Happy 2011 everybody. We've made it through the holidays and the early-January deluge and now here we are, ready for a fascinating year of school district fun!
The packet materials for this week's meeting include about 100 pages of scintillating material for any auditors, accountants or insurance professionals out there. For the rest of the world, interesting topics are on the agenda, but not much accompanying information is available in the packet. To review the packet materials, click here. I have three items to highlight:
Facilities Planning & Bond Funding (Item 9) - A brief report in the packet states that trustees Ritter and Wade have been meeting with staff on a weekly basis and that they will provide an update during the meeting. The report also states that a Facilities Expansion Committee will meet on Thursday, Jan. 20 (time not given) and then every other week. The report does not mention who will join trustees Ritter and Wade on this committee. Perhaps this information will be shared during the discussion at the Board meeting.
TANGENT ALERT - Okay, at the last meeting I attended, which was in November, quite a few people interested in the facilities planning topic showed up at the meeting and were confused that the agenda did not include a designated time for them to address the Board. The fact that no designated time for public comment was included was pointed out by President Mangan at the start of the meeting. Since that time, I've become aware of some very fine print that is included at the bottom of the last page of each agenda. It says: "The Board of Trustees welcomes participation by the public. A person wishing to speak on any item on or off the agenda (emphasis added) will be granted up to 3 minutes. The Board will limit the public comment period on any single item to 20 minutes..." What is not made clear by this text is how one goes about requesting to speak. My best guess would be that one should raise their hand, then, when called upon, state that she would like to use the three minutes afforded by the policy stated on the bottom of the agenda. If you're sitting there thinking this text is in direct conflict with statements made at the November meeting, you are not alone.
Superintendent's Contract (Consent Calendar) - Mixed among often mundane items on the consent calendar is this very noteworthy item. Review of the packet materials shows that the Board completed negotiation of a new contract with Dr. Pitts during mid December. I find the timing of this interesting given that Dr. Pitts' current contract doesn't expire until June 30, 2011. However, review of the details of the contract reveals compensation terms that provide the Board with a lot of flexibility. The contract term is for three years, yet it does not include any pre-determined salary increases, as did the prior contract. Rather, Dr. Pitt's compensation will be agreed to with the Board each year and will take into account the budget, the increases given to teachers and other district staff, and the salary level of other local superintendents. This is a welcome change in comparison to Dr. Pitts' current three-year contract that included automatic salary increases that took effect even as significant cuts were made in other areas.
Hall Master Schedule & 7-Period Day (Item 8) - So, I need to admit something right here. Having only a third grader, I know very little about Hall. Apparently a group of folks who know a lot about Hall have been reviewing options for altering the daily schedule and moving to a 7-period day. The analysis is reportedly ongoing and the discussion with the Board will be an update from staff on work to date and presumably a discussion of next steps.
That's all for now, folks. Tune in on Thursday for a report from the meeting.
-Rob
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 12/15 Monthly Meeting
We're all busy with the holidays, plus the agenda is not chock full of excitement, so this will be an efficient post. Here goes:
Superintendent's Contract (Closed Session) - As I have reported in recent posts, the Board appears to be in the process of negotiating a new contract with Dr. Pitts. Her current three-year contract expires on June 30, 2011. The status of negotiations is unknown. It could be that the Board will emerge from closed session and start the open agenda by announcing that a new contract has been signed. Time will tell...
Bond Funding for Facilities (Agenda Item #8) - At the Nov. 17 monthly meeting, the Board announced the formation of a subcommittee that will lead the effort to update the 2008 Facilities Master Plan and lead planning efforts for a potential ballot measure in November 2011. Trustees Wade and Ritter were appointed to serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee is reportedly meeting weekly, and the agenda packet includes a list of tasks that the subcommittee has outlined for completion in the near future. Highlights include conducting a "mini survey" of parents regarding preferred facility expansion option (e.g. two-school campus at NC site, re-build on San Clemente site, etc.) and organizing a "larger committee" to begin meeting in January to discuss facility expansion options. The draft structure for the committee is listed as: District Staff (2), Trustees (2), Union reps (2), SPARK rep (1), Community members at large (2).
Plenty of other items populate the agenda, but unless you feel like reading 100 pages of details regarding potential re-financing of outstanding bond debt, I think you can safely go back to addressing what's left of your Christmas to do lists.
Happy holidays,
Rob
p.s. It has finally happened. For the first time since the inception of this blog, I have an unmovable conflict and I will not be attending Wednesday evening's meeting. If anyone out there does attend, and you want to share some notes with the class, feel free to send them to me and I'll be happy to post them.
Superintendent's Contract (Closed Session) - As I have reported in recent posts, the Board appears to be in the process of negotiating a new contract with Dr. Pitts. Her current three-year contract expires on June 30, 2011. The status of negotiations is unknown. It could be that the Board will emerge from closed session and start the open agenda by announcing that a new contract has been signed. Time will tell...
Bond Funding for Facilities (Agenda Item #8) - At the Nov. 17 monthly meeting, the Board announced the formation of a subcommittee that will lead the effort to update the 2008 Facilities Master Plan and lead planning efforts for a potential ballot measure in November 2011. Trustees Wade and Ritter were appointed to serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee is reportedly meeting weekly, and the agenda packet includes a list of tasks that the subcommittee has outlined for completion in the near future. Highlights include conducting a "mini survey" of parents regarding preferred facility expansion option (e.g. two-school campus at NC site, re-build on San Clemente site, etc.) and organizing a "larger committee" to begin meeting in January to discuss facility expansion options. The draft structure for the committee is listed as: District Staff (2), Trustees (2), Union reps (2), SPARK rep (1), Community members at large (2).
Plenty of other items populate the agenda, but unless you feel like reading 100 pages of details regarding potential re-financing of outstanding bond debt, I think you can safely go back to addressing what's left of your Christmas to do lists.
Happy holidays,
Rob
p.s. It has finally happened. For the first time since the inception of this blog, I have an unmovable conflict and I will not be attending Wednesday evening's meeting. If anyone out there does attend, and you want to share some notes with the class, feel free to send them to me and I'll be happy to post them.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
NC Portables - Special Meeting to Select Bid on 12/1
On Wednesday at 4:30 pm the Board is holding a special meeting with one item only on the agenda, to approve the selected bid for installation of a new wing of "4 1/2" portables on the Neil Cummins campus. The selected location is between the play structure and the creek, south of the parking lot.
Note: A quick review, a "special meeting" is any meeting called by the Board that is not on their schedule of "regular meetings" that is published at the start of the year.
According to district staff, all submitted bids will be opened sometime tomorrow. Sometime between bid opening and the meeting itself, either a summary of all received bids, or possibly full copies of all bids will be posted in the agenda packet section of the district website.
Cheers,
Rob
Note: A quick review, a "special meeting" is any meeting called by the Board that is not on their schedule of "regular meetings" that is published at the start of the year.
According to district staff, all submitted bids will be opened sometime tomorrow. Sometime between bid opening and the meeting itself, either a summary of all received bids, or possibly full copies of all bids will be posted in the agenda packet section of the district website.
Cheers,
Rob
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Public Meetings Redux (a.k.a Board Operations 102)
Burgeoning interest the state of the facilities at the Neil Cummins and Hall campuses resulted in a lot of people looking for ways to participate in last week's Board meeting. A lot of people, it seems, also got a frustrating lesson in the mechanics of public agency meetings.
I say this because more than a few people arrived at the 10/17 meeting expecting to be able to offer their opinion to the Board regarding the state of facilities and whether the district should pursue placing a facilities bond measure on the ballot in November 2011. The first thing these people heard was an introduction to the meeting in which the Board President informed the room that the Board meeting was a "meeting of the Board in public" not a "public meeting." If you feel like smashing your laptop or ipad on the table right now, you're not alone. The world of public agency management and oversight can seem labyrinthian, obtuse and, well, crazy-making. But it is true that the Board is significantly constrained by state law that governs public agency meetings. To read an overview of the primary requirements that impact the agenda and meeting process, see my previous post Board Operations 101 from September 30.
In case you skipped right past and didn't re-read my old post, and because my wife and editor is encouraging me to restate the primary point, here it is: The Board can schedule a public hearing (agenda item including both public comment and Board discussion) on any subject it wants, with limited exceptions. The procedure often used by our Board, where items are discussed in public but public comment time is not included, is used by choice, not because that's the way it has to be. In case you doubt this, keep reading because...
...Since last week's meeting the ground has shifted a bit. Dr. Pitts' blast email of November 20 announced that the December 15 Board meeting (and, presumably all subsequent Board meetings until a decision is made regarding filing for the November 2011 election) will include time for public comment on facilities. One lesson here is that weighing in with your emails and personal presence at meetings can indeed influence the Board agenda. And rightfully so. The Board does, after all, work for us. We elected them to represent us, which should include actively listening to us. However, a second lesson is that you need to be persistent.
I sense the presence of a lot of persistent folks out there on the topic of our school facilities. I think the upcoming Board meetings, and separate public meetings/workshops that are reportedly being planned, will be well attended. I look forward to seeing you all at one or another of these events. I'm confident that together we can participate in a thoughtful process that will result in a well-informed path forward toward a successful bond measure and improved facilities for the benefit of all our kids and the Twin Cities community.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
-Rob
I say this because more than a few people arrived at the 10/17 meeting expecting to be able to offer their opinion to the Board regarding the state of facilities and whether the district should pursue placing a facilities bond measure on the ballot in November 2011. The first thing these people heard was an introduction to the meeting in which the Board President informed the room that the Board meeting was a "meeting of the Board in public" not a "public meeting." If you feel like smashing your laptop or ipad on the table right now, you're not alone. The world of public agency management and oversight can seem labyrinthian, obtuse and, well, crazy-making. But it is true that the Board is significantly constrained by state law that governs public agency meetings. To read an overview of the primary requirements that impact the agenda and meeting process, see my previous post Board Operations 101 from September 30.
In case you skipped right past and didn't re-read my old post, and because my wife and editor is encouraging me to restate the primary point, here it is: The Board can schedule a public hearing (agenda item including both public comment and Board discussion) on any subject it wants, with limited exceptions. The procedure often used by our Board, where items are discussed in public but public comment time is not included, is used by choice, not because that's the way it has to be. In case you doubt this, keep reading because...
...Since last week's meeting the ground has shifted a bit. Dr. Pitts' blast email of November 20 announced that the December 15 Board meeting (and, presumably all subsequent Board meetings until a decision is made regarding filing for the November 2011 election) will include time for public comment on facilities. One lesson here is that weighing in with your emails and personal presence at meetings can indeed influence the Board agenda. And rightfully so. The Board does, after all, work for us. We elected them to represent us, which should include actively listening to us. However, a second lesson is that you need to be persistent.
I sense the presence of a lot of persistent folks out there on the topic of our school facilities. I think the upcoming Board meetings, and separate public meetings/workshops that are reportedly being planned, will be well attended. I look forward to seeing you all at one or another of these events. I'm confident that together we can participate in a thoughtful process that will result in a well-informed path forward toward a successful bond measure and improved facilities for the benefit of all our kids and the Twin Cities community.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
-Rob
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Summary of the 11/17 Monthly Meeting
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
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
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 11/17 Monthly Meeting
No hesitating today; let's jump right into the deep end. After the initial shock, it will feel really good, I promise!
Agenda Item 5 - Bond Funding for Facilities Needs: I hear the ground abuzzin' about the Board starting discussions related to a potential facilities bond measure to go on the ballot in November 2011. The discussion item included on the Agenda for Wednesday's meeting will provide the first substantive, on-the-record, discussion where the Board can weigh the pros and cons of pursuing a facilities bond next November. In the packet materials are multiple supporting items that will be referenced during the discussion. The two most interesting to me were the draft timeline of activities that would be required to support a bond campaign (pgs. 5-7), and the results of a resident survey conducted in 2008 regarding support for a potential bond measure (pgs. 5-8 through 5-22). Click here to access packet materials on the district website.
Wednesday night would be a great time for any and all of you to come to the Board meeting and get involved in the discussion early on. The survey results from 2008 showed relatively broad support for a facilities bond, but significantly weaker support for the two-campus plan for the Neil Cummins site. Therefore, it seems other potential ideas are clearly still up for discussion, including potentially renovating or building new at the San Clemente site. I'm guessing that most of us have an opinion about a preferred option, so come on out and be heard. Or, send an email in advance of the meeting to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Closed Session - Superintendent's Contract: After two aborted attempts, the Board finally addressed the Superintendent's performance evaluation during closed session at a special meeting on Saturday, Oct. 30. Now, on the closed session agenda for 11/17, is listed the item "Superintendent's Contract." From having reviewed Dr. Pitts' contract with my own two eyes, I can inform you that it expires on June 30, 2011. I know some of you out there came to a Board meeting last May to discuss concerns regarding the value and structure of Dr. Pitts' contract. It is unknown how long it will take the Board to deliberate on, then eventually adopt a new contract with Dr. Pitts. So, if you have opinions on this matter, regarding appropriate compensation, duration, etc., now would be the time to start weighing in. FYI, Dr. Pitts' current salary is $198,000+. Her existing three-year contact included a significant (about $25,000) increase in year 1, and 5% annual increases in years 2 and 3. Whether the trustees are considering a similar structure in a new contract, only they know. You can send your input to trustees@larkspurcshools.org.
Consent Calendar - Recycling/Disposal of Obsolete Equipment: This item requests that the Board approve the "recycling" of obsolete equipment. This seems all well and good on its face. However, the list of items that are to be "recycled" includes 54 imacs and an Apple G3 Tower computer. I think these must be the old, colorful imacs with the funny, bulbous shape. I'm sure these computers aren't worth a lot, but aren't they worth something? Could they not be given away, or sold for a nominal amount to families that might like an extra computer for the kids?
-Rob
Agenda Item 5 - Bond Funding for Facilities Needs: I hear the ground abuzzin' about the Board starting discussions related to a potential facilities bond measure to go on the ballot in November 2011. The discussion item included on the Agenda for Wednesday's meeting will provide the first substantive, on-the-record, discussion where the Board can weigh the pros and cons of pursuing a facilities bond next November. In the packet materials are multiple supporting items that will be referenced during the discussion. The two most interesting to me were the draft timeline of activities that would be required to support a bond campaign (pgs. 5-7), and the results of a resident survey conducted in 2008 regarding support for a potential bond measure (pgs. 5-8 through 5-22). Click here to access packet materials on the district website.
Wednesday night would be a great time for any and all of you to come to the Board meeting and get involved in the discussion early on. The survey results from 2008 showed relatively broad support for a facilities bond, but significantly weaker support for the two-campus plan for the Neil Cummins site. Therefore, it seems other potential ideas are clearly still up for discussion, including potentially renovating or building new at the San Clemente site. I'm guessing that most of us have an opinion about a preferred option, so come on out and be heard. Or, send an email in advance of the meeting to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Closed Session - Superintendent's Contract: After two aborted attempts, the Board finally addressed the Superintendent's performance evaluation during closed session at a special meeting on Saturday, Oct. 30. Now, on the closed session agenda for 11/17, is listed the item "Superintendent's Contract." From having reviewed Dr. Pitts' contract with my own two eyes, I can inform you that it expires on June 30, 2011. I know some of you out there came to a Board meeting last May to discuss concerns regarding the value and structure of Dr. Pitts' contract. It is unknown how long it will take the Board to deliberate on, then eventually adopt a new contract with Dr. Pitts. So, if you have opinions on this matter, regarding appropriate compensation, duration, etc., now would be the time to start weighing in. FYI, Dr. Pitts' current salary is $198,000+. Her existing three-year contact included a significant (about $25,000) increase in year 1, and 5% annual increases in years 2 and 3. Whether the trustees are considering a similar structure in a new contract, only they know. You can send your input to trustees@larkspurcshools.org.
Consent Calendar - Recycling/Disposal of Obsolete Equipment: This item requests that the Board approve the "recycling" of obsolete equipment. This seems all well and good on its face. However, the list of items that are to be "recycled" includes 54 imacs and an Apple G3 Tower computer. I think these must be the old, colorful imacs with the funny, bulbous shape. I'm sure these computers aren't worth a lot, but aren't they worth something? Could they not be given away, or sold for a nominal amount to families that might like an extra computer for the kids?
-Rob
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Report from the 11/6 Strategic Planning Session
So in the final flurry of planning a surprise 40th birthday party for my wife last Saturday, I didn't make time for a pre post advertising the strategic planning session that was hosted by the Board on the morning of 11/6. Apparently no advertisement was needed, because the event was very well attended. I estimate that 25 people were in attendance for the four-hour session.
I highly encourage you to review the slide show presentation from the meeting, and other detailed strategic plan documents by clicking here. After Dr. Pitts gave a brief presentation supported by the slide show, we moved on to the core of the session, which was reviewing different pillars of the strategic plan in small groups. Each participant chose their three priorities and spent about 30 minutes discussing how the district is doing in that area, what pros and cons in the current environment are affecting performance, and other related observations. I personally had quite interesting chats about the district's fiscal integrity, the challenges of facilities planning, and the state of communication among district stakeholders.
I could talk at length about the details of some of these conversations, but instead I'd like to focus on a bigger picture thought. We have an abundance of engaged, dedicated and smart people who are committed to the success of our kids and our schools. It was a pleasure to meet a few more of them on Saturday.
For those of you who were not in attendance, let me encourage you again to click the link up above and review the elements of the current strategic plan. The meeting that was held Saturday was but one workshop in a series of events - Superintendent coffee chats, Board meetings, etc. - that will take place over the next two months or so leading up to Board consideration and eventual adoption of a revised Strategic Plan. So, keep an eye and ear out for future opportunities to provide your input to the process. The more the merrier!
-Rob
p.s. As a group we reviewed a fascinating presentation by Sir Ken Robinson, creativity and education expert, called Changing Education Paradigms. You can view this 12-minute presentation on you tube by clicking here. I highly recommend it.
I highly encourage you to review the slide show presentation from the meeting, and other detailed strategic plan documents by clicking here. After Dr. Pitts gave a brief presentation supported by the slide show, we moved on to the core of the session, which was reviewing different pillars of the strategic plan in small groups. Each participant chose their three priorities and spent about 30 minutes discussing how the district is doing in that area, what pros and cons in the current environment are affecting performance, and other related observations. I personally had quite interesting chats about the district's fiscal integrity, the challenges of facilities planning, and the state of communication among district stakeholders.
I could talk at length about the details of some of these conversations, but instead I'd like to focus on a bigger picture thought. We have an abundance of engaged, dedicated and smart people who are committed to the success of our kids and our schools. It was a pleasure to meet a few more of them on Saturday.
For those of you who were not in attendance, let me encourage you again to click the link up above and review the elements of the current strategic plan. The meeting that was held Saturday was but one workshop in a series of events - Superintendent coffee chats, Board meetings, etc. - that will take place over the next two months or so leading up to Board consideration and eventual adoption of a revised Strategic Plan. So, keep an eye and ear out for future opportunities to provide your input to the process. The more the merrier!
-Rob
p.s. As a group we reviewed a fascinating presentation by Sir Ken Robinson, creativity and education expert, called Changing Education Paradigms. You can view this 12-minute presentation on you tube by clicking here. I highly recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)