Minutes 2014-11-18.pdf - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ACTION 2014#119 Moved(Flood)and seconded(Spalding) To send an electronic copy of the letter of concern regarding David Manjarrez to Myron Fox,Moderator of Sudbury to each School Committee member Vote: 11 in favor,1 opposed, 1 abstention 6. FY 14 AUDIT REPORT,Sheryl Stevens-Burke Ms. Stevens-Burke,auditor from Melanson Heath,noted that this report is being presented much earlier than recent past,thanks to collaborative efforts of Kevin Mahoney and Michelle Resendes. She indicated that the reports represent a fair representative of the schools financial position and that this is a clean report. She reviewed the annual Financial Statements for the year ended June 30,2014,pointing out pertinent detail from various pages. She noted that the Management Letter shows no new issues,and reviewed the status of prior year recommendations outlined in it.Open issues,requirements for changes in practice,student activity funds,PG funds,and additional concerns were discussed,and the following vote was taken: ACTION 2014#120 Moved(Spalding)and seconded(Mahoney) To accept the Melanson Heath FY 14 Audit Report as presented Vote: Unanimous,with 1 member out of the room Appreciation was extended to the Auditor for the quality of the analytical work,to the Finance Subcommittee for their oversight,and to Kevin Mahoney and his staff for receptivity and earnestness in making improvements. The FY 14 Auditor's Report and Management Letter can be found as Attachment C. 7. CHAIR'S REPORT,Jeff Stulin a. Governance Issues: Remote Participation Report,Mary Ellen Castagno The Chair extended appreciation to Ms. Castagno for looking into this issue and drafting a policy. Ms.Castagno extended thanks to Mr.Horton for his help,and explained the history of this issue up until March 5,2013 when the issue was tabled by the Policy Subcommittee. She explained that her draft is based on the law and discussions she had with the Department of Justice and the Department of Disabilities. Application to subcommittees,permissible reasons,geographical distance,need for Chair's approval were raised,and the Chair distributed a list of concerns about such a policy that the School Committee would have to address (Attachment D).He noted that given the concerns,the question is whether the School Committee wants such a policy,and if there is an alternative to a policy. Occasional vs.routine usage,the need for members to be responsible to attend or to resign,the dangers of people abusing the policy,and use of a written request were considerations discussed. The idea of having the Policy Task Force review it was raised,and the chair of that Task Force pointed out that she didn't want to become engaged in time-consuming issues not related to the school,and that a remote participation policy might work well for single districts,but her sense is that large regional school districts are not using it. She also pointed out that a good faith effort to investigate does not necessarily mean proceeding down a path that is onerous for the School Committee.A question was made to the IT Director about whether costs would be involved in setting up a trial basis. Ms. Schrimpf concurred that there are costs involved,as the room is not set up for video conferencing. A point was made that using this for a small group of selectmen is different than using it for a 16 member board.Ms. Castagno noted that she had discussed various options with Ms. Schrimpf. She also noted that she was disheartened by the School Committee's reluctant attitude towards implementing such a policy. The Chair pointed out that remote participation is only one option to deal with a disability. How documents could be reviewed,what is actually needed in a policy,and that the remote option is not a perfect substitute,but a better alternative than not attending at all.The Chair underscored the legal concern about how the policy could be abused relative to dissention on a vote. Three possible options were presented: to accept the draft for 1"reading,and have officers revise it to minimize concerns; to look at it only in terms of ADA compliance,or to ignore it and try a new accommodation for the ADA disability.A motion was made and seconded for the 1"option. The legal rules for public bodies vs. general conference calls,that the options are too open-ended,concerns about roll call votes,and legal concerns were raised. It was confirmed that 1St reading does not mean the policy goes into effect,and it was pointed out that previous discussions by the Policy Subcommittee on this issue were sidetracked by issues related to terms of office in the By-