MINUTES OF REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING OF GOVERNING BOARD
Place, Date and Time of Meeting
Painted Sky Elementary School, 12620 N. Woodburne Ave., Oro Valley,
AZ, December 12, 2000, 5:03 p.m.
Board Members Present
Dr. Kenneth Smith, President
Nancy Young Wright, Vice President/Clerk
Kent Barrabee, Member
Mike Prout, Member
Mary Schuh, Member
Central Administrators Present
Dr. Vicki M. Balentine, Superintendent
Dr. Katie M. Frey, Associate Superintendent
Dr. Richard Hooley, Associate Superintendent
Todd A. Jaeger, J.D., Associate to Superintendent and General Counsel
Call to Order and Signing of Visitors Register
Dr. Kenneth Smith called the meeting to order.
1. Motion to Recess Open Meeting and Hold an Executive Session
Dr. Smith announced that the Board would recess open meeting and hold an executive session for:
| A. Discussion or Consultation for Legal Advice with the Attorney or Attorneys of the Public
Body Regarding the Arizona Auditor General's Report on New High School Procurements and
Resolution of the Same, Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3)
B. Discussion and Consultation with Designated Representatives of District in Order to Consider District's Position and Instruct Designated Representatives Regarding Negotiations with Amphitheater Education Association Regarding Salaries, Salary Schedules or Compensation Paid in the Form of Fringe Benefits of Certificated Employees, Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(5) |
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh, seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously, that the Board recess into executive session. The time was 5:05 p.m.
Reconvening of Meeting and Signing of Visitors Register
Following the executive session, Dr. Smith reconvened the meeting at 7:05 p.m., and asked
members of the audience to sign the visitors register. Procedures for addressing the Board
were described.
Dr. Smith expressed appreciation to Principal Bruce Weigold and the entire Painted Sky Elementary staff for all their efforts put forth in preparing for this Board meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance
Principal Bruce Weigold introduced Painted Sky Student Council officers: President, Tyler
Chandler; Vice President, Amber Roundy; Secretary, Daniel Nicholl; Treasurer, Jessica Ryan;
Student Store Managers, Daniel Harrington and Anthony Jureack. They led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag and were presented with Certificates of Commendation.
Dr. Smith noted the three-minute time limit for those addressing the Board, and the fact that Board members may not respond to comments made under Public Comment. Audience member Tom Moser spoke of Proposition 301, advocating performance-based pay for teachers.
1. Announcement of Date and Place of Next Meeting
Dr. Smith announced the next regular meeting of the Governing Board, scheduled for January 9,
2001, 7:00 p.m., at Wetmore Center, 701 West Wetmore. This meeting will also serve as the
organizational meeting of the Board.
Announcement
Dr. Smith noted that the Board members had previously appointed himself and Ms. Young Wright to
represent the Board at the Arizona School Boards Association Annual Conference. Since that
time, Dr. Smith and Ms. Young Wright had considered the costs involved as well as the
conference agenda and wished to decline attending, not wishing to spend the district's money in
this way. He pointed out that the Board's travel budget quite some time ago was cut in half;
at a later meeting the Board voted to cut it in half again, resulting in the Board's travel
budget being essentially exhausted.
3. Focus on Painted Sky Elementary School: Canyon del Oro High School Tutors
Principal Bruce Weigold welcomed everyone to Painted Sky Elementary School and presented a
video focusing on the school. He expressed appreciation to the Board and administration for
their support in the opening of the new school.
Mr. Weigold reported that sixteen Canyon del Oro High School students are tutoring Painted Sky K-5 students twice a week in math and reading. Approximately 45 students are benefiting from the tutoring. The program was the idea of freshman Caroline Malkin, who was selected Citizen of the Week by the Tucson Citizen for her role in implementing the program.
Mr. Weigold commended the students for their dedicated voluntary services in support of the students of Painted Sky Elementary: Caroline Malkin, Jeff Dauenhauer, Lindsay Dauenhauer, Rebekkah Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Kimberly Ellerson, Ashley Franks, Lori Garwacki, Katie Griffis, Catherine Napier, Melanie Parkins, Andrew Shedlock, Claire Strickland, Brittney Parent-Williams and Dan Wilson.
4. Recognition of 76/Circle K Outstanding Faculty Awards Recipient
Bob Wendel introduced Peggie Thomas, Early Childhood Education teacher at Canyon del Oro High
School, who has been selected as one of nine finalists in the 76/Circle K Outstanding Faculty
Awards Program. Mrs. Thomas was selected by a nominating committee representing various school
districts for her dedication and outstanding commitment to teaching. As a finalist, she will
be recognized at a University of Arizona men's basketball game and featured on a 76/Circle K
poster displayed in stores and local schools. On March 3, 2001, she will be honored at a
dinner reception, where the 76/Circle K Teacher of the Year will be announced. The Board
recognized Mrs. Thomas, who has taught in Amphitheater District since 1975.
5. Recognition of National Merit Scholars
Assistant Principals Bob Wendel (Amphitheater High School) and Angie Julien (Canyon del Oro
High School) introduced AHS and CDO students who have been recognized for exceptional
academics in the 2001 National Merit Scholarship Program, a prestigious and highly competitive
competition among 34,000 high schools nationwide. The Board recognized these students and
presented them with Certificates of Commendation.
Amphitheater District's five Semi-finalists are Katharine Albon, David Auerbach, Aaron Guisinger, Robert Salazar, and Kyle Smith. The Semi-finalists are the highest-scoring program entrants in each state, representing less than one percent of the state's high school seniors; they have an opportunity to continue in the competition for Merit Scholarship awards next spring.
The Commended Students are Sage P. Whitmore, Mark Broadbent, Brian Dutz, Daniel Hill, Laura Hurst, Hannah Lehardy, Cara O'Connor, Katherine Ovsevitz, Christopher Saints, Christopher Vitch, Sierra Wolter, and Ryan Wong. These students placed among the top five percent of more than one million students who entered the program by taking the 1999 Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test.
6. Monthly New High School Update
| A. Construction Update Doug Aho, Director, Construction Management, provided an update on construction at the new high school: The original contract price being $29,857,000.00, total paid out to date, including payout #10, is $22,520,711.40; the amount certified for this payout is $1,883,584.35. The balance to finish, plus retainage, is $7,336,288.60. The project is on schedule, within budget, and 75% complete. Some milestones at this time are: bridges are in place, handrails are on and decks are being poured; hot-up is scheduled for January 8, when T.E.P. will bring power to the site; the sewer is complete and inspected, and will be flushed prior to takeover; cabling is approximately 46% complete, with 138,000 feet already installed (total cable site-wide is approximately 53.7 miles). Mr. Aho reported there has been only one minor accident in 300,000 work hours. Board members viewed aerial photos provided by Rob Raine and Ron Shannon.
B. Program Update The Principal Selection Subcommittee will meet for the first time on January 8. The school's new librarian, selected in November, will set meetings after the first of the year. Since gathering bids and ordering supplies and equipment are critically important right now, the Supplies and Equipment and the Athletics and Activities subcommittees have been combined to ensure that the work is completed in a timely manner. In the last round of hiring, the Hiring Team selected the new high school's counselor, Special Education Department chair, librarian, REACH teacher, lead custodian, and lead security position. The Hiring Team convened on December 7 to interview and select the math teacher for the Core Team. Dr. Hooley introduced Core Team members. In discussion, Dr. Frey stated that the fine arts theater and the auditorium are the same. Dr. Hooley summarized the work of the subcommittees: The Core Team has the responsibility to communicate and lead the planning for the new high school in a very general sense; each member serves on subcommittees along with members of the community. The Curriculum Committee will determine the course outlines and schedule, and do such things as coordinate with CDO when it is necessary to share teachers or make sure students are getting the courses they desire. The Name, Colors and Mascot Committee has reviewed and tallied nominations and processed ballots for the naming of the high school, and will be putting out another ballot for the mascot based on action by the Governing Board at this evening's meeting. The Supplies and Equipment Committee is charged with ordering the many items of furniture, fixture and equipment (FF&E) as well as supplies (first order due December 20). The Athletic and Activities Committee is also involved with getting those things ordered, and eventually will do some of the planning for the extracurricular activities, such as ordering uniforms. The Communication and Events Committee, as described above, is now functioning. The Principal Search Committee will function in that one capacity. Dr. Hooley was available for questions following the meeting. |
Dr. Smith stated that agenda item A would be considered separately, since John Lewandowski, President of Amphitheater Education Association, wished to speak on this item.
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of item A. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Schuh and passed unanimously. Appointment of personnel is effective, provided all district, state and federal requirements are met.
Mr. Lewandowski, President of Amphitheater E.A., referred to minutes of the November 1, 2000, Board meeting, Item 10: Determination of Classified Employees Eligible for Membership in and Representation by Amphitheater Education Association; Determination of Classified Employees Ineligible for Membership in and Representation by Amphitheater Education Association. At that meeting a motion was passed that exempted designated classified employees from being members of the Amphitheater Education Association. Mr. Lewandowski stated that since that time he had met with Mr. Jaeger and Dr. Balentine, and his understanding from meeting with both of them was that these employees may join the association. He stated that if that was true, he needed clarification from the Board and probably something from the district because they have many questions regarding this issue.
Dr. Balentine responded that she agreed, these employees are free to join the association; however, it must again be stated that the association does not represent them in negotiations. Board members agreed that this would be clarified in the minutes of November 1, 2000.
Dr. Barrabee requested, for the November 1, 2000, Board minutes, Item 6, Monthly New High School Update; Section A, Construction Update, that the following be inserted under the report from the Director of Technology: "The director reported that each school receives a course set of software and then $1,000 each a year for additional software." Board members were in agreement.
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee to approve Item A, Approval of Minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Young Wright and passed unanimously.
| A. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the November 1, 2000, and November 14, 2000, Governing Board meetings were approved. (Changes were made to the November 1 minutes. Those changes are reflected in the minutes posted on this site.)
B. Appointment of Personnel
C. Personnel Changes
D. Leave(s) of Absence
E. Separation(s) and Termination(s)
F. Out-of-State Travel
G. Request for Waiver of Graduation Requirement
H. Award of Bid: Scoreboards for New High School
I. Award of Bids: Rigging, Lighting and Sound Systems for New High School Auditorium and
Fine Arts Building It was the recommendation of the administration that the Governing Board award the bid for rigging, in the amount of $206,928.00, to Stagecraft Industries. It was the recommendation of the administration that the Governing Board award the bid for sound systems, in the amount of $167,032.00; and the bid for lighting, in the amount of $193,282.00, to Grinnell Fire Protection. The Board approved these recommendations.
J. Acceptance of Gifts
K. Approval of Vouchers
|
7. Public Hearing on 2000-2001 Budget Revision
Dr. Smith noted that this public hearing allowed for questions or comments from members of the
audience. Dr. Balentine stated that Jeff Bassford, Senior Accountant, was available to
respond. She stated that it is a requirement by law to revise the district budget after the
books from the previous year have been closed out, to make any corrections that that
closing-out requires. In response to an inquiry by Dr. Smith, Dr. Balentine confirmed that
there were not any substantive changes in the budget; it was to meet the requirement of
bringing the budget up to date.
Mr. Bassford reported that at the July 10, 2000, meeting, the Governing Board adopted a budget for the 2000-01 school year. Since adoption of the 2000-01 budget, activities for fiscal year 1999-00 have been completed, and amounts available for carryover into the new fiscal year are now known. Per A.R.S. § 15-905, it is necessary for the Governing Board to adopt a revised budget for the current year that incorporates these adjustments into the district's budget capacity. This revision does not change the planned expenditures for district programs and services as provided in the original adopted budget approved by the Governing Board.
Budgeted expenditures for maintenance and operation of the school district total $67,384,028, which is equal to the M&O budget capacity for the district at this time. This represents a net increase of $38,940 over the original approved budget for fiscal year 2000-01. It is expected that this budget capacity will change again as the result of growth in student enrollment. Therefore, it should be noted that another budget revision will be necessary prior to May 15, 2001. Of the total M&O budget capacity, $59,394,960 is the district's actual revenue control limit. This is augmented by an additional $3,061,500 for Desegrega-tion, $129,412 for Dropout Prevention, $972,153 in expected tuition, $3,567 in budget balance carried forward from the previous fiscal year, and $64,486 in excess utilities. A transfer of $3,685,070 in Capital Outlay Revenue Limit (CORL) to Maintenance and Operations is also included.
The budget also provides for soft capital expenditures of $3,804,805 and unrestricted capital expenditures of $537,938, an increase of $257,902 and $137,938, respectively, over the original budget. Prior to this Board meeting a copy of the revised budget was submitted to each Board member under separate cover, with changes from the original budget highlighted.
It was the recommendation of the administration that the Governing Board declare at this time a public hearing concerning the 2000-01 revised budget and invite citizens who indicate an intent to ask questions or make comments.
Mrs. Schuh referred to the County Treasurer and moneys (that could be applied to the bond debt) the district might receive before filing its budget, asking if we ever received acknowledgement. Mr. Bassford replied that was a cash issue as opposed to a budget issue. There was a problem with the allocation of tax revenues by the County Treasurer; this was corrected prior to the end of the last fiscal year; all that was affected was the cash balance in the funds. In further discussion with Mrs. Schuh regarding anticipated excess to the district, Mr. Bassford confirmed that there was no excess, it was simply a reallocation of existing funds.
Dr. Smith asked for any further questions or comments from members of the Board or members of the audience. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
8. Adoption of 2000-2001 Budget Revision
Mr. Bassford reported that A.R.S. § 15-905E requires governing boards to move immediately
following the public hearing to adopt the budget. It was the recommendation of the
administration that the Governing Board approve and adopt the revision of the 2000-01 budget.
Mrs. Schuh made a motion to adopt the 2000-01 budget revision as just reviewed to the Board. Dr. Barrabee seconded the motion and the voting was unanimous.
9. Approval of Name for New High School
Dr. Hooley provided an overview of the process followed in the naming of the new high school:
According to Policy FF, the Governing Board makes the final decision on naming a new school.
Beginning in October, suggestions for names were collected from students at Wilson and Coronado
K-8 schools, and from freshmen at Canyon del Oro High School who live within the new high
school boundaries. A subcommittee of the New High School Core Team, consisting of students,
teachers, and parents, reviewed the nominations and drafted a ballot of suggested names.
Eighth-grade students at Wilson K-8 School and Coronado K-8 School and eligible ninth-grade
students at Canyon del Oro High School cast ballots on November 16. The results were as
follows, with the first choice narrowly being Ironwood Ridge High School:
| 1st | = | Ironwood Ridge High School | (107) | |
| 2nd | = | Romero Canyon High School | (96) | |
| 3rd | = | Mesquite Valley High School | (79) | |
| 4th | = | Wild Desert High School | (76) | |
| 5th | = | Sonoran Desert High School | (74) |
Dr. Barrabee made a motion to accept the suggestion of the students. Mr. Prout seconded the motion.
Dr. Smith asked if he could assume that "Ridge" was added to avoid confusion with the nearby Ironwood Elementary School in Marana School District. Dr. Hooley said that he could assume that correctly. He stated that there is actually is a ridge coming up from the wash, but he has been told the ridge goes all the way up to Wilson K-8 School; there is an inordinate amount of ironwood trees on the site. Dr. Smith said he looked for the ridge and could not find it, but would accept this explanation. To see if the Board were interested, he would suggest deleting the word "Ridge" since he could not find the ridge, and name the school Palo de Hierro High School (Spanish for Ironwood).
Dr. Hooley said that the committee did consider a number of names with Spanish pronunciations; they were concerned about the pronunciation, that when we go to win the state championship in any given sport, at the stadium they might not be able to pronounce the name properly. Mrs. Schuh suggested that we stay with the name Ironwood Ridge High School, and noted there was a motion on the floor. Ms. Young Wright said that the only comment she received from the source she checked with on translating the name was a request that we please not butcher any Spanish names. She added that it would be nice to have that translation available, but it is very hard to say and we might have a very hard time with that; therefore, she thought Ironwood was fine.
Mr. Prout referred to "Ironwood Ridge," asking if "Ridge" was on there when the students voted, or was it added after it was voted on. He said he felt the Board should stick to what the committee wanted; if there was confusion, he understood the reason for that, but if it was added as an afterthought, it might not represent what the students really wanted. Dr. Hooley confirmed that "Ridge" had been included on the ballot.
The voting was unanimous in favor of the name Ironwood Ridge High School.
10. Review of Administrative Selection Process
Dr. Balentine stated during the last several months, we have had opportunities to perfect our
administrative selection process, and with three opportunities in the near future at Coronado
K-8 School, Wilson K-8 School, and Ironwood Ridge High School, Dr. Hooley would like to review
the process.
Dr. Hooley noted that after the principal search at CDO three years ago, which ended in profound frustration and dissatisfaction, the District reviewed its procedures, with input from teachers and parents. Mr. Jaeger conducted the review, with Dr. Esposito and himself assisting in the collection of ideas and suggestions. Although she was new to the District, Catherine Fillmore attended the meeting and drafted new procedures, which she shared with the Review Committee. Since summer, the District has conducted searches for new principals at Prince Elementary, Donaldson Elementary, Amphitheater Middle, and Nash Elementary. In the next several months, the district will conduct searches for new principals for the new high school and both district K-8 schools (Coronado and Wilson). Last spring the revised process was used to select Mr. Gemma as CDO principal.
Board members had received the revised "Employment Procedures for Administrative Vacancies" and "Highlights of the Changes in the Administrative Hiring Process." Dr. Hooley reviewed these highlights:
| Chair (usually the Associate Superintendent for School Operations) 1-2 administrators from other similar sites 4 teachers 2 classified employees 3-4 parents 2 students (if for a high school) |
Mrs. Schuh referred to the selection of parents, stating that parents of students in first or second grade would be involved long-term, but also might achieve some benefit from selecting a principal and then being there during that principal's reign; whereas parents of students in the fourth or fifth grade would be leaving, but they also have a history of the school and more of a perspective. Dr. Hooley said that is exactly the kind of issue that can be addressed through the selection process. He noted that the same thing Mrs. Schuh was talking about in terms of parents could happen with teachers, and spoke of the importance of having a balanced group of teachers and parents. Mrs. Schuh emphasized having full representation and not being constrained by bias, which does not serve our children. She added that the proposal was well presented, and thanked the administration.
In discussion with Ms. Young Wright regarding a "building-level administrator," Dr. Hooley stated that they ask a principal who is not currently at that school to serve on the Site-Level Search Committee. At a larger school such as Wilson or Coronado, they might include an assistant principal as well as a principal, to have the point of view of another administrator. Dr. Hooley confirmed that a building-level administrator falls under category No. 2 of "one to two administrators from other similar sites."
Ms. Young Wright referred to "Employment Procedures for Administrative Vacancies," Interview Process, No. 9: "Scenarios and role-playing situational exercises can be utilized as interview methods." She said she had shared with Dr. Balentine earlier that it appeared that Item 7 was very specific, that if you are going to ask one candidate a question, everyone else must be asked the same question, and then you may have a follow-up and it tells you what is good and what isn't. She stated that No. 9 did not seem to have a similar kind of guideline saying if you are going to involve one candidate in a scenario, then you should involve all of the candidates in the same scenario. There is an opportunity there where somebody could say, I didn't get to participate in the same thing. Dr. Hooley replied that what we typically do is to have a written prompt for the scenario. That prompt is given to the candidates before they come into the room; they have a set amount of time to prepare notes for that, and when they come in, that is the first question. So, in a sense, it is a scenario that is controlled, although it might be a more complicated scenario when involving a student and teacher behavior. It is also the same procedure with the writing prompt.
Ms. Young Wright referred to "Employment Procedures for Administrative Vacancies," Authority to Hire, No. 3: "Hiring managers are responsible for checking references on applicants to further determine suitability for positions. At least two references should be checked." She suggested that it read "must be" instead of "should be." Dr. Hooley replied that this will be changed. He added that the checking of references is at the screening level, but before we hire, we absolutely must check them (Authority to Hire, No. 7: "At least two references must be checked . . ."). Ms. Young Wright said that she noticed that, but it still seemed to her that even if you were going to bring them to that level, there was a possibility for some people to have been checked and others not; she considered it a loophole.
Ms. Young Wright asked for clarification of "Employment Procedures for Administrative Vacancies," Authority to Hire, No. 5 , which states that the ". . . Human Resources Department is responsible for informing and enforcing I-9 identification proofs . . ." It was clarified that this refers to citizenship and residency, establishing the right to work in the United States. Ms. Young Wright expressed appreciation for the administration bringing this to the Board.
Mr. Prout, referring to "Employment Procedures for Administrative Vacancies," Advertising, requesting the process followed for the Request to Advertise Form (which identifies desired and preferred qualifications): who draws it up, how and to whom is it submitted. Dr. Hooley said that typically that form originates in his office and is submitted electronically to the Human Resources Office. The Request to Advertise is simply the funding and request to do that work. The actual advertisement is based typically on the job description that we have in the HR Department. Occasionally, we can do some things to modify those advertisements if there is something very specific we are looking for or if it is a high-profile job. For example, in a tight market, we might change or modify it, using the word "preferred" instead of "required." For CDO or for the new high school, we would want to say in the advertisement that we wanted someone with experience; otherwise we would get applicants who had just their administrative certificate but had never been in the system. We modify it according to the job, but it is basically rather set; part of that is because we are paying for the line and it is very expensive to advertise in Education Week.
Mr. Prout asked if this was to be part of Governing Board policy. Dr. Smith noted that the highlights that were presented did not require action on the Board's part; if the Board were to take action, members would want to see all of the details, rather than highlights. He asked Dr. Balentine if she agreed. Dr. Balentine responded that the administration would follow up in a Friday memo for the Board with an adjusted procedure pamphlet that would include the suggestions received this evening. Mr. Prout asked if the end result would be an alphabetized typical policy. Dr. Balentine replied that this is not a Governing Board policy, but a consistent procedure that we use in our general selection processes.
Mr. Prout asked why it wouldn't it be a policy; Ms. Young Wright inquired, a regulation? Mr. Jaeger stated that generally speaking, a policy on this topic would want to set forth some general overarching direction from the Governing Board; the details would likely be in regulation. This kind of detail, however, is typically in an administrative procedure, a departmental procedure, so that as circumstances change, in terms of the job market/ flexibility/recruitment, you can make changes rapidly to meet the changing market conditions, which can sometimes be on the spur of the moment when you are advertising. Mr. Prout asked if we have an overarching policy on this topic. Mr. Jaeger replied that we do have general direction from the Governing Board in terms of recruitment and hiring procedures in a number of different policies, including our equal opportunity policy and our recruitment and retention policy, that specifies that we need to recruit the highest and best qualified candidates (our requirement for GPA, for example).
Dr. Smith advised that when administration comes back with a revised document, it might be useful for the Board to see what its own policies are on the subject.
11. Approval of Resolution to Support Modification of Arizona Revised Statutes Section
15-447 Regarding Offer of Instruction in High School Subjects by Common School Districts, with
Modification to Include Requirement to Construct a High School upon Attainment of Certain High
School Enrollment Level
Dr. Balentine stated that basically the Board was interested in passing a resolution that
might lead to a change in legislation. Current legislation in effect sets out that an
adjacent school district has an obligation to educate those students that are high-school
level if there is not a high school in that district. Upon request from Dr. Smith,
administration had prepared a resolution that might modify language in the statute to set a
threshold in terms of numbers of students in the receiving high school district that might
then create an obligation in the adjacent district to develop its own high school program.
Board book information: As the Board is aware, Arizona law provides that high-school-aged students who reside in a school district which does not have a high school may attend high school in any unified or high school district that borders the district without a high school. In addition, state law provides that a common school district may obtain permission from the State Board of Education to offer high school instruction. This authority is permissive, however; the common school district is not presently required to offer high school instruction. In addition, the authority of a common school district to offer high school instruction is unavailable upon the voters of the common school district voting against formation of a high school district.
Governing Board President Dr. Ken Smith has been in discussion with Arizona legislative leaders to seek amendment of existing law to require a common school district to construct a high school and offer high school instruction upon that district attaining a certain level of high-school-aged children. This modification would minimize the impact of growth in the number of high-school-aged children upon neighboring districts that are required to enroll those students.
A copy of the draft amendment obtained by Dr. Smith was available. The draft amendment, prepared by the Office of Legislative Counsel, did not include the actual number of students that would necessitate the construction of a separate high school facility, and Dr. Smith requested that staff make a recommendation in that regard. The figure of 400 students represents staff's recommendation on the number of students that should be used as the threshold to require construction of a high school. Programmatic considera-tions indicate that a high school may offer a full, multi-section/multi-strand curriculum with 500 students. This would allow for a functioning high school curriculum with five sections of class for each grade level, with some combined grade level courses. Requiring the initiation of construction at 400 students would allow for growth to 500 during construction.
A form of resolution prepared by the legal department was also available for Governing Board support of legislative action to pass the modification to A.R.S. § 15-447 as shown in the draft. This item was presented for approval by the Board, which the administration recommended.
Dr. Smith pointed out the impact that could be felt on Amphi District as a result of Oracle Elementary School District having no high school. There is, for instance, a proposal before the Pinal County Board of Supervisors (now on hold) for a development just north of the Pinal County line in Oracle District that would be approximately the size of Oro Valley. What we are trying to do is to get the state law changed in order to keep us from having to deal with something we can't handle, although it would not prevent us from continuing to take their students as long as it is within a number that we reasonably can cope with.
In response to Dr. Barrabee's request for clarification regarding property taxes which support the education of additional students received by the district, Dr. Smith noted his concern for funds, and the additional factor of maybe having to add a new high school to accommodate the additional students.
Mr. Jaeger stated that current state law stipulates that when those students are enrolled in district schools, the sending district sends its ADM with them. The district does receive the funding, but as Dr. Smith rightly pointed out, the problem becomes one of trying to accommodate growth that is outside your immediate community while accommodating your own students. Making arrangements to build new schools, acquiring portables and the like, can have a tremendous impact on programming within your own district, particularly if you make a commitment to increase programs/services/facilities and subsequently the sending district builds a high school and these things are no longer needed.
In discussion, Dr. Balentine stated that in general, the dollar cost for our students who come from Oracle is a positive venture for our district. It is just the unexpected increase of numbers that could create a major impact. Mr. Prout asked Dr. Smith if he had seen any opposition to this proposed change, are there school districts that profit so well from the existing statute that they would fight it. Dr. Smith replied that he had not, nor had he done a systematic investigation.
Dr. Barrabee asked for clarification on taxes: We're allowed to spend $4,800 per student, but where does that $4,800 come from? He asked whether district taxpayers are paying the tax share for students who are not in our district. Dr. Balentine said that the best response would be to give the Board a full report on the tuition in dollars and how that is offset by other costs. Dr. Smith stated that would be useful, but in addition, we have some need to protect ourselves from this potential.
Mrs. Schuh stated that when we run bond issues for buildings, since families of students who live in Pinal County are not paying Pima County property taxes, you never quite get the money back for the facilities you've had to pay for and build with your bonds. The district receives ADM and transportation stipends, but it does not make up what the local taxpayers are having to pay for the facilities, the maintenance, and other overhead on the property they are having to provide. She stated that this is a start, however, and something for which we have been fighting for quite some time, to have more control over our school boundaries and have some say.
Mrs. Schuh moved that we adopt this resolution; Mr. Prout seconded the motion.
Ms. Young Wright responded to Dr. Barrabee, stating that the money we receive from the state never covers the costs of providing for students, especially with increasing costs. When we open a new school, people feel that class sizes ought to go down at the old schools, but that doesn't happen because we move teachers to the new schools. The new school is supported by payroll and many other things; it is a complicated issue. She stated she had a feeling we are set to see a massive influx, and need to plan.
Dr. Smith referred to the idea that 500 is an ideal high school size to offer complete programs. Dr. Frey stated that when she and Mr. Jaeger talked about this, they were reviewing what the statute allowed, which is a base level of 200. The statute provides that any of these districts could now form a high school district at a level of 200 if it were not a unified district. The number 500 was selected to allow the district to approach the School Facilities Board for funding when a 400-student threshold was obtained.
Dr. Smith asked, what would it do to our district if Oracle sent 350 students, could we cope with a number of that size, and for how long, before we ran out of space. Dr. Balentine said that she thought we could cope with that for several years, but it might lead us into the path of requesting additional space from the School Facilities Board at the end of that time. Dr. Smith mentioned the additional problems which would arise if the district provided additional space/teachers/programs which would no longer be needed if Oracle decided to form a high school district. Dr. Frey clarified that the district now has 139 Oracle students attending Amphi schools.
Mrs. Schuh stated that Amphi District is first of all for the Amphi residents and taxpayers who have built and maintained it; the first obligation is to the children who live here, whose parents pay taxes. She spoke of the option of Oracle students attending San Manuel High School, and stated she was for this amend-ment, wanting our children to have first opportunity to have smaller classes and the programs that we provide.
The voting was unanimous to adopt the Resolution Supporting Modification of Arizona Law to Require Construction of High School Facilities by Common School Districts.
12. Approval of Revisions to Policy KHB Regarding Advertising in Schools and Permitting
Vendor Recognition for Contributions to Schools
Board book information: The Board had studied revisions to District Policy KHB at two previous
Board meetings. Additional revisions to District Policy KHB had been prepared since the last
study of November 14, 2000, and were presented for approval.
Current policy sets limits on advertising in schools. This is based upon a philosophy that schools are places to learn, not places to be solicited to buy one product or another. It is also clear that, while at school, students are "captive audiences." Policy does, however, permit recognition of vendors who contribute to or otherwise support district programs. Present language allows principals, in their discretion, to allow the display of banners, signs and other means of recognizing sponsors during sponsored events. The policy requires that these displays be removed after an event, and prohibits them from remaining in place during an entire season.
The prepared revision would authorize recognition of sponsors who purchase or make substantial contributions to the purchase of scoreboards and marquees for schools. The recognition afforded in such situations would be more durable in nature and would not have to be removed between events. Because of the philosophical issues described above, the revisions still reflect requirements that recognition be limited and secondary to the primary purpose of the scoreboard or marquee. The administration recommended approval.
Dr. Balentine reported that the Advertising in Schools Policy as presented incorporated all suggestions made over two readings of the policy. Mr. Jaeger was available for comments or questions.
Dr. Barrabee had previously asked how advertising material in publications, school newspapers and yearbooks was provided for in policy. Mr. Jaeger indicated that the district has a separate policy, Policy JIZE, that deals with student publications. One of the changes being proposed is to cross-reference that on this policy, which did not exist previously. It mirrors the same kinds of philosophies that are set forth here, that advertising in student publications should be appropriate in nature, that the advertisements should not advocate any kind of activity or product that is not suitable for children or advocate anything that would interfere with normal parental rights. It also affords specific authority for the faculty sponsor of the student publication to intervene and take action to preclude that kind of advertising. This is set out in a rather substantial policy and regulation on student publications. Dr. Barrabee referred to: "No advertising material may be distributed to students that, in the opinion of school authorities, would contribute to the personal gain of an individual, business or company. . ." He noted that with a couple of exceptions, he did not see "candy sales" there. He stated that that candy sales are promoted by businesses because they make a profit, and asked how we deal with that in policy. Mr. Jaeger responded that the advertising addressed by this policy is advertising designed to sell a product for the sake of selling the product -- for example, advertising Baby Ruth candy bars on the walls of a school or in a student newspaper, as opposed to the promotion of a school or PTO fund-raiser that has been specifically approved by the school and which is not advertised for the sole purpose of selling a product for a vendor, but for the main purpose of raising funds for an activity or for the school.
Dr. Barrabee said he understood that, but was not sure that it was consistent with what the words say, because it certainly is a business and the company would profit; we are organizing the children for them, sometimes in assemblies, with prizes offered. Dr. Smith asked if Dr. Barrabee had a suggestion for a revision. Dr. Barrabee referred it to Mr. Jaeger, who said that we could insert a bullet that would exclude advertising materials that support official school fund-raising events or activities. Dr. Barrabee said that would be fine.
Mrs. Schuh responded that Dr. Barrabee had a valid point, she too would like Mr. Jaeger to provide wording, to be brought back to the Board. She expressed concerns over students being a captive audience, being used as guinea pigs; there may be false advertisements, and she felt that there should be control through the school/district. In discussion of a time frame, Mr. Jaeger stated that perhaps these issues/concerns could be addressed and included in the district's fund-raising policy. Mrs. Schuh and Dr. Barrabee were in agreement.
Mrs. Schuh moved that the Board accept the revisions to Policy KHB regarding advertising in schools and permitting vendor recognition. The motion was seconded by Ms. Young Wright and passed unanimously.
The board recessed from 8:50 to 8:57 p.m.
13. Approval of Revisions to Policy JKD Regarding Student Suspensions and Expulsions to
Provide for Alternative to Suspension
Board book information: This item had been presented for study by the Board at its November
14, 2000 meeting. It was presented for second review, with the administration recommending
approval.
The 44th legislature during its second regular session made a number of changes to laws concerning student discipline in public schools. Revisions in the law require that the districts have alternative-to-suspension programs, beginning January 1, 2001.
The requirements or criteria for a student's eligibility for an alternative-to-suspension program are subject to a school district's determination. The statute indicates that those who would otherwise be subject to a suspension and who meet the school's requirements for participation in the alternative-to-suspension program shall be transferred to a location isolated from other pupils or to a location not on school premises. The program must also be discipline-intensive and require academic work. It may also include elements of community service, groundskeeping and litter control, parental supervision, and evaluation or other appropriate activities determined by the district. Proposed revisions to Amphitheater Policy JKD had been submitted for review and discussion.
From an implementation standpoint, every school in the district has an in-school suspension room that can be used, together with El Hogar, to meet the new legal requirements. District personnel are exploring other options as well in ongoing meetings with representatives of other districts. The administration recommended approval of this item.
Dr. Balentine noted that the Board had previously reviewed this policy, and its suggestions were included. This was in response to a legislative requirement, and the district was actually in a very good position for January implementation of a requirement for alternative-to-suspension programs in the district. Mr. Jaeger was available to respond to any questions.
Mrs. Schuh asked the Superintendent, with her past experience, whether she was comfortable with the rewriting of the policy, did she think it workable. Dr. Balentine replied that she was comfortable with it, and particularly comfortable that we included the exceptions listed under "The immediate suspension was not due to:" (including "selling using or possessing weapons, firearms, explosives, or dangerous instruments, engaging in arson," etc ).
Referring to this same list, Mr. Prout asked if there is a similar list/separate policy for those rules/ infractions/wrongdoings that delineates the various stages of suspension (10 days or less/over 10 days/expulsion). Mr. Jaeger responded that Governing Board Policy JIC sets forth the Student Code of Conduct; it is a fairly exhaustive list of offenses and violations for which discipline is warranted. The Governing Board has been very explicit in directing the kinds of disciplinary response that should occur for those specific kinds of offenses. JIC is very specific in terms of whether it should be a short-term suspension/long- term suspension/recommendation for expulsion. This policy simply indicates that when suspended for whatever offense, students are eligible for the alternative-to-suspension program unless the offense for which they have been determined to be responsible happens to be one of those listed.
Dr. Barrabee asked if he was correct in assuming that this is parallel to legal requirements from the state. Mr. Jaeger replied that it does comport with the legal requirements. Mr. Prout asked if JIC also addresses suspension/expulsion, or is it because of the "due process" in the title that it falls here and not in the other one as well. Mr. Jaeger replied in the affirmative. He added that what the state is doing is setting up a limitation on what can be done in terms of disciplining students; it is setting up a restriction on what you can do even after due process is afforded. That is why it was put here. Dr. Balentine stated she believes that the statute actually requires that a district specify the particular infractions that are excluded from these programs; that is the reason we specify them in this policy. Mr. Jaeger confirmed that Policy JIC has not been changed in any way. Mrs. Schuh expressed her appreciation for the incorporation of the recent changes into district policy.
Mrs. Schuh moved that the Board accept these revisions to Policy JKD regarding student suspensions and expulsions, to provide for alternatives to suspension. The motion was seconded by Ms. Young Wright and passed unanimously.
14. Approval of 2001 Capital Plan and New Construction Project Request
Board members had received a copy of the 2001 Capital Plan and New Construction Project
Request.
Dr. Balentine stated that the State of Arizona School Facilities Board requires the submission of this capital plan. Dr. Frey was available for questions.
Mr. Prout referred to Method(s) Used to Develop Student Population Projections, noting that it did not indicate that Griffin Consulting had consulted with any builders or developers, Southern Arizona Homeowners Building Association, or Pinal County, and asked whether there should have been some consultation. He stated it seemed as though the methods used were incomplete. Dr. Balentine responded that this information (including entities such as the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association and Oro Valley) will be forwarded to the Board next week.
Mr. Prout noted that the proposed Oracle development had not been included. Dr. Frey replied that the reliability of information provided by the developers is tenuous at best. The district receives information about planned developments; internally, in the district we keep a development data base which logs everything that comes in, be it a plat, rezoning request, etc. Then, using demographic multipliers, we project the number of students at each grade level by school, identifying expected impact. That information was provided to Griffin Consulting, so they had the information that we had from builders or developers in terms of their plans; the Pima Association of Government also gathers and uses that information in their projections. We did not ask Griffin Consulting to do population projections for any other school district. In district enrollment projections, Dr. Frey did a weighted extrapolation of Oracle students based upon our previous experience with these students and what we knew at that time. As we learn of developments, those projections are adjusted accordingly. Now that this is the third year we will have the Griffin projections, we can do some type of pattern analysis. Then if we need to make adjustments, we will do that next year and provide those modifications to the School Facilities Board. That will include any adjustments that are on the horizon, for Oracle School District in particular, as well as our preschool population.
Mr. Prout inquired about the facilities board's methodology of sending us appropriate money for starting construction. He said it seemed that in high-growth areas, such as we have experienced over the last 10 years, that when there is a build-out envisioned for the entire district, the district would be wise to start making some placeholders.
Dr. Frey replied that the School Facilities Board has adjusted its original policy on acquisition of land. Originally they were looking at acquiring land only three or four years out, so you basically received the land a year before you started developing your plans. Now they will fund purchase of land 10 years out, which is why this particular request is going in. They are also in the process of submitting to the legislature a request to change the square-footage requirements for grades seven and eight, which will work very much in the district's favor. They already have the policy allowing them to approve purchase of land 10 years out. When they changed the formula -- assuming that the legislature approves it -- then we will qualify for new school funding for our next middle school earlier than with the current formula. Dr. Frey said the reality of the law is that the facilities board would have to buy the district land even if that included condemning existing built-up property and paying for demolition so that we have a building site. She thinks we can demonstrate fairly effectively that it is in everyone's interest to try to get a piece of property for a school that we all know is going to be on the horizon.
Mr. Prout said that he is talking not only about this site, but also about a fourth high school: When would we need a fourth high school, based on the Griffin studies, if nothing else? Dr. Frey replied that based on the Griffin study, we will need a fourth high school in the year 2015, which would put us past the 10 years. We are going to be sharing information with Oro Valley so all planning information will be available and we will all be operating from the same basic information base.
Mr. Prout stated that it seemed that relying on condemnation statutes is a pricey way to go. Either make a placeholder somehow for the fourth high school, or we will be looking at some dire consequences ten years from now. Dr. Frey stated that she can do short-range enrollment projections and be fairly accurate, but does not have the technical expertise or training to project populations 25 years out. There followed a discussion of the functioning of the State School Facilities Board and an application made by the district. Mr. Prout stated he felt the district should be challenging the facilities board to look at the district in a way that addresses the most-likely worst case, and that would be to pull some of the growth into the ten-year window.
Ms. Young Wright stated she had been a critic of the Griffin Report, because it seemed that as an out-of-town firm they were unfamiliar with many things that were going on, including the towns of Tortolita and Casas Adobes and their incorporation attempts; and the 4,000 acres north of here. She believed we do need a new study, but would like to see a local planner conduct the study.
Ms. Young Wright asked Dr. Frey if she felt 2007-2008 is soon enough, given the scarcity of land that we have encountered. Dr. Balentine noted that the State School Facilities Board is having its meeting at Amphitheater in September. Dr. Frey stated that the school will need to open for the 2007-2008 school year. We are asking that they purchase land now. If the legislation changes or if we have cause to change our enrollment projections, then our next request would be for funding and construction of the middle school. We are asking for the purchase of the land now, within this or the next fiscal year.
There was discussion of cooperating with the town of Oro Valley for land donations. Dr. Frey said that anything we could do that would involve either donation of land or cost-sharing would be favorably received by the facilities board, which is interested in doing everything possible so they don't have to pay for land. There was discussion of a joint meeting being held with the Oro Valley Town Council.
It was the recommendation of the Administration that the Capital Plan and New Construction Project Request Packet be approved by the Governing Board.
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh, seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously, to approve the request.
15. Study of Revisions to Governing Board Policy DJE and Administrative Regulation DJE-R
Regarding Bidding/Purchasing Procedures and Emergency Purchases
Board book information: Governing Board Policy vests authority for purchasing, contracting,
competitive bidding and related matters with the Superintendent, requiring that the same be
conducted in accordance with Arizona school district procurement rules.
Administrative Regulation DJE-R describes in some detail the administrative procedures for bidding and purchasing. The regulation includes a section on "Emergency Purchases." Provision for emergency purchases is also found in the Arizona School District Procurement Rules found in the Arizona Administrative Code:
R7-2-1056. Emergency Procurements
R7-2-1057. Emergency Procurement Procedure
|
Revisions as shown in the drafts would require that the Governing Board President or Vice-President, in that order of preference, authorize an emergency procurement, rather than the Superintendent as currently provided. If neither the President nor Vice-President is available, then any Board member could make the authorization.
Dr. Smith noted this was the first reading for the policy revision, and was therefore for study only. Dr. Balentine reported that administration had suggested some changes to this policy in relation to emergency procedures in particular, as well as emergency purchases. Mr. Jaeger was available to discuss and take suggestions.
Dr. Smith stated that effectively what this does is to shift the responsibility for making decisions about emergency procurements from the Superintendent to the President of the Board. He stated that he considered a bad idea; he thought the Superintendent's familiarity with what would be involved is something he would be willing to depend upon more than he would be willing to depend upon himself. He certainly would not want to the leave the Superintendent out of the loop. He noted that the policy did not indicate who in the district would report to the President of the Board and request such an emergency procurement.
Mrs. Schuh noted that Board members had received information separate from the packet which she had not had time to fully study, and asked if discussion could be postponed. She stated she did not find anything on how we operate with Mojave on procurements; she would like more detail on what this district actually does, that it was somewhat generic. Dr. Smith stated he did not see great urgency in addressing this item, and noted that the Board would not be passing a motion on this item until the January meeting; changes could also be made at the meeting of adoption.
Ms. Young Wright stated that what she was looking for on this item was a check and balance system. She would like to see some sort of Board vote, but did not want to see it shift from staff over strictly to the Board. She noted this is an ASBA Policy, and stated that at the ASBA Legal Conference, there was mention made of emergency procurement and sole-source procurement being two items the Board should never exclusively delegate to staff.
Mr. Prout stated that the only change envisioned in the current packet is taking away the authority that resides today with the Superintendent and putting it with the Board President or Vice President or, by default, to any member of the Board. Mr. Jaeger replied that so far that was true. In discussion, Dr. Smith stated his only suggestion was to leave it in the hands of the Superintendent, to be made in consultation with the President of the Board, or the Vice President, or somebody else if those people are not available. Mr. Prout stated the only thing that seemed unwise to him was somehow tying the need for an emergency purchase to the Board quorum. Dr. Smith responded that he was not suggesting that. He stated that typically these procurements require approval of the Board; he thought that routinely we should get approval of the Board unless it is a legitimate bona fide emergency that is of threat to people or something of that sort.
Upon inquiry by Mr. Prout about an approval threshold for large purchases being brought to the Board, Mr. Jaeger replied that that was presented to the Board in a Friday report; it was not a change in policy, but is our administrative practice. Mr. Prout asked if it should be incorporated into this policy; Dr. Smith stated he thought it would be simpler to have it separate. Mr. Jaeger said it could be included here if the Board wished. Mr. Prout noted that this was bidding and purchasing procedures. Mr. Jaeger stated that, to answer also to Mrs. Schuh's question in reference to Mojave, and the state-purchased contracts that is noted on the last page of the regulation, that would be a place where we could put the threshold figure ($30,000) where the Board would be notified. In discussion, Dr. Balentine stated that if the Board wished this included, that would be fine; Dr. Smith indicated it could be included.
Board members requested future agenda items:
| Mr. Prout: review of Policy FF, which states only that the district discourages
the naming of schools after a person; consideration of the deletion of "discourages" and
insertion of "prohibits."
Mr. Prout: look at district curriculum alignment with the AIMS Test. (Dr. Balentine indicated this is being agendized for late February or March). Ms. Young Wright: discussion of graduation requirements. (Dr. Balentine noted this is being agendized). Mrs. Schuh: discussion of increasing grade school and middle school music/art participation, considering the provision of complete chorus programs for Cross Middle School students. |
There were no public comments
Board members again expressed appreciation to Painted Sky for their hospitality.
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh, seconded by Mr. Prout and passed unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 9:42 p.m.