MINUTES OF REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING OF GOVERNING BOARD
Place, Date and Time of Meeting
701 W. Wetmore Road, July 25, 2000, 6:18 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
John E. Rose, 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. Consideration of and Decision Upon Recommendation of Hearing Officer for Student Expulsion, Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-843(A). |
Reconvening of Meeting and Signing of Visitors Register
Following the executive session, Dr. Smith reconvened the meeting at 7:04 p.m., and asked
members of the audience to sign the visitors register. Procedures for addressing the Board
were described.
Pledge of Allegiance
Dr. Balentine led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1. Announcement of Date and Place of Next Meeting
Dr. Smith announced the next regular meeting of the Governing Board: August 8, 2000,
7:00 p.m., at Wetmore Center, 701 West Wetmore.
There were no comments from the public.
A motion was made by Mr. Prout to approve consent agenda items A-I, with the exception of the July 1, 2000 minutes, in order to amplify an item in those minutes. Dr. Barrabee seconded the motion and requested that Addendum to Personnel Changes also be excluded from the consent agenda vote. Mr. Prout accepted this change.
The amended motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Appointment of personnel is effective, provided all district, state and federal requirements are met.
Mr. Prout requested that for the July 1, 2000 Governing Board minutes, more detail of the travel reduction discussion (agenda item 1) be included in the minutes. He stated that since the travel reduction amount was misquoted in the newspaper recently, it was important to have more amplification in the minutes to show the district is reducing out-of-district travel by 75 percent. He noted that there was some argument to have a moratorium on travel out of the district, and felt that point deserved amplification. It was agreed that Mr. Prout would prepare an addition to be included in the minutes, which would be checked with Vice President Nancy Young Wright before being published.
Dr. Smith stated that the motion on the floor (see above paragraph) was to approve the July 1, 2000, minutes, with corrections to be provided by Mr. Prout and approved by Ms. Young Wright. Ms. Young Wright seconded the motion.
Ms. Young Wright stated that the minutes of the July 1, 2000 Board meeting, item 2, Discussion of the La Cholla Boulevard Expansion, reflected that she requested the district's rezoning policy be brought back to the Board this summer for review. She asked that the minutes be changed to reflect that that the district does not yet have a rezoning policy, and asked that a policy be brought to the Board for discussion and finalization. Mr. Prout, the maker of the motion, accepted this change.
The amended motion to approve the minutes of July 1, 2000, passed unanimously, 5-0.
Dr. Barrabee stated that under Addendum for Personnel Changes, Board members had not been provided with biographical information on the Donaldson Elementary School principal appointee. Dr. Balentine replied that a possible reason for the exclusion is that the appointee is a current administrator in the district rather than an outside candidate. Such biographical information will be included in the future.
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee, seconded by Ms. Young Wright, and passed unanimously, 5-0, to accept the Addendum to Personnel Changes.
|
A. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings Governing Board minutes were approved: July 10, July 1 (amended; see above), June 13, and May 24, 2000.
B. Appointment of Personnel
C. Personnel Changes
D. Leave(s) of Absence
E. Separation(s) and Termination(s)
F. Acceptance of Gifts
G. Approval of Vouchers
H. Textbooks for Adoption
I. Approval of Student Insurance |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. Discussion of Progress of Painted Sky Elementary School
An update on Painted Sky Elementary School was provided. Doug Aho, project manager, reported
that Painted Sky is 99% completed. He provided information on the fire-alarm monitoring
system. Principal Bruce Weigold spoke of communication with district families and parent
volunteers. There are currently 543 students registered. Ribbon cutting will take place two
to three weeks after final construction. Appreciation was expressed for the teamwork and
cooperation throughout the district in the opening of the school.
4. Discussion of Progress of New Amphitheater High School
Doug Aho, Construction Manager, presented an update on the new high school. Construction is on
schedule, with the school 40 percent complete and within budget. Architect Richard Clutter
provided information on the parking lot composition/construction.
In discussion of value engineering and changes for the new high school, Dr. Frey stated that in value engineering, what they are looking for are changes in design of a project that do not negatively impact the functionality of the building and the ability to maintain and keep the facility repaired. The primary reason this was done is there was a budget shortfall and the project needed to be brought back within budget. The functional effect of these changes should be neutral at least. Dr. Frey noted that the total budget for this project, including bond funds, adjacent ways, and soft capital monies, is $39,000, 595. The changes were done in collaboration with the project team, and reviewed by the engineers and Facilities Support staff.
Ms. Schuh inquired as to where changes were authorized. Dr. Frey replied that when the Governing Board authorizes a budget for a project, that project is provided to the architect, and it is the responsibility ultimately of the architect to design the facility within the budget that is allocated. In developing projects, the district utilizes a team approach so the architect is not making these decisions without district staff input, to make sure we have maintainability protected as well as the functional elements so that we are not negatively impacting instruction and student programs. That actually is part of the architect's charge when the Board awards the contract to the architect. In continued discussion, Dr. Frey stated that all changes were incorporated in the bid package approved by the Governing Board.
Audience member George Lambert addressed the Board regarding isolation valves. Wayne Bryant spoke on the desirability of the four-pipe system at the new high school. Architect Richard Clutter, responded. Dr. Smith stated that he felt nothing could be done about this matter, and asked, in the future when we are speaking of large numbers, that the Board not to be surprised by this type of thing.
The design engineer for the mechanical system, Dick Palmer of Palmer Engineering, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Prout inquired if a thermal model could be produced. Ms. Young Wright asked, if the Board were to consider the four-pipe system, were there contingency monies available. Dr. Frey responded that at this time they have several requests for use of the monies that they are reviewing. Changing to a four-pipe system would require more funds than are available, and would allow no change orders anywhere else within the project. Dr. Smith requested, as we start spending those funds, that substantial amounts of those funds not be spent without the Board being informed. Dr. Balentine noted they had intended to include that information in the monthly updates. She stated that if the Board wanted to put a dollar amount on it, at the next Board meeting it could be agendized for required Board approval. Board members requested the total cost of security guards on the new high school property.
Larry Hansman, Building Systems Manager, addressed the Board regarding the two-pipe/four-pipe systems now in Amphitheater schools. He stated that a two-pipe system will work in the new high school and provide a comfortable environment. Mr. Prout stated that the Board did not have collective knowledge to design the system, and would rely upon the experts on staff; if they are telling the Board the system is adequate and have examples, the Board should trust them.
Ms. Schuh and Mr. Prout spoke of upcoming agenda items: review of remaining bond monies, including bathroom projects for Amphitheater and Canyon del Oro high schools. Dr. Barrabee stated that in the spirit of accountability, he was requesting the actual amounts spent in 1999-00 on attorneys' fees. The Superintendent will follow up on these areas.
Dr. Hooley noted that Board members had received the time lines for the opening of the new high school. He spoke of the hiring committee, which will hire the core team of teachers who will come into the school and head up the planning prior to opening of the school. He stated this is all predicated on teachers choosing to move to the new high school and being willing to be interviewed and hired on the core team well in advance of the opening. Dr. Hooley reviewed the time lines. A search for the principal will be conducted, with the principal and his/her support staff on board and the administration building open around March.
Ms. Schuh spoke of the public vote on bonds and making sure everybody's projects are met, not rushing to judgment on the new high school. Mr. Prout stated he appreciated Mrs. Schuh's concern, and asked, if it were possible, for the next meeting to have a tabulation of where we are, not just for the high school but for all bonds, to show where the voters were promised that certain things would be built with their money and how far we have progressed into those promises, what promises will be kept, what will not be kept.
There was discussion of curriculum/programs at the new high school, in particular vocational classes. Mr. Prout asked, as a measure of the effectiveness of the district's educational efforts, if the district has follow-up of any kind on graduating students. Dr. Balentine stated that although she was not familiar with what Amphitheater District does, there is typically regular follow-up in districts, with varying responses from students; also, some private companies offer this service to districts that may not have the staffing capability to provide the survey follow-up. Mr. Prout responded that there is no way the district can pay to obtain this information, but it would be nice to know how many of our graduates can maintain the career-enabling lifestyle they want based upon twelve-and-a-half years of the district's education. Dr. Balentine will ascertain to what extent the District has this information available; she noted that when the position of Director of Student Services is filled, this could fall within that realm.
Ms. Schuh inquired as to the district's involvement with apprenticeship programs. Dr. Smith noted that contact has been made with him and discussion is in process. Mr. Prout asked that this item be placed on a future agenda. Dr. Hooley noted that in planning for the new high school, they have considered studies of what kinds of professions are most needed and in demand in the 21st century; there is a shift from the more traditional courses. Looking at the new as well as existing high schools as a way to meet needs, they are focusing on food services, health occupations and graphic and communication programs. Dr. Smith asked that this information be provided to the Board.
Dr. Barrabee spoke of his concern that there be a balanced program in the high school which will serve the needs of the many students not planning to attend college who have talents that lend themselves to other endeavors. He stated he looked forward to future discussions on this topic, adding that Amphi could support the development of a regional vocational/technology center that would support the expense of some of the training, equipment and facilities needed. Dr. Smith stated that it would be on the agenda for the next Board meeting.
Dr. Barrabee spoke of the new high school principal being a key educational as well as administrative leader, and asked if it would be possible to accelerate the hiring of that person, perhaps on a part-time basis to begin with. Dr. Balentine stated that if we are able to identify the budget capability in this fiscal year, it would be to the district's advantage, assuming the candidate is available, to start the candidate as soon as possible after the December/January selection. Ms. Young Wright suggested, related to vocational education, that it would be worthwhile contacting Professor Ball from ASU, who took part in a debate on AIMS/math standards.
Board members briefly revisited the two-pipe/four-pipe situation at the new high school, and concurred that financially the system could not be changed, that it would remain a two-pipe system, and that it would not be revisited. Board members expressed the hope that more timely communication would be had in the future.
5. Revision of District Policies JR and KDB and Corresponding Regulations Regarding Student
Records and Public Information
The revision of District Policies JR and KDB and corresponding regulations regarding student
records and public information was presented for study and further discussion and direction
from the Board. Mr. Jaeger noted that law defining what directory information may contain is
very broad, defining directory information in terms of what it may contain, not what it must
contain. The district is entitled to limit that information as much as it chooses. Mr. Jaeger
described the revisions as presented.
Board members spoke of the responsibility to protect the children of the district, and expressed concern about inappropriate release of information in the future. Discussion followed, with advice from Mr. Jaeger as to yearbook information and privacy issues, and from Dr. Balentine as to school activities. There was discussion of requests for public records for commercial purposes.
A motion was made by Mr. Prout and seconded by Dr. Barrabee to change the definition of directory information to delete the parents' names, students' addresses and students' phone numbers. Dr. Barrabee asked Dr. Balentine if that is something that the district could function with. Dr. Balentine responded that we can live with that limitation; parent groups at district schools will need to develop other strategies for the common practice of having a student directory with addresses and phone numbers that is handed out across the school population. Those strategies could be developed, and the practice continuing with people who want to be included in those directories. In terms of school-by-school issues, Dr. Balentine stated she believes that all of the other items remaining as directory information will allow schools to continue in a smooth fashion in areas such as yearbooks and programs.
Ms. Young Wright stated that in addition to the student issue is the employee issue. She therefore requested that on the next agenda the Board finish this whole matter and talk about the letters that were received by Career Ladder employees, with Mr. Jaeger to provide for the Board some information of how they may or may not be involved, and whether district employees are subject to the Hatch Act, which prohibits supervisors from influencing employees during an election.
Mr. Prout asked for clarification on whether the policy under consideration applies to district contractors (specifically Community Extension Programs), whether these contractors are acting in accordance with policy, respecting the privacy of the students, as they are dealing with phone numbers of students who are being enrolled in their programs. Mr. Jaeger advised the Board. There was discussion of requiring contractors to follow district guidelines, and enforceability of those guidelines.
Mr. Prout stated that when releasing educational records, he would like for the district to consider the recipient of those records posting a bond in a to-be-determined amount as to the use of those records, with forfeiture of bonds if the district could show a breach good-faith use of the records. Mr. Prout asked that this matter be placed on a future agenda.
In discussion, Mr. Jaeger stated that the directory notice form sent to students' homes will contain a disclosure indicating that the remaining elements of the directory may be sold, and that if they do not want that information released, they can so indicate and the district will not release it; otherwise it may be released without their notice. It will be clearly indicated that "this following information may be released without your advanced permission." Dr. Balentine noted that in reality whatever we identify as directory information could be requested and then released for any purpose. She added that what the Board was proposing to do is probably the strongest interjection in terms of directory information that is available or happening in any school district she is aware of; we are taking an active stance.
Mr. Prout recommended making it suitably restrictive so that we don't care what is being done with the remaining information. Dr. Barrabee concurred, asking that it be made explicitly clear that we have no control over the information. Dr. Smith asked that this be considered direction for the administration, realizing that it was distantly related to the motion on the floor.
Ms. Young Wright, referring to May 23, 2000 Board meeting, noted there was an inquiry as to how many schools were using the wrong form; Mr. Jaeger responded that this information is being collected but is difficult to ascertain. Mr. Jaeger described the process which all schools will follow in sending out an identical form this year: As the law suggests, within the first three weeks of school the new notice will be sent out; everyone will receive the same form at the same time. After the schools send the notice home, the families have ten working (school) days to return the form. After that point the directory information can be released; no information will be released until after that point.
Ms. Young Wright referred to the May 23, 2000 Board meeting, where the Board directed staff to retrieve disks from Gary Woodard. Mr. Jaeger responded that they have requested the disks but have not yet received them; Mr. Woodard has indicated he will return the disks. Ms. Young Wright stated that staff was also directed to prepare a written apology to parents, guardians, and teachers for the violation of their privacy with an assurance that names and addresses will not be released in the future without prior written consent; and direction was given to issue a press release, which she did not believe happened. In discussion, Mr. Jaeger stated that one way to ensure that everyone receives such a statement would be to include it with the disclosure information being sent to parents this year.
Ms. Young Wright referred to another part of the motion from May 23, requiring Digigraph and any other mailing houses to return or destroy any disks with student and parent information. Mr. Jaeger stated that he had confirmed with Mr. Woodard that Digigraph had never had any disks. Mr. Jaeger will communicate to Mr. Woodard that it would be appreciated if he could assure parents, by some methodology, of the fact that the disk will not be used again and that no copy has been provided to anyone else.
A copy of the letter to accompany the agreement form sent to parents will be provided to the Board in the Friday communication packet. Dr. Barrabee stated that a weak link in the past has been the manner in which new policy and forms have been distributed to principals; he asked that this be looked into.
The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
There was discussion of student records policies/regulations and Arizona statutes related to changing of grades.
Ms. Young Wright asked that when Mr. Jaeger is communicating with the individual who purchased the last disk from the district, that he be asked to provide assurance that no copy had been provided to any PAC's, other individuals, or any campaign committee. Mr. Prout stated that this is a privacy problem which has not been reconciled, and asked that staff be directed to come up with a course of action to preclude this. Dr. Smith requested that Dr. Balentine and Mr. Jaeger present recommendations at the next Board meeting for resolving some of the problems that have been brought up at this meeting, including the contradiction in policies that we became involved in the last time.
A break was taken from 10:08 to 10:18 p.m.
6. Request to Increase Course Fees at Canyon Del Oro High School
Dr. Hooley noted a revised memo, from Bob Wendel to Mike Gemma/Dr. Richard Hooley, reflecting
requests for fee changes. In discussion, Dr. Hooley stated that fees are assessed from
students in courses that exceed the typical cost for educational processes; they are not
assessed for courses that are a part of the regular program; the courses are extracurricular,
vocational and elective in nature. It was the recommendation of the administration that the
proposed course fee changes at Canyon del Oro High School be approved, beginning with the
2000-2001 school year.
A motion was made by Ms. Schuh and seconded by Dr. Barrabee to approve the recommendation of the administration. Bob Wendel, CDO counselor, addressed the Board.
The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Mr. Prout asked to see a complete list of all fee courses for the high schools.
7. Review of Professional Travel Policy
Dr. Smith noted that only professional travel was agendized. Mr. Prout asked that the item be
made all encompassing, and placed on the next agenda. Board members were in agreement.
8. Discussion/Action Regarding Facility Usage Fees and Procedures
Dr. Frey reported that the district's current rental rates had been reviewed and compared to
those of neighboring school districts; current policies and regulations were also reviewed.
Based on this analysis, modifications in the rental rates as well as adjustments to the
implementation of district policy and regulations related to facility use had been proposed.
It was the recommendation of the administration that the Governing Board approve the rental
rates for 2000-2001 as presented, and direct the administration to implement the
recommendations related to policies and regulations as detailed in the memorandum to the
Superintendent. Insurance and liability issues were addressed.
A motion was made by Ms. Schuh and seconded by Ms. Young Wright that the Board accept the fee schedules, starting with Attachment E, as recommended by the administration.
Discussion which followed included the handling of fees through the central rental office, levels of fees charged, fees for profit/non-profit groups, waiver of fees and payment on a sliding scale.
Dr. Smith noted that in four weeks the Board will have presented to it the best information the administra-tion can glean on the various organizations that the Board is unaware of which are using district facilities. Ms. Young Wright requested a list of organizations for which fees are charged, and a list of organizations for which fees are waived; Dr. Smith asked that the organizations be identified by more than title.
Mr. Prout suggested the marketing of district facilities to homeowners associations. In discussion, Dr. Frey stated that ACES is under an Intergovernmental Agreement and does not pass through facilities usage; Ms. Young Wright asked that this be looked at, whether there should be a charge. In discussion of use of facilities by political organizations and petitions on school grounds, Ms. Young Wright asked that this be revisited, to make sure that there are no policy contradictions. It was noted that the district no-smoking regulation needs to be reflected in all documents.
The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Joann Benoit addressed the Board regarding facility usage.
9. Award of Bid – District Carpet Cleaning
Bids for district carpet cleaning work were opened on July 20, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. by Hazel
Houston, purchasing agenda. Board members had received a bid tally. It was the recommendation
of the administration that the bid for district carpet cleaning be awarded to J & J Chem Dry,
in the amount of 8.9 cents per square foot.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright, seconded by Ms. Schuh and passed unanimously, 5-0, to approve the recommendation of the administration.
10. Consideration of and Decision Upon Proposals Submitted for Outside Legal Services
Dr. Balentine stated that a summary of proposals for outside legal services had been submitted
to the Board. The item was presented to the Board for a decision at the Board's discretion,
consistent with the criteria set forth in the request for proposals. It was clarified that
once the firms are selected, it is the Board's discretion which firms to call upon.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright to direct staff to award a bid to each of these firms. She stated that that way the district has a great deal of latitude. Mr. Prout seconded the motion.
Dr. Smith stated that that the firm of Risner & Graham is his personal attorney, and that he would not vote on that particular firm. Ms. Schuh stated that to consider the firm separately, she would move that Risner & Graham be offered a contract. Ms. Young Wright noted that the firm Raven & Awerkamp was not her personal attorney, but represented a neighborhood coalition, so she would not vote on that firm if that were a problem. Mr. Jaeger advised the Board on this matter; he stated that neither Dr. Smith nor Ms. Young Wright were presented here with a legal conflict of interest. Ms. Schuh stated she would withdraw her motion to separate Risner and Graham if the seconder would withdraw the second.
Mr. Prout restated the motion to accept all proposals as they are written. Ms. Schuh seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. Dr. Smith and Ms. Young Wright abstained.
Sally Secrist addressed the Board regarding the district directory. Mr. Jaeger will speak further with Ms. Secrist.
11. Requests for Future Agenda Items
In addition to requests made during the meeting, the following requests for future agenda
items were made: Mr. Prout, sedans and vans; Ms. Schuh, IGA with the city (pool at
Amphitheater High School); Dr. Smith, open enrollment policy for the new high school; policy on
selection of principals and central office administrators; staff directory.
A motion was made by Ms. Schuh, seconded by Mr. Prout and passed unanimously, 5-0, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 11:37 p.m.