1975-05-12-SC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 128 May 12, 1975 Dr. Fobert opened the discussion with general comments regarding the =CO budget for 1975-1976. NT. Bron made a "LOTION that"the school committee rescind the February vote which admits 40 students per year for the next four years." (Wadsworth seconded) , Mr. Mao= said. he had no reser J ,..`,iona about the _ o:, the next- two years but .:a3 e about out 1977-73 , __..b which might exceed. the _C resident school population. Mrs. ianson `�. eed. with Mr. Brown's NOTION saying "We should take each year as it comes". Mr. Rotberg felt the MOTION was actually a reconsideration of the VOTE and should have been made by a member who was on the committee at the time and supported the VOTE. Mr. Brown was elected to the committee in March. Mrs. Berchtold said she was unhappy with the VOTE but to rescind it would complicate the issue that evening. She favored continuing with the vote Which would allow addition of 40 students for September 1975. She added that, in light of information she has received p, TCO since the vote was taken, the committee should reconsider the vote each year. BUDGET A VOTE was called on Mr. Brown's MOTION (Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson, YES, Rotberg, Berchtold NO) . It was VOTED: To addition 40 additional ETCO students for the year 1975-1976. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous.) Dr. Fobert asked the committee to confirm some kind of reference point such as 9.4% minority ratio to use next year. He was told by the committee that this was not a decision that had to be made this evening. Mr. Wadsworth did not think that this committee should indicate what other committees should do in the future, adding that the subject can come up for vote in February and a decision can be made at that time. Mr. Rotberg then made a IOTIOiv that "the school committee hereby urge the succeeding school committee to fulfill the original proposal to add 40 students in 1976-77". (Brown. seconded) Mrs. Swanson said that this was the wrong time to make such a motion and suggested that we address ourselves to Lexington problems. She noted that the original purpose of rescinding the motion was to enable the committee to review the vote each year . A vote was called. (Swanson, Wadsworth, Berchtold NO, Rotberg, Brown YES) The remainder of the meeting covered a general discussion regarding the I-;TCO budget proposal, pupil assignmeents, roles of the coordinator, social workers, tutors, etc. The committee voted to go into Executive Session at midnight to discuss personnel matters. (Wadsworth, Brown, Unanimous) . At 12:30 a.m. the committee reverted to open session to cast the following vote: Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTTD: To accept Personnel Changes (aides) not certificated) on Page 15 a PIKS ( 9 ��C arasL (revised.) . (Wadsworth, Brown, Berchtold, YES, otberg, Swanson j�*O)/ (, ee next Page) CHANCES (non-certific)