MINUTES OF REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING OF GOVERNING BOARD
Place, Date and Time of Meeting
701 West Wetmore Road, November 1, 2000, 6:34 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
| A. Consideration and Determination of Appeal of Recommendation of Long-Term Suspension by District Hearing Officer, Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-843(A) |
The Board convened into executive session at 6:35 p.m.
Reconvening of Meeting and Signing of Visitors Register Following the executive session, Dr. Smith reconvened the meeting at 7:02 p.m., and asked members of the audience to sign the visitors register. Procedures for addressing the Board were described.
Change of Agenda Agenda item 13, Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tucson for Design, Construction and Use of Amphitheater High School Softball, Baseball and Soccer Play Fields, was moved to follow item 8. There were no objections.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Linda Haller, Special Education Services Coordinator, introduced Rillito Center students Alan "A.J." Soderman and Jenelle McGee; and volunteers who volunteer at Rillito: Josh Baker (Cross Middle School) and Josh Medina (Amphitheater Middle School). Symbols of National Disabilities Awareness Week were presented to Board members. The students led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and were presented with certificates of commendation.
Teacher Marc Sabb addressed the Board regarding his concerns about amount salary increases.
2. Announcement of Date and Place of Next Meeting
Dr. Kenneth Smith announced the next regular meeting of the Governing Board: November 14, 2000,
7:00 p.m., at Wetmore Center, 701 West Wetmore.
3. Introduction of Amphi Foundation Coordinator
Bob Workman, Amphitheater Foundation President, announced recent grants received by the
foundation, and introduced Marie Fisher Williams, newly appointed Amphi Foundation Executive
Director. Ms. Fisher Williams addressed the Board, speaking of the foundation's programs that
support the district. A two-minute recess was taken while the Board welcomed Ms. Fisher
Williams.
4. Presentation of Video: "Lessons from the Class of 2000"
The video, "Lessons from the Class of 2000," was shown. Background information was provided in
a letter from Panfilo Contreras, Executive Director, Arizona School Boards Association. Dr.
Smith announced that for those making presentations to community groups, the video will be
available through Rob Raine in the Community Relations office.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright, seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously, to approve consent agenda items A-N, concluding with Vouchers. Appointment of personnel is effective, provided all district, state and federal requirements are met.
| A. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the September 26, 2000, and October 17, 2000 Governing Board meetings were approved.
B. Appointment of Personnel
C. Personnel Changes
D. Leave(s) of Absence
E. Separation(s) and Termination(s)
F. Approval of Participation with the University of Arizona in Special Education Teacher
Recruitment Program The teacher candidates are awarded scholarships for tuition, books, and mileage. Five courses are required. To assist in quality programming, the university adds an additional member to support the teachers in the field, providing a day a week to the district for inservicing and providing direct instruction to the teacher candidates. The district will be responsible for $6,000 per year for the training of two such teachers each year for five years. Teachers who are well qualified to work with students at this level of disability are very difficult to find; this program allows the district to support teachers into this field who are already committed to Amphitheater Public Schools. The Board approved participation in this program.
G. Approval of Coronado Preschool/Headstart Grant
H. Approval of Participation of La Canada Group Home Students in El Hogar Program
I. Call for Bids: Scoreboards for New High School
J. Call for Bids: Rigging, Lighting and Sound Systems for New High School Auditorium and
Fine Arts Buildings
K. Call for Bids: Commercial Laundry and Residential Equipment for New High School
L. Acceptance of Gifts
M. Determination of Administrative Employees Eligible for Membership in and Representation
by Amphitheater Leadership Association; Determination of Administrative Employees Ineligible
for Membership in and Representation by Amphitheater Leadership Association
The Board approved the above classifications as exempt from membership in Amphitheater Leadership Association.
N. Approval of Vouchers
|
5. Approval of Salary Increases for Personnel on Previously Capped Salary Schedule Steps;
Approval of Adjustment of Salary Schedule Caps Upward by a Step
For the past several years, the district's negotiated salary schedule contained "caps" or
limits on the number of steps a certificated employee could advance on the schedule. These
caps were tied to the employee's educational advancement. Specifically, the schedule has
provided that teachers had to earn the following educational levels in order to reach the
corresponding salary steps:
| 15 college credits beyond BA/BS | Step 8 | |
| 30 college credits beyond BS/BS | Step 9 | |
| 45 college credits beyond BA/BS | Step 10 | |
| Masters Degree | Step 10.5 |
Under the salary schedule, if a teacher had not earned the requisite college credits or degree, they did not advance by step. They did receive the benefit of percentage increases to the steps on which they were "frozen."
Last year's negotiations did not address modification of the long-standing salary caps described above. However, the Governing Board did add a new step to the top of the schedule. It was within the Board's discretion to adjust the above referenced caps upward as well, and allow employees previously frozen to advance a step. This agenda item allowed the Board to do so by adjusting the step caps as follows:
| 15 college credits beyond BA/BS | Step 8.5 | |
| 30 college credits beyond BS/BS | Step 9.5 | |
| 45 college credits beyond BA/BS | Step 10.5 | |
| Masters Degree | Step 11 |
The movement of 55 affected teachers a step would cost approximately $53,944, which constitutes the difference between the cost of the steps to which the 55 employees would advance and cost of the percentage increase they would have received by remaining on their current capped steps.
Because this modification of the salary schedule caps was not negotiated last year, the Superintendent had solicited the Amphitheater Education Association Executive Board to sanction adjustment of the caps. Their approval was fully anticipated, but had not been received at the time this agenda item was issued to the Board.
The administration recommended the Board approve the adjustment of the current salary step caps upward by a step and approve the advancement of a step on the resulting schedule of the 55 teachers currently on the existing capped steps.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright and seconded by Dr. Barrabee to approve the recommendation of the administration. Mrs. Schuh questioned whether the motion needed to include provision of funds necessary to implement the raises. Dr. Balentine responded that the administration will carefully analyze the district budget to identify source of funds and report back to the Board. This matter will also be considered in next year's negotiations.
Audience members addressed the Board: Chris Clark, regarding the effective date of the increase (Dr. Smith stated that it will be retroactive.); Gaylene Clark and Lynn Lybeck, in appreciation of passage of the motion; John Herrold, regarding the salary increase for new teachers (Dr. Balentine will look into this matter). John Lewandowski, Amphi E.A. President, informed the Board that just prior to this Board meeting the Amphi E.A. Executive Board had met, indicating its support for the recommendation before the Board. Mrs. Schuh called for the question.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. Monthly New High School Update
A. Construction Update
Doug Aho, Construction Manager, provided a construction update on the new high school:
Out of a total contract price of $29,857,000, paid out to date (including pay application
No. 9) was $20,637,127.05. The project was on schedule, within budget, and 69% complete.
Amount certified for this payout, $2,396,968.68. The balance to finish, including retainage,
$9,219,872.95. Milestones at this time included: Southwest Gas is already piping to the
buildings; the football and soccer fields are already being mowed; the bridges are scheduled to
arrive on site in 10 to 12 days; exterior doors are being placed on buildings A and B. The
anticipated completion date is May 29, 2001. Board members had received a weekly report from
Joe E. Woods and a contingency report.
Ron Shannon, Director of Technology, reviewed technology components planned for the new high school site, including the voice, video and data system. One million dollars has been set aside for technology at the new high school for this purpose. Dr. Hooley noted that in addition to the technology allocation, funds will come from the opening school fund, and are available annually from curriculum grants. Mr. Shannon reported that each school receives a course set of software and then $1,000 each a year for additional software.
Mr. Shannon reviewed the following areas: data/computer network cabling, special systems, hardware, instructional core software, administrative applications provided on administrative computers, training and support (technology coaches, technology classes).
Mrs. Schuh asked for an update on the use of integrated media instruction in the district's two high schools and middle schools, whether the district is getting maximum use of its equipment. Dr. Balentine will make a report to the Board.
Mrs. Schuh asked to compare the new high school technology to the other high schools in the district. Mr. Shannon responded that the model being used for technology is consistent with not only the other high schools, but with all district schools.
Dr. Smith asked that administration check on whether the new high school has a production studio; Dr. Barrabee, whether the students are able to do some editing as well as live broadcasting. In discussion of use of VHS, laser disks and VCR's in the classrooms, Mr. Prout cautioned the proposed use of a head-in system.
B. Program Update
Dr. Hooley reported that the Hiring Team, selected from volunteers across the district, had
convened to select the Core Team, which will work together over the next ten months to prepare
for the opening of the new high school. Subcommittees of the Core Team will include Curriculum
Planning; Colors, Mascot, and Name; Library; Athletics and Activities; Supplies and Equipment;
and Principal Search. The Core Team has met three times to discuss the scope of the task and to
establish subcommittees. The team is now being completed. In discussion, Dr. Hooley stated
he is satisfied there will be a balanced representation on the team. There has been good
support from parents and students.
7. Board Approval of AIA (Arizona Interscholastic Association) Application
Board book information indicated that to ensure appropriate athletic schedules for all sports
and to offer AIA-sanctioned athletic and extracurricular programs at the new high school, the
AIA Full Membership Application must be signed by the Governing Board President and submitted
to the AIA. Dr. Hooley had reviewed the application and the suggested programs with the
athletic directors at both Amphitheater and Canyon del Oro high schools (Mike Cox and Mike
Bejarano respectively), and had also discussed the application with Sheila Baize, Sonoran
Region Chair of AIA.
Part of the AIA application requires a preliminary North Central Accreditation Application. Dr. Hooley had met with Dr. Jan P. Regnier, State Director of the North Central Association, to review the application process. This preliminary application was completed by members of the Core Team and is being reviewed by members of the North Central Association. An indication of approval from the North Central Association will be included with the AIA application.
Dr. Balentine noted the importance of submission of the AIA Application in order to ensure athletic schedule approval by the AIA. It was the recommendation of the administration that the Governing Board approve the Full Membership Application to the AIA.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright, seconded by Mrs. Schuh and passed unanimously, to approve the recommendation of the administration.
8. Building Deficiency Report
Dr. Balentine stated that in relation to the Students First Legislation, there is the ability
for school districts to identify deficiencies within the State School Facilities Board
guidelines and receive funds for repair.
Dr. Frey reported on the development of the Building Deficiency Report: On October 27, Dr. Balentine, Dr. Frey and Larry Hansman, Building Systems Manager, met with Ed Booth, Deputy Director of the School Facilities Board, and Bruce Fout, liaison coordinator. The district had a preliminary list from the Facilities Board. The purpose of that meeting was to see whether or not the district agreed with that list or felt that certain items had been left off the list. Following the meeting, Dr. Frey had combined lists.
Dr. Frey noted that on the spreadsheet presented, italicized items were items added for consideration during that meeting; items in regular type were the items that the School Facilities Board had indicated they thought represented deficiencies. As a result of this meeting -- because the items that we added during that meeting totaled over a million dollars on total projects -- there would need to be additional review of some of the projects. The italicized items are not certain projects; it is hoped those projects will be funded. The items fall primarily, especially in terms of dollars, into two areas. One is roofing; the other is heating/air conditioning/ventilation systems -- primarily air conditioning, but with some replacement of evaporative coolers.
Dr. Frey stated that at a previous Board meeting, she had informed the Board that a preliminary report had indicated that the School Facilities Board would be providing air conditioning in school district gymnasiums. The School Facilities Board has taken the position that those will not be air-conditioned unless a gymnasium already has air conditioning and the system needs to be replaced. Therefore, that will not be happening from the deficiencies perspective. What this does do is free up some money in other areas that we might otherwise have used our building renewal funds to do, which then could be put to other purposes.
Dr. Frey stated that at this point in time we expect to receive somewhere in the range of $4.5 to $4.9 million in deficiencies corrections. One project, the roof replacement at Mesa Verde, which was not on the original list, is being taken to the State Facilities Board the week after next as a critical project, which means that we can get that done before all the other projects begin.
Also learned in the meeting: The original schedule has projects being done in groups of priorities. For deficiencies, priority two is the highest level of priority. Priority ones are emergency deficiency projects that the State Facilities Board dealt with a year, two years ago. The district was told that at this point in time the plan is that they will do all priority 2's and portions of priority 3's next year; the priority 3's and a portion of the priority 3's the following year; and the remaining 3's and all priority five's the following year. The district was informed, however, that if Proposition 301 passes, the state intends to sell all of the bonds that would thereby be authorized for sale, so that they are not having to wait over a three-year period of time to correct deficiencies.
Mr. Prout noted the absence in the list of Amphitheater Middle School security fencing. Dr. Frey replied that the facilities guidelines include fencing for only the elementary level. It is permissible to use building renewal funds to address fencing issues. This item will be added to agenda item nine.
Change of Agenda
Dr. Smith noted a change of agenda, taking items 13 and 14 before item 9. There were no
objections.
13. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tucson for Design,
Construction and Use of Amphitheater High School Softball, Baseball and Soccer Play Fields
Mr. Jaeger reported that the City of Tucson and Pima County have partnered to contribute
improvements to the playing field facilities at Amphitheater High School. The proposed
improvements include the renovation and relocation of baseball, softball and soccer fields
located to the west of the school, and the addition of another field. The county has already
committed funds to the city, which will undertake the actual construction and enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with the district for the project.
Under the IGA, the district will have approval over design and construction standards of the project. The city will pay for all costs of construction, except for change orders requested by the district to which the city does not agree. In the latter situation, the district would pay for the change order. The district pays for no other aspect of construction. The district is responsible for continuing maintenance of the fields, and must continue to open the fields to public use through its normal practices and procedures. Fees charged by the district for public use of the fields may not exceed city or county fees for similar use of city or county fields. School use of the field takes precedence over non-school public use. The term of the agreement is for 25 years. If the district terminates early, the district reimburses the city for the improvements on a pro rata basis for each year remaining under the term of the agreement at the time of termination.
Mr. Jaeger stated the agreement was in proper form and within the authority of the Governing Board, and the administration recommended approval.
Mr. Felix stated he was present to respond to any questions regarding the agreement. He noted the summary was correct, and they were happy to be partners with the district and deal with needs relating to Amphi High School.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright to approve the agreement; Dr. Barrabee seconded the motion.
The Superintendent and Board members expressed appreciation to Dan Felix and Tucson City Councilman Jerry Anderson for their involvement in developing the agreement.
The motion passed unanimously.
14. Authorization of Superintendent to Execute Promissory Note to City of Tucson for
Payment of City of Tucson Special Assessment for Prince Road Sidewalk and Lighting Improvement
Projects
Board book information: As the Board was previously notified, the City of Tucson has enacted a
special assessment upon properties along and adjacent to Prince Road for the purpose of
constructing sidewalk and lighting improvements. The assessments to district properties are as
follows:
| Assessment No. 209 | Estimated Total | $12,888.85 | |
| Assessment No. 230 | Estimated Total | $13,294.07 |
A.R.S. § 48-582 provides that a governing body imposing special assessments specifically determines whether public property belonging to a school district is to be included in a special assessment. If the assessing governing body determines that the property of the school district is not to be included, then the assessment is apportioned to all remaining property owners without regard to the public property so excluded. If the governing body determines that the school district property is to be included in the special assessment, then the statute specifies that the municipality imposing the special assessment pays any sums assessed against the district property. The law also permits the district to contract with the municipality to pay for the assessment.
City Councilman Jerry Anderson has indicated that the city would agree to accept a promissory note or other contract from the district for payment of the above referenced assessments over time, which allows the district greater budget flexibility. The current district adjacent ways budget does not have capacity for payment of the assessments in full.
The administration recommended that the Board authorize the Superintendent to execute a promissory note and other appropriate documentation on behalf of the district for payment of the above referenced assessments. Under the terms of the payment agreement, the district shall make installment payments to the City over no more than five years, together with payment of interest.
Dr. Balentine recognized Councilman Anderson's involvement in this project, and recommended approval.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright, seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously, to approve the recommendation of the administration.
9. Approval of Building Renewal Plan for 2000-2001 School Year
Dr. Balentine stated that a building renewal priority list was being proposed, with the
thought in mind, as Dr. Frey mentioned, that we still have a few unknowns with the district's
deficiencies report that might replace certain recommendations related to the building renewal
money.
Dr. Frey reported that staff in the Facilities Support Services Department on an annual basis reviews the condition of all major systems in the district. From that we identify priorities for those systems. Additionally, schools request certain projects through an annual request beyond the allotment process that will be funded. Then administratively, outside of that process, issues will be brought to our attention. All of those projects are looked at and then priorities are assign based on what seems the urgency of need as well as available dollars. The list Board members had received has four levels of priority, each broken into a subtotal amount. The School Facilities Board has not yet allocated the building renewal funds for this current fiscal year; those allocations will be made at the November meeting. Bruce Fout, the district's liaison representative, has informed Dr. Frey verbally that we should be expecting approximately $2.6 million this year. That would allow the district to complete all of its priority 1's and then start moving into priority 2's, or, if we chose not do that, hold some of that money as contingency. The administration was bringing this to the Board for approval at this time to allow for planning for projects.
Dr. Frey reviewed the building renewal priority list. She asked for Board permission to move forward with the list and then be able to bring back an adjusted list after the School Facilities Board takes action on the district's deficiencies report in December.
Ms. Young Wright requested that funds for the replacement of plastic windows (Canyon del Oro High School and other district sites) be sought, through deficiency funds or other sources.
Dr. Frey reported that administrators, lead custodians, and evening security personnel have been asked to provide information on needs for security lighting; this will provide input from a security and personal safety standpoint, as well as employees being able to see where they are going while working. Mr. Prout inquired as to funding for Amphitheater Middle School fencing; Dr. Frey responded that and amount will be determined for the fencing, and this item added to the list. Ms. Schuh inquired as to the cost of water at Donaldson Elementary/use of well; Dr. Frey will report back to the Board on the status of the well.
Following discussion of further areas of concern, Dr. Smith asked Dr. Balentine for a recommendation. Dr. Balentine replied that approval was requested to begin planning for these projects so that once we meet with the School Facilities Board and have a final report, we can then make final adjustments and bring the Priority 1 complete list for approval.
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright to direct staff to follow Dr. Balentine's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously.
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
Reported in the board book: The Amphitheater Education Association and the district held an
election of classified employees to determine whether Amphi EA should continue as bargaining
and representative agent for classified employees. Amphi EA is presently serving as bargaining
and representative agent based upon a petition submission filed by the association last
year.
It is customary for employers to recognize two classifications of employees with respect to elections for and representation by employee organizations or unions. The first group would be those eligible for membership, and consequently, voting in an election to determine membership. The second group would be those ineligible to vote or be members of an association or employee organization.
Typically, the determining factor as to whether an employee may or may not participate in an employee organization or union is the nature of the employee's duties. An employee who regularly works with confidential, financial or managerial information is typically excluded from membership. Similarly, if the employee works in a management or administration support position, s/he is typically excluded, particularly where the employee is involved in the development of district negotiation proposals, grievances, hiring decisions and the like. Exclusion avoids conflicts of interest and the suggestion of unfair advantage. Thus, the following classifications of support or classified personnel would typically be excluded from eligibility in membership in an employee organization:
| 1. Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 2. Administrative Assistants to the Associate Superintendents 3. Administrative Assistant to the Associate to the Superintendent 4. Secretary to the Governing Board 5. Secretary to the Director of Human Resources 6. Secretary to the Executive Director for Student Services 7. Secretary to the Executive Director of Curriculum/Professional Development 8. Human Resources Supervisor 9. Records Lead 10. Employee Benefits Specialist 11. Secretary to the Equal Opportunity Specialist |
The Administration recommended the Governing Board approve the employee categories listed above as exempt from representation by Amphitheater Education Association. However, these employees will be included in the salary agreements approved at the August 29, 2000 Governing Board meeting.
Dr. Balentine stated that, as promised at the last Governing Board meeting, she had reviewed the list of those recommended to be exempt, reduced the number of employees on the list, and identified criteria for employees to be exempt. Additionally, she and Mr. Jaeger had met with these employees to discuss the issue. She recommended approval.
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee and seconded by Mrs. Schuh to approve the recommendation of the administration.
John Lewandowski addressed the Board, stating Amphi EA's opposition, noting that one person listed as exempt was a member of Amphi EA, and asked how this would be resolved. Dr. Balentine replied that the administration will respond.
The motion passed unanimously.
11. Review of Classified Employee Election Results for Representation by Amphitheater
Education Association; Approval of Amphitheater Education Association to Represent District
Classified Employees; Direction to Administration Regarding Modification of District Policy HD
Pertaining to Representation of Classified Employees
Dr. Balentine reported that on Wednesday, October 25, 2000, an election was held within the
district for the purpose of determining whether Amphitheater Education Association should be
the designated representative for non-exempt classified employees of the district. Board
members had received the guidelines by which the election was administered. Of the 244 votes
cast, 169 were in favor of Amphi EA representation; 74 were opposed; one vote could not be
verified.
Mr. Jaeger reported that current district policy provides that the election of a representative (other than Classified Advisory Council) for classified employees requires a majority vote of all employees eligible to vote, plus one. He added that this is fairly unusual; typically it is a majority of those voting. The Board could modify its policy to reduce the required threshold to a majority of those employees voting. It was the recommendation of the administration that the Board determine whether to approve the Amphitheater Education Association as the designated representative of district classified employees.
In discussion, Mr. Jaeger stated there were approximately 1,100 classified employees eligible to vote. John Lewandowski addressed the Board, stating he was present to support the recommendation of the administration contained in the board book. Ms. Young Wright referred to Policy HD, wherein it states, "For an organization other than the Classified Advisory Council to represent the interests of the classified employees, the organization must be elected by the majority of all classified employees and be recognized by the Governing Board. An election must be held annually at the expense of the representing organization, with a majority required to continue representation." Ms. Young Wright moved to modify the policy to reduce the threshold to a majority of those voting. The motion was seconded by Dr. Barrabee.
Dr. Barrabee expressed his concern over changing the policy after the election and noted an e-mail from a classified employee expressing the same concern. He asked that Mr. Lewandowski speak to this issue, and added that he was prepared to call for another election after the policy is changed or put forth to the Board. Ms. Young Wright noted that she had received the same e-mail, and it did not bother her to change the policy after the election, that the policy as written was unrealistic and unfair, and had not been right in the first place; had she been aware of it before, she would have been working to change it beforehand. There was further discussion of modification of the policy. Dr. Smith noted the only motion on the floor was to approve a majority voting rather than a majority of those eligible to vote.
Mr. Prout questioned whether the policy could be changed in one meeting. Mr. Jaeger responded that district policy specifies that generally a Board policy before it is changed will be studied at least once, and then actually changed at a second meeting. However, the Board does reserve the right, particularly in the case of employment policies, to change policies at any time.
Mr. Prout questioned whether the Board could unilaterally place the classified employees under the Amphi EA without a vote on policy. Mr. Jaeger replied that it requires Governing Board action to select the representative. The Board could not do it in opposite action to its policy; it would be violating its own policy, and consequently giving employees claims and grievance rights.
The motion passed unanimously.
Dr. Smith noted that the next part of the agenda item was Approval of Amphitheater Education Association to Represent District Classified Employees, based upon the election which had been held. A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright and seconded by Mrs. Schuh to accept the results of the election. Dr. Smith clarified that the motion on the floor was to accept the results of the election; therefore, if the motion passed, Amphi EA would become the representative for classified personnel.
Ms. Young Wright asked Mr. Lewandowski to review how Amphi EA conducted the election, noting it had been suggested that the League of Women Voters was to have been brought in. Mr. Lewandowski replied that initially Amphi E.A. contacted the League of Women Voters. The league could not work with Amphi EA until after the general election, but this was past the deadline for petitions. Secondly, the cost would have been $11- $12,000, a fee that Amphi EA did not have. Amphi EA conducted the election itself for approximately $900. Mr. Lewandowski stated that they had followed procedures based on those of the League of Women Voters, and had worked with Mr. Jaeger. Mr. Lewandowski had submitted these procedures to the district and invited the district to be co-participants in working the polls and counting the votes. Three polling places were open from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. At the end of the day they brought the ballots to Wetmore Center for counting. Present were members of Amphi EA, Classified Advisory Council members, two other classified employees from Wetmore Center who were not members of Amphi EA or CAC, and Mr. Jaeger. They counted the ballots and verified the count. Mr. Lewandowski stated that they had tried to do everything as openly and honestly as they possibly could, working with the district to have as many people as possible vote. Four fliers were sent to each classified employee.
Ms. Young Wright stated that this process seemed to follow closely that of Pima County elections, and that Amphi EA did try their best to hold a fair election. If the election were to be held again, she felt the same results would be obtained.
In discussion, Mr. Jaeger stated that the concept of collective bargaining and representation in public school districts is not a well-settled matter; there are arguments on both sides. District policy does afford for representation. District policy now provides for representation, in the event that a body or an organization is elected by a simple majority of those voting. The Board in approving these election results this evening would be acting in accordance with its policy, which it had the lawful discretion to make.
In discussion of adoption of policies, Ms. Young Wright noted that the Board, when adopting ASBA policies, did not thoroughly study the policies, and stated that she felt that there are probably a number of stumbling blocks contained within the policies. She stated she would like to have staff recommendations of problem policies that the Board ought to consider.
Classified employee Margaret Harris addressed the Board regarding the conduction of the election for classified representation and of the importance of communication; John Lewandowski added further comments regarding better communication.
Andy Morales spoke regarding Board policy/majority in the classified employee representation election. He called attention to Policy HD that was in effect during the representation voting. (That is, as stated above in the fourth paragraph of this section of the minutes.) He called Board attention to the second part of that policy's text in the "Classified Personnel" paragraph of Policy HD: "An election must be held annually at the expense of the representing organization, with a majority required to continue representa-tion." Dr. Smith stated he himself had noted the ambiguity in "majority," in that the policy did not state a majority of what, and was ambiguous. In response to Mr. Morales, Mr. Prout noted that the salient point of his comment was that no retroactive change of Policy HD was needed to accept the classified employees' vote to join Amphi EA since classified employees had already been represented by Amphi EA during the 1999-2000 year. The current voting was, therefore, a continuing-representation election requiring only a simple majority of those ballots cast. In other words, if the election for representation had been for an organization new to representing the classified staff, then the 50%+1 of all classified employees rule applied. If the election for representation was for an organization that had already been representing the classified staff, then a simple majority of the votes cast was all that was needed.
Ms. Young Wright noted that her motion was to accept the results of this election and to have Amphi EA represent the classified employees by the merit of this election. The motion passed 4-0, with Dr. Barrabee abstaining.
12. Discussion and Board Direction Regarding Renewal or Termination of Intergovernmental
Agreement Between Amphitheater Public Schools and Arizona Board of Regents Regarding College of
Nursing Program
In December 1991, Amphitheater Public Schools entered into an intergovernmental agreement with
the Arizona Board of Regents to permit use of district facilities by the University of Arizona
for clinical, educational, research and public service programs for the education and training
of health sciences students. The agreement was originally effective through December 1992. A
provision of the agreement is that it "shall automatically be renewed each year" except that
either party may at any time, with or without cause, cancel this agreement with four months
advance notice in writing."
This agreement specifically allows for student nurses to "shadow" the Director of Nursing or a school nurse at the middle, K-8 or high-school level. The students learn how the school nurse conducts her day, including vision, hearing, and other health screenings. Because the students are not fingerprinted at this point in their school career, they are always paired with a licensed RN. If they are fingerprinted in their senior year, then they take on more school nurse responsibilities, again being partnered with a school nurse. Student nurses under this program have been instrumental in performing community health needs assessments for many schools, such as Coronado, Keeling, Nash, and AMS.
Intergovernmental agreements entered into by the district were discussed, in general, by the Board at its September 12, 2000 meeting. This agenda item would allow for discussion and direction by the Governing Board regarding the renewal of this specific Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Board of Regents. Renewal of the agreement would permit the University of Arizona to continue to provide nursing services to district students, while at the same time providing education and training to its own students.
Dr. Balentine stated that since the agreement was coming up for renewal, it was being brought to the Board for direction on continuation.
Dr. Barrabee inquired as to the usefulness of the agreement to the district. Mr. Jaeger stated he had spoken with Candyce Thibault, Thibault, who could not be present. Under the agreement the district has three to four nursing students who are typically in their senior year who shadow the district's school nurses; it is more than anything a recruitment tool. The district is finding that it is very hard to get nurses to come into the public school setting when the private sector is in such desperate need of them, and paying more than schools can. It gives the students an opportunity to see what it is like to be a school nurse. Ms. Thibault feels the program is very important to the district. In the past it has been successful in recruitment, although not in the recent past. There is no cost to the district.
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee, seconded by Ms. Young Wright and passed unanimously, to approve the renewal of the program.
15. Study of Revisions to Policy KHB Regarding Advertising in Schools and Permitting Vendor
Recognition for Contributions to Schools
Board book information: Current district policy sets limits on advertising in schools. This
is based upon the philosophy that schools are places to learn, not to receive solicitations to
buy one product or another. It is also clear that, while at school, students are "captive
audiences." Policy does, however, permit recogni-tion of vendors who contribute to or
otherwise support district programs. Present language allows principals, in their discretion,
to permit the display of banners, signs and other means of recognition of sponsors during
sponsored events. Policy requires that these displays be removed after the event and
prohibits them from remaining in place during an entire season.
Schools have requested approval to allow permanent recognition of sponsors for contributions of scoreboards or school marquees. The construction of the district's new high school also presents this issue, as both a scoreboard and marquee will be required. A revision to the policy, which would permit permanent recognition of a sponsor, had been drafted. Because of the philosophical issues described above, the revisions still reflect requirements that the recognition be limited and secondary to the primary purpose of the scoreboard or marquee.
In discussion, Dr. Balentine confirmed that the district would have the right not to take advertisements for organizations. Dr. Barrabee inquired about situations such as a sign ending up in the way of a needed bus-stop area. Mr. Jaeger replied that any agreement the district entered into would be very specific in terms of those types of issues, and negotiated with the parties. At this point the Board would simply be authorizing the authorization as a matter of policy. The Board enforces and supports this type of arrangement. The administration would always bring a specific agreement to the Board and site council.
Ms. Young Wright expressed concern of preventing advertising by inappropriate groups. Dr. Balentine replied that, hearing this concern, the district needed to have approval beyond the site-council level, and suggested adding the stipulation of additional approval at the superintendent level. Mrs. Schuh expressed concerns about advertising in schools and of having a captive audience; she stated she had a problem with eulogizing people because of their donation, and spoke of the need for proceeding with caution. Dr. Smith asked that two matters be kept in mind in putting together a proposed policy: one, having to do with individuals, which was not what he had thought of as advertising, but had come up in discussion; the second, advertising by vendors to the district, which could put the district into a conflict situation He added that perhaps we should find some way to avoid making it open to direct vendors to the district.
Mr. Prout, noting that the law allows, and almost encourages, school-bus advertising, asked if the policy under discussion could incorporate such advertising, or whether that would be a separate policy. Mr. Jaeger replied that if the district were to have such advertising, there would be a separate policy for it, Policy KHB being specifically for advertising in schools.
Mr. Jaeger clarified that existing policy provides for "temporary" signs -- for example, firms putting up their signs just temporarily during a game, so the signs are not there for students to see year-round. In contrast, a "permanent" advertisement would be one that would basically stay on the board until it is removed. Administration confirmed that other districts do advertise. Dr. Barrabee expressed concern over the permanency of signs, and of making it clear that the district has no obligation to continue with a vendor. He suggested the word "permanent" be taken out of the policy. Board members requested that the policy provide that if something unethical or embarrassing about an advertiser should occur, the district could opt out.
In discussion, Dr. Hooley spoke of various means of raising money from advertising, such as a vendors paying for scoreboards, or renting scoreboard space to different vendors. Dr. Smith asked for further investigation of these possibilities before the next Board meeting.
Dr. Barrabee requested clarification regarding Mr. Sabb's concerns raised in Public Comment (to be provided in Superintendent's Friday report).
Rhonda Ball, Amphi E.A. Executive Board member, spoke on the distribution of the Amphi EA newsletter to enhance communication in the district, noting the recent increased printing cost due to Amphi EA being considered an outside agency by Graphics and Printing (Dr. Balentine to look into this matter and make a recommendation to the Governing Board).
A motion was made by Ms. Young Wright, seconded by Ms. Schuh and passed unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 10:00 p.m.