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.
Pages to are hidden for
"Business Finance Proposall"Please download to view full document