2012 06 11 Regular1

UNOFFICIAL  MINUTES MUSCATINE  BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS REGULAR  MEETING June  11,  2012 The  Board  of  Directors  of  the ...

0 downloads 214 Views 135KB Size
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