|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 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 called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and a quorum was established. Mr. Robinson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Student Awards Mr. Robinson presented awards to students at Buckley School: Lillian Blade, Citizenship; Logan Welch, Overall Excellence; Will Corban, Outstanding Achievement and Citizenship; Brett Burns, Outstanding Effort and Achievement; Christine Wolfenden, Academic Achievement. Mrs. Holmes presented awards to students at Highland Park School: Emily Anderson, Academic Excellence and Citizenship; Stephany Chung, Academic Achievement and Citizenship; Seth DeValve, Outstanding Academic Achievement and Citizenship; Daniel Fecteau, Outstanding Academic Achievement and Citizenship; Samantha Gates, Academic Achievement and Citizenship. Mr. Rizzo presented awards to students at Nathan Hale Elementary School: Sarah Cinquemani, Academic Achievement; Christopher Montanez, Academic Achievement; Kelsie Rivera, Citizenship; Tanisha Sandiford, Academic Achievement; Amanda Willhoft, Academic Achievement and Citizenship. Mr. Thresher presented awards to students at Robertson School: Michael Eastman, Student Achievement; Richa Mahatme, Student Achievement; Andrew Peters, Student Achievement; Megan Sargent; Academic Achievement; Jordan Smyth, Student Achievement. Mr. Edwards presented awards to students at Washington Media Arts Magnet School: Christopher Henry, Academic Achievement; Priscilla Ly, Academic Achievement; Jermaine Osei-Tutu, Academic Achievement; Anise St. Juste, Academic Achievement; Danielle Thibodeau, Academic Achievement. Mr. Robinson thanked the students and families for attending the meeting. He called a short recess before the business portion of the meeting. Mr. Robinson called the meeting back to order at 7:40 p.m. Minutes
of April 14, 2004 MOTION: Rizzo/Holmes s.v. The Board of Education accepts the minutes of April 14, 2004. (9/0/0) B. PUBLIC
COMMENTS 2. Milt Perlman, 3 Sanford Road. He commented on how nice it was to see the students get the awards. He recommended that the students be recognized in front of the other students in their own school buildings. He stated that he watched the replay of the Waddell Town Budget Hearing and commented on the speakers who suggested raising taxes. He believes it would be a good idea for the community to know how much taxes would rise next year. He also commented on some articles in the newspaper, and quoted some statistics on grades and grading practices. In another article, he quoted that the average college student graduates $16,000 in debt, and he commented that it is important for students to graduate with a skill. 3. Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. He commented on an article in the Norwich Bulletin regarding Earth Day. In addition, he spoke about air quality and the various items that may impact it. He spoke about a letter in the Journal Inquirer that criticized the Manchester School District, and commented that students are learning and achieving higher education and jobs. He also believes it is important to learn about diversity as it is part of the world. It is the 30th anniversary of the World Press Review magazine. He recommended an article on Junior Achievement in the Boston Globe on April 25, 2004, as well as a booklet, "A Parent's Guide to Special Education in Connecticut" by the Learning Disabilities Association of Connecticut, and the book "Twelve Schools that Succeed" by Mary Ann Horenstein, copyright 1993. 4. Barbara Stambo, Co-President of Manchester Association of Educational Secretaries. She spoke about the proposed secretarial layoffs, and listed many responsibilities that the secretaries support throughout the district. She stressed that secretarial positions are important in the district and urged the Board to reconsider the layoffs during their budget discussions. C. CONSENT
CALENDAR 1) Personnel Action Appointment Resignations Daniel Marak, a Social Studies teacher at Manchester High School, has submitted his letter of resignation for personal reasons. Mr. Marak has been with Manchester Public Schools since August 31, 1995. Approved effective June 30, 2004. Cheryl Petroff, an elementary teacher at Washington School, has submitted her letter of resignation for personal reasons. Ms. Petroff has been with Manchester Public Schools since August 28, 2000. Approved effective June 30, 2004. Leave of
Absence 2) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $1,312,762 3) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $68,890 4) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $36,000 5) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $5,000 6) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $16,405 Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Huyler/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adopts the items listed on the Consent Calendar. (9/0/0) Mr. Robinson and Mr. Edwards added their congratulations to Mr. Saimond as Vice Principal at Illing Middle School. Mr. Saimond thanked the Board of Education and Mr. Beitman for the opportunity and challenge. He stated that he has been lucky to have the benefit of the experience of the other two administrators, Mr. Cuprak and Mr. Bernstein. He also thanked his family for their support. Mr. Robinson stated that there was a request to move Item F3 next in the agenda. F3 - Town of Manchester Efficiency Study - Discussion Only Mr. Robinson stated that Mr. Desmaris and Mr. Freund were present to give a presentation on a Town of Manchester Efficiency Study. Mr. Beitman referred to two packets of information that was distributed to Board Members. He explained that this item appeared on the agenda for discussion purposes and the Board's consideration. He introduced Mr. Alan Desmaris, Finance Director for the Town of Manchester, and Julian Freund, Budget Analyst. He explained that the discussion was about an Efficiency Study that the Town has initiated. Through correspondence with Mr. Werbner, there has been a request made if the Board of Education would like to participate in some way in the study. Mr. Freund stated that his position is a Management Analyst for the Town of Manchester, and that they were asked to make themselves available to the Board to answer any preliminary questions regarding the Town's process for initiating an Efficiency Study of all the Town operations, and the possibility of incorporating certain Board of Education functions within the study. He stated that beginning last fall, members of the Board of Directors in both parties began to discuss and raised the idea of analyzing and reviewing all Town operations to assess the efficiency and productivity in each one. Out of that, came a directive from the General Manager to issue an RFP that would find a consultant that could perform this type of work. The only operation excluded from the plan presently is the Fire Department as it underwent a similar project several years ago. They requested a consultant that could review workflow, business processes, staffing levels, staffing configuration, use of technology and use of other resources, and suggest opportunities for restructuring. They identified a company called Management Partners from Cincinnati, Ohio. They have been working out a contract with this company and are very close to signing the contract for Phases I and II. Phase I consists of three fairly large departments on the Town Government side which would be complete in early autumn, and Phase II includes Public Works, Water and Sewer and Recreation, and would be completed later in the fall. The group has performed this type of work in a number of states, has reviewed the full range of municipal operations, and they have a full range of municipal experience. He stated he was asked to contact Management Partners to inquire if they felt that had the staff and resources to be able to review similar functions on the Board of Education side, and to get a cost estimate of the work. A formal response to that request was received and is included for the Board's review. The response stated that they identified a project manager for this component of the project if the Board of Education approves it. The cost estimate is approximately $46,000 for review of only Board of Education functions. Mr. Freund indicated to the company that the Board of Education would review and make its own decision, but authorized the Town project to move forward. Mr. Rizzo asked for an explanation of Phase III and what divisions were included in Phase I. Mr. Freund stated that the original RFP did not include any school related functions; therefore, Phase III is the clean up from Phases I and II. If the Board decides to move forward, it would have to be determined which phase it would fall into. Phase I includes Human Services, Library and General Government, which includes a multitude of small departments. Mrs. Lok stated that the Board of Education conducted an efficiency study in 1999-2000. That study was done by an economist from Bentley College. The Board received interesting results from the study. She stated it might be time to conduct another study. She asked if the Superintendent or Mr. Freund could explain how this efficiency would differ from the previous one. She does not feel that the system is very different from when the first study was completed, aside from Special Education. Mr. Beitman asked Mr. Desmaris and Mr. Freund to forward the previous Efficiency Study of the Board to the company for their review, and to have the project manager call him for discussion. After this review, he stated he would be better able to provide the Board with a comparison. Mrs. Lok stated that she is not opposed to the idea, but would like to better understand what the Board can gain for the money put toward it. Mr. Desmaris stated that beyond staffing levels, they have specifically charged this group with process review. They will be looking at each of their processes and looking for economies of scale or efficiencies that exist between departments. Customer service would be an important part of the review. Mr. Edwards wanted to get a sense as to how the company was selected. He commented that the group has a lot of expertise in general government reviews, and an understanding of the challenges that face a wide range of government operations. Mr. Desmaris agreed, and commented that the company also had the resources available. He stated they explained to the company that Manchester is a full service town. Mr. Edwards asked if they looked at the company to determine what type of Board of Education experience they had. Mr. Freund stated that the original RFP did not contemplate a Board of Education component. It was only afterwards that he was asked to contact them regarding the review of the Board of Education. In addition to their staff, they have identified a sub-contractor who has this type of expertise. Mr. Edwards stated that it clearly looked as if this person was added on, as the people who were involved in the original RFP did not have educational experience. He commented that the individual is an Assistant Superintendent in a district, and asked how this person would be able to handle a project of this size while maintaining her current position. He asked if the person was quitting her job in order to provide this service. Mr. Freund stated that the company would be happy to meet with the Board of Education to review the interview process. Additionally, he stated that this person would be the Project Manager for the Board of Education piece; however, she would not do the writing. It would require her to take a number of days leave from her current position to complete the efficiency review. Mr. Edwards stated that if the Board of Education were going to engage in an efficiency study, he would like to see the firm who conducts it to be extremely well versed in educational issues. He commented that the Board works under a different model than the Town. He questioned if the Town would be well served with this company in terms of the education portion. He asked how this firm compares with others (such as those who employ individuals from Connecticut). Mrs. Hackett thanked them for the presentation. She stated that evaluation is a big part of education; therefore, she endorsed the concept of an efficiency study. She is concerned that the Town questioned the objectivity of the evaluation at the previous study several years ago. She asked about the credentials of the suggested Project Manager in terms of the study being well regarded by the entire community. She also has concerns regarding the use of a sitting Assistant Superintendent in another state, and would like to know the depth of experience the person has in this area and with whom. She also would like to be given some latitude in identifying a consultant that might do the best job and has experience with the Connecticut public education system as well as the New England public education system. Mrs. Holmes commented that the previous study might not have included the business operations. She feels that there is not a lot that could be included in the business operations of the school district and agrees that other companies should be considered that deal with school districts. She stated that she is not ready to make a commitment until the appropriation and budget workshops take place. She feels $50,000 is a lot of money to dedicate to this at the present time. Mrs. O'Neill suggested that members of the Board of Education should be included in part of the teams that are reviewing the Town functions where job functions are similar so that the Board would not have to pay for these duplicate services. Then, if there were other areas of need, she would look to the Superintendent for recommendations of further consultants. Mr. Desmaris commented that they found this a perfect opportunity to look at similar functions on both the Town and School sides to determine if there are any efficiencies. However, he stated that the company could not review the board functions at no cost. Mrs. O'Neill stated that in her previous position, the company worked as a team and collectively mapped their processes. She feels that if this is being done on the Town side, a Board of Education member could be there as well, adjusting anything that may be different. This would mean that the review would not have to be done twice. Mr. Desmaris stated that interviews are a good part of the process that needs to be done with individual employees. He stated that people give very different answers when they are in an isolated position. Mrs. O'Neill strongly suggested that all sides come together to use the company and their review process efficiently. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Freund who asked him to contact Management Partners on the Board's behalf, when, and what the nature of the conversations were. Mr. Freund responded that the General Manager asked him to contact the company approximately a week and a half to two weeks ago. Mr. Robinson asked when he would like the Board of Education to take action on this request. Mr. Freund stated it would be up to the Board on timing. Mr. Desmaris stated they were presenting an option if the Board of Education wished to take advantage of it. He stated that this was a preliminary proposal. Regarding timing, they would like to have it done simultaneously with the Town side. Mr. Robinson stated that timing becomes a pressing issue, as it makes the time in which the Board needs to decide more compressed. Mr. Desmaris stated that if the Board indicated they were interested in being a part of it, they would gladly restructure their time frame in order to proceed and meet the goals. Mr. Robinson stated that it did not seem that School Administration was involved in the process or conversations. Mr. Freund stated that if the Board were added in, they would have the ability to have some influence on the scope. Mr. Robinson asked if this would also influence the price. Mr. Freund stated that it could influence the price. He stated he could supply a copy of the scope as it applied to the town departments so that a baseline for pricing could be determined. Mr. Robinson asked if they viewed this as an independent study. Mr. Desmaris independent in the sense that they are performing the study, but not independent as they require the input of all individuals involved. Mr. Robinson stated, for the public's awareness that this item came to the attention of the Board of Education only earlier in the evening. He asked about the lead-time for this project. Mr. Desmaris stated that May would be a good time for the project to begin as opposed to August or September. There is no drop-dead date. Mrs. Huyler was concerned that it was presented as "to take an advantage of an opportunity", but does not hear any other alternatives. Mr. Desmaris stated there is an opportunity for the Board while the Town is undergoing this study. Mrs. Lok asked where $46,000 would come from within the budget. Mr. Huot stated that he would let the Superintendent's budget presentation speak for itself. D. SUPERINTENDENT'S
REPORT The Superintendent of Schools believes, firmly, that this was the result of poor communication and miscommunication between the Board of Education and the Town. Greater due diligence, by the staff of the Manchester Board of Education, should have been realized during the budget process, and the recommendations, which are to follow, I believe address those shortfalls. The budget process for 2004-05 budget began July 1, 2003, using 18% as the anticipated increase in the cost of health insurance for 2004-05. The Segal Company, the Town's consultant in health care, recommended this by the Town and so did the Town. It appears that at a point further into the Board of Education budget process, those percentages should have been revised to at least 14.5%, and they were not. There is no written communication between the Town and the Board, or between the Board and the Town, regarding revisions to these percentages, to the pension account, or to the MSIP account. The situation was additionally confused, as the Town was reviewing different bids on health insurance. Line 270 was recalculated several times to ensure accuracy, however the 18% assumption was used in those calculations. There is no question that at some time between the Superintendent's recommended budget on January 12 and the General Manager's letter to the Superintendent, dated March 9, 2004, a complete rebuilding and recalculation of line item 270 should have been completed. This, unfortunately, was not done until April 5th. The impact added to the increased anxiety of parents, students and community members, and added to the frustration of the community, and both Boards, with regard to confidence in the Board of Education's budget preparation and budget analysis. I do not believe that this was deliberate or intentional, but rather the Town and we have become casual about transferring critical information. The Superintendent, on behalf of the Central Administration, wants to apologize to the Town and elected officials, but most importantly, to the citizens and children of this community for any upset caused by and inferred by this over budgeting in health care cost. Only a handful of emails exist in the early part of the budget process, and no documentation to support what may have or may not have occurred. Without documents, it is impossible to construct a reliable timetable of who said what, when it was said, and what information was shared. It is for this reason that the Superintendent recommends a formal, monthly meeting in which questions and documents are exchanged, and concrete objective data provided between and among the Board of Education and Town officials. The agenda and minutes of these meetings and documents (data) will be shared with both Boards. Recommendations: The Superintendent would encourage the Board of Education to cease the practice of immediately preparing a "reduction list" at the first light of my budget reductions. The preparation of this list and the focus generated by this list, only serves to heighten emotions and to cause, as in this case, unnecessary upset. The Superintendent would recommend, however, that following the Town meeting, the Board of Education and the Board of Directors meet, so that a sense of proportion with regard to the Board of Education budget can be gained, and the Board would begin to look at how to reconcile the appropriation with the Board of Education needs. While it will cause come pressure during the month of May, given this year's experience and the past year's discussion, it would seem more appropriate that in the month of May, the formal list of reductions would then become public. The Board of Education should forward its monthly budget summaries to the Board of Directors, so that they may see the current expenditures, encumbrances, and balances. Finally, the Directors should not that there are tremendous pressures in special education and unfunded mandates that will often require budget adjustments during the school year in order for the Board of Education's budget to remain solvent. Conclusion Mr. Edwards referred to the dates given in the second paragraph of January 12 and March 9, and interpreted it to mean that sometime between these two dates, the General Manager knew that it would not be 18% but perhaps something closer to 14.5%. Mr. Beitman recalled the General Manager commenting that the numbers looked high, and asked him that they be double-checked. Mr. Beitman stated that they were in the bid process at the time. His impression of the numbers looking high was that the calculations were wrong, not that the number (percentage) was wrong. Mr. Edwards stated that he was not asking if the Superintendent knew it, but if the General Manager knew that by March 9, the percentage would be lower than 18%. Mr. Beitman stated that he could not answer for him, but he did recall the General Manager say that he didn't believe any of the subtotals were greater than 18%. Mr. Edwards stated, if possible, he would like to know if the General Manager knew about the 14% at that date. He asked if April 5 was when the Board of Education realized it was not 18% but rather 14%. Mr. Beitman stated that this was correct. He asked Mr. Huestis to come to the Board of Education to meet with Mr. Huot. They worked in two opposite parts of the building, recalculating and came within 100,000 from each other. Mr. Edwards stated that there was a period of a month when the Board of Education and the Town was operating on different sets of assumptions. He stated that he is satisfied that there are plans in place so that this would not happen again. Additionally, he commented on the reduction list not being generated so quickly as it heightens emotions and to cause unnecessary upset. He believes that it remains to be seen whether the upset was unnecessary. This will be based upon if the Board of Directors restores the funds so that cuts do not occur. If they do not fully restore the budget, some of the upset will have been necessary. He stated that the Board is still in the dark as to how the budget will be funded, and that the swing is very wide. Finally, he applauds the Superintendent for his acknowledgement, and he is interested in how it will be handled going forward. He hopes that the Board will build trust with the Directors and the Town. Mrs. Lok stated that it seems the more the subject of combining services with the Town comes up, an idea or concept that will require real communication, at the same time, situations come up that shows there is not good communication presently at all. The proposed dates on the efficiency study, with the Board being put in through the back door, suggests poor communication. She feels communication needs to be a project between these two Boards. She asked the Superintendent for a specific recommendation as whether to put this in policy, or if a subcommittee of both boards should be comprised to adopt a policy. Mr. Beitman stated his initial recommendation would be to contact the General Manager to see if two directors and the General Manager would like to meet with Mr. Huot, Mr. Robinson, two Board of Education members and himself to discuss the recommendations. There will be a meeting, by charter, in September, in which the two Boards will talk about consolidation. In his recommendations, he suggested a regular meeting schedule between the two Boards to exchange information. He stated the Board of Education's budget becomes public in January and changes a number of times through June. The Town's budget, when presented to the community, has already gone through its revisions. He stated that numbers continually change on the revisions of the Board of Education budget, as they have changed again on the latest version of the budget, based upon pending legislation. He also met with Senator Lieberman and his staff who were shocked about the legislation and the impact on public schools in terms of funding. They are also becoming aware of the impact of No Child Left Behind on the school districts. He believes a resolution between both Boards would be more effective than a policy. Mrs. Lok agreed with the resolution and suggested a memo of understanding between the General Manager and the Superintendent of Schools as well. Mr. Beitman added that there are a number of verbal agreements and understandings with the Town, which have been respected. However, there is nothing to say that in the future, that institutional history will be forgotten as people change positions, and new people come into the district. It is important to the citizens to have documents or memos of understanding as to these agreements. Mr. Rizzo stated that on various occasions, the General Manager stated the numbers looked too high and that they were then recalculated using the 18%, thinking there was a math mistake. He asked if the Superintendent went back to the General Manager after the recalculation was done to tell him the number didn't change. Mr. Beitman stated that he didn't and assumed there was a recalculation error. There was no follow-up. He stated that part of the problem was that the discussion took place with him, and not being a finance person, he did not ask more detailed questions. Mr. Rizzo also questioned the dates of January 12 and March 9. Mr. Beitman stated that if what had been done on April 5 had been done sooner, there would have been better communication between the Town and Board of Education with regard to the sub elements. Recalculating the account from the ground up requires a complete census of employees, the cost shares of the bargaining units, how many retirees, and many other factors. He feels that at some point, the account should have been rebuilt; however, the Business Manager was only asked to recalculate the account, not rebuild it. Mr. Rizzo asked Mr. Huot if he broke the account down into pieces in order to review it and recalculate it. Mr. Huot stated the piece that he didn't have was the information from the consultant as to what the new numbers were. In the past, this communication has taken place between Mr. Huestis and himself. It did not occur this year. Mr. Rizzo highlighted that a very important meeting that has happened in the past between Mr. Huestis and Mr. Huot did not occur this year, and he believes this is key to this situation, and an area of concern. He also stated that although Mr. Beitman is taking responsibility for this error, he is also the only one suggesting recommendations for this process in the future. He believes it is important to get cooperation from the Town so that these recommendations can take place. Mr. Robinson asked what prompted the recalculation on April 5. Mr. Beitman stated that a meeting occurred a day before with Mr. Werbner in which he again raised concerns about the number. At that time, they got into specifics about percentages. Mr. Huestis came to the Board of Education and worked independently from Mr. Huot to rebuild the account. Mr. Robinson asked if anyone had any inkling between March 9 and April 5, and if any information was exchanged from the Town concerning this line item. Mr. Beitman stated there were exchanges on the proposals on health care bids, but there was no decision made to as to the health care provider until the first week of April. Mr. Robinson stated the bid figures were not 18%, but a question of 14.5% versus 13.5%. Mr. Beitman stated this was correct. Mr. Robinson thanked Mr. Beitman for bringing forward this information and for making recommendations. Mr. Beitman presented a fax sent to him by the Journal Inquirer stating that there is a bill before the General Assembly (#5638) requiring a school nurse for Charter Schools. There is currently a charter school in Manchester. The bill says the public schools should be responsible for the school nurse for each of the charter schools, and that in the 2004-05 budget, there be no funding from the State. He stated that he has concerns about the bill, although well-intentioned, he will write letters to legislators asking them great caution as it can be a cost to the district between $18,000 - $40,000. He stated this is another unfunded mandate. Mr. Rizzo asked if this would take effect on October 1, 2004 and what the fiscal impact would be. Mr. Beitman stated that they would suggest a half-time nurse based on the Charter School's enrollment. If the school wants a full time nurse, it would have to be remediated. At this point, the best he can project is between $18,000 to $40,000. Mr. Rizzo asked if the charter school has a nurse now and who pays for it. Mr. Beitman stated that they do have a nurse, and they pay for it. Their funding comes from the State and covers all of their operating expenses. The Town provides bus transportation and in kind services. Mr. Rizzo assumes that the Charter School could pay for their nurse with their funding. He asked if their funding would go down if the Board paid for the nurse. Mr. Beitman stated that it would not go down, there would just be more money to be applied to other services. Mr. Beitman added that in addition to paying for the nurse, there is training and professional development costs also to consider. He also stated the current nursing staff could not be spread to cover this position. Mr. Rizzo stated he would be supportive of the letter to the Charter School, and believes the letter should include what the Town of Manchester already gives them. Mrs. Hackett feels the State should pay for this nursing support fully from their budget and directly to the Charter School. She feels that the appropriation for Charter and Magnet schools is problematic. She feels that they should look at year-to-date operating expenses and appropriate what they need directly without involving a public school. She also feels that the public schools get no credit for what they supply to the magnet, charter and parochial schools. She stated that the Superintendent has her full support to deal with this issue. Mrs. Holmes stated there is a lot of legislation with new mandates. The last legislation is on May 5. She asked if there was any chance to get a summation of what actually got passed that may have an impact, before the budget workshops. Mr. Beitman stated that legislation has usually been approved after the Board has received its appropriation and assigned its budget. Mr. Beitman presented a draft document dated 4/26/04. He reviewed the budget draft and stated that $440,000 has been identified (assuming the current budget reduction by the General Manager of $1.8M is correct) that can be reapplied to both the Superintendent's recommended cuts or the Board of Education's recommended cuts. He highlighted where the $440,000 could be spent: reinstatement of the environmental education center teacher; reinstatement of special area supervisors; reinstatement of 9.6 non-special education paraprofessionals. Mr. Rizzo asked if there was any word on the Excess Cost Grant. Mr. Beitman stated that they are still hearing the same news. There is tremendous pressure to reinstate the Excess Cost. He stated that in the budget projection, a few adjustments were made. The Director of Career and Vocational Education and the Bentley Principal would be reorganized together, as well as any reorganization of the guidance department. Additionally, they have been told they would have to fund the psychologists for the non-public schools as mandated by federal law. 2. Racial
Imbalance 3. Robertson
School Driveway Update E. OLD
BUSINESS MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adopts the proposed post-appropriation budget workshop dates. (9/0/0) 2. Early
Retirement for Certified Staff - Discussion Mrs. Lok asked for a brief overview of what has been proposed. Mr. Beitman stated the proposal was that in lieu of the 60 day sick buyout, which each employs is entitled to, that the employees who select the early retirement plan, would not take their sick buyout ($19,000 - $22,000 based upon their salary). The Board of Education would use those funds to offset any budget implications in the current or future years. In return, the employee would receive free health care until 65 year old or later, depending if they qualify for social security. Mrs. Holmes asked how many teachers are already eligible to retire. Mr. Beitman stated there are currently 20 letters of resignation. Mrs. Holmes asked if there were others that were eligible that have not chosen to do so yet. Mr. Beitman stated that there were others eligible and explained the teacher retirement schedule based upon years of service. There is a pool of 80 employees eligible to retire, some with penalty. Mrs. Holmes asked if those who were already eligible would get the same free for life health insurance benefits, or just people who retire early. Mr. Beitman stated that it would have to be structured by the Board setting a number to control the number of early retirements. Mrs. Holmes asked what the average buyout was. Mr. Beitman stated it is generally between $19,000 and $22,000 before taxes, based upon years of service in Connecticut. Mr. Huot stated the average has been about $22,000. Mrs. Holmes stated that if the teacher took this money and invested it, they would be able to pay for the health insurance, essentially getting it free already. However, the Board does not have the luxury of taking the savings and investing it. She asked if there were plans to reduce positions or if there was a replacement plan. Mr. Beitman stated the initial problem is the shortage list in the State of Connecticut that continues to grow. This means that teachers might not be able to be hired at entry-level salaries. There is also a law to fill a position within 45 days. Savings may be lost in shortage area positions. Mrs. Holmes stated that this is not a bargain for the Board, but she would like to hear more about it. Mrs. Lok asked once a teacher retires, if they are locked into the agreement made at retirement for the rest of their lives. Mr. Huot stated that this used to be the case, but about five years ago, the contract language began to change so that retirees were tied into whatever the current language is in the contract. Mrs. Lok asked if the Board decided to accept this proposal, would the Board be locked into this agreement with those teachers for the rest of their retirement. Mr. Huot stated the Board would be locked into the agreement. Mrs. Lok stated that this might be good news for about 11 years; but after that the cost of providing free health insurance starts to kick in. Mr. Huot stated that this is correct. Mrs. Lok stated that this would force the hand of a future Board in 11 years. This would create a type of unfunded mandate. She stated she would not favor this proposal. Mr. Beitman stated that administration is not supporting this proposal, but wanted to bring it to the Board as an obligation of their discussions with the bargaining units. Mr. Edwards stated that the cost share percentages should be reviewed, with the health care inflation rate applied to it, as opposed to a regular inflation rate. Additionally, he stated the actuarial tables would have to be considered regarding Medicare benefits. Mr. Robinson stated he had concerns to as it suggests short-term savings with a very narrow time frame. He feels that writing a blank check for free health care is irresponsible at this time. F. NEW
BUSINESS Mr. Huot stated this document has been reviewed by the Building and Sites Committee. He focused on the statement that the Board of Education believes the schools belong to the people of Manchester and funds to establish and maintain the facilities are largely provided by local taxes. He stated the object is not to make money, but to get the facilities used, keep the costs as low as possible and offset any costs born by the school district as not to erode funds for instructional purpose. He stated that the bold writing is new, however, it is not new policy as it has been their practice. He reviewed custodial and insurance language. He believes most of the policy is putting in writing the existing practice. A new portion is when there are 250 people at a function; a police officer is required, paid for by the group. New fees are in bold type. Changes were made in the use of Bailey Auditorium based on what is now offered. The policy has not been revised since May 1994. Mrs. Lok asked if the 250 occupancy is new, and if there was input from the police department. Mr. Huot stated that there was no number stated before, and is primarily directed at the Bailey Auditorium. Security guards are routinely used at these functions as well. Mrs. Lok asked if a call could be made to the police department to verify this number. Mr. Huot stated he would call the police department as well as surrounding towns. Mrs. Hackett stated she was particularly pleased to see the clean up of language pertaining to the Bailey Auditorium. She offered an edit on the last page, which mentions a particular individual and asked that it be deleted. Mr. Huot clarified the language and edits made. Mr. Rizzo commented the #3 states "we are interested in making you comfortable and pleasant". He asked that it be rephrased. He stated he was happy with the guidelines. Mr. Huot stated he would edit it appropriately. 2. Board
of Education Self Evaluation Mr. Edwards asked that an electronic version of the document be sent out to Board members. Mr. Beitman stated that could be done. Mrs. Hackett asked if the items that were in question last year were not removed from the document. Mr. Beitman stated that was correct, and believes the extra time should assist Board members. Mr. Robinson asked to amend the agenda to include Committee Reports. MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adds a Committee Report item to the agenda. (9/0/0). COMMITTEE
REPORTS 2. Buildings
and Sites Committee G. COMMUNICATIONS H. PUBLIC
COMMENTS
3. Milt Perlman, 3 Sanford Road He feels that police should station themselves near schools where there is a problem and try to do something to alleviate the problems. With regard to efficiency, he would like to see the efficiency of how students are being taught in schools. He referenced poor CAPT scores in the 10th grade. He would like to see a report on Block Schedule to see how this impacts it.
I. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS Mrs. Hackett asked for a status on the Superintendent search process. MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret
Hackett, Secretary |
|