As in my preview post, I'm only going to address two items. One was a BIG item of discussion at the meeting and one wasn't mentioned at all. I'll start with the one that wasn't mentioned, because I get to choose!
Superintendent's Contract - Discussion of a new contract with Dr. Pitts was reportedly conducted during the Closed Session. According to the Board's report out on Closed Session activities, "no action" was taken on any items in the closed session. What exactly does this mean regarding the status of negotiation of a new contract? Who knows. I did, however, decide to send an email to President Mangan regarding when and whether any discussion of the projected timing for signing of a new contract would be discussed during the open portion of the meeting, or if parents would be actively solicited for input. What I heard back was - "Valerie's contract negotiation is a confidential discussion matter...The approved contract will appear in the Consent Section of the December meeting." In case this is at all cryptic, let's put it in English. The new contract is planned to be negotiated and signed sometime in the next few weeks, and it will only appear on the agenda lumped in with other cursory items that are approved, as a group, with one vote.
I have to say that after the conversations that took place at last May's meeting regarding the superintendent's contract, I expected a bit more from the Board as it approached the negotiation of a new contract. Granted, the actual negotiation part is, and must be, confidential. Would you want your salary/contract negotiation to take place in public? Me neither. However, the Board could choose to conduct greater outreach regarding the general issue of the superintendent's contract if it felt like it. Apparently, they weren't/aren't in the mood. However, that can't keep you from sending your thoughts to the Board at trustees@larkspurschools.org. I, for my own self, sent an email expressing my concern over the timing and process used. I won't bore you with the whole text, but the words "extremely frustrating" were prominently featured.
Facilities Bond Discussion - I could drone on about this issue. Instead, I'm just going to hit the highlights. Trustees Wade and Ritter were appointed to lead a subcommittee of the Board that will lead an effort, over the next three months, to prepare for the likelihood that a facilities bond will be placed on the November 2011 ballot. The Board expects to receive a status report each month on progress of the subcommittee's work, which will include: public outreach (presumably including public meetings with open discussion of options), updating of the 2008 Facilities Master Plan document to include current financial assumptions (interest rates, construction cost projection, etc.). Trustees Wade and Ritter will be taking the lead on citizen input, and indicated that they would very soon publish the appropriate email address to which folks can send comments, suggestions, etc. So, we'll all have a few months here to review, re-hash, debate, etc. the various options (two campuses at NC site, re-building on San Clemente site, etc., etc.) I'm sure some of you out there are having flashbacks, but hold on, we'll get through it together. Remember, its for the kids!
For today, I can summon no more. Until next time...
-Rob
No comments:
Post a Comment