|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT:
Rowe, Small-Miller, Crockett, Rizzo, Hackett, Huyler, ALSO Superintendent
of Schools Ouellette, Director of Business A.1
Call to Order A.2.
Pledge of Allegiance A.4
Minutes of April 24, 2006 MOTION: Rizzo/Huyler s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved the minutes of April 24, 2006 with a friendly amendment. Under minute number A.3 on page one, the welcoming remarks attributed to Mr. Rizzo should read Mr. Stafford. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Hackett moved that the agenda be reconfigured to take Item G "Accelerated Middle School Schedule Update" under Superintendent's Report - Part I" to become Item B.2. Secondly, board members had been provided with an Addendum to the Agenda and the Chair asked if this could be added, as Item F-11 to the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Rizzo/Edwards s.v. The Manchester Board of Education unanimously approved the amendments to the agenda. The Agenda would now read Item B2 - Accelerated Middle School Update; Item G. would be removed. Item H - New Business; Item I - Communications; Item J - Committee Reports; Item K - Public Comments; Item L - Items for Future Agendas; Item K - Public Comments; Item M - Grievance Hearing. B.1 Student Recognition Award Dr. Ouellette invited Ms. Amber Bansavich to come forward to be presented by Mrs. Huyler with a Gold Award at the National Level of the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards of 2006, in Ceramic Sculpture. Amber's family and teachers had been invited to join the national celebration at an Awards Presentation, Carnegie Hall, New York City on June 8th. B.2 Superintendent's Report - Part II Accelerated
Middle School Update Ms. Guarnaccia
reported that at the first hearing all the information and reasons for
proposing to tear down these three particular old buildings and the
alternatives were given. The Mayor and Mrs. Hackett made a statement,
in terms of the support of the two boards, for the proposals. That meeting
was adjourned, after several hours. A second hearing was then scheduled.
It was obvious that the group was not sympathetic to the plan. In the
intervening week between the two meetings, another meeting took place
with the State Historic Preservation Officer. After considerable discussion,
as a compromise, he agreed to recommend to the Commission the demolition
of the Fire House and the Boiler Plant and the retention of the Cheney
Building. Ms. Guarnaccia returned to the Commission with a plan to use
the space provided by these demolitions, as well as #11 School Street.
This compromise was, in turn, rejected by the Commission. It was voted
to refer the preservation of the three buildings to the State Attorney
General's Office. The recommendation on the Fire House and the Boiler
House was by a split vote. Ms. Guarnaccia stated that they are looking at some other alternatives. It is still the intention to find an appropriate combination of alternatives to allow the project to go forward. Ms. Hackett stated that, at this preliminary stage, everyone is open-minded as to the next course of action, and she looked forward to the Board of Education's recommendations. Ms. Guarnaccia stated they had made their case that the green space was required in order to meet educational specifications and curriculum needs. However, there appears to be a serious desire to preserve the historic buildings. Work on the final design documents will continue, in preparation for the planned meeting with the State Facilities Unit in July. Mr. Edwards expressed his personal keen disappointment at the outcome of the project. He looked forward to hearing the options. For the record, he reiterated the need for green space was critical to the use of that site as a future school, especially as a 6th Grade Academy. Mr. Epstein reported they are looking at modular classrooms at Washington, Bowers and Buckley Schools with modifications at Washington, Bowers and Waddell, including three new classrooms at Martin School. Both projects bid favorably. He had anticipated about $1.5m in bids, and they came in at $1.26m, making them a quarter of a million dollars under budget. The original budget was $3m. So far $750,000 has been moved by the Building Committee into the Bennet project for swing space. Currently, contracts are being designed with both Contractors, who have promised to meet the deadlines. Mr. Epstein will work with the contractors on this aspect. Dr. Ouellette
stated it was important, for the benefit of viewers, parents and staff,
not to postpone her update on the Middle School Task Force. It was important
to note that, despite the obstacles with acquiring green space, the
board was moving forward with phasing out Bennet Middle School and taking
it offline. This will stay on course for the year-end. She announced
Ms. Lisa Plavin would join her to give an update on Library/Media Services
Lastly, and most importantly, the community involvement and the PTA activities are working jointly in the planning. Students' newsletters for both Bennet and Illing parents are sharing upcoming events. Illing PTA President, Nancy Fleming, will attend the May 13th meeting of the ISOC group to offer support and talk about increasing parental involvement next year. The ISOC is the advisory group to support students of color. On May 14th Illing PTA will host Bennet parents at a meeting; May 31st the Illing/Bennet barbeque will take place, with opportunities to tour the school. The Board is imminently prepared to close at the end of the summer school session 2006. Ms. Lisa Plavin updated the board on the plan for Sixth Grade Library/Media Services during Swing Time. Copies of the plan were tabled. The objective of the plan was to preserve a collection to accommodate the 6th grade academy, in addition to serving current needs of the 6th grade, while it is dispersed among the elementary schools. Ms. Plavin used a screen projector to elaborate on the plan. The plan was broken down under headings: Physical Accommodation; Maintaining the Collection; Accessing the Core Collection; Staffing; Media Specialists and Para-Professionals. The plan was a work in progress, and at future meetings between administration and library staff it would be further refined. Issues such as storage of library furniture and placement of library computers had not yet been addressed. Mrs. DeDominics
highlighted, in particular, the sadness and uncertainty surrounding
the future of one of Bennet's finest teachers, Choir Director Cheryl
Hilton. It had recently come to the attention of the Bennet School community
that Cheryl may be offered the position of General Music Teacher at
Illing Middle School. Mrs. DeDominicis paid tribute to the way Cheryl had played an influential role in the lives of many students, these included her own children. Cheryl had gone over and beyond the call of duty. Ms. DeDominicis asked that Cheryl be given the support to continue providing the opportunity to teach choir in the secondary schools. 2) Tom
Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road referenced the following items related
to September 11, 2001: Mr. Stringfellow
would like to see recognition and follow-up on recommendation from taxpayers. D. PTA
COUNCIL REPORT The PTA will offer a Substance Abuse Program for Middle School students every year. Additionally, next year it is intended to sponsor presentations on inhaler abuse aimed at educating K-12 parents, rather than students, given that substances were readily available in the home. The PTA, town-wide, was very disturbed with respect to the Connecticut Historical Preservation Council's ruling on the Bennet project. The PTA wanted the Board of Education to know that they will fully support the board's direction for going forward, should alternative plans need to be explored. Manchester PTA members attended a statewide PTA Convention in Bristol recently. From a list of fifteen topics, it was agreed to discuss Neighborhood Schools and Diversity. The PTA would be meeting before the end of the school year to create sub-committees to support the program. The Community Conversation would take place on October 26, 2006, the location of which had yet to be confirmed. Updates on the progress would be presented to the Board and all community members who wished to be involved with the program should contact Ms. Diane Kearney, through the Board of Education, or on the Connecticut PTA website. Ms. Kidd, on behalf of all the Manchester PTA groups, congratulated Dr. Ouellette on obtaining her Doctorate. Mr. Rowe asked Ms. Kidd for clarification of the statement that they would support the Board with options regarding the Bennet project. Ms. Kidd responded that they would support that the sixth graders stay in their neighborhood school. Mr. Rowe asked if she spoke for the majority of PTA groups, and was told this was correct. The matter had been discussed at the last two Council meetings. Mr. Rowe confirmed that he had personally been approached by parents who held the same opinion, and he felt that it was vital to know their thinking on the subject. Mr. Rowe asked if there was a good representation of teachers at PTA meetings. From her own knowledge, Ms. Kidd knew Keeney Street School had two teacher representatives and there was always a Principal, and at least one teacher who usually gave a report at meetings. Mrs. Scribner reminded the Board that the Bennet Middle School Choir Concert would be held at Manchester High School on May 11th. Ms. Hackett pointed out that it would be premature for the Board to agree to a PTA parent survey, or jump to any conclusions, as it considered ways to reconfigure our elementary and Middle School population and renovate Bennet, which is the ultimate goal. Ms. Kidd was cautioned to tread lightly as the Board would not be interested in a survey at this time. Mr. Stafford
thanked Ms. Kidd and Mrs. Scribner for the report and applauded them
on the Workshop for Children, which had been well attended and was most
informative. E. HEAD
START BI-ANNUAL UPDATE Enrollment was taking place for next year. Out of a total of one hundred and thirty-two slots, only ninety-nine remained, because older three-year olds were returning. Clearly, applications exceeded the number that could be accommodated. To date 165 applications were on file, with 20 more not yet processed. The Breakfast Club met twice monthly and offered family members the opportunity to learn about child development, community resources, advocating for children with special needs, nutrition, health issues and much more. An effort on engaging fathers had resulted in an alliance between the Head Start Program, Manchester Memorial Hospital's Early Head Start program, Vernon Head Start and MELC Evening programs. An average of one hundred men attended. Collaboration continued with the Vernon Adult Education Program offering GED and College Prep classes. A number of participants completed the program and some had registered for college. In working with many community parties, nine homeless families had been identified. Dr. Albert, as part of "Give Kids a Smile Day", had worked with students who could not access dental services. To date, twenty-four of the twenty-six students identified as needing restorative care had been served. The consulting services of a registered dietician had been hired to assist with children who had food allergies. A Nutrition Service Advisory Committee had been established and parents would be encouraged to introduce various ethnic foods in the food service program. Students enter the program with completed lead testing. Parents receive intensive support and training about asthma and how it should be treated. A database has been created into which child and family data is stored for analysis. Outcome data has become an integral part of program planning and professional development. The Policy Council recognized the significant contribution made to its classrooms by Miriam Epstein, Director of the Books to Dreams program. Ms. Epstein visited the classrooms at least twice a year and brought hard cover children's books that have been translated into many languages including Russian, Bengali and Arabic. Manchester Head Start was currently celebrating its 40th Year Anniversary. The Honorable Senator Mary Ann Handley had presented the program with a proclamation from the General Assembly, which was passed around Board members. In closing, Ms. Noel thanked the Superintendent and the Board for their support of the program. Mr. Rizzo talked about the theory of the program giving children a jump on academics. Given transitions, it might not always be possible to track every student in the program. Had any efforts been made to track students who had been in Head Start and later entered the Manchester school system to check on their progress? Dr. Reisman said this was not happening in Manchester. A process had begun with the newly created database. Additionally, they were working on transitioning data from this program to Kindergarten teachers. Dr. Reisman talked about research, which was being established to monitor children's progress. They are looking at a number of four-year olds who needed speech therapy. A comparison study was being made between how many months of therapy children received when they began Head Start with those who were not identified until they entered Kindergarten. Mr. Rizzo thought it was important to have a connection with the classroom teacher and the Manchester Public School System to use the data to instruct their curriculum. Dr. Reisman viewed learning as a "one hundred rung ladder". He thought it was more important to know what rung the child was on right now, rather than where one wanted the child to be. Only by quality assessment could that be ascertained. Mr. Edwards followed Mr. Rizzo's line of questioning, but his question was aimed at the administration. His opinion was that the turnover documents, etc. should be transferred. The Head Start Program had been running for eight years and should already have data showing where children come from and whether or not it was via Head Start, some other pre-school experience or no pre-school experience. Do we run that data looking for the co-relations that the study shows? From his knowledge about the studies, the Head Start bonus pays dividends in Kindergarten through four. By 4th grade the benefits evaporated and other children catch up. Dr. Ouellette did not believe this was the case. The data showed more, e.g., drop out prevention and career choices. Dr. Reisman said the data was pretty clear on early intervention programs, in terms of increased graduation rates and decreased incarceration rates. If one looked purely at Head Start children, the data was pretty clear. Mr. Edwards thought it was important, in instances where we have the data, to actually run those numbers to see how big a difference it has made. This would strengthen the case for an extended Head Start Program. He would like to be an advocate of the program but needed to see the actual data first. Taxpayers need to be reassured that the program was worth the expenditure. Dr. Ouellette was sure that Dr. Reisman and our Academic team would be happy to work on this. F. CONSENT
CALENDAR F.1.
Personnel Action The following certified staff members successfully completed the required length of service to receive tenure, under the Connecticut General Statute Sec. 151: Antonio DeMelo, Manchester High School and Michelle Patrick, Verplanck Elementary School. F.2
Appropriation for Education Special Projects-$10,000 F.3.
Appropriation for Education Special Projects - $3,085 F.4
Increase in Appropriation for Education Special Projects - $175,000
F.5
Extended Field Trip Request - Manchester High School F.6
Approval of Board of Education Meetings Schedule 2006/7 F.7 Transfer of Funds F.8. Transfer of Funds F.9 Transfer of Funds Most transfers dealt with supplies and computer supplies. F.10
Transfer of Funds - $9,421.00 F.11
Addendum to the Calendar - Field Trip Illing Middle School Ms. Hackett moved to approve the Consent Calendar, as outlined by Dr. Ouellette. MOTION: Pohl/Edwards s.v. The Board of Education unanimously approved the Consent Calendar as outlined. Ms. Jacqueline Cruickshanks, teacher, Illing Middle School, introduced herself as the Adviser of the Technology Student Association. On April 8th her group competed in the State Competition and had placed in eleven events. They carried home eight trophies, which was a huge accomplishment. This qualified them to go to Nationals. She had two students, whose parents were backing them, and they were eager to go to the competition in Dallas. Two other students would also like to go, but this was dependent on how much money is raised. Ms. Hackett asked for Board questions on the Consent Calendar, specifically Item F.11. There being none, the Board of Education unanimously approved the Consent Calendar Items F1-F11. G. NEW BUSINESS G.1.
Wellness Policy - Diane Kearney The Policy must include six components: nutrition education and promotion; physical activity and promotion; nutrition standards for food; other school-based wellness activities; marketing and promotion, and measurement and evaluation. A Committee had convened in January 2006. After several members attended a summit addressing wellness, they provided an action guide to draft the Wellness Policy. The Policy committee was composed of approximately twenty-one people, and included parents, teachers, board members, principals, community health personnel, students and recreational personnel. All together there were ten meetings and the Committee feedback was very relevant to the children of Manchester. On May 4 a meeting took place with the Policy Committee to begin implementing the Wellness Policy. Ms. Kearney highlighted the key components of the Policy and the guidelines, copies of which were tabled. The Policy stated that Manchester Schools would be committed to establishing a healthy learning environment to develop and foster life-long healthy habits, wellness and good nutrition, with a variety of opportunities for daily activity so that students will become more physically active and fit. The goal will be achieved through a comprehensive school program and the Policy's intent is to enable students to become independent and self-directed learners. The Policy emphasized nutrition education; Staff to be adequately prepared to implement nutrition education; district incrementally adjust physical education opportunities for students, to meet the optimum level (150 minutes weekly for elementary, and 225 minutes for secondary students); increased daily recess at the elementary level from 15 minutes to 20 minutes. Physical activity could not be withheld as punishment; opportunities beyond the regular physical education class incorporated into the classroom, as part of learning; promote good eating habits; limit beverage consumption in the classroom to water - 100% juice and milk; non-food activities encouraged, to follow district nutritional standards; nutrition information made available to students and staff members through various newsletter sources; faculty be positives role models, and regular food surveys taken. A standard Wellness Committee would be in place to assess all nutrition education curriculum and materials for accuracy, completeness, balance and consistency as it related to the State and district educational goals and standards. Mr. Edwards asked if any headway had been made on the issue of physical activity and punishment. Ms. Kearney responded that the State Department had been consulted about this and the answer was that, basically, punishment would be left to the discretion of the Principal, while keeping within the guidelines. Mr. Edwards requested confirmation that teachers and other school and community personnel would not use physical activity as punishment. Secondly, physical activity would not be withheld as punishment. Ms. Kearney said it was common practice for elementary school teachers to take recess away when students have misbehaved. If the Wellness Policy goes into effect they will attempt to come up with some ideas as an alternative to taking recess away. Mr. Edwards felt that reading and writing should not be associated with punishment. Dr. Ouellette said this would not be a direction they would consider. The Policy allowed for a timeout, if needed, or a temporary removal. Mr. Edwards would be interested to know what elementary classroom teachers thought of this particular part of the Policy. Mr. Pohl asked for clarification on the question "How are we able to increase P.E. time at the elementary level? Presently, it was forty minutes once a week. For 2006/7, we would go to a 6-day schedule and double physical education to 80 minutes. Dr. Ouellette reminded Mr. Pohl that Ms. Kearney had already stated that we were below the Educational Reference Group in our instructional minutes for physical education, so we really needed to beef up our curriculum at the elementary level. The elementary principals have worked very closely with Ms. Kearney in blocking off academic time. Ms. Kearney reiterated that we should be doing 150 minutes a week but right now we were only at 40 minutes. Ms. Hackett
confirmed that this item would come back as "Old Business"
for the May 22nd meeting. MOTION: Edwards/Stafford s.v. The Board of Education unanimously approved the motion to change the item "Increase in Summer School Tuition Fees" from New Business to Old Business. Ms. Hackett stated that Old Business would become Item H, Communications Item I, Committee Reports Item J, Items for Future Agendas L and Grievance Hearing M. H. OLD BUSINESS H. 2
Increase in Summer School Tuition Fees Mr. Thorndike reported that the intent of the increase - expected to be between 8%-9% - was to absorb the $3.00 per hour pay rise for teachers. Mrs. Brooks reported that Mr. Thorndike had been given last year's figures for Summer School Tuition. Mr. Thorndike reported revenues gained last year were $53,785. Costs this year were expected to be in the neighborhood of $65,000 and they hoped the increase would offset that. Mr. Rizzo moved that the Board approve the increase. MOTION: s.v. Rizzo/Edwards s.v. The Board of Education unanimously approved the increase in Summer School Tuition fees for summer 2006, as presented by the Superintendent, and outlined in the agenda packet. I. COMMUNICATIONS J. COMMITTEE REPORTS Curriculum
and Instruction Subcommittee Mrs. Janice Uerz, Health Coordinator, reviewed the K-12 Health curriculum that would be brought to the full Board on May 22nd for review. Mrs. Marsha Testa, MHS English Department Instructional Leader, Kerri Kearney, MHS Media Specialist and Mrs. Jill Mulholland, MHS Reading Consultant, presented the subcommittee with a list of new titles for English classes that the department would like to add to the list of resources. A summary of each proposed text was presented. The Committee would continue the discussion of the resources at its next meeting in June. Arising from a question about peer editing, raised during public comment at a recent Board of Education meeting, the committee asked Mrs. Testa for an explanation of the peer editing process. She explained that the strategy was used district wide in the Language Arts program with the purpose of strengthening written work. With the exception of strengthening student writing, student grades were not impacted by peer editing. The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for June 5th. K.
PUBLIC COMMENTS L. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS Dr. Ouellette assured Mr. Rowe that Dr. Gejda was working with the Manchester Police Department, parents and other bodies, in joint efforts to share an update about this. However, unfortunately, the agendas were very full for upcoming meetings and it might not be possible for this matter to be discussed until a meeting in June. M. GRIEVANCE HEARING 1. Paraprofessional Ms. Hackett called the two Paraprofessional Union members, together with the Board of Education's Attorney, Mr. Richard Mills, Shipman & Goodwin to the microphone. Ms. Hackett stated that the matter before the Board was a Grievance Hearing from the Manchester Federation of Paraprofessionals Union (Local #3175). The Board had been asked to consider the grievance brought by the Union on behalf of its employees. Ms. Hackett asked the representatives to introduce themselves. Mr. Michael Ozga stated he is a Field Representative with the American Federation of Teachers, Connecticut. He was the assigned representative for the Manchester Paraprofessionals. Mrs. Streeter is the Union Representative from the Paraprofessionals Union. Mr. Richard Mills, Jr. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, is Counsel to the Board of Education. Ms. Hackett
stated that the evidentiary portion of the Grievance would be in open
session. The Board, however, would deliberate its decision in a non-meeting
session. Mr. Ozga confirmed with the Chair that the Board had all the necessary background materials relating to the Grievance Procedure. Specifically,
the Union was addressing the Class Action Grievance dated, January 10th,
2006, concerning the creation of temporary time reporting paraprofessional
positions, not initially included in the paraprofessionals' bargaining
unit. Mr. Edwards asked for confirmation that there were only two positions involved in the Grievance. He was assured that this was the case. He asked who the Day Care Instructors were staffed by. It was Mr. Ozga's understanding that they were teachers who had to be certified. On a point of clarification, Mr. Mills pointed out that the Board would hold a non- meeting, following Mr. Ozga's presentation. The Board, in conjunction with the Administration, would group to discuss the Grievance. Mr. Ozga quoted a previous case involving tutor positions where the Union had filed a modification with the Board and Labor Relations to include those positions into the existing paraprofessionals' bargaining unit. The requirements for those positions were a four-year Degree and the Labor Board felt it was appropriate to include those non-certified positions. The existing paraprofessionals' bargaining unit was now going to have the additional requirement of either the successful completion of the paraprofessionals' examination, or a two-year Degree, or sixty credits. He believed, with the increased requirements of education, that these positions should rightfully be included. Mr. Edwards
queried if the Board was considering only one Grievance and Mr. Rizzo did not recall hearing from Mr. Ozga the reason to include the Day Care Positions in the paraprofessionals' bargain unit. Mr. Ozga was unsure if the Board had read the job description for the Day Care Instructors. In the interests of efficiency, he requested that he cite some examples from the job description and then, if appropriate, submit this as part of his record. In summary, Mr. Ozga stated that, in the Union's view, the duties listed in the job description was the same work that was already being done by existing paraprofessionals in the Head Start Program. Mr. Rizzo wanted to know what would constitute a difference between a paraprofessional and a Head Start Program Day Care Instructor. Mr. Ozga stated that the line was drawn around the supervisory and certification aspect. Mr. Rizzo asked if the paraprofessionals did not actually supervise, whereas Day Care Instructors do. It was Mr. Ozga's understanding that in the Head Start Program there are paraprofessionals who do have supervisory responsibilities. Mrs. Huyler wanted to know if other paraprofessionals in the bargaining unit are doing what is considered to be similar work, and if that was the reason why the new positions should be included in the bargaining unit. Mr. Ozga thought it was an issue of the work that would be required by the Day Care Instructors. It was clear that positions that currently exist in the Manchester School System should fall into some type of category and make a decision on this. Mr. Edwards asked if it was fair to say it was the Union's position that because these positions have supervisory capabilities and do not require certification, they should, therefore, fall into the paraprofessional bargaining unit. Mr. Ozga said that was the position. He maintained that, in terms of addressing the supervisory aspect of these two jobs, there was no authority he could see in the job description that had been created, of powers of hiring, firing and performing evaluations, which would make a distinction as to whether they should be outside of the bargaining unit. Ms. Hackett said it appeared that the Grievance had been based on job description, and asked if anyone had done a comparison of the actual performance, duties, etc. of the positions. Mr. Ozga said no such observation had been undertaken, but he would be happy to do this. Mr. Mills recollected that when the tutors had come into the bargaining unit, some time ago, it was processed through the Labor Board. Mr. Mills wanted to know why, if the Union thought the administration was wrong, they had not gone through a similar process with this grievance. Mr. Ozga said the Union had hoped to resolve the issue at a lower level. They were not relinquishing any rights to file a petition or modification. Mr. Mills said he was not even sure if this was a proper Grievance under the Contract. He suggested, at this point, that when the Union had concluded its presentation, the administration remain to discuss the matter. Mr. Ozga remarked that previously the Union had had a good working relationship with the Board of Education and Human Resources, and this case was an anomaly. Mr. Mills wanted to know if it was the Union's position that the term paraprofessional, or the term tutor, includes the Day Care Instructor. Mr. Ozga answered yes. Mr. Mills still sought to understand if the Union believed they are paraprofessionals or tutors, as those terms were used in the district of Manchester today. Mr. Ozga's understanding was that they were defining tutors as having a 4-year Degree. In this case, the requirements were an Associate's in Early Childhood Education, with at least two years of experience in a pre-school program. Mr. Mills asked if the Union did not think there needed to be a modification of the bargaining unit description to include the Day Care Instructors. Mr. Ozga responded if it could be proven to be of community interest, the modification position would include this job title. In summary, Mrs. Streeter said what it boiled down to was in the School System, at this level, we had teachers, and we had paraprofessionals and tutors. The teachers were certified staff. The paraprofessionals and tutors do have to meet some educational requirements, either a 2-year or a 4-year degree, or they have to pass the paraprofessional test. According to the job description, this obviously did not fall under the teacher category so, if it did not fall under the teacher category, then it fell in with the paraprofessionals and the tutors. There being
no other remarks, Ms. Hackett moved that a motion be made for the Board
to recess and go into a non-meeting. The Board reconvened at 10:30p.m. Ms. Hackett asked for a motion regarding the disposition of the grievance. Mr. Rizzo moved that the Board of Education deny the grievance filed by the paraprofessionals and tutors bargaining unit, concerning the Day Care Instructor positions, on the ground that the union's claim is not subject to the grievance procedure, and on the additional ground that the district did not violate the recognition clause of the contract. He moved further that the Board authorize the Board Chair to issue a written decision denying the Grievance. Rizzo/Edwards s.v. The Board of Education approved a motion to deny the Grievance. A roll call vote was taken to deny the Grievance. The motion carried 7/2/0.
MOTION:
Pohl/Rizzo s.v. To adjourn: 10.35p.m. 9/0/0 |