up

to $300,000. He cautioned the Board to really think about how we vote; not only for tonight's vote but

for upcoming votes. When we are dealing with curriculum type of programs, we may have to have a lot

more motions on the table to get the same type of impact. He added that closing buildings was a

dramatic thing to do, but we do need to look at closing buildings and restructuring. This is not only an

issue because of declining enrollment, but also due to the economy going down.


Dr. McNamee: commented that he simply felt that closing four schools was just too drastic. While he

did recognize the need to right size our district, he felt this proposal would overload the remaining

schools. While our enrollment may go down, what would happen if we had an influx of students, we

will not have the capacity to ever grow. He indicated that if we have all day K - this will make the

capacity tighter. His preference would be to close 2 or 3 buildings and keep Christiancy open. He

also referred to the school assessment plan that Mr. Laub provided earlier that ranked schools where

Christiancy was not ranked lower than other buildings, yet the building is on the agenda to be closed

and this didn't seem logical. He also had concerns about the survey that was recently completed

where 80% of those participating wanted all day K and yet this was not on the agenda. He also

expressed concerns about privatization while central administrators have not taken any concessions or

reductions. He also had concerns about the ability of parents to have School of Choice if we closed

too many buildings.


Dr. March: Spoke to Mr. Mason's comment about the economy going down. Dr. March had a

different approach that since the economy is going down, there may be private and parochial schools

that will be closing and we may have to absorb those students. He felt we needed to keep the

capacity to maintain our numbers.



Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor: commented that if we keep Christiancy open it will be overhead we don't need.

She reminded Board members that the bUilding could be leased.


Mr. Yeo asked that the motion be read again to remind the Board of the actual motion on the table.


Move to reject proposal 1(a).

Motion made by Dr. McNamee; support by Mr. Vensel.

Vote;   Motion failed 3-4 roll call vote. Dr. McNamee - Dr. March - Mr. Vensel voted yes.

Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor - Mr. Mason - Mr. VanWasshenova and Mr. Yeo voted no.


   Proposall(a):      Move to approve Proposal 1 (a):
That the Board authorizes the closing of the following elementary schools: Lincoln, South
Monroe Townsite, Christiancy and Riverside. That the Cantrick Learning Center be utilized as a 3-6
elementary facility in partnership with Hollywood Elementary which will house grades K-2. The CLC will
relocate to Riverside Elementary. As part of the building consolidation, students across the district may
be reassigned to other elementary schools to minimize transportation costs and balance building
capacity. Savings: $1,093,905.
Motion made by Mr. VanWasshenova; support by Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor.
April 28, 2009


Discussion:

Mr.	 Mason asked Mrs. Butler to review the building usage and capacity prior to the vote. Mrs. Butler
reviewed each building capacity which included all day K in the event we decided to go that route.
Mrs. Butler also reviewed the number of available seats that would be available in each building and
did not include school of choice at this time.

Vote: Motion carried 4-3 roll call vote.
Mrs. Knabusch~Taylor - Mr. Mason - Mr. VanWasshenova - Mr. Yeo voted yes.
Dr. McNamee - Dr. March - Mr. Vensel voted no.

    Proposal 2:    Move to approve Proposal 2:
That the Board authorizes the Administration to enter into negotiations with the Monroe County
Intermediate School District. The Monroe Chapter of The Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities of
Monroe (Head Start) for the disposition of vacant elementary schools.
Motion made by Dr. McNamee; support by Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor.

Discussion: Mr. VanWasshenova requested that the proposal be considered beyond just those four
groups based on what was presented tonight. He asked if the motion could include "other legitimate
groups".   Dr. McNamee agreed to change his motion. Mr. Laub indicated that these groups were not
exclusive. Mr. Taylor reiterated the fact that it needs to be other groups with legitimate interest. Mr.
Mason asked that jf there is any sort of strange interest that it be discussed prior to any decisions.

That the Board authorizes the Administration to enter into negotiations with the Monroe County
Intermediate School District, The Monroe Chapter of The Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities of
Monroe (Head Start) and other groups with legitimate interest for the disposition of vacant
elementary schools.

Vote:   Motion carried 7-0 roll call vote.

    Proposal 3: Move to approve Proposal 3:
That the Board authorizes the Administration to seek proposals for the privatization of custodial
services. Est. savings $500,000 to $1 million
Motion made by Mrs. Knabusch·Taylor; support by Mr. Yeo.

Discussion:      Mr. Laub wanted to make sure the Board fully understood what was in the RFP and
included:

   1.	 All current custodial employees of the district will be interviewed and will, unless prohibited by law. board
       or district policy, be offered employment with the selected company.

   2.	 Any current employee transitioned to the payroll of the new company will be paid at a rate equivalent to
       their current district wage.

   3.	 Any current staff member employed by the new company will receive benefits comparable in nature and
       scope currently to those offered by the district.

   4.	 Current employees who have more than 27 years of pension service but less than 30 years of pension
       service may petition the district to remain a Monroe Public Schools employee until reaching the 30 year
       plateau in the state retirement system. Additionally, any employee who is within two years of vesting in the
       MPSERS System wHf have the option of remaining a Monroe Public Schools employee until vested.

Mr. VanWasshenova: commented that he personally does not like privatizing, He felt that it was just
a way to eventually cut the wages of our employees and the only way a company could undercut us
would be to cut wages and possibly benefits. He felt everyone deserves a living wage. If we do
eliminate our own custodial staff the problem he felt we would have is a good contract in the beginning
but in the end it will probably increase, as we have experienced this in the past. If there is a need to
do something he would like to try the things that the custodial supervisor presented to the Board (such
as every other day cleaning) first. He requested that we ask our employees tell us what they can do
to help us out first.

Mr. Yeo: commented that he agrees that privatizing is not something he would like to see happen as
he has had many conversations with the custodial staff about this issue. He did indicate that he did
support at least going through the process.     He reminded all of those in attendance that What the
Board was voting on tonight is to at least research this issue. Privatizing will not be decided tonight.

Mr. Mason: commented that if we do vote to get this information, he would like contained within that
information what the saVings would be if we maintained our daytime head custodians as MPS
employees who work during school day hours and then privatize only the after hours cleaning - what
would the saVings be?

Dr. March: commented if the information that Mr. Laub provided tonight would be part of the proposal.
Mr. Laub indicated it would be part of the RFP, but the Board shOUld keep in mind that the stipulations
that would be part of the RFP will make a difference in the cost savings and that is why the estimated
saVings would be between $500,000 to $1 million.

Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor: commented that with all the criteria on the RFP that the Board has reiterated,
that the Board needs to be educated on privatiZing and by putting out the RFP only, this will be a
learning process for all inVOlved.

Dr. McNamee: commented that he had a conversation with a custodian who made a point in that
MPS has been balancing the budget for the last several years on the backs of the custodians who have
always made concessions. He also commented that even though he didn't mind at least investigating
this process he also would like to see the same enthusiasm with cuts at the administrative level, or he
would never support privatiZing.

Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor: commented that points that were put in the RFP were received from the
custodial staff from other years, including that it is important to have local employees and our stUdents
benefit from having local custodians and that is why the motion is just for information at this time.

Vote:    Motion carried 6-1 roll call vote.   Mr. VanWasshenova voted no.

   Proposal 4: Move to approve Proposal 4:
That the Board authorizes the Administration to seek proposals for the contracting of lawn
maintenance and snow removal.
Motion made by Mr. Mason; support by Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor.

Discussion:

Mr. Mason: commented that he was somewhat in the dark on how we could save money on this
proposal, but still thought we should move forward with the process as the process may show us ways
to perhaps do things more efficient.

Vote:    Motion carried 6-1 roll call vote.   Mr. VanWasshenova voted no.

    Proposal 5: Move to approve Proposal 5:
That the Board authorizes any reasonable and practical reduction of support and administrative staff.
Mr. Laub pre-empted the vote by explaining to the Board that the proposal was something that we have
already currently been doing through the Human Resources and the Personnel Committee for many
years.
April 28, 2009


Mr. VanWasshenova: commented that he did not understand what the proposal meant. He asked if it
meant jf people could just be fired.

Mr. Laub: commented that this was not even a consideration. The proposal was basically a reiteration
of what is already in place. He indicated that for several years whenever any position becomes
vacant, the position is always studied including the function of the position. Board Personnel
Committee members are also involved in this process. If the position is determined not to be at 100%
functional within the district, the position would either be reduced or eliminated.


Mr. VanWasshenova: commented if the wording "as positions become vacant" should be at the end of
the motion or "as positions become vacant administration would return to the board for action as
needed with the approval of the Board".

Dr. McNamee:     commented or add administration at the end.

Mr. Mason: commented that he felt the initial reduction would not come to the Board. He indicated
that he felt that Administration should be looking at restructuring positions as people leave with the
Board Personnel Committee like we do now. The rest of the Board would be informed through
Administration about the restructuring and divisions of duties like recently happened in payroll. He
further stated that it is really nothing more than that.

Mr. Yeo:   commented - do we even need this motion since this is already a standard practice?

Mr. Taylor: commented that Administration saw the proposals as a package deal. He indicated that
even though this is a standard practice we wanted to reassure Board members that we will continue to
follow this procedure even though a lot of this may take place behind the scenes - it is simply a
reassurance that we are watching everything and we will eliminate positions for bUdget reductions.

    Proposal 5: Move to approve Proposal 5:
That the Board authorizes any reasonable and practical reduction of support and administrative staff
~as positions become vacant administration would return to the board tor action as needed with
the approval of the Board",
Motion made by Mr. VanWasshenova; support - no support as the Board went into discussion because
there was confusion on what the motion meant and some did not hear the motion being made.

Dr. McNamee: commented that if there is any hope to cut administrative staff without our oversight
then he has an objection to this. He indicated that any opportunity to trim their size (administration)
then we should take it. He suggested a motion that would be as follows: The Board of Education
authorizes the reduction of staff in consultation with the Board President". He then asked if
there was a motion on the floor.

Mr. Yeo: commented that yes a motion was made by Mr. VanWasshenova that included: "as
positions become vacant administration would return to the board for action as needed with
the approval of the Board".

Dr. McNamee: commented if we had to use "the Board" and if Mr. VanWasshenova would like to
withdraw his motion. He then supported Mr. VanWasshenova's motion for the sake of further
discussion.
April 28, 2009

    Proposal 5:    Move 10 approve Proposal 5:
That the Board authorizes any reasonable and practical reduction of support and administrative staff
"as positions become vacant admInistration would return to the board          tor action as needed with
Ihe approval of Ihe Board".
Motion made by Mr. VanWasshenova; support by Dr. McNamee.

Discussion:


Dr. McNamee: commented that the Board and not the Board President only meets every other week

and by having to go through the Board this is going will slow down the process. He indicated that he

preferred to work through the Board President to keep things moving along.

Mr. Vensel: commented that he felt the Board needed full disclosure and referred to contracting with a

third party for central office administrators. He indicated that we need clarity and lots of

communication.


Mr. Taylor: commented that anything of that sort, such as a third party contract would have to be

approved by the Board.


Mr. Mason: commented that he would like to see Administration be as creative as possible whether it

be short term or long term. He felt that jf a position became vacant that prior to replacing he prefers

that we not fill positions right away, but rather look at what can be absorbed internally. He also

indicated that this would probably keep the process moving along.


Mr. Yeo: commented (speaking on behalf of the Board) that the entire Board is committed to making

budget cuts and will continue to look bottom to top and top to bottom to get through this process. He

indicated that Mr. Taylor and the entire central office team were also committed.


Dr. March: commented on whether or not this motion only would be used in the case of attrition.


Group: commented no. Mr. VanWasshenova added that the motion was basically to support what

administration had to do - and that would be to look at all areas.


Dr. McNamee commented that he felt confident whether the process was moved along by the Board

Personnel Committee or the Board President that he could work with this. He then asked Mr.

VanWasshenova if he would consider amending his motion.

(Mr. VanWasshenova amended his motion; Dr. McNamee amended his support).


   Proposal 5: Move to approve Proposal 5:
The Board of Education authorizes the reduction of administrative and support staft In
consultation with the Board President".
As amended by Mr. VanWasshenova; as amended support by Dr. McNamee
Vote:   Motion carried 5-2 roll call vote. Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor and Dr. March voted no. (both felt
the proposal was too vague).

   Proposal 6:     Move 10 approve Proposal 6:
That the Board authorizes the further evaluation of current student transportation routes with the
ultimate goal to reduce operational costs.
Motion made by Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor; support by Mr. VanWasshenova.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0 roll call vote.

   Proposal 7:     Move 10 approve Proposal 7:
That the Board authorjzes the Personnel Office to approach the bargaining units and extend the
opportunity to reopen/discuss contract requirements that may provide savings for the district.
Motion made by Mr. Mason; support by Mr. VanWasshenova.
April 28, 2009

Vote:    Motion carried 7-0 roll call vote.

    First Vehicle Services
Move to award the fleet maintenance contract to First Vehicle SeNices covering the 2009/10, 2010/11
and 2011/12 school years. The agreed upon per diem rates for each of those years is as follows;
2009/10 $1649.55, 2010/11 $1700.44 (+3%) and 2011/12 $1753.38 (+3%).

Mr. VanWasshenova revised Ihe molion 10 read; support by Dr. McNamee (removed Ihe Ihird
year for a two year contract).
    First Vehicle Services
Move to award the fleet maintenance contract to First Vehicle SeNices covering the 2009/10, 2010/11
and school years. The agreed upon per diem rates for each of those years is as follows; 2009/10
$1649.55,2010/11 $1700.44 (+3%).

Discussion: Mr. Laub informed the Board that he was not sure what the effects of going with a two
year contract vs. the three year contract that was proposed. Dr. McNamee asked if the item could be
tabled until further information was available.

Dr. McNamee made a motion to table until further information was available; support by Mr.
VanWasshenova.

Discussion continued:

Mr. Mason asked - "what do we do then?" We put the bid out for three years and only received one
bid back; in fact the bids were put out twice and we still only received one bid. He indicated that he
was not happy with the year-by-year cost increases and with a two year contract it would be 3% . 3%
and how do we know when we go back to bid this again that we still won't just receive one bid - this
puts us in a dilemma for the third year 10 be higher than 3%.

Mr. VanWasshenova responded that his thinking was that we can't keep increasing the amount we pay
them. He felt that this would give us time to get our own system up and running. We have the
building and the equipment; we would just need to hire personnel.

Mr. Vensel was concerned and wondered why the Board would not vote on this.        We put the bid out
for three years and they gave us a proposal - why would the Board not vote?

Mr. Yeo asked for a vote on tabling the motion until further information could be obtained.

Vote: Motion failed 1-6 roll call vote.   Mr. VanWasshenova voted yes.

Original Motion:

    First Vehicle Services
Move to award the fleet maintenance contract to First Vehicle SeNices covering the 2009/10, 2010/11
and 2011/12 school years. The agreed upon per diem rates for each of those years is as fallows;
2009/10 $1649.55, 2010/11 $1700.44 (+3%) and 2011/12 $1753.38 (+3%).

Motion made by Mr. Mason; support by Mr. Vensel.

Vote: Motion carried 6-1 rail call vote. Mr. VanWasshenova voted no.

    Sodexo
Move to award the food service management contract to 8odexo for the 2009·10 school year as per
the conditions set forth in the bid documents. It should be noted that State law allows the district to
extend the 100d service management company contract up to four additional years without formally re·
bidding the contract

Motion made by Mr. VanWasshenova: support by Dr. March.
Vote: Motion carried 7·0 roll call vote.

   Ratification of the Monroe City Educational Secretarial Association/MEA;NEA Contract
Move to ratify the Master Agreement between the Monroe City Educational Secretarial
AssociationjMENNEA, and the Monroe Board of Education effective july 1, 2008
until July 1,2010.

Motion made by Mr. VanWasshenova; support by Dr. March.
Vote: Motion carried 6-1 roll call vote. Mr. Mason voted no.

    Reports and Updates
    General Fund Report:                             No comments
    Board Finance Committee 01 the Whole:            No comments

Old Business:          None

New Business:         Dr. McNamee indicated that the Board Curriculum Committee has been meeting
for the past year and discussing all day K as well as in some Board Workshops.          He indicated that
some Board Members thought that all day K was best for our students, while some may not. He also
indicated that according to our recent survey, 80% 01 our community also feels this way. Dr. McNamee
indicated that he was concerned because somehow/someway this item never made its way to the
Board's Agenda.     He also expressed concerns about telling parents that the Board would make a
decision by May 12 lh and May 12 lh was a long way away.    He felt that at the least tonight, that all day
K at least deserved a debate.

Motion made by Dr. McNamee; support by Dr. March to move approve all day Kindergarten beginning
next school year.

Discussion:    Mr. Yeo indicated that he did ha\le discussion with administration and it was decided that
since there is still not a lot of reliable information that all day K would not be an agenda item tonight
and that was the only intent. Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor reiterated that she thought it would be on the May
lin agenda also so we could get more information.

Mr. Taylor indicated that in terms of the state mandates nothing has changed. The House of
Representatives have delayed all day K and the Senate has yet to vote. Because of the unknowns;
we decided to hold off all day K. In addition, the state has mandated that we can no longer fund all
day K with Title or 31a monies; which is a whole different change in direction. He stated that when the
State made this change the district will need to fund $180,000 lust for the current program.

Mr. Laub indicated that the impact to our budget will be an additional $600,000 net next year.

Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor asked if we still had open spots in the current all day K.    Mrs. Butler indicated
that probably not; but wasn't sure because she had not looked at it in a while, but typically they fill the
spots as requests come in.     Mrs. Knabusch-Taylor then asked Mr. Laub jf he had an idea where we
could recoup the $600,000 costs.     Mr. Laub indicated that in order to make one thing work then we
have to find ways to make additional cuts and that is what we would have to do if the motion was
approved.
Dr. March added that we may possibly lose more students by not having all day K and that means
potential revenue. Families will go elsewhere and will typically stay at a school once they start there.

Dave Vensel commented that if all day K is approved, then something is going to have to give. There
is going to have to be big time tradeoffs to pay for this. He personally felt that we did not need to have
all day K as some students still need naps, playtime and time to develop their fine motor skills. He
also felt that if parents were honest when they did the survey that they want all day K because of
childcare concerns. He expressed concerns about being in a survival mode then adding all day K. He
thought that perhaps we should look at other opportunities like expanding Kids' Club. He felt that he
would like to see $600,000 for an alternate high school or CTE programs.

Vote:   Motion carried 5-2 roll call.    Mr. VanWasshenova and Mr. Vensel voted no.

Other New Business:           Mr. Laub informed the board that bid summaries for sinking fund projects
were at their seats.

Superintendent's Comments:              None

Public Commentary:

Amy Pace addressed the Board regarding the fact that none of the proposals and/or motions indicated
if this will aU take place for next school year. She hoped that perhaps everyone could slow down and
consider moving slower and begin the process this year and phase things in for full implementation for
the following school year.

Mrs. McGhee again spoke to the Board regarding Lincoln Elementary. Now that the decision has
been made to close Lincoln she wanted to publicly state what a great staff Lincoln is and that includes
Principal Pam Sica. She also hoped that many of the staff members would be together in another
building.

Adjournment:       Move to adjourn April 28, 2009 Board Meeting #19.

Motion made by Mr. Vensel; support by Dr. March.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0 hand vote. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 PM.


								
To top