UNOFFICIAL MINUTES MUSCATINE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING June 11, 2012 The Board of Directors of the Muscatine Community School District, in the County of Muscatine, State of Iowa, met in regular session on Monday, June 11, 2012 at 7 p.m. at City Hall. President Tim Bower called the meeting to order. Directors Tammi Drawbaugh, Dennis Fox, Brenda Garcia-‐Van Auken, Penny Jones, Nathan Mather, and Mary Wildermuth were present. Also present were Superintendent Bill Decker, Director of Elementary Innovation and Instruction Shane Williams, Director of Secondary Innovation and Instruction Diane Campbell, Director of Human Resources Wes Fowler, Director of Finances Jean Garner, Director of Special Programs Jan Collinson, and Director of Operational Services Walter Crowder. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. President Bower welcomed visitors and media representatives. Muskie Celebration was tabled for this meeting. No one spoke during the Citizen Speaks portion of the meeting. A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Wildermuth to open the public hearing for the MHS Project Phase One. Roll call: Ayes: Bower, Drawbaugh, Fox, Garcia-‐Van Auken, Jones, Mather, and Wildermuth. There were no nays. Motion carried. Time: 7:03 p.m. Director of Operational Services Walter Crowder noted that there were no written or oral comments received. A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Drawbaugh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bower, Drawbaugh, Fox, Garcia-‐Van Auken, Jones, Mather, and Wildermuth. There were no nays. Motion carried. Time: 7:04 p.m. Superintendent Decker requested that item X-‐A Employment Recommendations be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Drawbaugh to approve the consent agenda to include the minutes: the April 23, 2012 Regular Meeting, the May 14, 2012 Regular meeting, the May 18, 2012 Special Meeting, and the May 29, 2012 Planning Meeting; the student teaching agreements with William Penn University and the University of Northern Iowa; the following field
trips: WMS 8th grade students to Close Up in Washington, D.C. and Philadephia on April 14-‐18, 2013 as submitted by Matt Rivera and Laura Colvin, River City Rhythm Show Choir trip to Council Bluffs on March 2 & 3, 2013 submitted by Nick Oswald, and the River City Rhythm & Encore Show Choirs to Troy, Missouri on February 9, 2013 as submitted by Nick Oswald; and bills and claims against the district dated June 11, 2012. All ayes; motion carried.
Superintendent Decker shared that the board has put a lot of time in today discussing district goals and thought it would be appropriate to highlight a recent event. He noted that the district received an invitation from Linda Fandel of the Governor’s office to have our students come to Des Moines and talk about the district’s goals. Diane Campbell, Director of Secondary Innovation and Instruction, then introduced students Sabra Cacho, Liz Sturms, and Cooper Hopkins. Each student shared one or more of their experiences that related to this year’s board goals. Superintendent Decker noted that the board is aware of the district moving forward in its implementation of an alternative-‐type program. He shared that this is the first time the district has attempted something like this. He stated that this program is funded through at risk monies which does not affect the tax rate. He introduced Holly Hanna and Ryan Castle, both co-‐lead teachers for the Transitional Learning Center. Mrs. Hanna and Mr. Castle shared that the new program will be called the East Campus. They stated that the program will serve students in grades 7-‐12 and will be a flow-‐ through program with the goal of having students transition back to the regular classroom. They are still in the planning stages and are still in the hiring process of some positions. They noted there will be a transition team of high school and middle school staff to insure that collaborative methods are used to work as a team to support at risk students. It is planned that the program will also be incorporating student families. They stated that the first day of school is the target date to begin. Mrs. Hanna then talked about the curriculum and how they will be challenging the philosophy that the student’s path is already set. There will be community-‐based learning to provide students real world application. The community liaison will be providing those venues as well as work experience and internships. Other ideas include video production and culinary arts as a tie to chemistry and math. They will also be looking at ACT prep and college prep. The program will also address the social needs of the students and form bonds with their families. Director Mather asked how the program will be evaluated for success. Mrs. Hanna stated that they will be looking at student engagement and academic success. These students will be short credits, have low GPAs and the goal is to get the students back on track so that they can graduate with their class. Teachers will be checking in with their students every two weeks.
The board heard a second reading on the following policies:
603.02 603.03 703.02 703.04 704.05 706.02 803.00
Progress Reports for Students Permanent Records of Students Requisitions and Purchase Orders Approval and Payment of Goods and Services Audits Periodic Review of Insurance Program Disposal of School Equipment
Superintendent Decker noted that he had received a question regarding policy 603.03 and will follow up with that person before the third reading. Superintendent Decker then requested that items 4 and 5 be switched in its sequence on the agenda. Superintendent Decker introduced Iowa Association of School Boards representatives Tom Downs and Harry Heiligenthal. He stated that Mr. Downs and Mr. Heiligenthal had been with the board since 7 a.m. this morning. He noted that it was a good day and was rich with conversation. Mr. Downs shared that he and Mr. Heiligenthal typically are invited to talk to boards about the role of the IASB. He shared that this past September because of the change in Iowa law with school board elections there were 500 new school board members elected in the 374 districts in the state. Thus, many districts had huge turnover. He further noted that Muscatine has new members for the majority of the board joined by three veteran board members who are still learning. He reported that this board came to consensus today to do what is best for kids focusing on student achievement. He challenged the board during the morning session to find out what makes a team and what was determined from that challenge was that trust, mutual respect of differences, and the value of questioning beliefs were important for effective teams. He stated that he and Mr. Heiligenthal challenged them to commit to grow as a team and put theit best efforts out front to serve this community and their students. Mr. Downs stated that this district is a lighthouse district and recognized that it is progressive and innovative in its programs. He commended the board and administrative team for their willingness to take risks for students and to try to come together as a team. He shared that the board is still forming and norming, and thus, there will be occasional storms and those storms are all part of development. He stated that he is confident that those stages will be worked through and the board will become a cohesive team. He shared that goal setting is what will drive this district and that he will continue to challenge board thinking around policies and communication and growing in trust. He noted that school districts in Iowa will benefit from the experiences and learning that he and Mr. Heiligenthal will take from Muscatine’s board of directors.
Harry Heiligenthal shared that he leads board development or IASB. He stated that he and Mr. Downs are looking forward to coming back and working with the board again. He stated that the board will be working on what is its best hopes, where are they not as strong, and what will help them move forward. He looks forward to the next steps. Superintendent Decker shared that he felt like it was a productive day. He looks forward to July 9 to take another step. President Bower thanked them for coming. He felt that every minute was valuable and that the sharing that was done as a board team and administrative team was invaluable. President Bower then noted that as a result of board discussion today, item number 4 (Discussion of Policy 204.11 Order of Regular Business) was tabled as both Mr. Downs and Mr. Heiligenthal would like to work with the board team on this policy. Superintendent Decker then reviewed a powerpoint regarding the Instructional Suport Levy which centered on three clear messages: the ISL is important, the ISL is not a tax increase, and we are not in an equal position. Mr. Decker then illustrated and explained each point. The ISL is important as it will make a difference in how the district will be able to serve its students. He stressed that the district is not asking for or seeking additional resources. It will use the resources it has to serve the students in the way that it does now. He further stated that the levy is not being proposed to increase. The district is a very lean district administratively. He stated that right now, the district generates dollars for cash reserve; however, those dollars do not generate spending authority. He noted that part of the hesitation, he feels, has to do with trust. He feels that there should be trust within the community because the district did not raise taxes when it faced the $3.9 million shortfall two years ago (and Garfield was closed). Superintendent Decker stated that the levy can remain solid into the foreseeable future in order to maintain the levy the way it is but change the district’s ability to use the resources that it generates. Superintendent Decker noted that the district is not in an equal position with the other districts across the state. He noted that there are only 17 districts in the state without the ISL. Of the 30 largest districts in the state, there are only two without the ISL and Muscatine is the largest one. Every district in the top 31 districts is making a bigger investment in their students than what Muscatine is. He then sorted the top 30 school districts by levy rate and noted that our district’s rate is far down on the list. The districts with the lower levy rates are property-‐rich districts, so they actually generate much more money than what Muscatine does.
Mr. Decker stressed that Muscatine’s property valuation is low, the district’s levy is low, and it does not have the ISL, thus, the district is very lean. He stated that administration is asking to maintain the district tax levy rate as it is. He then noted that the levy has a much better chance in decreasing in the future; however, this cannot be guaranteed because the district does not control all of the factors. However, by looking at the patterns of what the district has done fiscally in the past, the area that we can control—the general fund, has had very little growth. He noted that the district also has no control over the 14% increase in categorical funding. Superintendent Decker stated that the last three years that he has been in the district have been three of the toughest years of school finance. The previous three years, the general fund had been increasing 4% per year and the last three years the general fund expenditures had been decreasing almost 2%. Even though we have made a great deal of improvement, we have done that with less money. The idea that there should be trust is shown. The district has shown fiscal responsibility as it has not passed on huge tax increases to its taxpayers. Superintendent Decker noted that the reason that he can say that with any certainty that the levy will not increase is because the district’s spending authority will not increase. Having the ISL will generate the dollars necessary to meet our spending authority. He stated that the district has a local obligation to fund this for its students. He stated that there isn’t a need to over tax, but if the district does not have the levy to meet its spending authority, the community and the board is not doing its students justice. The district will not raise the levy because the money generated would not give the district extra spending authority. It would be money put into savings and cannot be touched. That is why he can say that the levy rate is more likely to lower than to rise. He reiterated that his recommendation, because this is very important for the students, would be to implement the ISL by the board of education as it gives the district two opportunities to having it in place. A motion was made by Director Fox and seconded by Director Drawbaugh to approve the resolution to implement the Instruction Support Levy through board approval. Director Fox shared that he is in support of the Instructional Support Levy and strongly feels that the board should take action on it. He noted that as a school board, members are basically elected in this position by members of the community. He feels that their expectation is that the board takes care of the students in our district and does what needs to be done for its students. He is in favor of the board approved ISL because of its importance to the district’s students.
Director Mather stated that this is a decision that requires buy-‐in from the community and that he is firmly committed to a voter-‐approved ISL. Director of Finance Jean Garner noted that the board approves the levy rate each year, not the taxpayers. Superintendent Decker stated that because the board approves the levy rate each year, there is a check and balance. He noted that to put the district in a position where the board is not willing to fund the district’s basic spending authority, would put our students and our community at a huge disadvantage. He noted that he would agree with Director Mather if it is going above and beyond but because the district is property poor, it does not generate as much as other districts do, thus, the district will not be able to educate its students in the same way as other similar districts. He stressed that the board implementation does not take away the right of the voters as they can petition to have the ISL be brought to a vote. Director Mather stated that from his perspective it is not a lack of information but a difference in opinion. He noted that he appreciates the argument that there is a check and balance and that there is a risk that the community could vote it down. It is of his opinion that this would be a great opportunity to involve the community in a way that it has not been involved before allowing joint ownership in this. Director Fox noted that there is a time factor that needs to be considered. Mrs. Garner noted that if the ISL is voted down, the district could try again on February 5th; however this would be too late to make budget considerations for the following school year. Director Mather stated that he does not subscribe to this viewpoint. He noted that if there is ever going to be an opportunity to educate the community that is now when the board and district have the possibility of doing so. President Bower noted that he understands the issues and concerns of having the community involved. He stressed that this does not take away the community’s opportunity to vote on it. He stated that it is the board’s responsibility to move forward for the students and if the community has a concern, they can petition to have it brought to a vote. Roll call: Ayes: Bower, Drawbaugh, Fox. Nayes: Garcia-‐Van Auken, Jones, Mather, and Wildermuth. Motion did not carry.
Director Mather moved to approve the intent to participate in the voter approved Instructional Support Levy, split between property and income tax with the public hearing be set for October 8, 2012 for an authorization period of three years. He presented a written resolution that he had drawn up. Director Jones seconded the motion. Director Mather noted that December 4th would be the date for the vote, and it would avoid the problem that Mrs. Garner talked about regarding setting the budget. This would give the district time to educate the community. He feels that the three-‐year time span would allow the community to gain trust in the district. Director Fox asked if the document presented by Director Mather was shared with other school board members and asked if the board is a team or not. He noted that he had not seen or heard about the document before tonight and was shocked that Director Mather presented this motion. President Bower asked if the document was shared with four or more members. Director Mather stated that he had shared it with two other members. Director Garcia-‐Van Auken asked how the board feels about this. President Bower noted his dismay that there was not discussion of this after being together all day today, especially the three-‐year time frame. There has been a voter-‐approved for 10 years on the table and board approved for five years. He noted that he felt that the board had an extremely good session as a team today on board goals and setting them and establishing what the objectives could be. He stated that he does not like to raise taxes anymore than anyone else; however, he feels that the board is elected to make decisions, and if the community does not like the decision, they can petition to have it brought to a vote. He stated that he feels that delaying it that far out would require the district to start thinking about other positions or other programs it wants to put in place. He noted that he does not want to rush it through but asked is the board going to support it and move forward so that firmer decisions can be made as the district progresses further out into the future by our goals and what the board sets for building administrators and teams? Director Mather noted that at the last planning meeting he had asked Mrs. Garner in open session if the law permits the adoption period can be less than 10 years, so this is something that has been brought up. Superintendent Decker would like the board to have a conversation about the activity that the board participated in during the second session with IASB today (when Director Mather had to leave) regarding the role of board members. He feels that producing a resolution of intent is not the role of a board member.
Superintendent Decker stated that the resolutions of intent that have been placed before the board were taken from IASB’s website and were not produced by himself or the director of finance. He noted that he is not questioning Director Mather’s ability but to think about the activity and what is the role of board members, the superintendent, and others. He noted that he would give advice to board members to not undertake their vocation as part of a board member. He further noted that if one of the board members was an engineer, the district should not have that board member do engineering work for the district. There is a clear separation of the roles of board members and that is the activity that the board participated in late this afternoon with IASB. His best advice is that he doesn’t think that the mixing of the role of being a board member and providing legal documentation is one the board wants to start going down. There is a reason why IASB bounces their forms off of a team of attorneys throughout the state. Director Mather assured the board that he did not prepare this with the intent to act as an attorney for the board. He stated that he does not see his role as that and would never assume do that. He noted that his form was copied verbatim from IASB’s website. He further noted that the only thing that he changed were the dates and times and added the third “whereas” paragraph. He noted that the whereas paragraph is a statement of feeling. Director Garcia-‐Van Auken asked if the concern is that the board doesn’t want to adopt this even if we are in support of the ISL. President Bower stated that the question is to ask what is board policy. He stated that it is board policy to not enact any legal document brought to the board by a board member. Director Mather stated that he is open for the document to be re-‐cast capturing the same terms. Superintendent Decker advised the board that there seems to be an underestimation of the time/effort and impact to go through a special election, pay for a special election, and then have the potential to turn around and do it again in three years. He stated that this is something that is unprecedented. He stressed that there has been a bevy of research put in front of the board to show the funding situation of our district. He noted that he is not sure why we would want to put ourselves in a position that no other district has taken. He stated that 25 out of 29 of the top 31 school districts have a board-‐approved instructional support levy and the four have a voter-‐approved ISL. Our district is one of the lowest funded districts in the state. That has been clearly demonstrated. He stated that he does not understand why the board would want to put our students and the district at a disadvantage compared to other
districts by going through a special election and then having the potential to do it again three years later. Director Mather noted that there is nothing that says there has to be another special election. He stated that he is starting to reach the conclusion that the board will be hearing about this until we get the right answer and that is a little bit galling. He stated that there is a motion on the table that addresses the array of concerns that have been raised. He reiterated that there is a gap of trust that exists not just between factions on the board and administration but is present in the community as well. He sees this as an opportunity to engage the community to overcome that gap of trust. He stated that he feels that once everyone’s arrows are pointing in the right and same direction, including the community, that is when he thinks the district and board will be most powerful in advocating for the students. He noted that it is possible that reasonable minds can draw different conclusions from the same data and feels that is what is happening here. Wes Fowler reminded the board that it has a board appointed attorney to use as a resource to review documents. Director Garcia-‐Van Auken stated that in looking at the document it is the same as the others with the exception of the time frame of three years. President Bower noted that there is an additional “whereas” paragraph. He also noted that what concerns him is the fact that the board and administration was provided a legal document for review the night of the board meeting. Director Mather noted that at the April 23rd meeting the board had the same situation as it was asked to adopt a resolution and there was no legal document provided. He stated that he is open to a friendly amendment to redact the third whereas clause. Superintendent Decker stated that this does not alleviate his concerns. He noted that his concern is not the document itself but is the role of the board member and the role in how those kinds of things occur. Director Mather asked if it wouldn’t be a board members role to propose a resolution of intent with number of dates and authorization periods specified or is it the superintendent’s opinion that he should only be proposing a 5 or 10 year timeframe. Superintendent Decker noted that he is talking about the role of producing a legal document.
Director Mather then suggested that this document be torn up and rewritten. He stated that he did not produce the document. He filled in the blanks which is what was produced in the past by Mrs. Garner. He asked what the objection was. Superintendent Decker stated that he and the board were with each other all day today and that this is a motion that is very new and has not been proposed to the administration and hasn’t been proposed to the majority of the board. Director Mather noted that as Director Fox correctly pointed out that there is no way to propose this to the majority of the board except at an open board meeting without violating open meeting laws. President Bower asked if Director Mather had any discussion of this to Mr. Decker. Director Mather noted that he had been upfront at every single meeting regarding wanting to take this to the voters. He noted that the only thing that is different is the length of time and if that is what is getting people upset then is sorry. He further stated that he doesn’t know if that is an appropriate thing to become upset about but respects that some are and understands that. President Bower reminded the board that the motion on the table is to approve the ISL based upon the document that was provided by Director Mather and that this motion had been seconded. Director Mather also noted that because the hearing is October 8 he recommended that the board have counsel present if there are legal concerns. He also noted that he is open to a friendly amendment if board members are not comfortable with the whereas clause. He asked what policy is it that documents have to be shared with the superintendent. Director Drawbaugh stated that the board talked a lot about trust during the morning session and that Director Mather shared this with other board members, not a majority of board members, and asked where is the time that the board can have good conversation about this motion. She noted that if the motion would have been part of the agenda, there could have been communication before the meeting. She stated that to put ISL in place for three years is certainly better for our students than not put it in place at all. She further stated that she would feel a lot better if the board is setting the right example by growing together instead of running each person’s own marathon to district staff, its constituents, and the students and showing that the board can work together and communicate as opposed to surprising some board members and administration with this motion at the board table.
Director Mather noted that at the April 23rd meeting there was nothing in the board packet regarding the resolution that was given to the board that night at the board table. Director Fox moved to table the motion and discuss it at the next regular meeting. Director Wildermuth seconded that motion. Director Mather stated that if the concern about getting the ISL in place and moving it forward is directly antithetical to tabling it. This could have been done on April 23rd if there had been better communication but there wasn’t. He stated that at the last meeting, he was told that administration was blindsided by people changing their votes and voting different that this was not communicated to administration. He noted that the board policy states that the board president, in conjunction with the administration, builds consensus and explores what is likely to happen at the meetings. He stated that he has difficulty seeing the objection to him bringing the motion to the table in a way that any other way would violate open meeting laws. President Bower stated that if Director Mather had consulted with him prior to the meeting, he could have had discussed this with the Superintendent and both then would have known the direction Director Mather was planning to take. He stated there could have been dialogue between all three people including why Director Mather wanted the ISL in place for only three years and then discussing the impact this could have on the district. Everyone’s expertise could have been drawn upon. Director Mather asked how many more times will the board go through this until they get the answer that they want to hear. He noted that he understands the need to have adequate discussion on everything. He stated that if someone as hesitant as himself is willing to move forward on the ISL, it would be shocking that other people wouldn’t feel the same level of readiness. Director of Finance Jean Garner asked why limit the district to three years because the levy is set by the board annually. Director Mather stated that he will still be on the board in three years and does not feel that he can responsibly support an authorization that he cannot personally be accountable for. He noted that this would also be a chance for the community to see that this is not a tax increase but a chance to increase the amount of funding that the district is authorized to spend and that the board implementation going forward is not a huge deal. He noted that he had received a lot of phone calls saying that the board cannot do this and that it is a new tax.
He noted that this gives the district and the board time to explain to the community and incorporate them into the process. Mrs. Garner noted that she understands that to a point; however, the levy rate is still an annually decided point. She asked Director Mather why arbitrarily limit the district because it will be judged annually. Director Mather noted that he wants to be able to be accountable for any potential increase that he authorizes and three years is the limit that he can maintain accountability. President Bower noted that the board is making decisions every day that extend well beyond 3, 5, and 10 years for the benefit of the students. The board reviews the levy rate every year. Director Mather stated that the ISL has failed every time and wanted to know how often does administration have to bring it up. Superintendent Decker stated that that statement is a misnomer. He remarked that yes, it has failed every time. The first time, the ISL was voted on as a 10-‐year voter-‐approved option by three members. The next time it was voted against by those same members for the same 10-‐year voter approved option. Now there is a totally different option on the table. Superintendent Decker encouraged the entire board to think about the advocacy of the board of education and what is the higher calling for the board: to do what is good for the students or do what is accountable to the community for three years. Director Mather stated that he feels that statement is misleading. He stated that what he feels is best for the students is to have the ISL but have the community be firmly behind it and be involved in the process. President Bower noted that he feels the community involvement piece has come from the newspaper and the documentation from these meetings. He noted that he has heard board members talk about the phone calls opposing the ISL; however, any contact that he has received is that they fully support it and to move forward or that the board should make those decisions. He stated that he has not received one phone call from the community saying do not vote for the ISL. Roll call to table the motion to approve the resolution of intent to participate in a three-‐year voter-‐approved Instructional Support Levy until the next regular
board meeting on July 9, 2012: Ayes: Bower, Drawbaugh, Fox, and Wildermuth. Nayes: Garcia-‐Van Auken, Jones, and Mather. Motion carried. President Bower asked that communication on the intent to participate to please be communicated to Mr. Decker so that there is a clear understanding to the thought process and how the motion should be presented at the board table. Director Mather requested there be a moratorium to casting aspersions and saying that one side or the other doesn’t care about the students or isn’t advocating for the students. He stated that he feels that this is unhelpful and insulting. Superintendent Decker asked Mr. Mather to meet with him to have a conversation regarding that statement. President Bower noted that the board had a very good discussion this morning on trust and had discussion on how to work and build ourselves as a board team and is concerned about that based on tonight’s discussion. Director Mather stated that trust doesn’t mean doing everything that you want. Director Bower agreed. Director Mather noted that he had shared his concerns about trust earlier today and that he felt marginalized. He stated that this is not the forum for that discussion and is not on the agenda. Director of Human Resources Wes Fowler reviewed the Employment Recommendations and noted that the leave of absence request is a normal request; however, board policy states that the employee must be employed for five years before a request can be granted. The district has made exceptions in the past and asked that an exception be made in this circumstance as well as it is in the best interest of the district and the students. A motion was made by Director Mather and seconded by Director Wildermuth to approve the leave of absence request for Kelly Brueggen. All ayes; motion carried. A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Drawbaugh to approve the following employment recommendations: The certified staff resignations of: Michael Maher, Julie Mosher, Dawn Rhodes, Mary Jane Maher, Nicole Wersinger, Corri Guy, Becky Zeck, Olga Johnson, Robin Griggs, and Erin Damisch. The schedule C resignations of:
Lauri Ford – Asst High School Student Council Advisor, Troy Kullan –Asst High School Track, and Randy Ball – Asst High School Football. The certified staff new hires of: Katie Golien, Amanda Darbyshire, Ashley Mohor, John Dockery-‐Jackson, John Boylan, MacKenzie Murray, Debra Lara, Heather Runyan, Adrianna Corby, Rachel Breitbach, Kelly Robison, Kayla Thompson, and Shauna Dennison. The schedule C new hires of: Wade McLeod – MHS Head Wrestling Coach, Tom Wilson – MHS assistant football coach, and Duane Williams – MHS assistant football coach. Superintendent Decker explained that the position that John Boylan was hired for appears to be a new position but in reality it is two half-‐time positions being fulfilled by one person. Director Mather asked regarding the hire of Ms. Dennison to replace Mrs. Corri Guy. Mr. Fowler noted that the salary is higher, but Ms. Dennison’s experience is also higher. She is coming to the district from being in a head principal position and comes with education and with robust experience in a senior administrative type role. Superintendent Decker noted that this particular associate principal position handles special education at the high school and that the salary is determined by a formula. Mr. Fowler also noted that this goes back to being competitive and making a competitive offer. All ayes; motion carried. A motion was made by Director Drawbaugh and seconded by Director Garcia-‐ Van Auken to approve the 3.72% settlement for MEA, Certified Administrators, and Classified Professionals. President Bower thanked Mr. Fowler for his hard work as well as those who participated in the meetings. All ayes; motion carried.
Director of Elementary Innovation and Instruction Shane Williams and Technology Supervisor Scott Comstock updated the board on the 1:1 implementation. They noted that the student computers are in and the technology team will be getting those set up and ready to go. Mr. Comstock noted that the lease agreement needed to be broken into two agreements so that the computers could be shipped in a more timely fashion.
A motion was made by Director Drawbaugh and seconded by Director Garcia-‐ Van Auken to approve the amendment of the 1:1 Lease Agreement that was approved on May 18, 2012. All ayes; motion carried.
Mr. Williams then updated the board on the last SIAC meeting. He noted that they will be actively recruiting new members that will be willing to serve on the committee. President Bower stated that if there are interested parties that would like to participate on this important committee to please contact Mr. Williams at the Board Office. Mr. Williams stated that this is a critical committee as it acts as the liaison between the district and the community. Mr. Williams then updated the board on the TAG Advisory Committee. He noted that a meeting was held in May in which the TAG survey was finalized. The committee surveyed different stakeholders this year and they were asked 18 different questions on a variety of topics. There were 140 respondents. A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Drawbaugh to approve the Central Middle School and West Middle School Student Handbooks. All ayes; motion carried. Director of Finance Jean Garner reviewed the financial synopsis of the district as of May 2012. She also reviewed the financial and treasurer’s balance for the General, Schoolhouse, Nutritional, Activity, and Payroll funds. Superintendent Decker noted that Ms. Collinson had a family emergency and had to leave. He asked that the items under the Director of Special Programs section of the agenda be tabled except the request to approve the Timberline contract. A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Wildermuth to approve the Timberline Services Contract. All ayes; motion carried. A motion was made by Director Wildermuth and seconded by Director Drawbaugh to set a special meeting to award the Muscatine High School Project Phase One Contract on June 27, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. All ayes; motion carried. Superintendent Decker stated that he will have individual conversations with board members to determine whether the ISL will be held sooner than the July 9th regular meeting. President Bower announced the upcoming regularly scheduled board meetings: July 9, 2012 at 7 p.m. at City Hall and August 13, 2012 at 7 p.m. at City Hall.
A motion was made by Director Jones and seconded by Director Wildermuth to adjourn the meeting. All ayes; motion carried. Time: 9:16 pm. Tim Bower, President Lisa Mosier, Secretary