Manchester Public Schools
Budget Workshop

January 25, 2005

7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.
Lincoln Center
Manchester, CT 06040

A. OPENING

PRESENT: Edwards, Golas, Hackett, Huyler, Lok, O'Neill, Rizzo, Thresher

ABSENT: Robinson,

ALSO
PRESENT: Superintendent of Schools Ouellette, Director of Human Resources Attorney Libby, Director of Student Support Services Tait, Business Manager Brooks, Interim Assistant Superintendent Gejda

ABSENT: None

A. Opening

Mr. Golas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Golas led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

C. Opening Remarks

Mr. Golas asked for a friendly motion to move Approval of the Minutes after the Closing Comments. All approved. He introduced Superintendent Ouellette.

D. Budget Discussion

Superintendent Ouellette welcomed the Board of Education and the Manchester community. She stated that this is one of three budget workshops. She stated she previously presented an overview of the Superintendent's budget based on the vision, mission and Strategic plan. She had highlighted some of the programs and implications of the upcoming 2005-2006 budget. The Board asked at that meeting for her to prepare and present in more detail the beginnings of the administrative budget process and some of the reductions. They also asked for program improvements as well as details for the increase for full time equivalencies with staffing.

She stated that she and Mrs. Brooks individually met with all administrators to review each budget with very specific details as to their needs. She also held a principal's meeting in December to ask them to prioritize requests should they be absorbent. The original percent was 11.1%, an almost $88M request. It was reduced to $86+M, which represents a 9.33% increase.

Some of the items that were initially requested in the budget were an In-School Suspension Para at Robertson at $25,000; Manchester High School additional 1.0 English teacher; a nurse (which they felt could be accommodated at the high school through reorganization throughout the district); 1.0 security staff at the high school; and a 1.0 Information Tech Specialist at the high school. These were all removed from the initial requests. Bennet Middle School asked for two NCLB teachers. Given that Bennet is a Title I school, she felt that Title I funding could pick up this cost; therefore, these two positions were removed. Illing Middle School requested a copy room secretary at $34,500, but this position was removed. There was an additional request for a School Resource Officer; however, she felt these services could be redistributed throughout the district. There was also a furniture requests that were removed from the budget: Waddell and Bowers at $212,500 for each school; Illing at $80,000; Manchester High School at $231,000. It is her hope that the renovation at the high school may accommodate their request. In working with Mrs. Tait, they looked at not filling the request of a high school transition teacher, tuition costs they are hoping to receive in grant funding of $20,000, and additional supplies of approximately $20,000. Also, because the building project at Manchester Regional Academy is currently on hold, a culinary arts professional at $24,500 would be budgeted in future years.

She outlined some of the Federal and State mandates that have an impact on the local budget, as well as some of the local commitments they have with the Town in providing shared services. One addition that is in the budget is a bilingual teacher at Nathan Hale School at $54,852. Additionally, the American Disabilities Act calls for equipment to be compliant. Previously, Mrs. Tait and Dr. Mistretta outlined for the Board issues with IDEA and Least Restrictive Environment. Because of these mandates, some of the staffing additions that need to be addressed are currently at $303,000; assistive technology at $54,800; and special transportation at $1.6M. She stated Mrs. Tait intends to address Special Education specifically at the next budget workshop. With No Child Left Behind and district programming, they will need to provide extensive professional development and curriculum revisions to address the needs of Adequate Yearly Progress at $218,678.

She reviewed revenue reductions for the upcoming year. In the Title V grant, the additional percentage of teacher and paraprofessional salaries need to be moved out of the Title V grant and into the operating budget at a cost of $31,000. With the Manchester Regional Academy, there is a change in percentage of Manchester students versus out of district students, causing a reduction in tuition fees to the operating budget to fund 75% of the salaries at $101,000. Board of Education for the blind funding is reduced by approximately $55,000. There is also an Excess Cost Grant, a reduced reimbursement from 100% to 60%, and there is an anticipation that the reduction can be further reduced if the grant is capped. Mrs. Brooks feels that number would be about $415,000 in revenue reductions. Total revenue reductions anticipated for the 2005-2006 school year would be approximately $606,000.

She stated there are Town responsibilities for shared services: information services at $262,500; MUNIS maintenance fee at $28,200; lease purchase at $91,000; fiber option lease purchase at $165,000; street light reimbursement at $6,000; summer recreation nurses at $16,900; high school SRO's at $170,000; facility projects management at $35,000; field maintenance services at $60,000; and the Board's commitment to Channel 16 at $11,500. The total commitment to the Town would be approximately $847,000.

Staffing additions for the upcoming school year include 2 full time elementary classrooms at $91,000; the Equity Supervisor to 1.0 FTE at $51,000; balance the Title V salaries system-wide at $35,000; speech and language secretarial time at $6,800; a .4 FTE to address over-identification of special education students at $18,000; a bilingual teacher at Nathan Hale at $45,000; a student advocate at Washington School at $15,000; .2 FTE district wide art coordinator reinstatement at $16,000; a music teacher for elementary schools at $45,000; .2 FTE district wide music coordinator reinstatement at $14,900, reinstatement of both the P.E. and social studies district wide coordinators at $13,900 and $21,000; .5 FTE at Illing Middle School for a non-certified staff member in the computer lab at $12,000; and, a newspaper advisor to enhance writing at Bennet Middle School. Additional staffing at the high school includes 3 full time certified staff and one full time non-certified staff. Mr. Sierakowski feels that it is imperative to provide better service to the high school students for instructional needs and has assured her he can rearrange some study halls to larger facilities to provide room for these teachers. Staffing additions for special education needs include: a high school Tech Teacher at $45,000; a high school department head stipend $1,500; special education math at $45,000; elementary teachers at $159,000; a full time social worker at the elementary level at $45,000. The total staffing requested is $840,700, representing a total of 17.8 FTE of which 15.2 are certified and 2.6 non-certified.

Fixed increases were presented by Mrs. Brooks. She stated the fixed increases include health insurance at 13% or $1,730,226. Prior to next year, the State Teacher's Retirement Reimbursement to the district has been going to the general fund. Next year, they ask that it come back to district so that they can report correctly what the district is paying for health insurance. The actual net increase in the budget is 9.38%. The heat and energy increases are almost $200,000. Additional fixed increases include tuition to the International Baccalaureate Academy, which has doubled to $2,000 per student equaling a $20,000 increase, and the Town pension contribution for non-certified staff is about $81,235.

Ms. Ouellette stated program improvements represent a very small amount in the upcoming budget. Servers for Bennet and Manchester High School, and software for new elementary report cards are included in this category. A cost of $150,000 would be for an upgrade to the MHS Midi Lab hardware and software. There is also a first year, three-year lease purchase for summer instruments, including pianos and band uniforms as previously committed. An upgrade to the Bennet and Illing music labs are included as well. Program improvements would include equity and differentiation, $20,000 for Saturday and after school academies and alternatives to suspensions in the district.

She highlighted what Mrs. Brooks has noticed from the 2004-2005 budget: special education tuition of $874,195; Blue Cross and Blue Shield commitments at $150,000: and, the heat and energy line item at $200,000. The 2004-2005 projected gross deficit is predicted to be $1,224,195.

She stated that she would be able to answer any questions presented by the Board.

E. Questions and Answers

Mr. Golas stated the meeting would be opened for questions to the staff.

Mrs. Hackett requested that Board Members get copies of the presentation and any other presentations given at the budget workshops. She stated that the Equity Program had been expanded to fortify it and make it intrinsic to everything done. Several members met with Dr. Mistretta and Attorney Libby over the summer about ways to enhance the program and have more people be responsible for differentiated instruction, equity and consciousness of race relations, and not just one person. She is not sure how the addition of 1 FTE for an Equity Supervisor plays into the big picture of what was worked out to expand the program.

Ms. Ouellette stated at looking at the job description for the Equity Supervisor, the staff member would work very closely with the schools on student achievement, provide proficiency targets and benchmarks for student achievement. She envisions this position to be providing expertise in instructional practices and integrated instruction within classrooms and working closely with staff in professional development.

Attorney Libby commented on the summer meetings, in which they talked about bringing in all the curriculum specialists and training them so that when they worked with different groups of students and teachers, the concept of equity and differentiated instruction was impressed thoroughly and was the focus. That included 17 people throughout the district. The Supervisor of Equity is currently half time, and half time Director at Bentley Alternative School. They are looking for this position to be increased by a half time so the Equity person is full time Equity.

Mrs. Hackett believes there were some stipends paid for release for the Equity Supervisor.

Attorney Libby stated they asked one of the teachers at Bentley, who has administrative certification, to function as a head teacher. He is being paid a stipend for this work, and also has release time from some of his teaching responsibilities.

Mrs. Hackett stated that by expanding the Equity program, the stipend and release times would be eliminated to balance out the expansion of the 1 FTE.

Attorney Libby stated that is unsure at this point, as the Equity Supervisor/Director at Bentley would become full time Equity, leaving a half time administrator for Bentley unfilled. It has not been resolved if it would be an administrator or shared responsibilities to fill this position at Bentley.

Mrs. Hackett asked to be kept apprised of what happens with this issue. She would like a more comprehensive look at what the administration is planning on doing with this program, as it is very important.

Mrs. Lok questioned the non-certified position for Race Relations at the high school, as she is interested in what this position is in response to. She asked what responsibilities this position would have and if they would be working with students directly.

Ms. Ouellette stated this position has been in the works for quite some time. In the future, they would look to provide a certified staff member. This would also have direct impact with students working in study groups or peer groups throughout the Manchester High School community.

Mrs. Lok confirmed that this individual would be visible to students. She also commented that this is the first year she has seen anything like pianos in a budget. She wonders when the last time something like this was purchased.

Ms. Ouellette stated that Mr. Berry stated this equipment is aging and needs to be replaced.

Mrs. Lok stated that she is happy to see this purchase, as everyone recognizes the value of the arts, including music, to the students' academic success. She noted that shared services with the Town is just $7,000 more than what the Superintendent is asking for new staff.

Ms. Ouellette stated this was a coincidence.

Mr. Rizzo commented on the $140,000 for Program Improvements, broken down in several areas. He asked how the software helps deliver education to the students.

Ms. Ouellette referred this question to the Interim Assistant Superintendent and District Supervisor of Math, Science and Technology.

Mrs. Gejda stated that they expected to detail at a future budget meeting the computer technology budget. At the high school, the students maintain a portfolio to keep a record of their work over the four years. Within each student portfolio, students need to be able to access their work; therefore, the high school will need more space. Illing has just recently purchased a server, and the Bennet server needs to be updated. The electronic report card software is provided by Pentamation, which would replace hand written report cards.

Mr. Rizzo stated that past budgets have included dollars for a gradual ongoing replacement of computer equipment. He asked what this budget has in response to that. (Administration indicated that it would be provided in the future meetings.) He asked about the money budgeted for street light reimbursement.

Mrs. Brooks stated she was notified by the Town of certain commitments that the Board was responsible for and to make sure she included in the budget. One of these items was street light reimbursement beginning next year. It stated that the Board of Education would reimburse the DPW for the cost of electricity, maintenance and periodic relamping of 46 streetlights on Board of Education grounds. This reimbursement would be $6,420. She assumes this was something agreed to prior to her taking this position and was in a memo sent to the interim Business Manager. She believes this includes parking lot lights and in the courtyard at Bennet.

Mr. Rizzo asked if this was a common item to include in a budget for the Board of Education.

Mrs. Brooks stated that in past budgets she was worked with, they paid electric bills, which sometimes does include lighting in the parking lots. She stated she has never reimbursed a town for street lamps.

Mr. Rizzo assumes they would pay electricity to run the lights, but he assumed the Town would be responsible for the maintenance of them.

Ms. Ouellette stated that this is a learning process for Mrs. Brooks and her. They are just looking at all the local commitments and what has been provided in the past.

Mrs. Brooks quoted a memo received by the interim Business Manager, which details that beginning in FY05-06, the Board of Education will reimburse the Department of Public Works $6,420 per year, adjusted as necessary for CL&P rate changes for electricity, maintenance, and periodic relamping of 46 street lights on Board of Education grounds.

Mr. Rizzo commented that this item has not been in the budget before and is something new.

Mr. Edwards stated the Board of Directors just recently undertook a program to have the Town take over all of maintenance of the streetlights, which is supposed to save them a lot of money. If there were savings, he would ask the Board of Directors to absorb this cost as well.

Mrs. Lok stated she is interested in the historical perspective of this item. She does not ever remember this being a topic in budget discussions. She asked if this is included in shared services with the Town and asked if there are other things similar to this.

Mrs. Brooks confirmed that it is in shared services, and stated that the other similar items are the maintenance fees for MUNIS, the lease purchase for MUNIS and maintenance fees for it. Additionally, field maintenance services is something the Board reimburses the DPW for. The DPW prepares invoices twice a year based on actual cost incurred and the recommended budget amount was $60,000. School Resource Officers, Keith Epstein's salary and Channel 16 and programming of it is an additional shared expense as well as the fiber optic lease, the health insurance and the liability insurance program. The information services this year is $250,000 towards those expenses, and she was told to budget $262,500 for next year, which is a 5% increase. The pension contribution is also a liability of the Board.

Mrs. Lok noted that all of the other items on the list are items she is familiar with, but she has never heard of the street lamp item. While it may be that the lights are on Board property, it has been made clear to the Board that the Town owns the school buildings and properties. Although it is a small amount, she feels it is a dangerous precedent. She feels it is a safety issue and the lights probably assist the police department in monitoring activities on school property off hours. The lights may also prevent injuries at night.

Mr. Rizzo believes it should be understood that while Mrs. Lok has asked if there are similar items in the budget, it has opened up a huge hole of what other things are in the budget that the Board has been asked to fund like this.

Mr. Edwards feels that the charges are petty.

Mrs. Hackett stated that even though it is a small amount of money, she feels it is a very awkward arrangement. She asked if the Board was actually accepted the terms set forth in the letter.

Mrs. Brooks stated that the email to the interim Business Manager states that the issue was discussed. She assumes it was agreed upon.

Mr. Rizzo asked who discussed it.

Mrs. Brooks responded the two interim Business Managers and a Town employee.

Mrs. Hackett asked for a follow up on this issue. She asked if any payments were made yet.

Mrs. Brooks stated the invoices were for the athletic fields. The DPW prepares invoices twice a year based on actual cost. The reimbursement is equal to the salary and benefits of one maintainer plus benefits and any supplies used on the field. This is an additional $60,000 the Board pays for field services.

Mrs. Hackett stated the Board is looking at the FTE to determine its share, not the prorated actual utility usage.

Mrs. Brooks clarified that there are two items. The streetlights did not include the two invoices per year. The streetlights just say that the Board will be reimbursing the cost of electricity, maintenance and periodic relamping of 46 streetlights on Board of Education grounds. The other item was the field maintenance services, where the Board would be billed twice a year by the DPW for the maintainer benefits and supplies used on the field.

Mrs. Hackett asked Mrs. Brooks to find out if this is a live agreement between the Board and the Town for the next workshop.

Mr. Rizzo questioned the Physical Education and Social Studies coordinator included in the budget. He asked that their duties be detailed.

Ms. Ouellette stated they prepare the budget for the K-8 program and provide scheduling for the ten elementary schools as far as equal programming and resources.

Mr. Rizzo stated that these are current staff members in different functions.

Ms. Ouellette confirmed this and stated that there is some history with this.

Attorney Libby stated the Physical Education and Social Studies coordinator are a little bit different. Social Studies is more focused on K-8 curricula and working on introducing new curricula and working with teachers. With regard to the Physical Education coordinator, that person is responsible for coordinating and planning special projects, scheduling, maintenance of all equipment, distribution of equipment, ordering and replacing equipment. All of the coordinators get release time for one day per week to focus on these duties; therefore, they need to be replaced for that one day. They also get an additional stipend.

Mr. Rizzo questioned if the money in the budget was for the replacement teacher plus the stipend. He stated the coordinators were for physical education, music and art, and not social studies.

Attorney Libby confirmed this. In last year's budget, these positions were all cut. They then found that things were not going smoothly without them, and there was an unfair labor practice complaint brought against them. In discussing it and determining what the needs were, they found it was most effective to bring them back. They made arrangements this year that they did not get the full total release time they had gotten the previous year because it had not been budget; however, they are looking for them to get the full release time next year.

Ms. Ouellette stated they are working closely with the Assistant Superintendent for curricular revisions.

Mrs. Gejda stated the social studies curricula revision was overseen by Dr. Brett. She was working with a teachers committee at the K-5 level on this revision and textbooks as well. Regarding art, music and P.E., substitutes are being provided by the Office of Curriculum and Instruction.

Mr. Rizzo believes it is important at this point if administration could tell the Board what problems resulted by cutting these three coordinators.

Attorney Libby stated they had a situation where it fell upon the elementary principals to schedule the specials. They were each doing it in terms of looking at their own particular school needs; therefore, there was no coordination between schools and people were not placed in the optimal situations in terms of use of their time. While principals did step in, it didn't run as efficiently. Additionally, in many cases, materials were not ordered appropriately. New certified staff did not receive any input or assistance from the coordinators. New programs and curricula implemented in these areas did not get off to the right start.

Ms. Ouellette stated there was not consistent instructional times implemented throughout the district. Additionally, each elementary school had different issues with facility needs, coordinating all-purpose rooms to provide optimal services within the district. Each coordinator has an area of expertise, which lends to the coordination of programs and space.

Mr. Rizzo asked about the expansion of duties of the Equity Supervisor. He asked how the duties of this position would change.

Ms. Ouellette stated that Attorney Libby has been working on a detailed job description.

Attorney Libby stated they had a detailed job description for the Equity Supervisor. When that position was cut to half time, she clearly could not do everything. She would be in schools less time, working with fewer groups of teachers and student, and putting together fewer programs. One of her main functions, in a curricular sense, is to be working with all the different certified staff so that they understand what their mission is in terms of equity and differentiated instruction. By making this position full time, she is able to focus on all the different projects and all the different places, both curricular, structural and the techniques of teaching that they hope will move the district to a better level.

Ms. Ouellette stated she also envisions this position working very closely with the Assistant Superintendent in coordinating benchmarks for student success, accountability structures, providing equitable resources and address the needs of every individual school based on the data received. She views this as a real academic, student achievement type of position.

Mr. Rizzo commented that the Board has a very talented individual who is eager, and in this past year disappointed, that she was unable to fully implement this program. He cautioned this is not something the Board is going to do to make them feel good about doing something about equity in the school district. This has to produce results and he feels the Board has a great person to lead this initiative. He hopes this position will be supported in this budget. Mr. Rizzo also asked for a copy of the Superintendent's presentation.

Mr. Edwards asked about the bilingual position at Nathan Hale and how it will work.

Attorney Libby stated they are mandated by Federal law that once you have 20 students of a particular foreign language as their primary language in a school, the district can no longer use ELL tutors. A bilingual tutor is necessary. There are two other elementary schools that are closing in on this as well. They need to find a certified bilingual teacher, which is very hard to find.

Mr. Edwards asked what curricula this staff member would follow.

Mrs. Gejda stated that Monica Giglio is in charge of the ELL program in Manchester. She is based at the high school but oversees the program at all the schools in the district. There is a Title III grant, which also helps to partially fund some of the tutors and some of the materials. The importance of this program is that with CMT testing, the district has to make sure that students who have English as a second language or limited English proficiency also receive the support they are supposed to receive when they take the test. There are guidelines given by the test. They are beginning to look at what the program may look like next year. In anticipation of the planning, the expectation is that they will have to provide a bilingual teacher who may be servicing student in different schools, but primarily at Nathan Hale.

Mr. Edwards stated that he previously worked at a company that adopted a school in Hartford, similar to the racial and ethnic makeup of Nathan Hale. The principal was bilingual, as well as many of the teachers. In his opinion, it was good and bad as it does students a disservice. He is very interested in how the program will be implemented, as his fear is that some students will never learn English.

Mrs. Gejda stated that when they met with Ms. Giglio, they looked over the guidelines on the State website. There seems to be some flexibility in terms of how the program can be constructed. Instead of focusing on just one school, they are trying to look at it as a district as a whole and what the needs are throughout the district. She stated she would get back to the Board with more specific information.

Mr. Rizzo asked if Nathan Hale was selected because it has a larger percentage of Hispanic speaking students at the school.

Mrs. Gejda stated they had 20 students, which is the largest percentage of all the elementary schools.

Mrs. Hackett stated she would be interested in knowing is how much of the student's day is spend with the tutor. She asked if the goal of the program is to drive an increase in CMTs or to actually improve a proficiency in English.

Mrs. Gejda stated the tutor is to support instruction for the students to be successful in the classroom.

Mrs. Hackett asked if these students speak English for the majority of their time.

Mrs. Gejda stated she had no sense of this at this time.

Mrs. O'Neill asked what the penalty is if the district does not implement a bilingual teacher.

Attorney Libby believes the district would lose certain amounts of funding and would get cited by the State. It is another unfunded mandate.

Mr. Rizzo asked if these students are able to take the CMT in Spanish. (It was responded that the test is in English.)

Mr. Edwards asked for a status update on the unfair labor practice claim that was put in regarding the department heads.

Attorney Libby stated that when they came to an agreement at the end of September, beginning of October, they agreed that the three coordinators would return to their coordinator position, they would receive their stipend, but instead of getting release time as had been previously structured and contractually set, they changed it from one day per week to two days per month, and they asked them to use substitutes on various days and classes. Because of this agreement, they went back to their positions and the CEA and the MEA withdrew the unfair labor practice. The resolution also stated that they would make every attempt in this year's budget to return those positions to their full status, which was one-day release time per week.

Mr. Edwards questioned the under-budgeting in the current budget. He asked for an update on the current deficit.

Mrs. Brooks stated a freeze was put on the budget in September on providing supplies to the classroom. They have tried not to have the children go without supplies, but things are very tight at the schools. The $1.2M gross deficit will be adjusted on the savings in the supply accounts, by the excess cost reimbursement that is unknown at this time, and hopeful savings in fuel and electricity. She stated she is looking everywhere and trying to become familiar with how things were budgeted last year. She stated she would do everything possible in order not to show a deficit.

Mr. Edwards stated he would like to see a list of what accounts were deprived in order to implement the freeze and pay the deficit accounts.

Mr. Golas asked about vehicle replacement. It is not a reimbursement, but the Town sent the Board a memo that said they would like the Board to adopt a vehicle replacement. In that, was $120,000 to replace two vehicles and some other equipment? They stated the Board would have to include this in the budget.

Mrs. Brooks stated the Board really needed a vehicle replacement plan as the vehicles are aging. Louise Guarnaccia sent her a memo stating that in this coming budget, FY05-06, the Board should at least budget for two replacement vehicles. This was shared at the past Finance Committee meeting.

Mrs. Hackett referred to the items cut to achieve the 9.33%, and commented that furniture replacement is routinely cut. It concerns her that the two schools that are receiving the fast renovations and refurbishing should have new furniture. She asked about the amount given.

Mrs. Brooks stated it was cost out and referred to the kindergarten classrooms. She stated she is working to try and fund it another way.

Mrs. Hackett believes this is a real disappointment. She would like to address this topic at another meeting.

Mrs. Brooks stated the Capital Improvement plan calls for schools renovated like new will provide furniture for the schools that are renovated in the future.

Mrs. Hackett asked about the MHS new wing.

Ms. Ouellette stated Mr. Sierakowski placed it in the budget because it is renovated like new/

Mrs. Hackett asked to be kept apprised of the status of each school and its funding.

Mrs. Lok had some concerns about the department head positions and the process that took place. She stated that when a Board has made reductions and worked carefully to determine them, and then found that they were returned mid year for various reasons, she feels it is important that the Board be aware of these moves when they occur. She believes the Board has to focus very hard on being accountable and making sure the Board knows where the money is going. She also commented that once the budget is voted on, it is pretty typical of the Board to identify where money should go if some should become available. She does not recall these positions being mentioned in that context.

Ms. Ouellette agreed that this is a valid point, and a good reason the Personnel and Finance Committee remain active.

Mr. Thresher asked how the Board could help administration sell this budget.

Ms. Ouellette responded to be able to communicate the needs based on the numbers put forward. This is a working document. She would ask the Board to ensure the public that this is a budget to move forward to provide the best education based on the percentages and accuracy of the budget. She stated it would not be a perfect budget based on the time constraints, two interim business managers, and an interim superintendent. She believes it is a very accurate and honest budget and she would like this message conveyed to the community.

F. Closing Comments
Mrs. Lok stated she was not able to be at the first budget workshop and she was surprised to see such a small audience at this meeting. She wonders if there is a way to gage the reason for the smaller audience, suggesting it may be because it is televised. She encouraged the community to contact Board members to let them know what their thoughts are on the discussion.

Mr. Edwards noticed that this is a somewhat more formal venue for the workshops. He stated that there also has not been a section for public comment. He believes the Board needs to encourage public comment. In the past, people often speak directly from their seat in the audience and he found that very useful because it gave him a sense of where the community was and what the priorities should be. He would very much like to see this included in the next budget workshop.

Ms. Ouellette stated the workshops were constructed based on past practice. She stated she could add that into the next one, and Mrs. Gejda will provide for the public an update on what the next workshop will highlight. She believes the Board's intent was not to make this very formal; however, in order to give have it televised and have minutes, the format is necessary. She noted that all the presentations will be placed on the website.

She noted that some of the highlights at the next budget workshop include some of the questions asked at this meeting, special education, and professional development.

Mr. Rizzo stated he was concerned about having the budget workshops in this room, but believes it was very informal and worked well. He is disappointed that there are only four members in the audience, three of which are staff. He stated he would be willing to amend the agenda to include a public comment session if the audience members have comments.

Mr. Golas added that previous budget workshops were informal and include public comments. He encouraged the public to come to the next meeting to speak. He likes the fact that it is televised in order to reach the community. He is also confident in Mrs. Brooks' abilities in future budgeting.

Mrs. Hackett stated in years past, the press has always been able to make it to budget workshops. She hoped they would be able to attend the final workshop. She believes televising the meeting helps to compensate for lack of attendance and coverage.

B. Approval of the Minutes - January 20, 2005 Budget Workshop

Mr. Golas asked for a motion for the January 20, 2005 minutes.

MOTION: Hackett/Edwards s.v. The Board of Education approves the January 20, 2005 Budget Workshop minutes. (4/0/4 - Huyler, Golas, Hackett, Lok)

G. Adjourn

MOTION: Rizzo/ s.v. The Board of Education adjourns at 9:00 p.m.

H. Next Workshop - Wednesday, February 2, 2005 (snow date Thursday, February 3,
2005)

Respectfully submitted,

Margaret Hackett, Secretary
Manchester Board of Education