|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 2004 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Edwards, Hackett, Holmes, Huyler, Lok, O'Neill, Rizzo, Robinson, Thresher ABSENT:
None ABSENT: None
Mr. Robinson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Awards Mr. Beitman asked Mr. Huot to go to the podium to honor the two students from Highland Park School, Julie Maloney and Taylor Sisson, for their artwork that was chosen to be on the cover of the Manchester Public Schools Budget Book. Mr. Huot presented the framed artwork to each girl and Mr. Rizzo presented certificates of recognition from the Board of Education to each girl. Mr. Rizzo presented a CABE award of Honorable Mention to Mr. Huot for his work on the budget book. Mr. Huot thanked everyone who contributed to the work in the budget book. Mrs. Hackett and Mr. Edwards presented awards to Gail Myers, Cheryl Crickmore and Ryan Gohla for their work on developing the website link to provide the Manchester Board of Education policies to the community. The website address is: www.ci.manchester.ct.us. Mr. Beitman stated that the agendas and approved minutes will also be posted to this website for community viewing. B. PUBLIC
COMMENTS 2. Terry Werkhoven, 88 Santina Drive. He is the newly appointed chairman of the Manchester Property Owners Association; he informed everyone that the first quarterly meeting would be held on February 18, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m. at the Eighth Utilities District complex. It is for all property owners to express their concerns on any subject. Prior to the meeting, there will be a presentation of some of the topics of interest. With reference to the Downes report and presentation on January 15, he would like to know how the group was selected to review the school projects. He feels that a certain set of rules, which dates to 1975, should be followed in the selection of consultants and architects. In his opinion, he feels the script has been written and there is a foregone conclusion that the Board of Education and administration has their own agenda. He attended the presentation, and he questions the credentials of those who spoke about the new structure in the parking lot. He would like to see the report. He also would like to know what they know about roof systems. Last year's report states the roof is good for another 5-10 years. He asked the Board if they put their faith in this group. 3. Milt Perlman, 3 Sanford Road. He congratulated the students for their art design and award. He reviewed the auditors report from fiscal year 2001-2002, and referenced page 22 where the expenses and revenues for education were given. He reviewed the cost of education ($80,781,000) in relation to the entire budget ($75,700,000). Revenues in terms of tax dollars were $45,237,000, operating grants and contributions $32,338,000 and charges for service $3,206,000. He believes the charges for service is income and should be used toward the budget, decreasing the taxpayer requirement. Additionally, in the budget review, the partially funded mandates include CAPT and CMT testing. He believes this is a normal course of events. He believes the only reason is should be considered a mandate is that it is a state test. 4. Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. He followed up with articles in the Hartford Courant and Journal Inquirer in which the CBIA gave recommendations from the business community of what students should know upon graduating from high school and entering the workplace. He asked if there could be a report given by C. Bujaucius, Athletic Director at MHS, regarding the C grade rule for student athletes. He also stated that he hopes the upcoming CAPT scores are favorable to Manchester students. He stated that February is Black History Month, and the 200th anniversary of Black Independence. He recognized Dr. Dorothy Height, who was a civil rights activist. She wrote a biography, which is available at Borders Books. He also recognized Justin Smith, the first black Student Representative, and the first black Police Chief, Mr. James O. Berry. He recommended a program at the Hartford Public Library on February 14, unveiling the stamp of the late Paul Roberson Sr. Regarding budget deliberations; he hoped that the art and music coordinator positions could be kept in the budget. C. STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Justin Smith thanked Devorah and the Board for his welcome. He stated that he is honored to serve in this position, and that he and Devorah are responsible and will work hard to represent Manchester High School. Devorah stated that MHS had a very busy month. They are currently involved in MHS Idol, and all are welcome to the competitions. She stated that it was a very exciting and amazing night of talent. The Snowball Dance was held at the Colony at the end of January. There was great attendance and everyone enjoyed themselves. At the end of February, fifteen students will be traveling to New York City for the National Leadership Conference, organized through the Student Activities Office. She announced that Mr. Sierakowski would be holding another Principal's Coffee with several parents, to help encourage student attendance and positive behavior. The athletic teams have done very well this year. Five out of seven teams competed for State League titles. At the beginning of the semester, Mrs. Johnson, Grade 11 principal, organized Operation Responsibility, which is the new hallway initiative. A group of teachers have volunteered each period to patrol hallways to be sure students are in classes. So far, it has been successful. There are progressive consequences for students who are continually in the hallways, not attending classes. The course recommendations for next year have been automated and are being done online. This has worked very well. Students also have the opportunity to create a digital portfolio of their work for college applications. The Student Support Center has been very active with a lot of mediations to resolve conflicts. These also have been very successful. The school is trying to encourage more enrollments in AP courses. The CAPT preparation has begun, and letters have been sent home to parents of students who must take CAPT as it is a graduation requirement. There is a postcard for parents to return acknowledging the requirement. There has also been a change in the gym requirement. In the past, students were requirement to take a semester of gym each year. Now, the requirements are completed in the junior year, and seniors have the ability to take gym electives, which accommodate individual interests. Students taking honors math courses will be taking a statewide test, which may make them eligible to compete in a national math competition. The Math Team is currently second in the State. The JETS Team will be competing in a boat building competition, using mechanical devices. Justin Smith spoke about the music program. He thanked the Board members for giving the marching band the privilege to enjoy the overcoats. He stated that the band program sent sixteen students to audition to be one of the highest bands in the state, the Allstate Band. Mr. Robinson thanked them both, and welcomed Justin to the Board. Mrs. Hackett stated that she is very pleased to see that Justin is a student representative for the Board of Education. She wished him luck in this new position. D. MANCHESTER
PTA COUNCIL REPORT C. CONSENT
CALENDAR 1) Personnel Matter Tenure Jennifer (Leopold) Louis, Nathan Hale School; Janice Medynski, Nathan Hales School; Michelle Middleton, Illing Middle School Appointments Kimberly Nichols to be a Language Arts Teacher at Bennet Middle School. Ms. Nichols received her bachelor's degree in English/Sociology at the University of Connecticut and resides in Manchester. Approved effective December 15, 2003 (BA+15, Step 1, $36,760, prorated to her date of hire). 2) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects 3) Appointment of a Residency Hearing Committee 4) Extended
Field Trip Request - Manchester High School 5) Acceptance of the Buckley Fire Alarm Project #077-0192 CV as complete 6) Acceptance of the Washington Fire Alarm Project #077-0191 CV as complete Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Hackett/Holmes s.v. The Board of Education adopts the items listed on the Consent Calendar. (9/0/0) Mr. Edwards stated that he was a former student of Mr. Cuprak, and he is glad to see his appointment. He also recognized the tenure of Jennifer Louis and Janice Medynski at Nathan Hale School. Mrs. Lok asked about items E5 and E6, and asked why these items come before the Board. Mr. Huot stated that the items have to be accepted by the Board to close the grant process and start the money flowing. It is not brought to the Board until the Town Building Official, the Fire Marshall, and the architect or engineer sign off on the project as complete. It is a formal recognition by the Board that the project is complete. Paperwork is then sent to the State, and 60-90 days later, the funds start returning to the Town's general fund. Mr. Beitman invited Mr. Cuprak to the podium. Mr. Cuprak thanked the Board and Superintendent for his appointment of Principal at Illing Middle School. He stated that this is his 34th year in Manchester schools, all at the middle level. He stated that first and foremost, he is a teacher. He is proud to be part of the Illing team and looks forward to each day. He believes the children always come first. He thanked his family and wife for all their support. He invited the Board to visit Illing Middle School. F. SUPERINTENDENT'S
REPORT It is recommended that in the 2004-2005 (Year 1), the calendar should be set forth in Version 1, with Professional Days on August 24, August 25, November 2 and March 24. This will be the first year that PD days are spread throughout the school year, which is seen as advantageous. It is recommended that no additional PD days be added in this first year. The student year remains at 183 days. It is recommended that in the 2005-2006 (Years 2 and 3), the calendars should take the base of Version 1, and in each year add one PD day on the Tuesday after Columbus Day. Accordingly, in 2005-2006, PD days will be on August 23, August 24, October 11, November 8 and March 17. In 2006-07, PD days will be on August 25, August 28, October 10, November 7 and March 16. The student year will be 182 days in Years 2 and 3. It is also recommended that any savings from transportation in Years 2 and 3 will be given to the schools to be used for Professional Development. The spacing and number of PD days will be evaluated at the end of each year. He stated that professional development days would also be used for paraprofessionals and nurses as well. The savings from transportation is approximately $17,000 per day. This would be spread across the district and provide resources for professional development. He stated that administration feels that there is great merit in this recommendation, as it accomplishes two things: provide additional professional development time and maintain a high level of student contact. They feel that this compromise provides for both staff and students. With the transportation savings, it helps the Board not to have to come up with additional funds for resources. He stated this item would appear at the next meeting under Old Business for approval. Mrs. Lok thanked Mr. Beitman for the recommendation. She stated that she understood the Calendar Committee met previously. She asked if this recommendation was shared with them, and if the Board would be hearing a recommendation from the Committee. Attorney Libby stated that each person gave their particular input and from each union. Each presented pros and cons to adding or not adding a day. The recommendation was shared with the committee, but there was no specific committee vote. Mrs. Lok asked if the Committee is meeting again. Attorney Libby stated that it could meet again. Mrs. Lok stated that in light of a pretty dramatic change, reducing the number of days devoted to student instruction and dedicating them to professional development, her understanding was that the Board would get a recommendation from the Committee, and a separate one from the administration. Mr. Robinson concurred with this understanding. Mr. Rizzo asked Mr. Beitman if the Board is under any time constraints for approval. Mr. Beitman stated that a calendar needs to be approved by the last Board meeting in March, according to Board policy. The meeting with the Calendar Committee would have to be scheduled after February break, as some staff will be away. Mr. Rizzo asked Attorney Libby if she had a consensus of the opinion of the Committee. Attorney Libby stated the Committee was very split. The elementary principals were not in favor of decreasing the student year, and the secondary principals were very much in favor of having additional time for professional development. Parents from elementary level and secondary level saw both the pros and cons. Paras and nurses will be required to get additional professional development and they were for professional development. All liked the fact that the professional development days were spread throughout the year. The custodians and Buildings and Grounds supervisors were neutral. The Secretarial Union saw advantages of having additional professional development days. Mr. Rizzo stated that he had no objection of asking the Committee to give a recommendation. He believes the calendars proposed are a compromise. He sees the concerns of having less student contact time, but that by adding one professional development day as opposed to three is a good compromise. He stated the staff should decide what is the best way to use the time. Mr. Edwards stated that while there may not be pressure from Board policies to adopt a calendar, he has a concern that members of the public have expressed concern of not having this year's calendar as it impacts summer camps and family plans. He confirmed that next year's calendar is not impacted by the number of instructional days. He stated he would like to put forth a motion to adopt a one-year calendar to move forward so that families can schedule events. Mrs. Hackett stated that she and Mrs. Holmes attended the Calendar Committee meeting and she feels the Committee did not have a consensus, other than informally. She cautioned about the Committee taking a vote based on the fact that the Committee is comprised of a lot of job functions. The members she wants to hear the most from are the administrators and the teachers, as they know best about the impact of lost instructional time. If the loss of instructional time could be impressed upon every committee member, then the vote would be appropriate. Mrs. Holmes stated that she agrees with Mrs. Hackett. She stated that there was good discussion at the meeting, and the feelings were split. She believes Mr. Beitman has talked with the administrators and has made a recommendation, which is flexible, even if all three years were voted on. Because there will be a review at the end of each year, it will be determined if it is a good idea to increase professional development days, or if spreading out the existing professional development days is good enough. Adding days were not just for the sake of change, but because they may be needed based on NCLB and other requirements. Some of the administrators really could use the extra time, whereas others felt the loss of extra instructional time. She does not believe it is necessary for the committee to vote, and she supports the recommendation of the Superintendent, allowing for some flexibility. Mrs. Lok stated that at the last Board meeting, the Board voted to have the committee convene and make a recommendation or report to the Board. She stated that she has no desire to have such a varied group of individuals come together with a unanimous decision; however, the Board did ask for a formal report or recommendation from the committee, and given the nature of the change, that recommendation is an important piece to consider.
Mrs. Hackett asked if Version One was the original recommendation. Attorney Libby stated that it was. Mr. Robinson stated that the three-year calendar was introduced to save time on discussion of this sort every year. Therefore, he stated that he was somewhat reluctant to embark on a piecemeal approach. However, he feels there is consensus on the first year. He is interested in hearing more information on the second and third year, which includes a day dedicated to professional development. He does not view it as a compromise of three days to one day, but rather zero days to one day. He would rather be more informed from those who are with the students day to day. He stated he would entertain voting on the first year calendar. Mr. Edwards feels that calendar two and three could be worked out over the next few Board meetings. He did not mean to suggest that these issues should be put off for a year. Additionally, if possible, once calendars are adopted, he suggested that subsequent calendars are worked on up to a year in advance so that a calendar is adopted earlier than six months in advance. It would be more helpful to parents in planning. He likes the three-year calendars, but feels the process should be started earlier. Mr. Robinson reminded the Board of a procedure, that if items were added to the agenda for a vote, it would require a two-third majority consent. Mrs. Lok stated she would support the motion and commented that the newer members of the Board did not yet have the privilege of discussing the calendar on an annual basis.
Mr. Robinson stated that the remainder of the calendars would be brought back on the first meeting in March. G. OLD
BUSINESS He spoke about the Governor's proposed budget. Each year, the Governor proposes a two-year budget and then there is a long, drawn out cycle between the legislature and the Governor. There are numerous things in the Governor's budget that concern the town significantly related to the ECS grant, which the town receives. The major concern has to do with magnet schools, which were put into place to deal with the Sheff vs. O'Neil desegregation issue. These schools were funded by the State of Connecticut and Regional Education Service Centers (CREC in greater Hartford). Manchester has almost 250 students in magnet schools. The average cost is $3,100, far below the cost of educating a student in one of these programs. This year, the line item in the budget for magnet schools is $650,000. One of the concerns in the Governor's proposed budget is that the RESCs no longer subsidize the cost of magnet schools, which shifts the cost back to the Boards of Education in all towns. One of the items he would recommend to the Board is the consideration of notifying the magnet schools if the district plans to withdraw. Withdrawing from the programs requires a year's notice. Last year, the recommendation from the Commissioner's Office was that tuition be capped at $1,500 so that more students could attend magnet schools. This year, they are being told that the cap should be removed and tuition could float while the State withdraws the subsidy. This could have a significant impact on the budget. The other concern the district has is that the history of the State of Connecticut in adopting a budget is not strong. Last year's budget was adopted in September; three months after the financial year began. The cuts made then in the State budget are passed down to the towns in major mid-year cuts. He stated that he would bring a recommendation to the Board in the near future, citing a meeting in the coming week with CREC and superintendents to hear more about the Governor's budget. If this course is followed, he will recommend that the Board begin to withdraw from certain magnet school programs as students graduate or as seats become available. He displayed a chart developed by Ms. Tait, Director of Student Support Services. On February 5, he received an email from the Commissioner of Education notifying Manchester that a very critical grant called the Excess Cost in Agency Placement was being reduced again for the third year. This is the excess cost in placing a child in a special program. The rule of thumb is five times the cost of regular education cost, and anything after that is excess cost. The State of Connecticut has always contributed 100 percent of the excess cost of special education placements. In mid-year 2002-2003, the State of Connecticut notified Manchester that they were reducing their contribution to 85% of excess costs, which forced the town to absorb a $150,000 mid-year budget cut. They were directed this year to stick with the fairly same formula of 85%, which the Town did. On February 5, notification was sent that 85% was dropping to 72%, and may drop by March or June to 70%. That will leave the Town a shortfall of $346,000 in this year's operating budget. The final statement in the Commissioner's email was that for 2004-2005, the percent funded may be between 40 and 50 percent, representing a reduction of $400,000 to $500,000 in excess cost. By Town Charter, the Board must present the recommended budget to the General Manager by February 19. While the Board was able to address some of the shortfalls in the budget, this new news is going to be very difficult. The budget the Board adopts now will not be the same budget they will vote on in June for the reason that more information will be available. However, he stated he has to ask the Board to approve a budget that is balanced that reflects this $500,000 reduction. However, he stated that the reduction might not occur because the State Representative introduced legislation asking that this cap be removed. He cautioned that if the cap is removed, the chances are that the $500,000 would be taken away from the district by other means. He asked the Board to adopt a recommended budget, recognizing that the list of cuts presented at this meeting will not be the same cuts that they will face in June because of the amount of information from the Governor's budget coupled with mid-year budget cuts. Another major issue is that the Legislature passed a law that the five times rule would be adjusted to 4.5, which has been suspended for three years. That suspension is worth several hundred thousand dollars to Manchester. He asked that the Board appoint a committee of Board of Education members, Mr. Huot, Attorney Libby, representatives from the Manchester Education Association and from the Administrator's Association to examine an early retirement plan. In the past, he has not supported early retirement initiatives, because they are tied to Connecticut Legislation and the Teacher Retirement Board, and hiring replacement teachers in shortage areas is increasingly difficult. However, to encourage some creativity by each union, he feels a committee could examine if there are any options available that may save the Board and Town some money. The Town is also developing an early retirement package for the non-certified employees. He recommended
to the Board $500,000 worth of reductions, again emphasizing that these
may not be the same reductions considered in June based on information
and changes that might occur. With regard to certified staff, he recommended
an additional $75,000 in cuts, which represents 1 ½ teaching
positions in the elementary schools. Any reductions past this point
will have an impact on class size. He recommended a reorganization of
special education at the middle schools by eliminating a department
head ($7,500); the reduction of summer guidance ($7,000); non-public
social worker, school psychologist and ELL ($100,000); non-certified
staff ($75,000); benefits related to the reductions in staff ($40,000);
MSIP fund ($15,000); program improvement ($20,000); consultants ($40,000)
shifted to bond; Lutz support ($12,000); telephone ($10,000); travel
and conference ($10,000); general supplies ($4,000); magnet schools
($15,000); Vo AG ($20,000); Cap Interscholastic ($10,000) ; office supplies
($20,000); replacement equipment ($5,500) including all band coats;
new equipments ($11,500); CABE dues ($5,000) change in affiliation.
Of the $500,000, $100,000 was savings that were identified for replenishing
5 of the 10 paraprofessionals. The Board leadership asked administration
to see if there was any money that could save the paraprofessional jobs,
which was roughly $280,000. They were able to save $100,000 and were
prepared to recommend the reinstatement of 5 paraprofessionals. However,
with the $500,000 reduction, he could not make this recommendation.
He recommended that the full $500,000 be incorporated into the budget
cut that is given to the General Manager. Mr. Beitman stated it is a shift from all of these accounts and $500,000 would be added to the out-of-district tuition account. The net is the same dollar amount; it comes down to how it will be portrayed in the budget book. The cap will be 3 percent and the net will be 5.22. As long as the same dollar amount is given, it is the Boards prerogative to adjust, reject, or modify any of the suggestions or recommendations made. He again repeated that this budget would be very different in June than it is proposed currently. The purpose of the Board's recommended budget is to send the General Manager a budget, which reflects the Board's deliberations. Mrs. Lok asked for confirmation that the list of cuts he just reviewed are cuts he is recommended in response to information he just received with regard to the excess cost grant. Mr. Beitman confirmed this. Mrs. Lok asked for confirmation that these cuts are in addition that are already within his recommended budget. Mr. Beitman stated that $400,000 of cuts is in addition to the previous cuts. Mrs. Lok stated that built within the budget is the expectation that 25 certified staff members will retire. What concerns her about his recommendation of an early retirement package is that teachers considering retirement might stay for a year or two. Mr. Beitman stated that his purpose in forming this committee is to give the Board an opportunity to review the facts of an early retirement incentive. He believes that the committee will shortly understand the depth of the problem of offering an early retirement package. Mrs. Lok asked for an explanation about $100,000 in potential savings. Mr. Beitman stated that originally they identified $100,000 as savings, should the Board wish to reinstate 5 paraprofessionals. With the new news, the $100,000 of savings would adjust the $500,000 worth of cuts down to $400,000. The bottom line remains the same. If the Board feels that they want to reinstate the 5 paraprofessionals, then an additional $100,000 of cuts would have to be identified. Mrs. Hackett stated that the Governor's budget has been billed as no reduction in State aid. She asked if the Board's budget could be a little better. Mr. Beitman stated that those elements that are in the Governor's proposed budget that will be negotiated over the next several months might help or hurt the municipalities. Until there is a settled budget, the Town will not know if it is better or worse off. The Excess Cost grant is of more concern, which will generate a $500,000 cost reduction. Mrs. Hackett asked about the non-public reduction of $100,000. Although it is not legally required, it is a partially funded mandate. She asked how this cut could be implemented. Mr. Beitman state the legislature now allows public schools to reduce some of the services. In this case, these three services have been identified as no longer being legally required; therefore, they were added to the reductions. Mrs. Hackett asked if the enrollment or application process for the magnets schools begun yet. Mr. Beitman stated that the current level of funding exists and there is always an opportunity for the Board to add additional seats. Between now and May, when the lotteries are held, various magnets school will get from the Board a written agreement of how many student seats will be approved and funded. In some cases, they will offer additional seats that other towns could not fill or have received a State subsidy for. At this point in the enrollment process, families are identifying magnet schools they would like to attend and submitting applications. The IB and Great Path Academy have not increased tuition. The enrollment will stay the same for the upcoming year. If the Board ends up with higher tuition costs, it may not be frugal for Boards to be involved in as many magnet schools. Mrs. Hackett asked if there was idea as to how many families, if the Board does not allow a child to enter, would have more than one student attending two different schools. Mr. Beitman stated that most of the magnet schools do not have a sibling rule, which means having a sibling already attending; the student is automatically exempt from the lottery. This means that every child has to go into a lottery. Mrs. Hackett asked about the CABE dues, and clarified that it meant the National School Board Association. She stated that this could not compromise that this reduction would not sacrifice any service rendered by CABE that would benefit the Board. Mr. Beitman stated that it is the National affiliation, which has been helpful with items such as NCLB. However, this is a good place to find money at this point in time. Mrs. Hackett stated that she appreciated the Superintendent's effort and the consideration he had given the line items. Mr. Beitman stated the reality is that the $500,000 cannot be ignored. Mr. Rizzo clarified that the cuts the Superintendent identified in the budget to bring back half of the library paraprofessionals are now included in the new list of reductions. Mr. Beitman stated that this was correct. Mr. Edwards stated that he understood the implications of staff cuts. He referred to the office supplies and new equipment line reductions, and asked how close the Board is coming to not having the supplies to do the work that needs to get done. Mr. Beitman stated that new equipment is always a problem, and what this implies is that there will be no new equipment in the next school year, and equipment that has to be replaced will not be replaced. With regard to office and school supplies, there will have to be adjustments when reducing this account. Time will tell on how significant those adjustments will be. Mr. Huot stated that when this was put on the list it was meant that the $20,000 would be equitable across all of the buildings and programs. He believes this could be done once, but cautions that it is not something that can be done on a yearly basis. This has not been done in the past; however, over the past couple of years they have tried to keep the office supplies and general supplies in check. Regarding the replacement and new equipment, it cannot happen on an annual basis. Fortunately, over the past several years, including this year, they have been able to tie the purchase of technology to leases. However, even the ability to do this will be hindered by this budget. This is troubling because this is the third or fourth year that this has happened. It will be the first year that it will affect technology. Mr. Edwards asked if this would include reducing computer purchases. Mr. Huot stated that there is a list on page 166 of the budget book of the equipment that is purchased. Computers are not on this list. Mr. Edwards stated the Board was presented with the $350,000 shortfall for this current year at the previous budget workshop. This is in addition to the $400,000 deficit that the budget is currently experiencing. Mr. Beitman stated that indirectly, this was true. However, the deficit is coming in two primary accounts: special education and special education transportation. Mr. Edwards confirmed that the cut the Board is seeing of the $350,000 is contemplated in the $400,000 deficit. Mr. Beitman stated that it was. Mr. Edwards stated the Board started the year $250,000 in the red. He asked being half way through the year, is the Board at risk of having to ask for help. Mr. Beitman stated they believe, through a number of initiatives, they will end the year in the black. They do not anticipate having to ask the town for additional funds. Mr. Huot stated that he has never seen a budget that is in as bad shape as this budget. However, the Town is having as many problems with State revenue as the Board is. By law, the Board is not to exceed its appropriation. He just sent out a memo to all building principals stating the upcoming Friday as the cutoff for all purchase orders, except for special orders for certain areas. This usually occurs on April 15. Additionally, he met with Mrs. Tait and they are exploring options for shifting costs and expenses to certain areas. However, there is not a lot of flexibility there. He believes the Board can make it as long as these special education costs do not continue to arrive. He stated that at the next Board meeting, they would present a few strategies on how to cover some of the costs. Mr. Beitman stated that in addition, snow removals and plowing, fuels and overtime for buildings and grounds staff has cost a great deal, which has not helped at all. Mr. Robinson
called a 25-minute recess at 9:55 p.m. for the purpose of caucusing.
Mrs. Lok stated the Superintendent presented to the Board a budget on January 12. She believes his intent at that time was to respect the General Manager's request or directive that departments not come in with any greater than a three percent increase. The Superintendent's goal was to accomplish that mission with the least possible impact on student achievement. She stated the Superintendent should be commended for his efforts. The Boards and Superintendent's goals are the same; however, on the past Thursday, the Superintendent received news that has a tremendous impact on next year's budget. Because of this, she believes it is necessary to add $500,000 to the Superintendent's recommended budget. She believes it meets the Board's responsibility. She feels that this year, action to add items back to the budget is not advisable and would not be well received by the Board of Directors. She encouraged the community to take budget arguments to the legislative and federal levels. She feels that this budget relies heavily on the reliability and creativity of the administrators, staff members and school volunteers. Mrs. O'Neill stated that adding the $500,000 back to the budget would help, although she believes they will come up short with this amount. Although she would support it, she suggested reexamining the amount in June. Mr. Robinson stated the budget to be forwarded to the General Manager is $81,185,096. Mr. Robinson stated that by consent, the remaining Old Business, New Business, Committee Reports would be postponed until the next meeting. He also asked that volunteers for the Early Retirement Incentive Committee step forward to him or the Superintendent on the next day. 2. Draft
Policies - #5125 (Student Records; Confidentiality); #5141.2 (Child
Abuse and 3. Proposed
Changes in Summer School Tuition Fees H. NEW
BUSINESS I. COMMITTEE
REPORTS J. COMMUNICATIONS K. PUBLIC
COMMENTS 2. Milt Perlman, 3 Sanford Road. He complimented Devorah Donnell on her presentation earlier in the meeting. He stated that businesses that fail do not have any tax money to rely upon. He feels that State has a problem because they are not getting the money either. He commented that when the State had money, education was supported. Now that the money is not coming in, he proposed that the Town would have to live with it. He stated that whatever costs the Board imposes goes directly to the taxpayers who are having a hard time. L. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS MOTION: Edwards/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adjourns the meeting at 10:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret
Hackett, Secretary |
|