Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-12-13-SC-min Page 196 December 13; 1976 The Lexington School Committee met at Clarke Junior High School at 8:00 p.m. on December 13, 1976. Present were Mrs. Swanson, Messrs. Rot- - - berg, Brown, Michelman, Wadsworth, and student representative Nancy Abelmann. Also present were Messrs. Lawson, Spiris, Monderer, Maclnnes, Pierson. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was MINUTES OF NOV. 22, 1976 VOTED: to accept the minutes of November 22, as amended. (Michelman, Rotberg, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services November 26, 1976 Classified Payrolls #11 $ 73,320.51 December 10, 1976 #12 70,147.02 December 3, 1976 #13-C 426,850.42 Expenses November 26, 1976 Bill Schedules #78 2,130.75 November 26, 1976 #79 2,997.37 November 26, 1976 #80 7,096.05 November 26, 1976 #81 588.03 November 26, 1976 #82 16,768.50 December 3, 1976 #83 2,248.32 December 3, 1976 #84 2,660.72 December 3, 1976 #85 28,807.93 December 10, 1976 #86 3,049.27 December 10, 1976 #87 1,766.87 December 10, 1976 #88 45,552.80 December 10, 1976 #89 245.54 December 10, 1976 #90 3,117.58 December 10, 1976 #91 7,765.51 Expenses (Carryover) December 3, 1976 #206 114.00 December 10, 1976 #207 37.17 Out-of-State Travel November 26, 1976 Bill Schedules #12 30.00 December 3, 1976 #13 78.28 December 10, 1976 #14 691.35 Athletics December 3, 1976 Bill Schedules #16 AE 880.03 December 10, 1976 #17 AE 2,297.10 December 3, 1976 Payrolls #8 AP 35,355.00 December 17, 1976 #9 AP 1,446.00 December 17, 1976 #10 AP 750.00 December 17, 1976 #11 AP 15,083.00 3 Page 197 December 13, 1976 Vocational Education December 10, 1976 Transportation #4 V $ 397.67 SPECIAL PROGRAMS Non-Lexington Funds Adult Education December 3, 1976 Professional Payroll 568.40 November 26, 1976 Bill Schedule #4 422.76 Driver Education December 3, 1976 Professional Payroll 1,124.90 METCO Program November 26, 1976 Classified Payrolls #6 1,470.85 December 10, 1976 #7 1,533.53 December 3, 1976 Professional Payroll 4,610.14 December 3, 1976 Bill Schedules #5 13,627.20 December 10, 1976 #6 15,011.50 LEADS Program December 10, 1976 Classified Payroll 1,038.80 Title III Administrative Grant December 10, 1976 Classified Payroll 120.00 MTA Southwick Salary December 10, 1976 Professional Payroll 745.38 ESEA Library Title IV December 3, 1976 Bill Schedule #2 2,392.69 ESEA Library Title II December 3, 1976 Bill Schedule #4 1,059.23 In commenting on the Financial Statement, Mrs. Swanson requested FINANCIAL that in the future a breakdown of the category under teachers would be STATEMENT useful. Mr. Maclnnes responded that he could provide this information on a separate accompanying sheet. Mrs. Swanson announced that the Committee would discuss L.E.A. L.E.A. Grievance PR & R 76-77-3. She asked Mr. Cawley, L.E.A. representative, GRIEVANCE if he wished to make a statement. Mr. Cawley referred to his letter to Mrs. Swanson of October 6, 1976 and reaffirmed its contents as representing the issue. Mr. Spiris noted that the Superintendent had recommended based on her potential. He noted further that he (Spiris) had discussed the salary dilemma with and that she recognized the problem and accepted the figure set which had been based on the fact that she had only a Bachelor's Degree and seven years' experience. Mr. Spiris then asked Mrs. Swanson to inquire of whether she herself is or is not grieving the contract. • Page 198 December 13, 1976 Mrs. Swanson did so. responded that she "did not initiate the grievance" and that she supported it "only insofar as she recognized the LEA' s responsibility to protect its members." Mr. Michelman then inquired of Mr. Cawley whether there is any ground for the grievance other than that stated--is the grievance seek- ing an interpretation of the contract article and nothing else. Mr. Cawley responded that the L.E.A. was grieving the contract for interpretation of Article III, but also concerned that 1) a person doing the job be paid for the job he/she is doing equally to others doing the same job, and, 2) future administrators be paid according to the salary guide. Dr. Lawson noted that the two other administrators are at maximum in terms of experience and have more than the number of courses which would equal a Master's degree. Mr. Michelman noted that when the grievance reached the Superintend- ent's level, the Superintendent rejected the grievance on the grounds that the L.E.A. did not have standing to file such a grievance. Under normal circumstances a grievance of this type would, he thought, be filed by the aggrieved employee. In response to Mr. Cawley's letter, Mr. Michelman did not feel that this case is of a general nature--not suit- able for a class action grievance. To accept this grievance, as Mr. MichelmPn sees it, would be to make the exception to the rule. This grievance, he concluded, affects only one employee and is in no way a class action grievance. Mr. Cawley, in referring to the contract article in question, noted that Mr. Michelman picked the words following "or", whereas he picked the words preceding "or" as debatable. Mr. Michelman responded that while the position he was presenting sounded technical, it is really an important issue. This (grievance) seems to be an attempt to interpret the contract for an individual, and action on it could conceivably lead to all grievances becoming class action grievances. Mr. Michelman also referred to the issue of discrimination. Because there had been a suggestion of sex bias in this case, he felt it was the Committee's responsibility to consider this as a separate issue. He had examined the case carefully and felt that there was no evidence of dis- crimination on the part of the Lexington administration. There is no other female in the system who is not paid equal to males in the same position. The reason for less pay in this case is observable, he said, and the facts clearly distinguish this case. Dr. Rotberg inquired about the phrase in Mr. Cawley' s letters of September 15 and October 6, "on behalf of " Mr. Spins responded that, Miss Pilarski had already indicated her position in reference to the grievance. 1 Page 199 December 13, 1976 Mrs. Swanson wondered if it were appropriate to take any vote on the grievance in the light of the question of standing of the L.E.A. with respect to this grievance. Dr. Lawson responded that his position was recommended by Alan Miller, who is the School Committee's counsel for negotiations, Mr. Michelman then moved that the school committee affirm the Super- intendent's rejection of the grievance set forth in Mr. Cawley's letter of September 27, 1976 on the sole ground that the association does not have standing to press this grievance. (Seconded Wadsworth, Unanimous) . Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was NEW PERSONNEL (PROFESSIONAL VOTED: to accept the following New Personnel (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following Personnel Changes (Professional) (PROFESSIONAL (Rotberg, Brown, Unanimous) Leave of Absence PERSONNEL CHANGES New Personnel Dr. Jack Monderer then presented to the school committee a report ACE PROGRAM on the ACE program. He introduced Mr. David Hamlin and Ms. Betsy Morse, ACE teachers. Mr. Hamlin described the two programs (ACE I and ACE II) and ex- plained the difference between them. He introduced two students, Tammy Merrick and Craig Miles, who described their success through the pro- grams. Miss Abelmann asked why, since the Lexington quota at MMRVTHS is seldom filled, we do not use these rather than the carpentry and elec- trical programs through ACE. Mr. Hamlin responded that the programs offered do not generally meet the needs of students assigned to ACE specifically, the need for individualized instruction and flexible scheduling. Mrs. Swanson questioned the new programs offered through ACE, not their quality necessarily, but their nature and scope. They are not, Page 200 December 13, 1976 she noted, what the school committee understood at their inception. Dr. Monderer agreed that the programs have changed. He reiterated that ACE I and II are what have just been described and referred the committee to the agenda reports. He then explained several separate programs, be- gun originally through ACE and now independent of the Lexington system. These, he said, are "innovative", reimbursable by the State, and classed under a new 766 prototype--502.11. He compared them to private schools and noted that tuition funds are used to pay for Lexington students en- rolled in these programs. Mrs. Swanson then questioned again--why not use MMRVTHS. Dr. Gul- dager responded that MM had refused to accept these students though he had explored the possibility on several occasions, based on function- ing problems sometimes associated with students who need the special pro- gram. Mrs. Swanson then expressed concern about monies earned by students in these separate, essentially private, programs. Dr. Monderer explained that all programs are non-profit, and that disposition of the money depends on the specific program. Mr. Dick Soule, director of one of the carpentry programs, indicated that funds are reinvested into the program, providing tools and supplies for stu- dents. All books, he stressed, are open for audit. Dr. Lawson asked what would happen to students without these three programs. Dr. Guldager responded that they would probably drop out of school. Dr. Monderer noted that the ACE programs and the 502.11 programs are a real asset to the community, and should be recognized as such. Dr. Rotberg agreed. He noted in closing that it would be helpful in understanding the budget if the programs were re-named, or some man- ner of distinguishing among them for budget purposes could be devised. Dr. Monderer reported that the 7 of non-public school attending stu- HIGH SCHOOL STA dents were in the 10-11% range from 1964-1966. It ranged from 3.5-6.5% TISTICAL ATTEND during the 1967-1976 years. For 1976 4.9% attended non-public schools ANCE REPORT of which approximately 1% were mandated private school placements. After Dr. Monderer's presentation, Dr. Lawson thought it important to note, in response to community concern, that there are fewer than ever of Lexington school age residents enrolled in non-public schools. Dr. Lawson presented for Committee approval a proposal to open, on HIGH SCHOOL a pilot basis, high school courses to adult citizens. He stressed the COURSES FOR importance of the four qualifications which would control the plan for ADULTS this year at least. The qualifications are: Page 201 December 13, 1976 - Checks must be written to the Town of Lexington and not the Lexington Public Schools. - All income from adult participation must be deposited with the Town Treasurer. - Approval of this pilot program does not commit the school committee to future programs of this type. - Approval of this pilot program does not carry any commitment by the school committee to present and/or future financial support. Mr. Michelman approved the proposal enthusiastically noting only that care should be taken in the use of the word "citizen" since students currently enrolled in schools are in fact "citizens". Mr. Brown asked whether there was anything in the plan which might be in competition with the evening Adult Education program given the dif- ference in tuition structure. Dr. Clune responded that he knew of no conflict and added that the new program offered a kind of adult/student interaction which is not afforded in the evening program. Miss Abelmann noted that, while generally enthusiastic, students whom she had polled had expressed concerns about feelings of inadequacy with adults present, overcrowding of classes, adult "take-over", and unfair competition. Dr. Clune responded that all these concerns had been taken into con- sideration in building the pilot program. Dr. Rotberg moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, underlining the qualifications noted by Dr. Lawson and the concerns ex- pressed by Miss Abelmann (Seconded, Brown, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson presented to the school committee the written reaction PRINCIPAL'S of each principal to the Educational Plan Study Committee report. Also REACTION TO included was a written reaction from Dr. Pierson. Dr. Lawson noted E.P.S.C. REPOT that, in terms of action, some areas had already been addressed, others were in process, and others were slated for future attention. Mrs. Swanson thanked Dr. Lawson and the principals for their efforts. She indicated that it was her feeling that response from the committee would be inappropriate at this time. Mr. Michelman agreed that it would be better to give the school committee and the study committee a chance to reflect on the principals' responses. He suggested that one or sev- eral meetings should be scheduled at which all interested parties could question and share ideas. Dr. Rotberg presented for consideration an article which appeared N.Y. TIMES in the N.Y. Times on December 6, 1976. It described a program operat- ARTICLE ON ing in St. Louis, Missouri. SMOKING He wondered if such a program might be implemented in Lexington. Dr. Clune thought this might be a good idea and suggested that an appro- priate vehicle for offering such a program might be through Max Ed and Student Government. Page 202 December 13, 1976 Dr. Rotberg requested Dr. Clune to ask Dr. Kornitzky to investi- gate the model and to contact the local chapter of the American Cancer Society for other possibilities. He also requested that Dr. Lawson pass the information on to the junior high school principals. VOTED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of June 7, 1976, as EXECUTIVE amended. (Wadsworth, Brown, Unanimous) SESSION MINUTES VOTED: to release the minutes of June 7, 1976 to the public. (Michelman, Rotberg, Unanimous) VOTED: to accept the minutes of June 21, 1976 as amended. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) . VOTED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of July 6, 1976. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) VOTED: to release the Executive Session Minutes of July 6, 1976. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) VOIED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of August 3, 1976. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) VOTED: to release the Executive Session Minutes of August 3, 1976, (Rotberg, Michelman, Unanimous) VOTED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of August 24, 1976. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) VOTED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of September 13, 1976, (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) VOTED: to release the Executive Session Minutes of September 13, 1976. (Rotberg, Brown, Unanimous) It was agreed to postpone voting on the September 27, 1976 Executive Session Minutes until Mr. Barnes could be present. VOTED: to accept the October 12, 1976 Executive Session Minutes as amended. (Michelman, Wadsworth, Unanimous) VOTED: to accept October 25, 1976 Executive Session Minutes as corrected. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) VOTED: to release October 25, 1976 Executive Session Minutes. (Rotberg, Michelman, Unanimous) It was agreed to postpone voting the November 8, 1976 Executive ' Session Minutes until Mr. Barnes could be present. At 10:30 p.m. Mr. Michelman MOVED: that the School Committee adjourn to Executive Session for di.s- cussion of litigation and strategy. (Brown, seconded) Brown, yes; Swanson, yes; Michelman, yes; Rotberg, yes; Wadsworth, yes. Res e�tf�. 2b(mmitte dk P.e rd.,;_€; Secretary, ro tem