| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-11-13 || Community Partnerships || Next: 2007-02-12 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Community Partnerships January 22, 2007 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Community Partnerships Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Lucy Mathiak at 5 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Members Lucy Mathiak, Arlene Silveira, Shwaw Vang;
Citizen Members Barbara Schrank, Carl Silverman
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHER BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Lawrie Kobza, Johnny Winston, Jr.
STUDENT LIAISON PRESENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Lisa Black, Shelby Floyd, Mary Gulbrandsen, Pam Nash, Roger Price, Art Rainwater, Ken Syke, Ann Wilson-Recording Secretary, Nancy Yoder
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Carl Silverman to approve the minutes of the Community Partnerships Committee meeting dated November 13, 2006. Motion unanimously carried.
2. Public Appearances
There were no public appearances.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
4. Community Organizations that are Funded out of the MMSD 2006-07 Fund 80 Budget
(Written materials provided in advance of the meeting: Memorandum from Art Rainwater dated 1/18/07 re: Community Service Grants. Written materials provided at the meeting: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Community Service Fund Information. All attached to the original copy of these minutes.)
Shwaw Vang recused himself from discussion of this agenda item due to a conflict of interest.
Art Rainwater reviewed the written information provided, including background information and the decision points for Board of Education members. He reviewed a list of the programs currently funded, the amount of funding received, timeframe, and services provided. The questions before the committee are:
(a) Should the Board continue funding community organizations from the Community Service Fund?
(b) If the Board decides to fund community organizations, should they continue the current level of funding?
(c) If the Board decides to fund community organizations, should they continue the current funded partners or open the grant process to other applicants?
(d) If the Board decides to open the process to other applicants, what process should be used?
Mr. Rainwater shared the administrative recommendation that the Board of Education continue funding the current partners, that there be a study of how grants are awarded, and that procedures be established for applications for funding for the 2008-09 budget cycle.
Superintendent Rainwater noted that the timeline for approval of these grants would be the same as for other district budget items. If the committee wishes, it can determine an amount to be included in the budget and make decisions about the process for selection and awarding grants separately. It would be timely to inform organizations about funding decisions by April at the latest.
DISCUSSION:
· There are no other community service grants in the budget. Most or all receive funding from other sources as well as the district.
· In the future, support greater focus on academic emphasis. Should not lose sight of the district's academic mission.
· Important to review what should be funded in the future. When current budget process is complete, will be able to review needs and develop a focus.
· Would like input from Finance and Operations about the appropriate size of the Fund 80 budget, where cuts have been made, where partnerships might be needed.
· MSCR, the major budget under Fund 80, has not been asked to cut budget, but growth has been capped at 4.2%.
· Most items legitimately located in Fund 80 have been moved there; anticipate no movement of significance. DPI accounting guidelines describe eligibility for Fund 80.
· Would be valuable for the committee to discuss vision and goals; wonderful resource - could be transformative.
· Committee should discuss decision items and hear reports from each of the funded organizations. Attend to timeline so that needs of partners can be addressed in consideration of their budget needs as well.
Lisa Black has been working with each organization to develop an evaluation plan. She is also visiting each program. Reports will include information about what has been achieved and how resources have been used.
Lucy Mathiak summarized the tasks before the committee: (a) recommend an amount of money to set aside for the budget for community service organizations from Fund 80; (b) hear presentations from each organization in February to get a sense of the current status and decide whether currently funded organizations should be automatically funded again; (c) for the long term, develop the committee's recommended vision and mission for this type of partnership; and (d) develop a recommended process for awarding community service Fund 80 grants. She envisioned these as tasks the committee would accomplish during its current term.
It was moved by Carl Silverman and seconded by Barbara Schrank that the sum total budgeted for Fund 80 Community Service Grants in the current budget ($532,800) be the same for the 2007-2008 budget. Barbara Shrank offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Carl Silverman, that the amount for the 2007-2008 budget be at least the same amount ($532,800). Motion unanimously carried.
FOLLOW-UP:
· The committee would like to see again the information Roger Price had presented earlier about the affect of Fund 80 on the tax levy.
· Lisa Black will work with the funded organizations to schedule four presentations in February and four in March. Budget information will be included, and plans for expending future funds.
5. Other Business
There was no other business.
6. Adjournment
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carl Silverman to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.
aw
Previous: 2006-11-13 || Community Partnerships || Next: 2007-02-12