1975-10-06-SC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 204 October 6, 1975 A copy of the 1975-76 budget in final form was given to the school committee members. Mr. Maclnnes gave a detailed explanation regarding the dual format of the budget, citing the advantages and disadvantages of it being prepared in this manner. He noted that there is no legal requirement which says it has to be presented in one way or another. He remarked that the budget will be presented in this manner until he hears differently from the School Committee. 1975-76 BUDGET Mr. Spiris asked the committee to look over the budget to see if it provided all the information they requested. Mrs. Swanson said it would be beneficial to the School Committee to schedule a meeting with Mr. DiGiammarino to obtain an in-depth understanding of PPBES, LIRSP and LEADS. He agreed that this would be a good idea. At a previous meeting, the School Committee compiled a list of 13 categories of people who would serve on the Superintendent's Interview Comm. COMMUNITY It was decided to revise the number of people and categqries on the list. INTERVIEW COMM. After a brief discussion, at the of which the members expressed their indi- vidual preferences regarding the makeup of the committee, Mrs. Berchtold suggested that the interview committee include 10 people in the following categories: 2 instructional staff 1 administrator 2 students 2 PTA 2 classified personnel 1 town government 10 Total Mr. Spiris felt that the number of administrators was out of balance with the number of classified personnel and recommended that the former be increased to 2. This would make a grand total of 11 people on the list. After further deliberation, Mr. Wadsworth made a MOTION, which was seconded by Mr. Brown, to accept the list as follows: 2 instructional staff 2 adminstrators 2 students 2 PTA 1 classified personnel 1 town government 11 Total (Brown, Wadsworth, Berchtold, Swanson YES, Rotberg ABSTAIN) Mrs. Swanson announced that, in response to a request made by the School Committee at the last meeting, a letter had been received from Dr. Halbower of ADL in which he discussed the relevance of Dr. Fobert's memo of March 20, 1974 to the management study. Dr. Halbower's conclusions were that Dr. Fobert's memo did not affect the nature and focus of his study recommendations. He noted, however, that the report would have discussed the memo if they'd had it for reference, if only to show where and why they differed from its specifications of central office organization. He went on to say that the fact that the issue of the missing memo may be useful in that it offers an opportunity to look at the study report and recommendations in an overall context.