| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2007-10-22 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-11-12 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session October 29, 2007 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Arlene Silveira called the meeting to order in open session at 6:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Maya Cole, Lawrie Kobza, Lucy Mathiak, Beth Moss, Arlene Silveira, Johnny Winston, Jr.
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hartley, Attorney Joseph Hill, Doug Johnson, Attorney Dan Mallin, Pam Nash, Art Rainwater, Howard Sampson, Marcia Standiford, Donna Williams, Attorney June Wilson, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
3. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Carol Carstensen to approve the minutes of the Special meetings in open session dated October 15 and October 22, 2007 as distributed. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
4. Announcements
There were no announcements.
5. Approval of Finalized 2007-08 Budget Adjustments and Adoption of the Tax Levy
(Packets included two resolutions and the budget amendments and tax levy adoption materials for 2007/08 (10/29/07). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
The Superintendent explained that DPI notified the district that there was one change affecting the MMSD budget that would increase state aids by $10,000. The materials for this meeting reflected the change. Attorney Mallin revised the resolutions relative to the budget amendments and tax levy that were distributed just prior to the meeting (all these documents are attached to the original of these minutes).
Discussion:
Laundry Services Position: Average starting rate of pay, no new hire, currently working full time, additional positions that will go into the substitute pool.
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Carol Carstensen, with reference to the document title "Budget Amendments and Tax Levy Adoption for 2007/08," said document bearing the Revised cover date of October 29, 2007, that the Board approve the following amendments to the 2007-08 budget, resulting in a 2007-08 budget that, as compared to the adopted budget, increases revenues in the amount of $10,879,382 and increases expenditures in the amount of $26,296,662:
1. all budget amendments as are reflected in chart #1, page 3;
2. all revenue and expenditure amendments as are reflected in chart #2, page 4;
3. all technical accounting amendments as are reflected in chart #3, page 5;
4. all budget amendments to balance the 2007-08 budget as are reflected in chart #4, page 6;
5. all additional budget amendments as are reflected in chart #5, page 7; and
6. the amendments necessary to effectuate the revenues, expenditures, equity carryovers, and reserves as are reflected in the table on page 2.
Lawrie Kobza proposed an amendment to chart #4 deleting the fund for line 15 for Human Resources/Business Software Upgrades in the amount of $119,000 and line 18 for High School Laundry (.25 FTE/ea) in the amount of $69,099, totaling $188,099, and moving the funds to the Reserve for Contingencies.
Ms. Kobza clarified that this amendment would allow Administration to come back at a later time to request funds from the Reserve for Contingencies for these, or any other items, and the Board would decide. It would not prohibit the Administration from using the money for these line items but would come out of the existing budget already approved.
The amendment was accepted as friendly by mover and seconder.
Discussion on the motion as amended:
· There were questions about the high school laundry custodial position relative to responsibilities, time required to do the job, the attempt to work within the program at West with the special education students, having to cover the job using overtime when necessary, adding back a position that was cut two years ago, hiring out of the substitute pool, payment out of the approved budget vs. this budget. The administration will monitor the work to make sure everything is getting done. If it is necessary to dip into overtime, the administration will come back to the board.
· Human Resources issue - software has to be purchased so adjustments will have to be made in other parts of the budget; it is an information technology issue.
Vote on the motion as amended: Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. that the Board of Education approve a total tax levy for the 2007-08 school year in the amount of $220,290,484, consisting of the following specific subcomponents:
General Fund (Fund 10) $195,975,415
Chargeback Levy (Fund 10) $ 195,010
Maintenance Referendum (Fund 10) $ 5,234,000
Non-Referendum Debt (Fund 38) $ 325,204
Referendum Approved Debt (Fund 39) $ 7,040,075
Community Services Fund (Fund 80) $ 11,520,780
Total Tax Levy $220,290,484
(Total tax levy corresponds to a Mill Rate presently calculated at $10.08 per thousand.)
Discussion on the motion:
o Increase of six cents from 2006-07 which is .6%.
o About $2 million is the difference that will come back to the property tax payers in some form. Mill rate likely to change to be lower in terms of the effective amount of property tax.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
6. Expulsion Process: Review Recommended Changes to the Process, the Standard of Review for the Board, Baseline Recommendations for Length of Expulsions, and the Role of Students' Background Information provided to the Hearing Officers and the Board
(Packets included definitions for the Standard of Review; a revised Standard of Review Checklist; three proposed options for modifying the Standard of Review; a draft version of Board Policy 4045, inclusive of the proposed amendment to incorporate the Standard of Review into said policy (10/25/07; and samples of documents provided to the Board for its review of expulsion cases (10/24/07). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Attorney Hill reviewed the packet materials.
Discussion:
§ Distinction between information provided by student, parent, etc., vs. the Administration.
§ Differences between the proposed options for the Standard of Review:
o Current practice;
o Board consideration of what is sent by the student, parent, etc.;
o Board consideration of materials sent by June Wilson as to length of the expulsion and time of the early readmission only after it has been determined that the student is to be expelled;
o Inclusion of students' ethnicity in the exhibits to the official transcript and the legal memorandum (memo) and extent to which board decisions impact disproportionality;
o Issue of reviewing prior disciplinary record.
o Record of prior disciplinary action and academic record and attendance.
o Superintendent's review of record, possible IEP, and academic issues. He only looks at prior expulsions if it is a Code 312. He did not believe these things should enter into the case. Superintendent can deviate from the baseline recommendation and may consider a prior expulsion, not a recommendation for expulsion.
o Once a student meets the conditions for early readmission, Mr. Hill advises the family regarding placement after the student comes back.
o Role and composition of the expulsion committee.
o Disposition of information about bullying.
o Problems with information that is not taken under oath.
Ways for Board to become more consistent about its decisions:
§ Board would like to track its patterns and trends in expulsions in the form of a grid correlated with race and socioeconomic status data.
§ Another expulsion discussion is scheduled in November with the Hearing Examiners. Board will decide at that time what the next steps will be and will identify any other related topics that need evaluation.
§ Annual report will be coming out soon.
§ Also will talk about legal representation for the students at the November meeting.
Information provided to the Board:
o Record should be reflective of the case whether students show up or not. Would like Hearing Examiners to ask questions more often, especially when a student is not there.
o Seems that when students are represented, there is more likely to be other testimony provided for the record in the form of letters, etc. Notice of Hearing can indicate to the families that they may provide any kind of evidence they want to.
o If Code of Conduct is enforced more consistently, should see a change in the expulsion rates.
o There was some discussion about using supplemental information describing a student's character vs. deciding whether a student actually did the behavior.
o Executive summary information can be changed.
o Board will still get the legal memo recapping the cases without student background.
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to adopt Standard of Review Option A - No Supplemental Information, with two modifications: 1) a request that the letter (Notice of Hearing) to the student and family from Joseph Hill include suggestions or identify the fact that they may provide information to the character of the student at the Hearing; and 2) that the Board be provided the information from the Off-Campus teacher for information as the length and circumstances of the expulsion and readmission process are considered.
Discussion on the motion:
Ø Legal memo will be part of the record; conveys the record to the board.
Ø Reasons for including prior cases:
o Often has an impact.
o Grid much more useful guide to consistency than the current list of prior cases. Grid represents prior board decisions. Support keeping the grid updated. Mr. Hill commented that it is almost impossible to take the behaviors and reduce them to a one-page grid. It does not get into the aggravating factors and does not give enough information.
o A file of prior cases could be arranged by code without names in addition to the grid. Grid does not include the matrix that is used by the administration. The grid also does not take in account the aggravating factors. If the administration deviates from the matrix, they will include a rationale that the board could use. Board has sometimes deviated from the recommendation because they viewed the case differently than the administration. Board would like to be aware of the times and reasons why they have changed the length of the expulsion periods. During the meetings, the board has asked that the information go to June Wilson and would be included in the meeting minutes.
Ø Aggravating factors are taken into account after the incident takes place and affect how the expulsions are dealt with. Adding the aggravating factors removes all the discretion and objectifies the process. It will be far more consistent and may reduce the number of expulsions.
Ø Every single offense does not have the same repercussions but everyone should start at the same point.
Ø It was agreed that the prior cases would be omitted.
Ø It was agreed that the student background would be omitted.
Ø Only supplemental information will be the Off-Campus evaluation by the teacher to decide the time of readmittance and whether or not to continue the services for a period of time.
Ø This grid is almost a separate issue when it comes to looking at what the board has done in the past. Want to be consistent and have clarity and at some point can create a decision making tool that will help us address length of time.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
Discussion:
· Administration will bring back specific language changes for Policy 4045.
· No executive summary, just the legal memo.
· Recommendation contains gender, ethnicity, race, age, address, etc.; this information has to be reported to DPI.
· Standard of Review will include a definition for the Off-Campus services and limit its utility.
· Standard of Review Checklist will go to the Board at the time the case is presented-Legal Counsel who works with the Board will follow through on items A-M and the next two pieces.
· Board will receive the memorandum that will include what the Administration did in reference to the matrix and whether or not Administration deviated from the standard and why.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve the form of the proposal legal memo attached to Ms. Wilson's October 24, 2007 memo deleting out the prior cases and the student background. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
7. Other Business
There was no other business.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2007-10-22 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-11-12