| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-10-23 || Human Resources || Next: 2006-12-18 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Human Resources November 27, 2006 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Human Resources Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Ruth Robarts at 6:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lawrie Kobza, Ruth Robarts, Shwaw Vang
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHER BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Lucy Mathiak, Arlene Silveira, Johnny Winston, Jr.
STAFF PRESENT: Jennie Allen, Bruce Dahmen, Mark Evans, Mary Gulbrandsen, Chris Hodge, Linda Kailin, Frank Kelly, Howard Landsman, Bob Nadler, Pam Nash, Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Mary Teppo, Lisa Wachtel, Nancy Yoder, Barbara Lehman - Recording Secretary, and several more principals
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Shwaw Vang and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to approve the minutes for the Human Resources Committee meeting dated October 23, 2006as distributed. Motion unanimously carried.
2. Public Appearances
JoAnn Tiedemann, Library Media Specialist, spoke about the work of the Specialists and how they provide materials for everyone in the district. A packet of information was distributed to the Board (copies are attached to the original of these minutes).
John Burkholder/Julie Frentz, Midvale and Van Hise Elementary School principals, respectively, representing the AMSDA group (Association of Madison School District Administrators), thanked the Board for its support to minimize the budget cuts. They had concerns with regard to administrator contract renewals and timeline and merit pay and about health benefits changes they knew were coming their way. They thought their benefits were pretty competitive, retirement benefits continue to fall behind, and it is difficult to keep current administrators and attract the best out there. They have had a nearly 50 percent turnover in principals in the past four years. Regarding contract renewals and timelines - right now they enjoy two-year contracts, but if they are not renewed until the end of the two year cycle, stability would be removed. Merit pay was redone over the last couple years or at least the evaluation criteria to qualify were modified. Administrators are held to high standards, they are held accountable, and they can target areas for improvement that they themselves choose. Health benefits: they support the change from WPS to a selection of HMOs if it allows the district to be fiscally prudent. They supported the 5 percent co-pay two years ago as it was in the best interest of achieving a balanced budget at that time. They asked that the Board keep in mind that, while they are in support, they have been receiving comments about people having to change doctors and the duress this adds. They hoped to have 85 percent of the savings returned to them as it was for the AFSCME unit. They were in support of moving from WPS to a HMO, but it is a decrease in benefits. They were very worried about this change and not being able to continue to see the doctors they see. They proposed an option that would end the 5 percent co-pay and allow people to choose between any of the three HMOs at no additional cost.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
Items 4 and 5 were taken up together.
4. Review of Administrative Contract Renewal and Merit pay for Administrators
(Packets included a list of administrative positions covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24; a timeline to be used for layoff, non-renewal, and renewal of administrative contracts; written policies and procedures pertaining to layoff, non-renewal and renewal of administrative contracts; list of other personnel; and policies pertaining to merit pay for Administrators. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Ms. Robarts stated that when the Board met last June, there were areas of concern for the year, and one was assigned to the Human Resources Committee to look at all aspects of hiring, pay packages, etc. Information she requested was made available to the committee members prior to the holiday break. She hoped to focus on the initial part of this discussion. Please see Item 5 of the agenda for a list of the materials that were provided.
5. Report from Administration to review the following:
· Administrative positions covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24 governing renewal and non-renewal of certain administrative positions in school districts.
· Timeline MMSD will use for the Administrative positions covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24 for lay-off, non-renewal and renewals later in 2006-07.
· Written policies and procedures pertaining to lay-off, non-renewal or renewal that applies to administrative positions that are covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24.
· List of all positions not covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24 relative to administrators, supervisors, and non-union-professionals
· Timeline that MMSD will use for lay-off, non-renewal and renewals later in 2006-07 for Administrators, Supervisors, and Non-Union-Professional positions not covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24
· All written policies and procedures pertaining to lay-off, non-renewal or renewal that apply to Administrators, Supervisors, and Non-Union-Professional positions not covered by Wis. Stats. Section 118.24
· All written policies and procedures pertaining to merit pay for administrators, supervisors, non-union-professionals.
Mr. Nadler indicated that the district has never had an administrative layoff. It is the administration's feeling that the non-renewal process is sufficient and layoffs serve no real purpose. The dates for non-renewal are expressed in the state statutes and all were included in the packet. Non-represented employees are at-will employees and do not get contracts. He anticipates that should there be reductions in those areas, these employees would be subject to layoff procedures even though there have been no layoffs in this area either.
DISCUSSION:
§ Preliminary notification is on January 30 and final notification is on February 28.
§ Positions that are non-renewed would end in June.
§ Non-renewal is the end of a contract with no rights to a recall.
§ Difference between non-renewal and extension decision - most contracts are two-year contracts and will not be expiring so the non-renewal does not apply for this January under the law? Have had conflicting opinions, but that is correct, two-year contracts would not be extended for another two-year term and cannot non-renew two-year contracts at this point.
§ Human Resources policies are the ones that governed and talked about how to extend? Yes, for two-year contracts the last year of the contract would be the official non-renewal period. So for this January, it is the one-year contracts that have the non-renewal issues? Yes. Administration does not have these yet; they were not requested.
§ The policy that applies is #2.06, paragraph 2, covering extensions of two-year contracts by Board decision in the spring of every year to get the two-year rolling contracts. Does not tie in very well with budgeting period. Would like to ask this committee and Board if it makes sense to change that from February to July 1 so it is consistent. Reduction in force possibly becomes more real every year and yet there is no way to deal with reductions on their merits in order to get to a balanced budget. The suggestion, instead of directing administration to create a reduction in force policy, is to move the one-year contract extension date from spring to June 30. Renewals are due back to Human Resources in mid-April. The paragraph in the policy relative to rolling two-year contracts for administrators has been used several times with the understanding that their positions would be valid only one year longer.
§ Reduction in force procedure requires a one-year notice.
§ Another provision of this policy addresses the situation in which the district is considering reorganization that would result in the elimination of a position: Past issue was which employees should have administrator contracts. The statute is ambiguous and leans toward having more contracts. But if the district was reducing and changing to at-will positions, those jobs would not be eliminated. It should allow for non-extensions if there is a transfer to an at-will position. This policy does not allow that because it assumes that the position will be gone. It says to always issue another one-year extension unless considering reorganization. Would like to see this revised. Follow up: Request that the Communications Committee ask the legislative delegation for clarification. The statute is not as clear as it could be, however, it does name four kinds of positions which we have, through practice, extended. We have gone farther than the legislature might have ever expected. When 118.24 came into being, it gave administrators the same tenure status like teachers have in Wisconsin. The application to 10 positions leaves lot of questions that administrators should look at.
§ Human Resources Policy 9.04: has not been revised in a while. Seems inconsistent with performance appraisal process. It is. Evaluation procedure was revised. Policy needs to be updated.
§ Human Resources Policy 2.06: Board approval is stated at the bottom as the spring deadline. Administration will find the minutes that reflects this Board action and will inform the Board via e-mail.
§ Merit pay: Appears that this wage scale tops people out early in their administrative careers. So long as the employee receives a number of exemplary and competent ratings, they get and increase every three years of 3 percent.
§ Agree that the plan is confusing with having grades/steps, especially when it seems there is are pretty standard increases. What is the purpose for the grade and step and salary ranges? May be that the ranges are not right and that, instead of merit pay, the grades and steps and salaries should be adjusted to make them more competitive. How do we find out if similar to other governmental entities? Increases dictated by Qualified Economic Offer (QEO) in a systematic schedule. Every year about one-third will receive a merit increase. Everyone gets a merit increase. There are exceptions. Cannot go over what the teachers received the year before under state law. In addition, merit pay right now is the only thing keeping the district competitive with other districts that do not have a rigid salary schedule like the MMSD. Other districts allow individuals to negotiate their own contracts. Can look at how to do that, but we are more restricted the way the schedule is set up than anyone else. But one of the problems with that is it favors hiring internal candidates. Unless you go from administrator to administrator position. Follow up: Would like to have an outside entity analyze the MMSD salary schedules and ranges. Could do an RFP or secure the company that the district already uses. Well over 94 percent are getting merit pay. More the routine than not. May not be able to separate those but could talk to the WASB and ask them for their information on salary scales for others around the state and the things raised at this meeting. It is extremely inflexible. There has been some principal turnover that needs to be looked at. Have to do what we can to retain the best staff. Worry that we may be losing a lot of people here. Have to consider how we can save money and evaluate this whole process. If there are any changes, no one would go back; just to make that clear. Merit pay really is longevity based unless the person is not performing at proficient. Must have at least one exemplary. Important to have someone whose compensation is not based on this plan. Would like data-based decision.
§ The merit system has survived because of the complexity of trying to change salary schedules under current legislative guidelines. It gave the district a way to evaluate administrators on their performance and make sure they were at least proficient or exemplary rather than just getting paid for survival. It has possibly outlived its usefulness. It has not been studied for a number of years. Have to keep in mind theextent to which the QEO will be with us, but that should not be the number one parameter.
§ Next meeting December 18.
6. Proposal to Revise Goals and Calendar for the Human Resources Committee
(Packets included a revised goals and agenda for the Human Resources committee for 2006-07. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Ms. Robarts made a proposal to change the agenda. If the committee continues what it is doing now, they will make recommendations in December about the issues discussed tonight, then in January a lot of comparisons could be made. February is open and March is available for a report on Minority Recruitment. The full Board is taking a look at wages for next year, so it seems appropriate to put something else in January. Ms. Kobza also had an idea for Human Resources. Clear the January agenda and hope to hear from the administration on these issues. Discussion of administrator pay schedule will go past December and may fit in to January. Would like to leave February open for student conduct and discipline; committees are needed to give time to that.
7. Other Business
No discussion.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Shwaw Vang and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to adjourn the meeting at 7 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.
bl