Special Meeting - Open Session - February 18, 2008

Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session February 18, 2008		Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Auditorium Madison, Wisconsin

Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Arlene Silveira at 5:04 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: Sue Abplanalp, Attorney Frank Crisafi, Steve Hartley, Attorney Joseph Hill, Attorney Dan Mallin, Pam Nash, Art Rainwater, Ken Syke, Attorney June Wilson, Luis Yudice, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary

1. Announcements

There were no announcements.

2. Citizens Naming Committee Recommendations for the Name of the New MMSDElementary School

(Packets included the Citizens Naming Committee final report and appendices. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Items a and b were taken up together:

a. Acceptance of Recommendations and Committee Report

b. Disbanding of the Citizens Naming Committee

David Mollenhoff, Chair of the Citizens Naming Committee, introduced those members who were able to be present and indicated how impressed he was with the individual members and how well they worked together given a difficult and contentious job. He outlined the report and talked about the process they used to whittle the names down from the 87 applications. He noted that the report was already up on the district's web site.

Comments from the Board:

§ There was a suggestion that the Board look at some of procedures used in this process for possible adoption.

§ Report is fabulous. Proud to vote for any of the four candidates.

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carol Carstensen that the Board accept the recommendations and the final report from the Citizens Naming Committee and, as their job has been completed in providing the Board of Education with four names, move to disband the official Naming Committee. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

c. Timeline for Public Hearing and Future Board Decision

Ms. Silveira announced that the public hearing was scheduled for February 26, at 7 p.m., in the Doyle auditorium. The Board has 14 days from the date of public comment to schedule a meeting for decision making. Tomorrow morning the Board Officers, the Superintendent, and the Chief of Staff would be planning the Board calendar and would share that information soon after.

3. Public Hearing regarding Public Appearances Policy Revisions

a. Public Comment during this Public Hearing was Limited Exclusively to the Topic of Public Appearances during Open Session Meetings

John Carey stated that there was little in the way of access and did not support the proposal to decide if citizens should have access to the public policy making body.

Will Williams called the hearing a tactic to silence "us." He stated that it would not silence "us" and that they would be here. This Board can change policies whenever and however they want. The proposal is wrong and we will not allow it. Putting us at the end of the agenda will not stop us from coming. Some Board members said there is too much work, but they find time to do what they want when they want to do it. There is plenty of time for you to do the job you need to do.

Don Severson, Active Citizens for Education, supported the proposed policy revisions for public appearances as a sound and practical way for the Board to take leadership and to effectively mange its meetings. He indicated that ACE has been advocating for this type of proposal for about six years. This will bring things together so the Board can focus on decisions and also provides plenty of opportunity to conduct access. ACE commended the Board and staff for the work they have done.

Thomas Mertz just saw the set of proposals. He indicated that the Board should not censor the public and publicize changes. He encouraged the Board to take its time to consider the change and to involve the public in deciding what the current strengths and weaknesses are of the current policy.

Pat DiBiase stated that it was much more efficient to talk to the Board right now than on the phone. She was horrified that public appearances were basically going to be taken away by making them late. She knew the Board had big issues, but added that they could not make new policy because it is a busy year. She encouraged the Board to get through this year and keep public appearances early, that they cannot take away people's views or make people speak only when it is on the agenda, especially since the agenda comes out Friday. People cannot get ready fast enough before there is a vote. She asked how the process would work if the Board started at 6 p.m.

Bill Keys spoke for those who need to speak early and cannot stay until the end of the meetings. He talked about the information provided that indicated the number of times speakers have appeared on non-agenda items and the length of meetings over the last two years. He added that the impact of moving the public appearances to the end of the agenda would be that the press would not report on it. As for the Board taking attacks, he said you get through it.

Gary Stout opposed changing the format of public appearances; that moving them to the end might restrict or lessen public input. People need as many different avenues of input as possible. He commented on e-mails he has sent that did not receive many responses. He added that no one is a racist and that it was not his intent to convey that kind of message.

4. Revisions to School Board Policies and Procedures regarding Public Appearances

(Packets included a memorandum and supporting attachments giving background on the February 4 public appearances proposal, an alternative meeting format and organization, and a consent agenda (2/14/08); and a chart describing public appearances from 2/06 through 2/08. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Attorney Mallin referred to the memorandum in the packet summarizing the proposed short-term organization and meeting structure the Board was considering to resolve several remaining policy issues between now and the end of April 2008. Ms. Silveira also noted that the alternatives attempted to validate some of the statements that Board members have been making over the last few months with respect to wanting to make more efficient use of its time before the new board is seated in April as the premise for the different options.

Discussion:

· Need for restructuring.

· Advantages to starting early.

· Importance of listening to the public.

· Committee reports vs. action items. Reports become more critical at the Regular meeting.

· Board's increased meeting schedule this year vs. last year.

· Clarified that the public appearances would not be deleted but moved to a later time in the agenda, with the option to move them to the beginning if there are only a few.

· How the public appearances worked out over the last two years.

· Issue with holding committee meetings simultaneously and not being able to televise both of them.

· Suggestion was made to try and not schedule expulsions on the nights of Regular meetings; there are statutory requirements regarding when the Board must hear a case.

· Suggestion was made to videotape the other meeting and post it on the web site. There is also the issue of having to pay a crew.

· Inability to videotape and/or televise meetings that take place away from the Doyle building.

· Other districts do not seem to offer something better than the proposal and they do not have the volume of meetings.

· Another issue with holding simultaneous meeting is not being able to hear the discussion.

· Trying out the new process and evaluating it over the summer months.

· Whether equipping Room 103 is worthwhile from Fund 80 contingency.

· Preference for doing the consent agenda in three sections vs. one global motion.

· Issue of trying to connect with people who are not willing to come to the Doyle building.

· Making public appearances at a reasonable and dependable hour.

· Budget timeline and associated times for public appearances.

· Time taken for public appearances that are on agenda items vs. non-agenda items.

· Suggestion to provide something on the web site that tells people when they can come before the Board and on what issues.

· New Superintendent may want to look at different ways of doing business with the Board.

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to hold the Regular Board meetings on the same day but starting at 6 p.m. allowing public appearances on all topics and to place the issue of a consent agenda on the agenda for next week and double up committee meetings if need be for the month of March, April, and May 2008. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

Recessed at 6:32 p.m.

Reconvened at 6:45 p.m.

5. Student Conduct, Discipline and Expulsion: Follow-up from Prior Discussion with Expulsion Hearing Examiners; Administrative Expulsion Recommendations; Police Involvement in Student Conduct and Discipline Matters; Expulsion Hearing Procedures; Advocates for Students in Expulsions; Modifications to Discipline and Expulsion Policies, Procedures and Administrative Processes; and Expungement of Discipline from Student Records

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DATE: Attorney Mallin referenced the memorandum included in the packet that summarized the changes to date to Board policy and administrative practices dated 12/13/07 (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes). He noted that #3 of the Administrative Practices relative to having a primary investigator appear and testify at an expulsion hearing has now been implemented with the remainder of the changes to be done this spring and summer.

Discussion:

v When and how #3 of the Administrative Practices was implemented (a copy of the memorandum to the principals and the revised "Recommendation for Expulsion" form were included in the packet and are attached to the original of these minutes).

v There was a concern that the Primary Investigator interview one or more participants.

v There was a suggestion, in incidents that involve staff members as the basis for the expulsion, to have that staff member testify. Could have significant impact on the number of people pulled out of the classroom. There was some discussion about weighing incidents of intentional force vs. getting in harm's way. Would have to be restricted to the offense of intentional force against a staff member. Some of this could be dealt with through an advocate on staff. Volitional as alleged or losing control and not intending something. Administration must be consistent about when a teacher testifies.

It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Lawrie Kobza that the Board request the Administration to include testimony of affected staff in expulsion cases that involve use of force against a staff member. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Lucy Mathiak that #3 of the Administrative Practices be modified as follows:

"In all cases, a primary investigator of the incident leading to the expulsion recommendation will appear and testify at an expulsion hearing. A primary investigator is a Dean, Asst. Principal, or Principal who directly conducted at least part of the investigation, and who interviewed one or more of the participants in the incident."

Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

BASELINE FOR LENGTH OF EXPULSION: (a copy of the Superintendent's Baseline Expulsion Disposition Grid was included in the packet and is attached to the original of these minutes). Attorney Hill noted that the focus was on two subsets: a) Buyer, seller and intermediary in drug cases; and b) semester timeline. Subset "a" now says that all parties violated the Code with a three-semester length of expulsion and two-semester early readmission date as a framework.

Discussion regarding Buyer, Seller, and Intermediary in Drug Cases:

o Suggestion was made that Level 300 violations and Level 400 (with some exceptions) should both be at the two-semester baseline, then the others in particular for three semesters. Revising the grid to list those specifically at three semesters. Then there could be aggravating factors that would raise a 400 level violation up.

o Frustration for the Board seems to be with time of early readmission dates. Need guidelines to take into account whether it is a first offense, any attempt at remorse and/or restitution, age of the student, etc. Board can reduce early readmission date to time served.

o Suggestion to consider changing the three parties to a drug transaction at different levels of intent or different Code violations. Other part is that these cases usually involve police. Administration has taken the approach that all three are equally guilty.

FOLLOW UP: Please provide a recommendation with regard to where certain violations should fall on the grid and within the Code. Staff also asked for feedback from the Board members on this issue. Build multiple expulsion cases into the grid.

Discussion regarding Semester Timeline:

Ø Difficult to keep continuity when trying to bring a student back at the quarter.

Ø Expulsion periods for a certain number of days even more difficult to implement.

Ø Considerations for middle school students at the quarter and for La Follette High School where one quarter is a semester.

Ø Using 30 days prior to end of semester (90 days in a semester); might delay hearings for students with disabilities.

FOLLOW UP: Administration was asked to consider what they are comfortable with changing relative to the semester timeline.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS: (a copy of the Principal Guidelines for Aggravating Factor Analysis effective September 4, 2007 was included in the packet and is attached to the original of these minutes). Attorney Hill explained the current practice, for purposes of an aggravating factor, when there is a police investigation and charges are referred to the District Attorney's Office.

Discussion:

ü Looking for ways to make this better understood.

ü There was a concern about the difference between how the Madison Police Department and the MMSD respond to particular student behaviors.

ü Timing is the issue. When the Police become involved, there are a different set of standards.

ü Could eliminate that aggravating factor and give the discretion to the principals and then to the Assistant Superintendents. Will take time to get the feel for eliminating it or inclusion as the best way to go. Only in place since September 2007. It has been used multiple times.

ü Report back on whether there have been any other aggravating factors or was that the sole one used?

ü Whether or not the police are called is case dependent.

ü If police are called, it is important to see how they react to that scene.

ü Parent concern at the high schools not being consistent about when to call police. Have to rely on the judgment of the ERO which may not be consistent across the high schools.

ü Depends on what the alleged criminal conduct is.

ü How the system works for people of color or those who are impoverished. Disproportionate confinement.

ü What happens if the charges get thrown out.

ü Not sure if this aggravating factor can be used in a consistent format right now.

ü Could use #5 as the catch all.

ü Number 5 is in the eye of the beholder. An aggravating factor is only used to determine whether an expulsion will be recommended. The Board has the right to reject that expulsion. Administration still believes it is an aggravating factor. Only way to use it is based on whether the police decide to forward it to the district attorney. Timing is very slow for the district. There are many reasons why the DA chooses not to charge; do not believe that is relevant here.

FOLLOW UP: Provide information on how often it has been used and in what types of situations.

"WHEN TO CALL POLICE" GUIDELINES: (Packets included an informational memo (dated September 2003) that is sent to all principals. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes). Ms. Nash noted that the memo has withstood the test of time. It was relevant then and it remains relevant. Training is done around specifics contained in the memo at all levels as well as specialized training for those in charge when the principal is out of the building. She highlighted some of the more serious safety situations in the memo. They also hold de-escalation training every year. It is assumed that the new positions approved by the board this year will also have an impact as students are given more and more tools to regulate their own behavior. Conversations continue with police for when situations get out of control.

Discussion:

· Debriefing is done with the individual principals by the Assistant Superintendent and Luis Yudice also does debriefing when there are police calls.

· New positions in the middle schools could be useful around a discussion but do not make decisions.

Lawrie Kobza left at this time (8:32 p.m.)

· There are ongoing conversations with Police Commanders, the Chief and Assistant Chiefs.

· If there is an issue regarding students' rights, the Superintendent would discuss with the Police. The Police have talked with the District as well.

· Police are in control once their services have been called upon in any way. There are guidelines about how the Police do things inside a school, but if they observe something, they are in control of the situation. There is not always agreement about how things are done by either entity, but they are closer.

· EROs are like administrative staff.

FOLLOW UP: Attorney Mallin will combine the questions about when to call the police and aggravating factors into the whole case of administrative aggravating factor recommendations.

INFORMATION AFTER THE HEARING: (Packets included a memo from Legal Counsel regarding the desire of expelled students (via parent/guardians and advocates) to submit written material to the Board prior to the Board's review of an expulsion decision dated 1/4/08 that is also attached to the original of these minutes). Attorney Mallin explained the issue regarding the manner in which the Legal Services Office should interpret the Board's decision that the Board will generally confine its review of an expulsion to "the record." He referred to the detailed information in the packet which included two proposed interpretations and asked for some direction as to what the Board intended when it deleted paragraph 20.b.

Discussion:

§ Option 2 is ok as long as it is controlled.

§ Very little direct challenge to the way the Hearing Examiner conducted the hearing or the decision; mostly related to student's length of expulsion. What if the board is more specific about what kinds of information it will accept? Potential disadvantages—likely that it will be submitted at the last minute. Attorney Hill will not be able to respond.

§ Problem with information not being submitted under oath? Depends on what is in the materials. Could be legal argument whether it is under oath or not.

It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. that the Board accept Attorney Mallin's interpretation #2 of what the Board hopes to achieve by amending policy on what can be submitted after a hearing:

"To close the limitless invitation to send 'any information the pupil feels is appropriate,' but the student/parent could still properly submit 'argument' to the Board about the Examiner's decision. Under this view, Legal Services would tell students facing Board review that they may NOT submit, and the Board will NOT consider, any new factual evidence. However, the student may submit a letter that, for example:

1. asks the Board to adopt a different view of the record as the most reasonable view of the record; or

2. asks the Board to consider/reconsider arguments about the length of an expulsion or the conditions for early readmission."

Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried with Lawrie Kobza absent.

INFORMATION ABOUT PAST DECISIONS: (Packets included, and copies are attached to the original of these minutes, a memorandum from Assistant Legal Counsel giving background information dated 2/14/08 and various versions of charts to consider using for review during expulsion meetings to inform the Board about the length of expulsions in past cases.)

Ms. Silveira read a note from Ms. Kobza indicating her preference for using Attachment #3, with a note at the bottom of the chart indicating the number of months between the first day of the suspension and the date of the earliest readmittance and the date of the first expulsion.

Discussion:

There was a request to make the print larger.

Preference for the notes on Attachment #1.

Would like to have follow-up noted somewhere.

Preference for Attachment #3 and agreed about the follow-up notes.

Preference for Attachment #3 and the time from suspension to expulsion as suggested.

It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to adopt the format in Attachment #3 with the modifications that were suggested as an informational piece that the Board will now receive every time they consider expulsion cases in a binder that will be continuously updated. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried with Lawrie Kobza and Johnny Winston, Jr. absent.

ADVOCATES FOR STUDENTS:

Attorney Mallin introduced the topic as something the district might want to explore structuring to provide students and families with an advocate (need not be an attorney but heard the suggestion about a law school project). He raised concerns about quality control if this step is made. He was unaware of any other Wisconsin district that has taken this step, so there was no model to look at. He raised issues about what this step that is not required by statute would possibly do to the process—attorney re-scheduling, creating different dynamic in the hearings, people could be subpoenaed, having a guide who is there to represent your interests is a powerful notion.

Attorney Hill provided three years of data on total expulsion cases that went to hearing, and attorney/advocate representation/un-representation (packets included a background memorandum from Attorney Joseph Hill dated 2/14/08. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes).

Discussion:

v How the process changes when attorneys are involved.

v Question of resources.

v Families have to understand the process and what their rights are.

v Questionnaires are mailed out with the other documents after the Board decision; responses to whether the process was understood are greater than 90 percent yes (not a large number returned).

v Only one outside person listed as willing to act as an advocate.

v Currently, a district social worker works on the early readmission process.

v District employee located in Student Services Department could be designated to helping families understand the process, etc.

v Suggestion was made to follow-up with those people who have been through the process and find out if they feel they needed an advocate or if there were other areas of concern and use that information to develop a plan to move forward.

v Have to be careful that people know they are not getting legal advice.

v Some places have city programs.

v Puts Attorney Hill in a bad position as prosecutor.

v User-friendly resources, e.g., frequently asked questions and answers, etc.

FOLLOW UP: Administration can make a recommendation.

EXPUNGEMENT POLICY: (Packets included a proposed policy and procedure for expungement dated March 22, 2006. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Attorney Wilson gave some history about an issue raised over two years ago about whether low-income students and/or people of color had the same impetus for asking to have their records expunged if they were eligible. Ms. Wilson noted that very few students would have been eligible, but those who were eligible were informed and none of those put forth the effort to do it. Since that time, every April, Ms. Wilson sends letters to those students who would be eligible. She has had one request that has been granted. Based on discussion with the Board, some recommendations were made and tabled a few times. Questions were whether to retain the provision that the student have no prior suspensions or expulsions. The conclusion was that there usually are other problem areas in the students' background and things like grades. This provision could be deleted without much of an affect on the reason behind the policy.

Discussion:

Ø Would like this to move forward with the exception of criterion #3 under Item 3 regarding prior suspensions/expulsions.

Ø Item 9 was added making it automatic.

Ø Policy does not include an appeal process because the criteria are either met or they are not.

Ø Student must take the initiative.

It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Carol Carstensen to adopt the recommended revisions to Board Policy 4047—Expungement--as presented in the attachment to the memorandum from Attorney June Wilson dated March 22, 2006 with the deletion of "(3) he/she has not been suspended or expelled prior to the incident which lead to the student being expelled;" in the first paragraph. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried with Lawrie Kobza absent.

Recessed at 9:45 p.m.

Reconvened at 9:54 p.m.

FOLLOW UP: Administration will further amend the policy to make clear, with respect to grade point average, the use of a comparable grading system for the alternative programs.

6. Presence of Armed Forces Personnel and Recruiting Materials in the Schools, including School Board Policies and Procedures regarding Recruiting Activities and Recruiting Materials

(Packets included two drafts modifying Policy 7541—Recruitment of Pupils in the MMSD dated 2/15/08. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Attorney Mallin explained the difference between the two drafts addressing the No Child Left Behind Act regarding access to students, adding a definition of "recruitment materials" and "visit." These were proposals for discussion that could also include adding some procedural language.

Discussion:

§ College recruiters not prohibited from being in places but makes sense to have someone in the Guidance Office. They are offered other places to go but tend to go to the Career Center, LMC spaces, or the Guidance Office. They do have handouts.

§ Current policy does not prohibit military recruiters from meeting students and providing handouts.

§ All recruiters are allowed to be in the cafeteria but college recruiters are not as easily identifiable.

§ Should clarify whether a "visit" has to be scheduled vs. a "drop-in visit" and, therefore, not allowed.

§ College nights are considered a "visit."

§ Policy allows three "visits" per branch of the military (there are more than four branches).

§ It was suggested that a comparison could be drawn against Milwaukee, La Crosse, Green Bay, etc.

§ Going into the classroom as part of the curriculum is allowed outside the three "visits" but would have to be approved.

§ Counselors can talk about the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives the military and use counter materials.

§ Districts have wide latitude to allow things like peace organizations to come into the school and address the students.

§ Visits from recruiters are publicized via daily announcements, bulletin boards, newsletters, web sites, etc.

§ No limit to the number of recruiters who can come during one visit for anyone but can be limited as long as everyone is treated the same.

§ Could be limited to one room and not mobile but has to be consistent with what is going on for everyone else; proposal has to match what is happening.

§ Statistics: less than 1 percent of MMSD graduates to into the military; 80 percent go on to post-secondary education. Do not want to limit what the 80 percent have access to.

§ Students who do want to enlist have to be connected.

§ Students who are home on leave and want to visit with former teachers should not be counted as a "visit."

§ Should be given a space and students who are interested can go there.

§ Teachers have always availed themselves of community resources directly linked to the curriculum.

§ Too many students for appointment-type scheduling.

§ Fairly easy to determine what space would be needed.

§ Should we exclude the cafeteria during certain times?

§ Add to Draft #2 language about visits occurring in space designated by the school and the expectation that the recruiters will be present there and not elsewhere in the school, exclude the cafeteria during lunch times, and Administration will ensure that there is consistency in following through with the schools.

§ Inappropriate as a guest speaker to engage in recruiting activities.

§ Want students to be able to ask questions about how to get in.

FOLLOW UP: Administration will send a revision out to the principals and counselors and get their feedback about how they think it would practically affect the practices. Board members were encouraged to look at how "visit" is defined and how "materials" are defined and send their comments to Attorney Mallin and Superintendent Rainwater within one week.

7. Agreements for Paid Advertising within the MMSD, including School Board Policies and Procedures regarding Advertising and Sponsorships

(Packets included a background/recommendation memorandum from Legal Counsel dated 2/15/08 and the 2007 summary statement of the MMSD accounts from the advertising vendor. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Further discussion related to advertisements will follow the agreed-upon definitions in Policy 7541.

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carol Carstensen to defer Item 7 to another date after Policy 7541-- Recruitment of Pupils in the MMSD is finalized. Student Representative advisory vote was nay. Motion unanimously carried with Lawrie Kobza absent.

8. Other Business

There was no other business.

9. Adjournment

It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Maya Cole to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.

Previous: 2008-01-28 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2008-02-25

BOE Minutes	BOE Home Page
Other Minutes:
Previous: 2008-01-28 \|\| Special Meeting - Open Session \|\| Next: 2008-02-25