| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-02-13 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-03-06 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session February 27, 2006 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, McDaniels Auditorium Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Carol Carstensen at 5:49 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Bill Keys, Lawrie Kobza, Juan José López (arrived 6:10 p.m.), Ruth Robarts, Shwaw Vang, Johnny Winston, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
PRESENT: Connor Gants
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Bruce Dahmen, Mark Evans, Mary Gulbrandsen, Kurt Kiefer, Bob Nadler, Pam Nash, Roger Price, Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Loren Rathert, Linda Sweeney, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve the minutes of the Special meetings dated November 21 and November 28, 2005 as distributed. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
2. Public Appearances
a. Public hearing to provide the owners and electors who signed the Swan Creek petition the opportunity to meet with the Madison School Board to provide their reasons for requesting the detachment of the Swan Creek of Nine Springs Subdivision from the Madison Metropolitan School District and the attachment of such subdivision to the Oregon Area School District.
b. Public hearing to provide electors and property owners relative to the Pellet property which is an area proposed to be detached from Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District and attached to Madison Metropolitan School District the opportunity to meet with the Madison School Board to present reasons for or against the proposed reorganization.
c. Public hearing to provide electors and property owners relative to the Miller property which is an area proposed to be detached from the Verona Area School District and attached to the Madison Metropolitan School District the opportunity to meet with the Madison School Board to present reasons for or against the proposed reorganization.
Romney Ludgate stated that they had a signed petition requesting their neighborhood be detached from the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) that reached over 85 percent of their neighborhood. Seventy-seven percent signed the petition. He added that every school would be overcrowded in a few short years that the district wants to send their children to. They want Oregon schools.
Jennifer Shanahan, parent in Swan Creek, stated that her daughter will enter kindergarten next year and they were very apprehensive about their options. The issues and options have divided their neighborhood. Several parents are opting out of the MMSD or home schooling. She did not feel comfortable with any of the options and did not want to be on a roller coaster every few years. She added that Madison does not have room for them and Oregon does.
Deborah Gilbert, Swan Creek resident, in reference to their petition to be detached from the MMSD, she stated that 85 percent of the residents that they received a response from supported the petition. She added that at the time the district attached Swan Creek the residents there were assured that there would be room at Leopold. Now they are being told the district does not have room. They expect to come back again and again. Many are assuming that a referendum will have to pass. She did not see anything working without a school in Fitchburg and she did not see that happening. Oregon has room. She added that it was time to reverse the decision and that it was within the Board's power to support them. (Copies of her summary points, options projected to 2010-11, and standardized test results for 4th grade are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Renee Hammond, Swan Creek resident, also supported the petition to return their neighborhood to their original school district. She stated that the Task Force's recommendations become viable without them. She added that if the Board denies the petition, they would take it as a guarantee of space for the next five years and beyond.
Juan José López arrived.
Mary Ann Roelke, Mendota PTO president, was concerned about boundary changes that will increase the distribution of poverty and cutting psychologists and social workers. She hoped for a cap on the 4/5 classrooms at 20 so they could keep their allocations. She also hoped that the students from the Packers Townhouses would be reunited into one school.
Sharon Redinger, O'Keeffe PTG president, supported the recommendation to adjust the feeder pattern to O'Keeffe to balance the poverty level and opposed the recommendation to move the Alternatives to Lapham. She did not believe the student population would be as low as projected.
Sally de Broux, Marquette/Lapham PTG president, supported keeping Lapham as it is. She added that many people are moving into the downtown condominiums and that the City wants to court families. Lapham is a neighborhood asset with economic diversity.
Josh Day, East Task Force, stated that they felt closing schools was a short-term solution to a long-range problem; they voted 12-5 to stop talking about closing schools. This is where he stated that the Task Force began to break down and that the district had a hard time dropping the idea. He felt it was a misuse of their time and distrust developed. There are 1,500 units slated to be built on East Washington Avenue. Madison has one of the best public school programs in the country and they wanted to engage in a strategy to preserve that in these dark times. He said they needed flexibility to preserve the small local neighborhood schools. Local attendance levels will go up and down and that needs to be embraced. He preferred to move adults first, to create a list of all core functions and rank them based on the most vital to the most expendable, and to make that very public. He indicated that people do not understand the progressive cuts.
Written registrations included four in support of keeping schools open and six in support of maintaining Lapham as it is.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
4. Petition to detach the Swan Creek of Nine Springs Subdivision from the MMSD and the Attachment of such Territory to the Oregon Area School District
No discussion.
5. a. Resolution ordering the denial of the detachment of the Swan Creek of Nine Springs Subdivision from the MMSD and the attachment of such territory to the Oregon Area School District
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Counsel (2/23/06) regarding the Swan Creek petition; the resolutions ordering the denial and ordering the detachment; maps of the development; the boundary agreement with Oregon; the appeal of Phillip Sveum (4/21/03); a memorandum from Legal Counsel (2/2/06) regarding the request to transfer the Swan Creek Subdivision back to the Oregon School District; the petition to alter school district boundaries (1/23/06); and the Order of the School District Boundary Appeal Board (6/3/03). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve the denial of the detachment of the Swan Creek of Nine Springs Subdivision from the MMSD and the attachment of such territory to the OregonAreaSchool District.
Discussion: Legal obligation. No residents there when it was acquired. Not sure of voting date for Oregon School Board. If not acted on tonight, it is deemed denied. Continuing to look for long-term solutions for the entire district. Residents can appeal to the School District Boundary Appeals Board. District has reasonable chance of prevailing at that level. Action needed by both Boards.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
b. Resolution ordering the detachment of the Swan Creek of Nine Springs Subdivision from the MMSD and the attachment of such territory to the Oregon Area School District
No discussion.
6. Resolution ordering the Pellet property detached from the Middleton-CrossPlainsSchool Districtand attached to the MMSD
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Counsel (2/23/06) and the resolution. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Bill Keys to approve a resolution ordering territory detached from the Middleton-CrossPlainsSchool Districtand attached to the MMSD pursuant to Section 117.13, Wis.Stats.
Discussion: Pellet was considered in the Task Force recommendations and the build-out. Was not planned for right now. Did not consider Miller; only five students.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
7. Resolution ordering the Miller property detached from the VeronaAreaSchool Districtand attached to the MMSD
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Counsel (2/23/06) and the resolution. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Juan José López to approve a resolution ordering territory detached from the VeronaAreaSchool Districtand attached to the MMSD pursuant to Section 117.13, Wis.Stats. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
8. Final Report of the East Attendance Area Demographics and LongRangeFacility Needs Task Force
The following members of the Task Force were present: Josh Day, O'Keeffe; Linda Galang, Emerson; Laura Chastain, Marquette; Matt Calvert, Lapham; Jill Jokela, Black Hawk; Michelle Brokaw, Mendota; Steve Marshall, Lake View; James Howard, at-large member.
Each of the members was asked for their perspective: challenging, some lack of clarity, balancing income, no agenda and starting from scratch was time wasting, spent lot of time trying to figure out the questions, great facilitators, lengthy discussion on some of the issues, spent a lot of time gathering data but not enough time to hash out ideas, started out really slow looking at the numbers, came to an abrupt halt, no closure, struggled with what we should be looking at what issues to address, enrollment projections so different from last year, should have regrouped at that time because of the growth in La Follette area, good idea to look at feeder patterns but not enough time to discuss, cleaner charge would have been better, felt hemmed in without La Follette being included, impact of budget issues, honored to serve, unique perspective, data vacuum, misgivings about putting large group of people together, about the time people understood it was over. Excess space is being used efficiently. Projections vary by school. Financial benefits to closing schools not worth the cost. Space issues not so glaring. Took off the table the idea of moving students from the West to the East side because of the cost of busing and making low-income numbers higher. Could have had organization with the other task force. Issues associated with moving the Affiliated Alternatives and MSCR. Lack of ELL program at Mendota. Most members said they would serve again. Students are achieving.
Discussion: Fully developed ideas were put out last time and people did not want that. Adjusting feeder patterns, capping size at Mendota, moving Packers Townhouses to one school. Equity Task Force coming back in the fall. How the decision was made to not close a school. Maintaining equity while cutting the budget. Research on high performing, high minority, high low-income schools. Using supplemental allocation to increase social workers. Difficult to separate race from income in Madison. Joint meeting good idea to have dialogue. Lot of work to represent some pockets of neighborhoods. An East and La Follette Task Force would have been better. Geography of Madison makes it difficult to do anything.
Recessed at 8:09 p.m.
Reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Shwaw Vang to remove from the table the recommendation to move the Affiliated Alternatives to Marquette/O'Keeffe.
Discussion: Currently have a good space and educationally unsound to move them.
Ruth Robarts made a substitute motion, seconded by Bill Keys, that the Board adopt the recommendations to adjust the East Area middle school feeder pattern as a method to reduce the low-income percentage at Sherman and increase enrollment at O'Keeffe, and move the undeveloped areas in the Milwaukee Street area from the La Follette Area to the East Area.
Discussion: Change in La Follette will be discussed eventually. There is sufficient capacity at O'Keeffe. Taking this action does not foreclose having space for La Follette. Children currently at Sherman would stay at Sherman and new children would go to O'Keeffe. Plenty of space.
Question was called by Johnny Winston, Jr.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Shwaw Vang that all 57 Packers Townhouse students attend one school.
Discussion: Issue of 10-12 minutes in their schedule. Administration will look at ways to do this.
Johnny Winston, Jr. withdrew his motion.
Further discussion: There are 10-12 students at Lindbergh and the rest attend Mendota. Not a simple move while preserving educational viability.
FOLLOW UP: Provide recommendations for the Packers Townhouse students going to one school on an agenda.
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to remove from consideration moving MSCR to Emerson.
Discussion: Value to West side citizens. More a budget issue than a facility solution. Looking at Hoyt and Doyle buildings during the budget process. Utilization is very high at Hoyt.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Ruth Robarts to remove from the table moving the Affiliated Alternatives to Marquette/O'Keefe.
Discussion: Advantages to having all the programs in one building and sharing resources. If moved, having age differences further apart is better. Successful programs.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Shwaw Vang to cap the fourth and fifth grade classrooms at 20 at Mendota.
Discussion: Has to be dealt with in the context of the budget. Addresses the same problems that the Task Force addressed.
Ms. Carstensen would not say that the motion was out of order. Bill Keys challenged the chair to overrule and Johnny Winston, Jr. seconded the challenge. Ruth Robarts withdrew her motion, Shwaw Vang withdrew is second, Bill Keys withdrew his challenge, and Johnny Winston, Jr. withdrew his second to the challenge.
Discussion continued: Confirmed that there is currently nothing on the table that would close Lapham. A board member did ask for an impact report on it, the administration did the report, no motion was made.
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Juan José López to move consideration of capping the 4th and 5th grade classes at 20 at Mendota to the Performance and Achievement Committee.
Discussion: Budget issue. The Superintendent indicated that if this is to be studied, then the study should include all schools that are similarly situated. Ms. Robarts agreed to incorporate this.
Ms. Robarts amended her motion, seconded by Juan José López, to refer the question of capping the fourth and fifth grade classrooms at 20 each at Mendota and other similarly situated schools to the Performance and Achievement Committee.
Discussion: It was suggested that the motion be taken up informally and put on an agenda for discussion. There was an objection that the motion was out of order because it was budgetary but Ms. Carstensen noted that it could be referred to another committee. Mr. Keys challenged the ruling. It was argued that the agenda item was very broad and that closely related options could be considered, that committee referral was not the strongest way to deal with it, and because they were not going to move on recommendation #4 ideas 1) and 2). Shwaw Vang seconded the challenge.
Further discussion: It was clarified that there are no formal caps anywhere but there are other schools similarly situated. An aye vote would challenge the ruling of the chair and a no vote would not.
Student Representative advisory vote was nay. Motion failed 2-5 with Bill Keys and Shwaw Vang voting aye.
Shwaw Vang amended the motion that instead of referring the issue to the Performance and Achievement Committee that it be referred to the full Board. Accepted as friendly by mover and seconder. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. The motion, as amended, carried 5-2 with Carol Carstensen and Bill Keys voting no.
9. Alternative Uses of the DoyleAdministrationBuildingincluding the Possibility of Selling or Leasing the Building
(Packets included a Doyle Property Analysis (2/8/06). A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Points to consider: restrictions because of the landmark status, conservancy cost to retrofit for office use, cost to move people out ($8 million), tearing down residual property value, decentralizing the administration in a district this size, displacing people a second time when space is needed for La Follette and as the East side comes back.
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to direct the administration to identify the two or three best recommendations for using the DoyleBuildingand property to generate revenue for the district for the next five years and bring them back to the Board.
Discussion: Need for a 3-5 year plan for the district, doing this before having a referendum that would build a new school on the far west side where the district owns property, community expectations for exhausting the possibilities for using assets already owned, Doyle's desirable land and location, clear message to the university and the city that the district would entertain offers but would need to move administrative space somewhere else, paid independent analysis of the value of the building, willingness on the part of the City and the Landmarks Commission to lift the status.
Student Representative advisory vote was nay. Motion failed 2-5 with Lawrie Kobza and Ruth Robarts voting aye.
FOLLOW UP: Administration will follow up with the Landmarks Commission, the Planning Commission and City Zoning on the status of the Doyle Building.
10. Contracts for the Administrators of the MMSD
Malina Piontek forwarded to the Board the history of the law. Bob Nadler reviewed what has been learned. He noted that the district adopted the rolling two-year contracts back in the early to mid-90s and have been functioning that way ever since. There are options—giving contracts to administrator is voluntary on the Board's part but consistent with the rest of the state. It is the Board's decision to keep going or not. If not, for the first year of a two-year contract, no extension would be given for another year. That would put all administrators on a one-year contract. Then in January or February, the Board could have the right to non-renew them. People may leave the district in favor of more job security at the other 80-90 districts in the state and the better people leave first.
Discussion: Salary schedule is still ahead of most districts but more metro areas are catching up. The MMSD is still in the upper one-third for existing administrators and that is merit pay. MMSD starting salaries are not competitive any longer. It gives a narrow picture of what the MMSD looks for. The district is not in the ballpark in the areas of benefits, professional development, and retirement. The MMSD is very rapidly not becoming competitive.
Mr. Nadler added that he has delayed getting out information to the administrations on the request for continuation of contracts. It was not critical, but he could not delay too much longer. The process would move forward unless the Board takes other action.
Further discussion: Look at people of color. Rolling over the two-year contracts is the district's policy if there is satisfactory performance. Unsatisfactory performance is dealt with internally. Policy would need to change in order to delay the extension until after the budget is decided.
FOLLOW UP: Move the issue to the Human Resources Committee and provide a side-by-side comparison of salary and benefits.
11. Other Business
There was no other business.
12. Adjournment
It was moved by Juan José López and seconded by Ruth Robarts to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2006-02-13 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-03-06