MINUTES OF REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING OF GOVERNING BOARD
Place, Date and Time of Meeting
701 West Wetmore Road, November 14, 2000, 6:30 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 motion was made by Dr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Schuh and passed unanimously, that the Board
recess open meeting and hold an executive session pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-843(A) for
consideration and determination of appeal of recommendation of long-term suspension by the
district hearing officer. The time was 6:30 p.m.
Reconvening of Meeting and Signing of Visitors Register
Following the executive session, Dr. Smith reconvened the meeting at 7:17 p.m., and asked
members of the audience to sign the visitors register. Procedures for addressing the Board
were described.
Pledge of Allegiance
Harelson Elementary School Principal Harold Doran reported on the school's Week Without
Violence program, and thanked everyone for their support. Harelson students were recognized:
Sara Slavin, Meghan Gallaher, Eric Starbuck, and Michael Hovelson. They led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag and were presented with certificates of commendation.
Audience member James D. Schuh expressed concerns regarding the facilities and staff being devoted to the Gear Up program, and the cohort and comparison groups. Joan Smith spoke regarding the need for more security officers/classroom help at La Cima Middle School (comments made following agenda item 4).
2. Announcement of Date and Place of Next Meeting
Dr. Kenneth Smith announced the next regular meeting of the Governing Board: Tuesday,
December 12, 2000, 7:00 p.m., at Painted Sky Elementary School, 12620 North Woodburne Avenue.
3. Recognition of National Achievement Award Recipient
Michael Gemma, Principal of Canyon del Oro High School, introduced Megan McWenie, CDO senior
and recipient of the 2000 National Council of Teachers of English Achievement Award in
Writing. Her essay, entitled "Sanctuary," concerns school violence and is both important and
topical to what is happening in society today. Miss McWenie was nominated for the award at the
end of her junior year and was one of 3,000 juniors meeting the criteria for the achievement
award. Dr. Smith asked that a copy of the essay be made available to Board members.
Dr. Smith announced that item L, Approval of Human Resources Software, would not be considered at this meeting, but continued. Mrs. Schuh requested that Items H, I, and M be considered separately, and moved the body of the Consent Agenda, with items H, I and M held out for separate discussion; Dr. Barrabee seconded the motion. Ms. Young Wright requested that item A be removed for correction. In voting for Consent Agenda items B-G, J-L, and N-O, the vote was unanimous for approval. Appointment of personnel is effective, provided all district, state and federal requirements are met.
| A. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the January 11, 2000 and January 25, 2000 Governing Board meetings were approved. Ms. Young Wright noted that changes to the January 11, 2000 open-meeting minutes (Item 10, Executive Session) had been provided to the Board secretary.
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. Review and Approval of Grants
I. Approval of Tax Deferred Compensation Program The following company and marketing company/agents had requested permission to sell investment options for retirement income. Their proposals had been reviewed by the Insurance Committee, had met all criteria, and had received the recommendation of the Insurance Committee for approval.
The addition of these providers/products is at no additional cost to the district and allows for mutual funds to be made available to district employees. This broadens the district's 403(B) program from annuities which were the sole products previously available to Amphitheater employees. Since submission of proposals is an ongoing process, companies, agents and marketing companies will be presented periodically for Governing Board approval. It was the recommendation of the administration and the Insurance Committee that the above mutual fund company and the listed marketing companies/agents be approved by the Governing Board to market payroll-deducted tax-deferred compensation programs to district employees. The Board approved the recommendation. Mrs. Schuh noted she had not received a prospectus or background check for the companies. She indicated it would helpful, when reviewing companies, to have information regarding capital and fiscal stability of the companies.
J. Call for Bids: Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment for the New High School
K. Solicitation of Bid from Additional Vendor for Legal Services Corey & Kime presently has a contract with the district for the provision of legal services pursuant to their response to a solicitation for bids issued by the district in 1997. Firms responding under the most recent solicitation were also issued contracts only for the current year, with options on the district's part to renew for each of the four following years. No firm has an actual contract until a purchase order is issued. Thus, Corey & Kime presently stands in the same position as firms recently awarded a contract under the 2000 solicitation for bids. Given the district's apparent failure to correctly notify Corey & Kime of the 2000 solicitation, it was the recommendation of the administration that Corey & Kime be permitted to submit a bid for consideration by the Governing Board as a provider of legal services to the district for future fiscal years, in accordance with the most recent solicitation. The Board approved the recommendation of the administration.
L. Approval of Human Resources Software
M. Confirmation of Continuation in Career Ladder Program Mrs. Schuh noted that district trip vouchers state that a report will be made and filed with Career Ladder, and inquired as to what is done with the reports. Dr. Balentine responded that these reports may have outlasted their value; administration will review the matter and decide whether it should be continued. Ms. Young Wright commented on the usefulness of information provided on the Stanford 9, SAT's and ACT's. The Board approved the recommendation of the administration.
N. Acceptance of Gifts
O. Approval of Vouchers
A motion was made Mrs. Schuh, seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously, to approve consent agenda items A, H, I, and M. |
4. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with Tucson Unified School District for
Cooperative Procurement of Graphics and Printing Services
Board book information: A.R.S. § 41-2632 authorizes public bodies to participate in, sponsor,
conduct or administer cooperative purchasing arrangements for the procurement of any materials,
services or construction with one or more other public bodies.
From time to time, the graphics and printing departments in both Amphitheater and Tucson
Unified school districts require additional assistance in order to meet printing deadlines.
An agreement would enable the districts to work together during such times, providing services
to one another at a lower cost than either would be able to obtain in the private sector in
such situations. Both districts could accommodate fluctuating workloads more readily, with
minimal outlay for capital and operational expenses. This agreement would also allow the
districts to cooperate in the purchase of supplies required for printing functions, such as
toner and paper. With their combined purchasing power, this may result in reduced costs for
both entities. As this would improve district efficiencies and reduce operational costs, the
administration recommended approval of the item.
Dr. Balentine reported that the manager of Graphics and Printing recognized an opportunity to
both support other school districts who may have printing needs and perhaps provide some
revenue for our district in that regard. As a result, Mr. Jaeger had developed an
intergovernmental agreement between Tucson and Amphitheater unified school districts.
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh, seconded by Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously, to accept the
recommendation for approval of the intergovernmental agreement with TUSD for cooperative
procurement of graphics and printing services.
5. Selection of Governing Board Delegate and Alternate to Arizona School Boards
Association/ Arizona School Administrators Superintendent's Division Annual Conference;
Direction of Governing Board to Delegate and Alternate Regarding Proposed Amendment to
ASBA By-laws, Article Five, Section Two, Permitting Officer or Director of the National
School Boards Association to Serve on the Arizona School Boards Association Board of Directors
as a Voting Member
Board book information: The Arizona School Boards Association and the Arizona School
Administrators Superintendent's Division will hold their 43rd annual conference December 13 -
15, 2000. During the conference, delegates will be asked to revise the ASBA bylaws to permit
any person residing in Arizona who is either an officer or director of the National School
Boards Association to hold a seat on the Board of Directors of the Arizona Schools Boards
Association as well, serving as a voting member. Governing Board members might wish to discuss
and provide direction to the selected delegate and alternate concerning the district's position
on this proposed amendment.
The administration recommended the Governing Board designate a delegate and an alternate to attend this conference, together with the Superintendent. The administration also recommended the Governing Board provide direction to the delegate and the alternate concerning the proposed bylaw modification.
Dr. Smith noted the importance of a delegate being present to vote on the bylaw change.
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh that the Governing Board appoint Nancy Young Wright as delegate and Dr. Kenneth Smith as alternate to the Arizona School Boards Association/Arizona School Administra-tors Superintendent's Division Annual Conference. The motion was seconded by Mr. Prout and passed unanimously.
In discussion of the proposed bylaw amendment, Dr. Smith noted that in approving the amendment, the Board would be directing the delegate to vote in favor of having any Director of NSBA be a voting member of the Board of Directors of ASBA. Discussion included why a person should be running both NSBA and ASBA; and of the possible difficulty of finding enough people to serve as officers in both groups.
A motion was made by Dr. Smith that the delegate be permitted to vote her discretion on this item at the conference. The motion was seconded by Mr. Prout. Dr. Smith added that the reason for this motion was that he thought the Board did not know enough at this time, based on the scant information that had been provided; and that more might be learned at the meeting, placing the delegate in a better position to make a judgment at that time. The motion passed unanimously.
6. Study and Approval of Revisions to Policy KHB Regarding Advertising in Schools and
Permitting Vendor Recognition for Contributions to Schools
Board book information: Revisions to District Policy KHB were presented for the Board's
second review and potential approval. Current policy sets limits on advertising in schools.
This is based upon the philosophy that schools are places to learn, not places to be solicited
to buy one product or another. It is also clear that students are "captive audiences" while at
school. Policy does, however, permit recognition of vendors who contribute to or otherwise
support district programs. Present language permits 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 revisions authorized recognition of sponsors who purchase or make substantial contribu-tions 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 reflected requirements that recognition be limited and secondary to the primary purpose of the scoreboard or marquee. Based upon the limitations of the scope of sponsor recognition and limitation to appropriate content, the administration recommended approval.
Dr. Balentine stated that the proposed revisions to the Advertising in School Policy included the suggestions made by the Board related to approval by the superintendent and the site council. Also included was: "Terms and conditions of continuing recognitions for sponsor contributions shall be established by written agreement. Any such agreement shall reflect the right of the Governing Board to maintain its management of district property, including the right to modify recognitions on district property." The administration recommended approval.
Dr. Smith referred to the segment of policy which provides for approval by the Superintendent, and suggested that the Board at least be kept informed. Mrs. Schuh, referring to marquee and scoreboard advertising, the provision permitting an advertiser to use 10% of the overall square-footage, requested that there be parameters restricting the size of the marquees/ scoreboards. Dr. Barrabee requested, on a permanent monument, that the actual advertisement be encased in something that is not permanent. He suggested, once the negotiated time limit for an advertisement had expired, that a new advertisement take its place, since an ad left up for too many years could somehow become identified with the district.
Mr. Prout asked if advertising revenue would be used in the construction of a marquee/ scoreboard; or whether the construction would be funded and then the advertising space marketed on a per-time/per-year/per-month/per-game basis. Mr. Jaeger stated that the best scenario would be that the vendor pay for the construction of the sign; the vendor would then be making a gift to the district with the condition that it receive recognition for the gift. He added that this is a clean and simple thing to do, and easily documented in an agreement. Another option would be to recognize sponsors of events/teams, perhaps on a rotating basis. Time limits could be set on advertisements.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Prout, Mr. Jaeger stated that the district would want to ensure that the agreement included a morality clause and a business-conduct clause, that should a company engage in unsuitable business practices that might reflect negatively on the district, the district would have the option in its sole discretion to terminate the recognition. That would be built into the agreement.
Mr. Prout inquired about guidelines as to who can advertise. Mr. Jaeger responded that we do specify that advertising copy cannot be inconsistent with school objectives and cannot advocate superceding parental authority; this should be kept broad in scope. This is where the involvement of the Superin-tendent and the approval of the Governing Board and school councils offers protection. The administration could prepare specifications if the Board wished.
Dr. Barrabee noted that policy states that all continuing recognitions shall be approved by the Superintendent, and suggested it read that all recognitions or advertisements need to be approved by the Superintendent. The Board would thus have the judgment of the Superintendent in terms of what is appropriate.
In discussion of advertising on school buses, Ms. Young Wright noted that minutes of the January 25, 2000, Governing Board meeting listed five revenue-generating recommendations from the Budget Advisory Committee. Recommendation No. 5, Advertising on District Property, was that the district support advertising on buses in accordance with state law. Ms. Young Wright noted that at that meeting there was discussion of appropriate advertising on buses; she requested details of that discussion.
Ms. Young Wright referred to Policy KHB: ". . . and in no event shall the sponsor recognition exceed 10% of the overall square area of the scoreboard or marquee." and asked who would be responsible for enforcement. Mr. Jaeger responded that the agreement would contain a diagram indicating how the sign would look (logo, slogan, advertising message); this would be identified by exhibit in the agreement. Also, when the sign was erected, it would be measured and a determination made that it conformed to the project as described in the exhibit. Mr. Jaeger stated this would probably be a facilities support issue, with that department involved in construction. Ms. Young Wright stated she felt this is an area we need to be very cautions about.
In discussion, Mr. Jaeger confirmed that school bus advertising is under a separate district policy; Policy KHB does not provide for such advertising. Mr. Prout noted that specifications for signs/sign materials are left open, and ask what type of signs are envisioned. Dr. Hooley replied that he had pictures of the scoreboards for Board perusal. He added that this could be controlled in the agreement by including dimensions, stipulations, and drawings. Mr. Prout asked if an advertiser would have availability of electricity in its 10% of a sign. Dr. Hooley responded that it is possible, but typically these are just painted signs.
Ms. Young Wright questioned county/city restrictions relating to signs/marquees, specifically referring to the Town of Oro Valley. Mr. Jaeger stated that signage is determined by zoning ordinances, and the district is not subject to the zoning ordinances of other subdivisions, including Oro Valley.
Mrs. Schuh referred to the generic nature of this particular policy, stating that the superintendent should not have total responsibility, that the policy should specify more Board control. She spoke of the need for more people to have input, with the Board having the final decision, and of the importance of having a policy in place that will protect the general interests of the district in a more responsible way. Dr. Balentine stated she would caution the Board against developing a policy that is so broad it requires an action item for every single advertising issue. If that was the direction the Board was moving, the better way for managing issues would be for the Board to identify areas it believes appropriate for approval, narrowing it in scope, rather than having contingents of people coming in with specific requests for signs and waiting for action. Mrs. Schuh replied that she was speaking about the two paragraphs having to do with scoreboards and marquees; because they are the largest items, having the most verbiage and involving the most amount of money, and they do not come up that often, she believed those negotiations should involve help for the Superintendent.
In response to inquiry from Mrs. Schuh regarding purchasing of advertising for yearbooks and school newspapers, administration replied that this is addressed under a separate policy, student publications. Mr. Jaeger stated this will be cross-referenced when the policy is addressed again.
Mr. Prout inquired, now that the district will be receiving money for something it sells, how it is going to conduct a fair, non-sole-source determination of who is the best to give us their money. Assuming there is a demand for this advertising, isn't the policy silent about how this determination will be reached? Mr. Jaeger replied that for anything like this, where the district is receiving a benefit in exchange for a benefit it confers, we will be subject to the procurement rules; if it exceeds the procurement limits, in whatever fashion, we will be governed by those requirements. If the value exceeds $5,000, the district will get three written quotes; if it exceeds $10,000, we will go out for bid.
Mr. Prout inquired as to whether an advertiser could determine the size of the boards. Mr. Jaeger responded that the district would control this through an agreement; if procurement is implicated, we will control that through the specifications written for the procurement. The district would maintain the driving seat, making the determinations, since it is district property.
Mr. Prout asked, if someone bids a scoreboard and they agree to 10% of the space but want the scoreboard to be a larger size for their ad, would we say that they are non-responsive, even though they were going to give us significantly more money. Mr. Jaeger replied that if a bid came back that didn't meet our specifications, it would be non-responsive and we would have to exclude it.
Ms. Young Wright inquired as to the schedule for scoreboards, whether we are in need of help to purchase them. Dr. Frey stated that a call for bids for the scoreboards for the new high school has already been issued. Any advertisement would be an add-on, since it would not be part of the specifica-tion we have out to bid. Funds have been set aside to purchase the scoreboards; they are part of the budget anticipated for the new high school. Any revenues received from advertising would be applied to expenditures at the high school (beyond what we have).
Mrs. Schuh moved that this item be continued to the next Governing Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Prout and passed unanimously.
7. Study of Revision to Policy JKD Regarding Student Suspensions and Expulsions to Provide
for Alternative to Suspension
Board book information: 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 districts have an alternative to suspension programs, beginning January 1,
2001.
The requirements or criteria for a student's eligibility to an alternative to a 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.
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. Proposed revisions to Amphitheater's Policy JKD were available for review and discussion.
Mr. Prout asked if the five exceptions for eligibility for participation were driven by statute. Mr. Jaeger replied that they are in a way, but they are not specified by legislation. The legislation does indicate that the Governing Board determines eligibility for these programs. Administration had identified some that are of a safety nature, and recommended the addition of drugs to the list. Considering the fact that individuals suspended for drugs are often suspended for a lengthy period of time, they would have to be assigned to alternative to suspension programs for that lengthy period of time. Mr. Jaeger added that when these revisions are brought back to the Board, they will be recommendations; it is the Board's determination that controls.
Ms. Young Wright inquired as to input received from the high schools and middle schools. Mr. Jaeger responded that this week it had been presented to the principals; they were asked to review it and provide feedback to the administration. These comments and suggestions will be included in the report to the Board.
In further discussion of alternatives to El Hogar, Dr. Balentine stated that administration does see El Hogar and San Joaquin as initially sharing many of the alternative slots. She was aware of and has participated in alternatives for long-term suspension programs that resulted in some alternatives to alternatives. We may have to move in that direction as we go forward, but did not want to start there. In further discussion, Dr. Balentine confirmed that where we are at this time is a good place to be.
8. Study of Policies BED, BEDD, and BEDF Regarding Governing Board Meeting Procedures,
Bylaws, Rules of Order and Voting Method; Study of and Board Direction Regarding Revisions
Thereto
Board book information: A.R.S. § 15-321(D) mandates that school district governing boards
adopt rules for their own governance. Amphitheater Governing Board had adopted the ASBA model
of simplified rules of governance for its meetings. President Smith had requested revision of
those rules, to be more comprehensive yet not complicated. Current Policies BED, BEDD and BEDF
and proposed revisions had been submitted to the Board.
Dr. Smith noted that according to policy the Board does not follow Robert's Rules of Order, but follows a limited set of Rules of Order that were adopted as part of the overall adoption of policies provided by the Arizona School Boards Association. He stated that those policies were so skimpy they were expanded upon slightly, but left the district with a great many unanswered questions; therefore, he had asked Mr. Jaeger to provide the Board with recommendations for Rules of Order. These were before the Board at this meeting for study only.
Dr. Barrabee stated that he had had discussions with Mr. Jaeger regarding some of the wording and concepts. Dr. Smith inquired as to the discussion. Mr. Jaeger reported that in these conversations, Dr. Barrabee had had a number of suggestions, one being to clarify the issue of calling the question. Dr. Barrabee had suggested that it should not be as simple and as direct as it is presently -- specifically, that there should be an opportunity for anyone to object, that if someone objects, there must be a motion, a second, and a passing vote. Dr. Barrabee had specified the kind of majority that would be required. Dr. Smith stated he would agree that needs to be done.
Mr. Prout paraphrased from Roberts Rules of Order: "When a member has been assigned the floor, it is out of order for another to call out a motion to lay the pending question on the table; or if calls of questions are made, it is the duty of the chair to obtain order and protect the rights of the member who is entitled to the floor." Mr. Prout stated he brought this up because it would appear that proposed Policy BEDD, Rules of Order, is a 180-degree turn from normal parliamentarian procedure. He stated he believed that was what Dr. Barrabee had called Mr. Jaeger about.
Dr. Smith stated his concern that it should not be the option of any given board member to cut off discussion on an item, which is the way it reads now; that was the reason the change was being considered. Mrs. Schuh stated that in Robert's Rules of Order, where it addresses calling the question, it means when there is a lull, debate is over, you do not have to make a motion, you just call the question, which means you just vote it up or down. In consulting Robert's Rules of Order, that is the appropriate thing to do; instead of making a motion, one can say, I call the question.
Dr. Smith responded that it doesn't give a person the opportunity to cut off discussion; that is what needs to be clarified. Mr. Prout asked how that would be dealt with. Dr. Smith responded that if someone called for the question and anybody objected to it, then it would require a second and a vote of the board on calling the question.
Mrs. Schuh stated that another thing that needed to be added was the rule of meeting order, or how you conduct your business, and to whom you answer, starting with the National Constitution, the State Constitution, including Board policies and our own rules of how the meeting will be run.
Mr. Prout stated he would like to have some understanding -- since the Board is not normally conducting its affairs at Board meetings in a strict parliamentary kind of way -- that the important thing is that we still have open discussion and that contrivance of the rules will not be used to block open discussion. That, he thought, is the most single important thing. If we have some infraction of Robert's Rules or anybody else's rules, he believes the openness and honorability of the situation dictates that we not use rules to block honest discussion. Dr. Smith replied that a statement to that effect might be useful.
Dr. Barrabee spoke on the issue of speaking against one's own motion, and read from Robert's Rules: "Refrain from speaking against one's own motion. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly that he has changed his mind and ask permission to withdraw the motion." Dr. Barrabee stated that Mr. Prout's intuitions on this were very much in line.
Ms. Young Wright stated she thought one of the most important things that had been added was the ability for members to reconsider any issue during the meeting or directly afterward, because that had been absent in the past, and in her opinion had been used to block what she thought was the fair ability of any Board member to bring something back. She stated these were generally good things to add and had no objections, but was glad that some more time was going to be taken.
Dr. Smith asked, would it be useful to have a codicil in policy stating that when the rules adopted by the Board do not cover a matter, the Board could then refer back to a designated edition of Robert's Rules of Order. He noted that such occasions had come up during his tenure as President. There are times that our rules don't say what to do, and a fallback position is needed. He stated this was a possibility; he was not recommending it.
Mr. Prout stated he would like to make one cautionary note: If the Board deliberates, comes to a split vote (with a carried or failed motion) and the Board adjourns, then someone does his/ her homework and finds there is an infraction of Robert's Rules of Order, is it over and done with, or could the Board revisit it? He stated he could envision a problem: Robert's Rules is a rather thick volume, and there may come a day when someone finds something that the Board has not done according to either Robert's Rules or the Board's our own brief set of rules and might be able to reverse a decision that was maybe not in the best interest of the district to reverse.
Dr. Smith replied that this is one reason people adopt their own Rules of Order instead of following Robert's Rules of Order. He was considering this way only as a possibility. His only reason in using it as a fallback position is that the Board runs into situations where its present Rules of Order do not tell it how to function.
Ms. Young Wright stated she thought Mr. Prout's concerns would be covered by the whole reconsideration bullet ("A motion which fails or passes may be reconsidered at the same or next meeting, upon motion by a member on the prevailing side of the original vote.") Mr. Prout replied in the affirmative. Ms. Young Wright added that this gives a deadline which she would consider reasonable.
Dr. Barrabee referred to the proposed Rules of Order: "Members or others seeking to address the Board shall first be recognized by the presiding member and shall direct their remarks to the presiding member." He stated that another discussion he had with Mr. Jaeger revolved around how to minimize triangular addressing. He asked Dr. Balentine, once she has selected an associate superintendent to respond to a question and dialog has followed, whether she would like to have the chair recognized each time before the name of the person being spoken to. Dr. Balentine stated she could appreciate the problem with addressing multiple persons. Referring to the above excerpt from the Rules of Order, she stated that this does allow the President to control the meeting; when you move away from that, you lead to situations where the meeting is not as controlled.
Mrs. Schuh spoke of the cumbersome, redundant and time-consuming procedures required in the past for audience members addressing the Board. She stated she understood the importance of addressing persons and maintaining control of meetings, and emphasized the importance of getting priorities straight, of being more cognizant of what is happening, and moving the meeting along. Dr. Smith spoke of the difficulty of incorporating too many guidelines in the Rules of Order.
Dr. Barrabee suggested that when a person fills out a slip to speak to the Board, s/he simultaneously fill out a card with the last name and his/her title; and that a ledge be added to the podium so an audience member could place the card there and be addressed by name.
Dr. Barrabee stated the Board does not have anything clear about the appropriate way to work through the Superintendent when a member wants to direct a matter to a principal in the audience. He asked Dr. Balentine to comment on this. Dr. Balentine replied that if the Board is discussing issues that are pertinent to a particular school, then it is certainly valid for a Board member to ask the Superintendent if the principal would be available to comment. Most often, principals have extensive knowledge and could well respond; there could be situations where she would respond that because of the issue involved she believed the matter might be more appropriately handled in a memo form. So a request might not necessarily lead to that principal's response. Therefore, she would ask for discretion to decide at that time.
Dr. Smith noted that it has been his own personal policy, not Board policy, to refer all items having to do with the administration through the Superintendent, letting the Superintendent make the judgement as to who is the most appropriate person to refer the matter to if it is someone other than the Superintendent, instead of trying to make that judgment himself. This avoids referring a matter to a person who might not be the appropriate one to respond.
Dr. Barrabee asked Dr. Balentine: Once a Board member had received direction from the Superintendent regarding the best person to respond, how did she feel about the Board member continuing to address that person on the same topic, having a direct dialogue. Dr. Balentine responded that she would request that the Board leave that somewhat open. There could be a conclusion in a Board member's mind that that person continued to be the best person to respond, and that might not be the case. Dr. Balentine stated that she would want to avoid situations which result in "jack-in-the-box" audience responses; this is typically not a very positive way of running a meeting with an outcome that feels organized. The Superintendent needs the discretion to call for a response from the appropriate person. Dr. Barrabee stated that perhaps there could be an operating procedure where staff would look to Dr. Balentine for direction.
Mrs. Schuh suggested, in view of all the new Board members and changes, that a workshop be held to review the operating of Board meetings (including call to the audience, parliamentary procedures, Open Meeting Law) so everyone is on the same page. Dr. Smith asked Mr. Jaeger, if this were postponed past the first of the year, would the Board then have to go through this process again because it's a new Board, or could the continuing Board make an adoption when it was ready to do so. Mr. Jaeger responded that the continuing Board could make the adoption; in the meantime, the existing rules would apply. The January 9 regular/organization meeting will include a workshop (to include the Open Meeting Law), followed by a study/action item for the final reading of policy.
Mr. Prout requested, for the December 12 meeting at Painted Sky Elementary School, a focus item on the school; Dr. Smith, review of discipline/appeals process policies.
James Schuh addressed the Board, expressing concerns regarding facilities and staff being devoted to the GEAR UP program, and of the students served (cohort and comparison groups). He stated he would have further comments at future Board meetings. Dr. Smith asked that when Dr. Schuh had presented all of his concerns to the Board, the administration provide the Board with answers to his questions. Joan Smith spoke further about the need for more security monitors at La Cima Middle School.
Dr. Smith requested that in the future, persons wishing to speak under both Public Comment sections of the meeting turn in two forms; both would not need to be turned in in advance, but could be turned in during the meeting.
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh, seconded by Ms. Young Wright and passed unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 9:00 p.m.