| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2007-08-27 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-10-08 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session September 17, 2007 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Room 103 and Auditorium Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Arlene Silveira at 6:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Maya Cole, Lawrie Kobza, Lucy Mathiak, Beth Moss, Arlene Silveira, Johnny Winston, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hartley, Joseph Hill, Daniel Mallin, Art Rainwater, June Wilson, Nancy Yoder, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
Meeting began in executive session then went into open session.
OPEN SESSION - WORKSHOP - Auditorium
4. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve the minutes from the Special meetings in open session dated August 20 and August 27, 2007 as distributed. Motion unanimously carried.
5. Announcements
There were no announcements.
6. MadisonMetropolitanSchool DistrictExpulsion Process
(Packets included a memo from the Expulsion and Truancy Coordinator relative to data requests concerning non-attendees at expulsion hearings and social worker caseload (9/13/07), Principal Guidelines for Aggravating Factor Analysis (effective 9/4/07), and a second draft proposal of a Board of Education "Standard of Review" for expulsion cases. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Mr. Hill reviewed the documents included in the board packet. There were no questions about the data document. With regard to the Principal Guidelines for Aggravating Factor Analysis, this was provided for the Board as information. Administration made it more specific and realistic and workable.
Discussion/Questions:
o Currently being used in the middle and high schools.
o First hearing using these guidelines is set for next week.
o Property Damage or Loss really talks about early readmission conditions, not restitution.
o Superintendent explained the bodily injury genesis of change.
o Tried to move some guidance to the principals for significant injury vs. lesser injury.
There were no questions related to the Aggravating Factor Analysis as amended.
Standard of Review - board reviews decisions made by the Hearing Examiners. Choices as provided in the statute are three-fold: approve the decision, modify, or reverse. Question becomes what is the process for conducting that review. Mr. Hill referred the Board to the final page checklist. Certain things must occur in every case (items "a-m") as required by state statute. All of these are reflected in the Notice of Hearing letter. Counsel would have a transcript of the hearing and exhibits which includes the letters. Could be delegated to Legal Counsel. For anything past "m," the law requires that the student go through a Manifestation Determination process.
Questions/Discussion:
· Removing "n" and "o" would become function of Legal Counsel but not part of the notice.
· If "a" through "m" items would be included in the transcript and exhibits. The Board would only have to deal with them if a question arises.
· Manifestation Determination is done between day 5 and day 9 of the student suspension.
Mr. Hartley distributed copies of Board Policy 4045-Expulsion (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes).
· Given the high percentage of low-income students who go through this process, and the desire to make this objective as possible, there was a suggestion that legal representation be guaranteed so that all students would have some kind of guidance through the process. Issues involved in this were discussed: sheer cost, availability of pro bono advocates, parents who cannot afford representation and who cannot attend the hearings, hiring attorneys for everyone, whether having a lawyer really makes a significant difference, encouraging the Hearing Examiners to take some time to interact positively with the family and student so they understand the implications of what they say, making sure things are consistently handled and that any type of criteria are consistent.
Record Review: Mr. Hill explained the process involved in reviewing the record of a regular education student. If at the end of the process the student is suspected to have a disability, there is an Individual Education Plan (IEP) evaluation of the student. Then the expulsion is postponed during that evaluation and the student receives Off-Campus instruction. At the end, if the student has a disability and the Manifestation Determination concludes that any discovered disability or substantial related behavior was a substantial cause of the incident, then the case is dismissed. If not, then it proceeds through the expulsion process.
There were no questions about the record review.
Discussion/Questions:
o Making item "o" part of the checklist format and the notification to the board if something does not happen.
o Aggravating Factors - Superintendent got more input from staff about the ones that were changed. Lessens the gray area. They become the objective criteria. Last one is a catch-all category. Aggravating Factors show up in three places and would also be part of the testimony of the principal.
o Mr. Hill explained the three levels of review that takes place by people who are removed from the school when a student is suspended and the opportunities to challenge the process. Assistant Superintendents also review whether the investigation was thorough.
o Manifestation Determination will remain part of the exhibits.
P. 3 - Board's "Standard of Review Tasks Retained and Performed by the Board itself" - proposed as what the Board should do as opposed to what it does now.
§ Hearing Examiner's conclusion subject to the Board's review.
§ Board sometimes looks at the Manifestation Determination in a different way other than whether it has been done. The IEP team performs a legally constituted review. It is a completely different legal standing than for a regular education student. The Board does not have the legal right to make that determination.
§ Discomfort with "1 a" on page 3: limits the Board's review to Hearing Examiner's review of the evidence. Board should be able to review the entire record. Board would not be allowed to make an independent decision. It was proposed to replace item "1 a" with: "The Board may review the evidentiary record to determine whether it supports the grounds for expulsion." Findings of Fact have to be supported by the record. The Board may decide that there are other things to consider. Uncomfortable with taking out Hearing Examiner in "a" because it feels like the Board is becoming judge and jury and is not then delegating the job to the Hearing Examiner. Board has to make sure everyone has done their job. Adds another layer of review. Difficult to separate the task to make it completely equitable for all students. Must rely on what is happening at the Administrative level in the schools through the Codes of Conduct and that the results are fair and just. Findings of Fact indicate the Board's modifications if there are any. Board is the last stop and can provide some consistency.
§ The Board does give a lot of weight to the Hearing Examiner's Findings and taking that out of "a" could make it look like the Board is not doing that. It was suggested that another section be created or that the Hearing Examiner and Ms. Kobza's suggestions be combined.
§ Concerned with situations where we decide to go in the opposite direction. Assumes that the Board is looking at both. Do not see as any different than what we are doing now.
§ Attorney Dan Mallin proposed that following language, "Whether the Hearing Examiner review of the evidence is the most reasonable review of the evidence and, if not, add, delete or modify the Findings as necessary."
§ Letters from others in support of students who are being expelled are problematic because they are information submitted that is not under oath. No one is given the opportunity to comment.
§ Board can define what is considered evidentiary vs. supplemental information. The current policy allows supplemental information to be used.
§ Board expressed the desire to meet with the Hearing Examiners about their thoughts on the process.
§ Legal Office is not involved in training Hearing Examiners but they are supervised by that office. Legal Office does go through statutory bases for expulsion, provides names of other decisions and copies of the booklet that shows DPI decisions and standards.
Ms. Silveira suggested voting on the Standard of Review Checklist regarding board review, Administration coming back with a list of types of information that would be categorized as evidentiary vs. supplemental, then the Board would look at the supplemental information and decide whether to tie this information into the decisions and, if so, how.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve the Standard of Review Checklist delegating to Legal Counsel the review portion with small modifications to items "n" and "o" as discussed during this meeting. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
FOLLOW UP: Administration will send to the Board members a list of evidentiary vs. supplemental records. Board can propose additional things. Further meetings will be scheduled out, including the issue of legal representation for the students during the process and the expungement policy.
7. Other Business
There was no other business.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2007-08-27 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-10-08