School Board Meeting 4/26/16

Public Comment Topics The public commented on three topics. A parent commented on her
support for reducing the last day of school to May 27th the day before Memorial Day. A teacher
and employee for the district expressed her support for the adoption of a textbook series entitled
Wonders. Finally, a member of the community spoke to the board about adjusting the way they
would increase taxes so that they would gather more revenue and make the tax increases less
noticeable to the public.
Analysis: No public comment was really anything major. The board didnt seem to pay attention
to the alternative tax proposal. Honestly, I dont know if it is within the board power to alter the
way they collect taxes altering the method may violate state law. There was no major debate or
altercation during the public comment.
Energy Savings Presentation the board has partnered with a local HVAC company to help save
energy costs for all buildings. The company serves as both a repair service and a consulting
service to needed replacements on parts. The company did a nice job of presenting the savings
that the school district receives by keeping facilities updated and regulated for appropriate use. In
some instances there were 30% savings in energy savings over 5 years (since before the district
partnered with this company).
Analysis: While it isnt the most exciting thing to talk about, energy savings and operation are
important aspects of the school. I think its wonderful that the board has taken initiative and
updated old equipment in order to save money and be proactive about the function of schools. In
my opinion, it would be a good idea to continue the partnership with this HVAC Company to
lower energy costs and keep equipment functioning appropriately.
There was a short discussion on the amount of legal fees payed for a bond assessment. The
district payed $12,000 in legal fees to organize and file the bonds the district uses. The board
members wanted to know how long this process took in order to save some money in the
upcoming budget. The business administrator seemed pretty confident that the cost of filing these
bonds was fair and appropriate market value.
Analysis: Because I dont have a strong background on this matter, I would trust the business
officers judgment and say that is is a fair legal assessment for filing bonds.
The assistant superintendent proposed the purchase of curricular materials for both the high
school and elementary school. The board seemed apprehensive to purchase these materials
because a preliminary budget has not been approved. The superintendent insisted that the items
she was ordering were within her budget limit as specified within the last three years. The
board was still unsure of the amount and voted to not pass the purchase of needed textbooks for
next school year. They voted to have an emergency session on the voting of textbooks the
following week after a budget has been drafted.
Analysis: Sometimes its easy to forget that the main purpose of school is to give students the
best education possible. I believe the board is extremely caught up on the budget bottom line that
they forgot the most important aspect of our schools we must give teachers and students the

best tools to succeed. Voting this recommendation down was a bad move, in my opinion. I would
hope at the next board meeting they realize that instructional materials are things that must be
purchased when needed and budget cuts can be found in other areas of the budget.
The board debated two high school requirements that were brought to their attention. The first
was that the weighting of AP classes had been reduced one board member wanted to know
what this happened. The second was they wanted to know why students were still required to
take the Keystone exam when the state has passed an exemption for current seniors on their
graduation requirement. The answer to the former was that when grades shifted form letter to
percentages the weighting for AP classes was too strong so it was lowered. The question to the
latter was that even though the Keystone Exams are not currently a requirement for graduation if
a student does not pass them on their transcripts it will still read no proficient in reading or
whatever subject they couldnt pass because of the exams.
Analysis: It seems that the explanation for the AP weighting shift was reasonable and accepted in
the questioning of the board. As for the Keystone requirement, many community members were
upset to hear of the transcript requirement if a student does not pass an AP exam. The board
seemed to not like the rule but agreed that state law is what forces this to happen. While I dont
believe standardized tests should be used as a graduation requirement I believe sometimes the
community outrage toward testing can be misguided. Standardized testing in appropriate
situations has merit and I think sometimes parents and community members lose sight of that.
The later start to a school day was open to the public for feedback. After reviewing the results of
the survey made available to the public the board decided not to go forward with any changes to
a later start in school day. The results of the survey were 70% of the community opposed a
change while 30% supported it.
Analysis: I thought the board did the right thing here. They were democratic in their decision
making process and decided not to go forward after surveying public opinion. This is the way the
majority of board initiatives should be decided.
The board wants to send out a comprehensive questionnaire to the entire district staff in order to
know more about the district. The attorney is worried about the legal complications of this
survey because he believes that personnel issues may arise in the survey results that that board
members will read these situations in the improper context altering their decision making process
in personnel hearings. The board was unable to come up with a solution to this problem.
Analysis: Ultimately the board is the body that reviews all appeals. If they were altered in any
way by the responses to this survey it would not be a just hearing and violate due process law. It
would be a good idea to have a third party candidate who is employed with the district review the
responses to the surveys and take out any answers that may contain personnel issues.