|
PRESCOTT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
146 South Granite Street
Prescott, Arizona 86303
March 1, 2005
Minutes of the Governing
Board Study Session of Tuesday, March 1, 2005, beginning at 5:30 p.m. held
in the District Office Board Room.
Governing Board Members
Present:
President Andy Newton
Mrs. Dee Navarro
Mr. Steve Campbell
Dr. Joan Fleming
Mr. Tom Staley
Also Present:
Mr. Kevin J. Kapp,
Superintendent
Dr. Chris Reynolds,
Assistant Superintendent
Mrs. Renee Raskin,
Business Manager
Mrs. Andi Mayer, Assistant
to the Governing Board
Others Present:
Diane
Ryan David Martin Jean McGee
Nancy
Martinez Jan Richards Les Richards
Debbie Grahlmann
Rennie Anderson Pam Williams
Bonnie
Williams Dorrean Walker Libby Sluder
Sabrina
Huffman Michelle Shiloh Michael Shiloh
Kevin
Howell Debbie Kuhnke Jim Williams
Sharon
Bender Shawna Hodovance Jennifer Pike
Jackson Ravett
Kathleen Newman Lisa Castano
Michelle
Reese Kevin Castano Jalyn Bacon-Dorow
Cindy
Brown Arn Lavington Mike Harlan
Jay
Collier Jim Wahlstrom Bob Williams
Kevin
Howell Totsy McCraley John Sepanek
Judy
Paris
CALL TO ORDER
President Andy Newton
called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
OPENING CEREMONY AND
WELCOME
President Newton welcomed
everyone and thanked those present for attending. Mr. Tom Staley led the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Newton asked Mr.
Kevin Kapp if the agenda was in order. Mr. Kapp responded that the agenda
was in order, but that Item No. 5 would have to be rescheduled. Dr. Chris
Reynolds noted that one name would need to be struck from the Personnel
Report in the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Steve Campbell moved
that the Governing Board approve the agenda as amended. Dr. Joan Fleming
seconded the motion.
Mr. Steve Campbell voted
aye, Dr. Joan Fleming voted aye, Mrs. Dee Navarro voted aye, Mr. Tom
Staley voted aye, and President Newton voted aye. The motion carried 5-0.
PRESENTATIONS
Mrs. Judy Paris thanked
the Board for allowing her to attend an out-of-state conference in
California and gave a brief report regarding the conference. She reported
that the conference was very well attended and listed the workshops she
had attended and the service vendors she had contacted. She noted that
she would be sharing the information gained from this conference with
staff.
Mrs. Dorrean Walker
reported that the PEA had presented three different salary schedules to
the Board previously that had some problems and the Board at that time had
requested PEA to iron out some of the problems and present a different
proposal. She introduced Mr. Jim Williams and Mr. David Martin to present
the new proposed teacher salary schedule.
Mr. Jim Williams reported
that the certified teaching staff is proposing a new salary schedule for
the Board’s consideration. PUSD has adopted new salary schedules for all
other certified staff and the classified auxiliary staff. These new
schedules have greatly improved the potential earning power of these
sub-groups and it is now time for the teacher staff.
He went on to say that the
formula on which to build a new salary schedule is very critical to making
it equitable to the schedules already in place. Prior to the adoption of
the new Administrative Salary Schedules, there was a ratio between a
career teacher and an administrator. Most administrators had reached
their career salaries as have a larger number of the teaching staff. With
the adoption of the new Administrative Salary Schedules, that ratio was
changed drastically. The old top salary now became the new starting
salary and an administrator’s potential earning power climbed 42% higher,
while a teacher’s top salary remained static.
Applying the inverse of
the formula that was used to create the Administrative Salary Schedules,
the starting salary (BA Step 1) would be $36,292 and the career salary
(MA-45 Step 15) would be $66,741.
As an example, in 15 years
the assistant superintendent will have a potential salary of $107,647,
with no adjustments to the base salary, divided by 240 days = $448.53 a
day. 80% of 448.53 = 358.82 a day x 186 days = $66,741 potential salary
for a master teacher. If the teacher’s schedule is adjusted each year, so
will the administrator’s schedule. Therefore, the top salary on the
certified schedule would need to reflect the 20% difference in potential
earning power. A schedule with these parameters was presented to the
Board in November.
Implementation of such a
salary schedule all at once did not seem attainable and phasing it in
would take twenty years. Therefore, the certified staff is proposing the
following Certified Salary Schedule for the Board’s consideration. Please
see attachment #1.
The goal of maintaining
the same ratio between the career teacher and the career administrator can
be accomplished with this schedule at a more affordable cost. The
starting salary (BA Step 1) is $30,000 and with a 4% index, the career
salary (MA-45 Step 15) is $65,734. He noted that using a 3% index would
still take 23 years, so a 4% index was used, which takes 16 years. He
stated that it wasn’t exactly where they wanted to be, but was in the ball
park. He noted that implementation would take $3 million, however, if we
can forget about years experience and use the dollar amount (how much they
are making) it would cost $517,000 to slide everyone on this schedule. It
would not be equitable, but it was the same with the administrators.
The parameters for
implementation would be:
1. All current staff
slide on to the new schedule to a cell in their experience column,
that is closest to their current salary with an increase of no less
than $500.00.
2. New Hires Phase
in:
a. All new
hires for 2005-2006 will be placed on the 2004-2005
salary schedule using current hiring practices, granting no
more than 5 years experience. Then they will slide
onto the new (2005-2006) salary schedule with all the
current staff.
b. All new
hires for 2006-2007 will be placed on the new 2005-
2006 schedule at no higher than step 2 in their experience
column.
c. All new
hires for 2007-2008 will be placed on the new 2005-
2006 schedule at no higher than step 4 in their experience
column.
d. All new
hires in 2008-2009 will be placed on the new 2005-
2006 schedule with up to 5 years experience and current
hiring practices will resume.
3. Longevity will be
covered in the same manner as was used for the administrative
salary schedule.
4. All other
policies pertaining to the salary schedule will remain in
place from 2005-2006 on.
President Newton noted
that the biggest bump for BA Step 1 would be from $25,000 - $30,000. He
also noted that the current schedules use a 3% index. He asked, if this
was implemented and a step was awarded, what would the cost of the step
be? Dr. Chris Reynolds responded, right now its 350,000. President
Newton stated that he thought it would be closer to $600,000.
Dr. Chris Reynolds asked
Mr. Williams why the additional steps had been added. Mr. Williams
responded that he had not noticed that he had done that and that he had
just used the template in his computer and that it was an oversight on his
part. He noted that the additional steps could be removed.
Dr. Reynolds noted that
the assistant superintendent maximum career salary is $87,545 at step 10
and he was not sure where the $107,647 figure had come from. He stated
that he thought it was probably from a proposed salary schedule that the
Board did not accept and would make a big difference in the formula used
for the proposed teacher salary schedule.
President Newton suggested
taking off the additional steps and re-computing the schedule based on
accurate information.
Mr. Kapp thanked Jim
Williams and Dorrean Walker and whoever else helped with the proposal. He
noted that the proposal need to be refigured, but has some real career
potential. He also pointed out that Arizona State Retirement would be
going up this year by 2.55%, but not next year.
Mr. Williams commented
that the biggest money would go to new teachers with beginning salaries,
rather than the veteran teachers. He noted that right now our salaries
are in the lower 10% of state salaries and that this salary schedule would
be a great step for Prescott to pay our teachers what they are worth. He
added that our test scores are in the top 90% and the teacher salaries
should reflect that.
Mrs. Walker noted that PEA
was not asking for a step – just to slide onto the schedule. She added
that the district needed to do something to not only hire teachers, but to
keep them.
President Newton asked if
phasing in over two years reduce the $517,000? Mr. Kapp responded that it
would reduce between $80,000-$100,000, less the initial cost.
President Newton noted
that changing the formula to reflect the $87,000, rather than the $107,000
would reduce that amount also.
President Newton asked
what the cost difference would be using a 4% step index vs. a 3% step
index? He noted that the Board needed to consider being able to give a
step financially. Mr. Kapp responded that it would be about $120,000
extra.
Mrs. Dee Navarro asked
when the PEA could get the Board the corrected numbers. Mr. Williams
responded that they would work on it as soon as possible, hopefully before
the April meeting.
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT
Mr. Kapp pointed out the
new artwork in the district office and board room noting that March is
Student Art Month. He encouraged everyone to checkout the student art on
display at the Yavapai College Performance Hall.
He reported that the
School Fair was this past Saturday and that it was the most successful
with the numbers of contacts higher than ever. He noted that the high
school booth had run out of registration forms. He thanked the entire
district for their support and Dr. Joan Fleming for attending and speaking
on the live radio broadcast. He reported that there were live
performances every half-hour for four hours that drew very large crowds.
He noted that he had heard from the secretary at Taylor Hicks that they
had registered 17 students last year after the school fair and registered
40 this year.
He announced that
enrollment was up 162 students, or 3.1%, as of February 28th
and that the elementary schools were up by 114 students (5.3%), middle
schools were up by 10 students (less than 1%), and the high school was up
by 34 students (2%).
Mr. Kapp reported that 55
students had signed up for intersession during spring break (15 middle
school and 40 elementary school students).
Mr. Steve Campbell asked
how that compared with last year. Mrs. Marianne Brooks reported that 57
had now signed up and that last year there had been 59.
Mr. Kapp distributed a
report on the marketing budget and noted that there was still $16,790.41
in the budget. He noted that we are getting ready to do the new
year-round activity calendar and that more than half the printing cost
will be covered through advertisements.
He distributed information
regarding the Arizona Shakespeare Festival and requested that Board
members read this information prior to next Tuesday. He noted that this
organization is proposing a partnership and is requesting the use of the
Ruth Street Theater, would provide workshops for our students, and would
be a low cost proposal.
He announced that the ASBA
will be holding their first Annual Spring Law Conference in Tucson on
April 1st.
He distributed a tax
credit report, noting that these figures are pure tax credit donations and
do not include pay to play or kindergarten tuition. He noted that over
all, tax credit donations are up this year by 18%. He commented on what
an incredibly generous community we have. He noted that donations
increased at all sites, with the exception of Prescott Mile High Middle
School. He stated that there is great potential with tax credit donations
and that as long as the program is allowed by the state, the district
should pursue it.
Dr. Chris Reynolds
reported on the Taylor Hicks Principal Search Committee, noting that the
committee had completed their goals, that there were 25 applicants, 6
semi-finalists that would be interviewed, with 3 finalists to be
recommended to Mr. Kapp. He thanked both Tom Staley and Joan Fleming for
serving on this committee. He noted that Dee Navarro would be serving on
the Miller Valley Search Committee.
STUDY SESSION:
CONSIDER THE REVIEW,
RATIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF BUILDING RENEWAL REQUESTS AND EXPENDITURES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
Mrs. Renee Raskin reported
that we normally always bring these expenditures to the Board for approval
when funds are received. She noted that the district ended up receiving
$694,000 for this year and that the administration had talked to the Board
at their summer retreat regarding using these funds for emergency
requests. She reported that of those funds, $119,000 had been spent,
$86,000 encumbered, leaving $489,000.
Mr. Tom Staley noted that
the district administration did not come to the Board because they didn’t
think they were going to get any funds. He stated that his concern is
that we’ve known about it since August and have already spent about
$200,000. He added that when you have that amount of money, he believed
the Board should take a look at it.
Mrs. Raskin responded,
that is our normal process. Mr. Staley stated that he was suggesting that
the Board see it from now on.
President Newton stated
that he agreed that the Board should look at proposed projects.
Mr. Kapp noted that the
administration did describe this process to the Board in August and the
Board did not seem to object. He noted that bringing expenditure
proposals to the Board would be the normal process in the future.
Mrs. Raskin noted that the
district is allowed to use 8% of building renewal funds for employees.
Dr. Fleming asked, do we
have to pay for APS for change orders? Mrs. Raskin responded, that was
for additional work not in the original contract. Dr. Fleming stated that
she would like to see about a $300,000 contingency fund.
Mr. Steve Campbell
commented that our contingency fund was our sell of property funds that no
longer exists.
Mrs. Dee Navarro noted
that the three change orders were for almost $100,000. Mr. Arn Lavington
noted that those figures were estimates. Mrs. Navarro clarified, that’s
over and above? Mrs. Raskin responded, yes.
Mrs. Navarro suggested
using that in our motion next week. Mr. Kapp noted that the Board could
add to the motion and set a goal. He also added that the only danger is
that emergencies will come up.
Mrs. Navarro noted that
the $300,000 contingency fund would be used for those emergencies.
Mr. Staley stated that if
you add all the asterisks on the handout, it comes out to about $800,000
and that if we did everything on the list, you would use up more than the
$694,000, since there are more projects than funds.
Mrs. Navarro suggested
taking $300,000 off the top, with the balance being what gets to be spent.
Dr. Fleming suggested that
the administration go back over the list and see what can be put off.
Mr. Lavington noted that
the three APS change orders had two asterisks on the handout.
Mr. Staley noted that the
district had a contract with APS for $2.8 million and then asked, in
addition to that we want to do another $95,000 to the equipment that
they’ll be working on? Why wasn’t that in the bid?
Mr. Lavington responded
that they are promoting energy efficient projects that will give returns
to the district and these are projects that were not practicable to recoup
the cost, so were not recommended by APS, but are projects we feel are
necessary.
Mr. Staley asked if the
district had looked at these projects in conjunction with the bond
projects to make sure there is no duplication.
Mr. Lavington responded
that it was more practicable to tie into their systems, rather than to do
it piece meal.
Mr. Jay Collier pointed
out that one of the change orders it to do the HVAC first and then the
roofing in order to avoid roof leaks by doing it the other way around. He
noted that the district has done it the other way and then had leaks like
crazy. He added that district personnel needed the latitude to talk about
it.
Mr. Campbell stated that
he thought that was Mrs. Navarro’s suggestion of how much we want in
contingency and added that once there is a contingency fund that he had no
interest in trying to micro-manage it.
Mrs. Navarro stated that
she agreed.
Mr. Staley stated that he
concurred with that, but that his concern was according to the list of
projects, there was over $800,000 in projects.
Mr. Collier noted that on
the list, those items numbered 1 and 2 needed to be taken care of and
those numbered 3 were negotiable.
Mrs. Raskin also pointed
out that some projects say 2005-2006 and that they did not plan on
overspending the money.
Mr. Kapp suggested that
next week when the Board approves the expenditures that they think about
the language of their motion. He noted that if we have about $90,000, we
can always go back to DLT to re-prioritize the list. He asked the Board
to remember that we have 10-11 buildings, several of which are 100 years
old.
CONSIDER THE REVIEW AND
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY SOFT CAPITAL, UNRESTRICTED CAPITAL AND THE
BUILDING RENEWAL BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
Mrs. Raskin noted that
these are capital needs or projects for next fiscal year and discussed how
the allocations were distributed to the different sites. She noted that
most of the DLT were present if the Board had any questions.
Dr. Fleming asked why
there was such a difference in the amount of textbooks? Mrs. Raskin noted
that Taylor Hicks had $12,000 for textbooks and stated that she was not
quite sure what he was spending it on, but that it could be used for other
things.
Mr. Mike Harlan noted that
they charge students for damaged or replacement textbooks, which is
usually around $5,000.
Mrs. Navarro asked, this
is not new textbook adoption? Mrs. Raskin responded, no, this was in
addition to textbook adoption.
Mr. Kapp noted that over
one-third of the entire budget goes for textbook adoption. He also
mentioned that when looking at building renewal funds to remember that
over 95% has stayed in Prescott.
Mr. Staley noted that our
principals are leveraging building renewal funds and bond work and are not
duplicating. Mr. Lavington responded that they would be studying that in
detail.
CONSIDER APPROVING A
PROPOSAL FOR THE RUTH STREET IMPROVEMENT/DRAINAGE/ PARKING PROJECT WITH
THE CITY OF PRESCOTT
Mrs. Totsy McCraley
reported that when she came on board they had discussed traffic flow at
PHS and how to improve that and during that conversation she had found out
about the city planning on doing work on Ruth and Demerse. She noted that
Mr. Watts and Mr. O’Connell had put her in touch with a representative
from Civil Tech. She stated that the proposal is looking at shaving off a
little bit of the northeast campus by the bus pickup area to help
straighten up the intersection of Whetstine and Ruth. She also noted that
right behind left field at the baseball field there is an area we do not
use and has no purpose. The proposal is calling for the city to procure
that area from the school district behind the current parking and left
field fence and make a new, safer parking area that would increase parking
from 18-36 spaces. Then in the area between the proposed parking and the
left field fence the proposal calls for a detention basis which would help
the city slow down the flow of water from rainstorms that comes down from
Ruth and Demerse that would help to solve the problem of water in the
intersection. She also noted that whenever you put in new buildings, you
have to have a basin for water run-off and we’ll need this when we start
building at the high school. She introduced John Sepanek and Kevin Howell
from Civil Tech who have been hired by the City of Prescott.
Mr. Sepanek displayed a
drawing of the proposal and explained that the plan is to fully
reconstruct the street, leaving the curb and gutters, keep the parking and
still keep the intersection clear, and provide for a drainage system for
water that comes off the high school and floods the intersection.
President Newton asked if
they would be widening the street? Mr. Sepanek responded, yes. Mr.
Howell noted that this would require about 8’ additional, about 1/10 of an
acre or 4,000 square feet. He also noted that the detention basin could
store one acre of water.
Mr. Campbell asked if
there was a danger of water running onto the ball field. Mr. Howell
responded, no.
Mr. Sepanek noted that the
city would required an 8’ right-of-way for a temporary construction
easement and that after construction the maintenance would fall upon the
school district.
Mrs. Navarro asked, why
would that be? Mr. Sepanek responded, school water, school property.
Mrs. McCraley responded, the benefit would be the city would put in grass
like what is on the baseball field and with grass the water will dissipate
into the ground better and our personnel could take care of this area.
She also noted that there were three storage buildings used by the city,
which the city will be moving closer to the existing bathrooms.
Mr. Lavington noted that
the district would be turning land over to the city for sidewalks.
Mrs. McCraley stated that
it is a trade-off and that the high school would be gaining additional
parking spaces and picking up a detention basin that we would be required
to have when we begin construction on the new buildings.
Mr. Sepanek also noted
that in talking with the Yavapai Indian Tribe, they will be coming out
with an easement and will be building a road for access to a sub-division
they will be building in the future that will come out on Ruth Street,
which will increase traffic also.
Mr. Kapp asked if there
was any concern over standing water for small children. Mr. Sepanek
responded that there was a 36 hour maximum timeframe for water drainage
from the detention basin.
CONSIDER APPROVING
CONSIDERING APPROVING (___________________) AS A TRUSTEE ON OUR EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT TRUST (EBT) BOARD
Mr. Kapp announced that he
had talked with Mr. Joseph Dombrowski on the telephone and that he was
going to visit with him on Monday morning regarding his interest in this
position. He also noted that Mr. Dombrowski has a background in finance.
CONSIDER APPROVING THE
EXPANSION OF THE PARTNERS FOR HEALTHY STUDENTS PROGRAM TO PRESCOTT HIGH
SCHOOL
This item was deleted from
the agenda and will be on the April agenda.
CONSIDER APPROVING A
TEAM NUTRITION MINI-GRANT BETWEEN PRESCOTT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR $15,000 TO BE USED FOR A PILOT TEST OF
THE ARIZONA NUTRITION POLICY
Mr. Kapp noted this is a
grant we want to apply for and that it ties in very well with the School
Board goal.
Mr. Jim Wahlstrom noted
that the goal was to look at nutrition and health and that one of the
first things the committee had decided to look at was a grant. He noted
that there were 8 schools involved with this grant last year and that our
district did apply for this grant and was selected to receive the grant.
The grant would be for $15,000, which the district could use in a variety
of ways. He noted that one thing that was mandated since the
reauthorization of the child nutrition grant is that all schools must have
a wellness policy in place. He noted that the program would be
implemented at Prescott Mile High Middle school and be used as a model for
other schools, once it has been tested there. He added that they would
not just address the cafeteria and school lunch program, but would be
looking at snack bars, vending machines, health information and physical
education. He noted that they would measure the outcome through revenues
for junk food vs. healthy food and make comparisons. He stated that he
felt like it was eventually going to be mandated by the state anyway, so
the district will be ahead of the game.
CONSIDER APPROVING A
“SEALED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL” - #070105H – SCHOOL AND OFFICE SUPPLIES AND
EQUIPMENT – RFP – LOCAL VENDOR PROPOSAL – PRESCOTT, ARIZONA, FOR THE
2005-2006 SCHOOL YEAR
Mr. Arn Lavington noted
that the competitive sealed bid process was not advantageous for this
project, so he was doing a Request for Proposal instead. He added that
price alone was not the sole factor in awarding the proposal. He stated
that he would recommend that Seitz be awarded the proposal for catalog and
walk-in sales and that Staples be an alternate because of their large
stock for items that are not available at Seitz. He also noted that he
would recommend “Think for Ink” due to their very competitive prices. He
noted that purchasing could still utilize other vendors and that he tries
to utilize local vendors when possible.
CONSIDER APPROVING A
“SEALED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL” - #070105M FOR COMPUTER PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES – LOCAL VENDOR PROPOSAL – PRESCOTT, ARIZONA, FOR THE 2005-2006
SCHOOL YEAR
Mr. Lavington noted that
an RFP was used, that price alone was not the sole factor and that he
would recommend that CompuTime be awarded the proposal. He noted that the
district has used this vendor for the last five years and that they have a
very competitive mark-up of 12.5%.
CONSIDER APPROVING THE
FOLLOWING COOPERATIVE PURCHASING CONTRACTS FOR THE 2005-2006 SCHOOL YEAR –
AZ STATE, MOHAVE, SAVE, TCPN, GSA, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CA
Mr. Lavington reported
that every year the district uses one or more of these contracts and that
they are approved on a yearly basis.
CONSIDER APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS - #PUDS020905A – FOR VARIOUS PAINTING
PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT
Mr. Lavington noted that
in view of the building renewal statements, $90,000 being left over, and
grouping building renewal and bond projects, he had put a bid out for
painting projects at Granite Mountain, Prescott High School and Abia
Judd. He reviewed the project tally sheets with the Board and noted that
he was recommending that Century be awarded the bid.
Mrs. Navarro asked if
Century was a local company and how long have they been in business? Mr.
Lavington responded, that they were a local firm that has been in business
for over five years and that he had done a referral check.
CONSIDER APPROVING MR.
KEVIN KAPP – SUPERINTENDENT, DR. CHRIS REYNOLDS – ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT, MRS. RENEE RASKIN – DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS SERVICES, AND MR.
ARN LAVINGTON – DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING, AS DESIGNATED PERSONS AUTHORIZED
BY THE GOVERNING BOARD TO USE “EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT” FOR GOODS AND
SERVICES WHEN AN EMERGENCY CONDITION EXISTS FOR THE 2005-2006 SCHOOL YEAR
Mr. Lavington noted that
this was another item that is approved on a yearly basis that would allow
the above-named people to take action during an emergency situation, such
as a tree falling on a building.
CONSIDER APPROVING A
REQUEST FROM MR. BOB WILLIAMS TO BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
2004-2005 BUY-OUT AT THE REDUCED RATE OF 75% DUE TO MISSING THE DECEMBER
DEADLINE
Dr. Chris Reynolds
reported that Mr. Bob Williams has asked the Board to consider a waiver
for missing the deadline and only receive 75%.
Mr. Bob Williams stated
that he had submitted his resignation to the Cabinet on January 26, 2005.
President Newton noted
that the deadline was in November and asked why he had submitted his
letter so late? Mr. Williams responded that he had had mixed emotions, is
turning 50, has spent 25 years with the district, and didn’t want to be
one of those that “hung on” for the golden 80 points. He stated that at
this time it just seemed like the right thing to do.
Mr. Staley stated that Mr.
Williams realized it was best for the district, that the district will be
saving money, and that the deadline was already moved from March to
November. He suggested that the Board consider the mitigating factors and
commended Mr. Williams for not wanting to disrupt the principal search.
He also encouraged the Board to not forget his loyalty to the district and
25 years of service.
Dr. Fleming stated that
she appreciated the reduced rate and that her only concern was setting a
precedent.
Mr. Staley stated, if it
sets a precedent, let’s take any other requests on a case by case basis.
He observed that other deadlines have been moved when it suits the Board
or benefits the district. He noted that with the 75% reduction the Board
should take a step towards him for 25 years of service.
Mr. Campbell stated that
his concern is not so much the precedent as the way we operate as a Board
and that he did not want to set rules and then arbitrate those rules, i.e.
is 10 years enough?
Mr. Staley commented that
it seems like we arbitrate a lot of things around here. He noted that the
deadline was already fluid and has been changed.
Mrs. Navarro stated that
she agreed with Mr. Campbell – do we set a deadline or not have one? She
asked, what about those people who decided not to retire because they
missed the deadline?
Mr. Staley stated that he
appreciated deadlines and asked the Board to consider the mitigating
factors.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE
CONSENT AGENDA:
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
CERTIFIED AND CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL ACTIONS AS REQUESTED
CONSIDER ACCEPTING THE
DONATIONS AS PRESENTED
CONSIDER RATIFYING THE
VOUCHERS AS PRESENTED
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL
OF THE AUXILIARY OPERATIONS AND STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUND STATEMENT OF
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2005
CONSIDER THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS
MINUTES FROM THE GOVERNING BOARD RETREAT OF JANUARY 19, 2005, THE STUDY
SESSION OF FEBRUARY 1, 2005, AND THE VOTING SESSION OF FEBRUARY 15, 2005
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection,
President Newton adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
___________________________________
|