Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-11-24-SC-min Page 67 November 24, 1981 A regular meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held Tues- day, November 24, 1981, at 8:00 p.m. , in the School Administration Build- ing. Present were: Swanson, Gaudet, Shaw, Beck, Michelman, and Student Representative Splaine. Also present were: Lawson, Pierson, Maclnnes, Monderer, DiGiammarino, and Barnes. Dr. Richard Goodman, Director of the Center of Educational Field SUPERINTENDENT Services, located at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hamp- SEARCH shire, was interviewed by School Committee members as a possible consul- CONSULTANT tant in the recruitment process for a new Superintendent of Schools. The School Committee asked Dr. Goodman to comment on his perception of the role of consultant in the search for a new Superintendent. Dr. Goodman said he felt the consultant should recruit and stimulate applicants, eval- uate resumes, check references, and possibly take part in the final in- terviewing process. He said that when the pool of candidates had been screened to approximately 15 to 20 individuals, he would see his role as checking each applicant. He noted that he had been previously involved in superintendent searches and had a network of contacts due to his former position as Ex- ecutive Secretary to the New Hampshire School Boards. Dr. Goodman said he felt one of his main assets would be the ability to check on a candi- date via phone throughout his network. He added that his role would not necessarily look for negative things, since it was rare that a superin- tendent did not have some problems as any job would, but he would focus on how the individual handled the problems that arose in particular situa- tions. He added that he would seek candidates of the highest qualifica- - tions, which was consistent with the goal of the School Committee. Dr. Goodman also noted that even though Lexington was a fine communi- ty, some candidates may not apply of their own initiative. He felt that one role of the consultant would be to approach outstanding candidates. Dr. Goodman concluded his commentary by responding to questions from the School Committee. He stated that the charge for his professional ser- vices was $60.00 an hour, plus expenses, and felt that two of the positive aspects would be his flexibility of schedule and his accessibility. After the departure of Dr. Goodman, the Committee members expressed their positive reaction to Dr. Goodman's presentation. Mr. Michelman said the School Committee would take the matter under advisement. It was MINUTES VOTED: to approve the minutes of November 10, 1981, as amended. November 10,198 (Gaudet, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was SCHEDULE OF VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments as listed on the at- PAYMENTS tached sheets. (Swanson, Beck, Unanimous) The Financial Statement was discussed. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Page 68 November 24, 1981 Mr. Barnes presented a review of the English teacher loads in comparable ENGLISH communities at the request of the School Committee. A brief discussion TEACHER of teacher loads pursued. The School Committee felt it would be inter- LOADS esting, if possible, to see if these communities required writing assign- ments and to what extent. Dr. Monderer and Mrs. Ellen Difantis, Principal of Hastings School, K-1 TRANSITION presented an evaluation report regarding the K-1 Transition Program. They PROGRAM commented on the section of the K-1 Study Report by Consultants Cammara EVALUATION and Axelrod, which addressed itself to some of the problems encountered during the study. Mrs. Difantis stated that she found the entire evalua- tion to be helpful and interesting, even though there were same comments of concern by the evaluators regarding access to school records, time con- straints, and available data. Mrs. Difantis noted that the point to remem- ber was that the K-1 Transition Program was developed to service students, and not developed with the idea of formal evaluation. She said the com- ments of the evaluators would be taken under consideration in planning for future studies and any changes that might occur in the Program. She and Dr. Monderer complimented Hastings staff for the time invested in the proj- ect. They said the information gathered would allow them to prepare same restatements on 14 of the 28 children. The findings, though based upon this data, and although not conclusive, were most positive. SECOND READING The second reading of the proposed changes in the Tuberculosis Policy PROPOSED was conducted. TUBERCULOSIS POLICY Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was PERSONNEL VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes as listed on the at- CHANGES tached sheet. (Swanson, Beck, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson noted that due to a sufficient need among sophomore stu- SOPHOMORE dents in basketball and consistent with past practice in recommending a BASKETBALL program if there were sufficient students and funding could be obtained RECOMMENDATIOI from the present athletic budget, he recommended the approval of the re- quest to continue Sophomore Boys' Basketball at Lexington High School for the coming school year. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to approve the request to continue Sophomore Boys' Basketball at Lexington High School for the year, 1981-82. (Swanson, Shaw, Unanimous) 1982 TITLE I The proposed Title I Summer Reading Program for 1982 application SUMMER READIN( was reviewed by the School Committee. APPLICATION FORM Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was VOTED: to approve the submission of the application for a grant under ESEA or Title I for 1982 Summer Reading Program. (Beck, Gaudet, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson said the Krebs School had made a request to establish KREBS SCHOOL Page 69 November 24, 1981 a secondary school program. He noted that the number of communities sending pupils to Krebs had decreased significantly due to financial constraints. He added that the proposed 7-12 program at Krebs School would include some special and same regular students and was a com- prehensive program which he would support. He felt that a small sec- ondary school program, such as Krebs, might share classes with Lexing- ton High School. Students might enroll at Krebs and take one or more courses at the High School, and if Krebs could supply some service to the Lexington schools, it certainly would be an asset to both programs. He informed the School Committee that he had reviewed the curriculum, which is required by law, and supported the proposal. The Grievance (Reduction in Department Heads` Annual Stipend) was Z.E.A. GRIEVANCE presented by William Meade, substituting for Dr. Richard Rossi, Chair- 81-82-1A man of the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee of the Lexington Education Association. Mr. Meade explained to the School Cv mnittee that the Department Heads' stipend was reduced by a category last July due to an interpretation by the administration which calcu- lated the number of teachers within a department on an F.T.E. basis rather than number of persons. He said that the contract in effect provided for a Department Head stipend to be determined by the number of teachers in an individual's department, and not by a full time equi- valency basis. He noted that currently supervised 33 teachers, but the administration's calculation gave him credit for 28.8 persons, based upon a full time equivalency formula. Mr. Meade further stated that there had been no change in the teach- ers' contract since 1976, and requested that the School Committee honor its responsibilities under the contract and place in the appropriate category. said that he was unaware of the formula application to make the salary determination. Mr. Meade responded that he felt that it was encumbent upon the administration to inform the Lexington Educa- tion Association of any contemplated changes in procedures. Mr. Barnes, Administrative Assistant for Personnel, presented the case on behalf of the administration. He noted that the Class Action Grievance voted by the Association had been denied due to timeliness and that original grievance, which had been heard at various levels, had been denied due to lack of merit. He asked that stipends for at least two other Department Heads had been reduced un- der the contract guidelines using the full time equivalency formula. He said the system had changed its procedure in 1976, which calculated all personnel at the High School level as 1.0 and all junior high school persons as .75. In 1976, all personnel were calculated at the percen- tage at which they were hired. Dr. Lawson initiated this change, which he felt benefited the Department Heads. At this point, Dr. Lawson noted that it was important that the de- cisions in these grievances were no reflection upon the capabilities of and hoped that everyone would be clear on this segment of the matter. He said the actual focus was that one group, namely the L.E.A. , wanted a new interpretation after six years of practice, while Page 70 November 24, 1981 the administration had been consistent in applying a formula for the past six years with another full time equivalency formula being imple- mented several years prior to that. He added that even though the present leadership of the Association might not understand the pro- vision, that in 1976, he and Mr. Spiris had conversations with the L.E.A. and had made comments at several meetings regarding the formu- la. They felt that all understood the facts of the matter. Dr. Pierson interjected that the full time equivalency basis for calculation seemed to make good sense, since there was a difference in demand between part-time and full time staff upon the Department Head. At this time, members of the School Committee made comments and asked questions of the presenters. Dr. Beck noted that did perform well and was cut a full salary level,.yet the people in the department level reflected a drop nearer half the level, which seemed to he inconsistent from his viewpoint. Mrs. Swanson interjec- ted that the basis of the Grievance was whether there had been a vio- lation of the contract or not. She said that she felt there was no violation. He felt that if the Grievance could be resolved, which in- volved a small amount of money, the Committee certainly could give the faculty the impression that it was open-minded on issues. He added that he felt the interpretation by the School Committee was correct, but for the small amount of money in dispute, it was best to focus on the morale of staff. Mrs. Gaudet said that she was empathetic to the situation that was in, but did not understand why he was surprised that his stipend had been reduced or calculated differently, since he worked with budgets for several years and the stipends had been clearly stated on his contract. Mrs. Swanson, at this time, suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea to inform Mr. Miller of the situation and to seek his advice. Mr. Michelman agreed and said he would contact Mr. Miller and report back to the School Committee. At this point, a vote was taken. It was 1!A VOTED: to deny Grievance 81-82-1 due to lack of merit and Grievance 81-82-1A on the basis of timeliness. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. (Gaudet, Swanson, Unanimous) Respectfully submit 4., f r- / << Jac a,� Rid-hard H. Barnes Recording Secretary /c SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS The following schedules of payments were available for scrutiny and approval prior, to this meeting: SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services November 6, 1981 Classified Payroll #10-C $74,415.54 November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll ; 10 461 ,801.25 Expenses November 13, 1981 Bill Schedules #73 29,483.59 November 13, 1981 #74 7,407,46 November 13, 1981 075 8,790,41 November 20, 1981 #76 5,147.23 November 20, 1981 #77 6,650.77 November 20, 1981 078 3,540.94 November 20, 1981 #79 9,314.83 November 20, 1981 #80 • 22,887,46 Out-of-State Travel November 20, 1981 Bill Schedule #5 267.18 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS Metco Program November 6, 1981 Classified Payroll 2,485.64. November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 6,222.01 November 13, 1981 Bill Schedules 151.19 November 20, 1981 19.10 Project Mainstream November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 872.79 November 13, 1981 63. 95 Transition to Employment November 6, 1981 Classified Payroll 637,88 November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 902.35 November 13, 1981 Bill Schedules 03 196,07 November 20, 1981 04 10.50 a Adult Education November b, 1981 Classified Payroll 62, 10 November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 1,225,50 ' November 13, 1981 Bill Schedule #3 356.00 Prosect Discover. • November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 921.95 November 20, 1981 Bill Schedule #2 173.18 (Over) Y • Project Assist November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 918.50 Project Enhance November 6, 1981 Classified Payroll 529.90 November 13, 1981 Professional Payroll 629.27 November 13, 1981 Bill Schedule `l 363.74 Vocational Guidance November 13, 1981 Bill Schedule V7 283,30 EDCO November 13, 1981 Bill Schedule 50,468.00 • • • PEi:SONNEL CHANCES - CERTIFIED COACHING APPOINTMENTS • PERSONNEL CHANGES - CLASSIFIED RESIGNATION YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON i-• 1�I it