 So I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Montpelier Public Schools Board of School Commissioners. If you have an agenda, I'm going to change the order of the items on the agenda. So first off, I just want to one thing I want to quickly clarify is this is the Montpelier Public Schools Board. We're meeting until 6.30 at 6.30 in comes the Montpelier Rocksbury Public School Board meeting. So the first item is going to be consent agenda. The next is going to be a discussion of the Vermont State Employees' Credit Union lease agreement. The next agenda is going to be to ratify the vote from the March 29th meeting. Then I will have a statement to make about the recent settlement agreement with the superintendent and then we will have public comment at the end of the meeting. All right. Did you speak a little louder, please? Sure. I can try. So first item in this new order is the consent agenda. Could I add approval of teacher contracts for FY19 to the consent agenda, please? Yes. So we're going to add teacher contracts to the consent agenda so it will include the FY19 teacher contracts, approval of minutes of the April 4th school board meeting, and approval of warrants for payroll and accounts payable for April 27th, 2018. I move to approve the consent agenda. All second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Thank you. So next we have Steve Avery. Do you want to come to this? I'm going to come over. Okay. Sure. All right. I'm Tom Wood of the director of facilities for the Montclair Public School District. And with me is Steve Avery of the Montclair Public School District. We wanted to come tonight just to give the board a little bit more information about an ongoing conversation we've been having for a couple of years now with the credit union about structuring agreement to allow them to have temporary parking access to our, what we call our mud lot, which is the parking area immediately adjacent to the auditorium. It's really the land that's between the auditorium and Bailey Ave, which is where the credit union is. And so over the last couple of years, we've had back and forth conversations about how could we do it? What would it look like? How big would it be? You know, the terms of the lease and things of that nature. And what we wanted to bring to the board this morning was just, or this afternoon was just an update in regards to trying to formalize a current agreement which allows them to have temporary access to the way that the mud lot is currently structured today, which is in its existing state, no improvements. But the credit union is looking for temporary parking relief for their own facility. They'd like to have permission to allow employees to park there. And we'd like to structure a lease agreement to formalize that to allow them to have up to, I think, 50 parking spaces in that area. As we continue discussion about trying to make it a longer, longer-term lasting parking structure and agreement. So there's going to be a two-phase discussion here. The first phase tonight is just to allow a lease to be able to get permission for them to use the yard area the way that it is currently. And then from there, there will be a further discussion in the next couple of months about what improvements could be made to that, and how it might look, and how that would translate into a change in the lease agreement. But if there's any other information you want to add, I'm here to kind of just give the information board, see if the board may have questions. Try to answer that. But what we're looking for is just an approval to enter into the first lease agreement, which is to allow the credit union to temporarily reuse the parking area the way it is today, that they have casually used it on and off over the last couple of years. So we're just looking to try to get some endorsement of that from the board. I'd also like to add this is an attempt for the schools to continue to be a good community partner and a good neighbor in town. The Vermont State Employees Credit Union approached us about this because they are expanding in this location. And in order to continue with that expansion, they are in need of more spaces. And while I know that parking is certainly a very sensitive issue in town, I take very seriously the notion that the schools are a part of this community and a welcoming part of this community and want to work as good neighbors. And if there's a way that we can help the Vermont State Employees Credit Union continue their expansion and allow them to stay in Montpelier, I think it is in the best interest of the school district to do that work and to work with them accordingly. I will also say I'm incredibly proud of this. As I mentioned in the memo, Steve and I first started having this conversation three years ago. And so through a lot of patience and a lot of diligence and a lot of lawyers, we're really proud to have this agreement before you tonight. Does anyone have Tina? I have a question. You've answered the first part. I was going to say, who's going to pay this lot? And then you said, as it is. So let me get this in my mind. Fifty cars out there during spring, month of season and summer. What will that do to that front part? And although I'd like to be a good neighbor, I'd like to be a good neighbor and have you not sink into my front yard. So I'm thinking, what is your plan for this? Well, from a practical point of view, we're hoping we're through this current flood season a lot. You know, next Monday when we want to allow people to start talking back out there, it's going to sound enough so that we're not going to do any damage to the lawn this coming year. I hope that we would actually be able to get through a design process and go through the regulatory view board here in the city to get a site plan approval to actually do the construction later this summer to get it in place before next month's season is a promise. So that paying for that would be the Montpelier Roxbury School Board's responsibility? The concept that we're talking about now is that we're talking about a simple land lease agreement and the lease holder as a lease holder improvement would pay for any improvements that are eventually done to the lawn. So they would not end up coming out of any capital improvement monies for the district. And that would include any, if the parking lot is structured, what we know we need to get into in terms of the regulatory board that we have to address stormwater issues and have to address site lighting, landscaping, in addition to payment and the structure and the parking. All that will come out of the review process for the city in terms of getting a design review board approval and site plan approval. And all that will eventually get tied into a more formal agreement that will be a lease holder improvement all paid for by the lease holder. Thank you. You're doing a good job, Tom. I'm not offending. On this, we are talking about two separate projects, if I will. The first one is the short-term lease that Tom had mentioned allowing us to use a lot as is. And I know he mentioned 50 spaces. The agreement that we have proposed includes the minimum of 20 spaces. In all reality, that's what we anticipate having to use in the immediate future. So I didn't want you to get the idea of cars being out there immediately. That's not our intent. The other thing I would add is maybe a little background for the board, if you don't know this already. Dr. Rick had mentioned we were expanding in the area. We've been expanding in the area for the past 20 years. And it's always been a problem for a sort of challenge. We currently have 12 employees who have no parking. So if someone comes to work for us today, we're going to find your own parking. And we'd like to try and get away from that and provide parking for all of our staff. So this would help. And I appreciate you considering it. Thank you. So two questions. One, I'm assuming all the parking is for staff and not customers. And the second is with the paving. Are there any stormwater issues that arise? The short answer is yes. There's a stormwater criteria that we have to meet. So there is going to be a need to collect the stormwater, filter it before we discharge it off the property. Those types of solutions, we haven't determined what they're going to be until we decide on the size of the lot, whether it's how many square feet it is and the actual process that we go through. Another aspect of this that I want to make sure we mention is that we're looking at it as a shared-use parking lot. The credit unions use, because it is just employees, is really restricted to business hours. The advantage of the district is that that parking lot would then be available for co-use late in the evening or on weekends when we tend to have events in the auditorium or the gymnasium when we're looking for overflow parking. So it's really seen as, from my perspective, when we're in business day, the school day, we have had a good parking for our faculty and staff now in our parking lot. And that during the day, we don't envision that we would have a need for it at all. And it's really on those Friday evenings, Saturday evenings where we have large events in the gym or the auditorium where it would be wonderful if we had a better parking facility on that side of the property. On the number of spaces, because as Steve mentioned, the lease says at least 20. You've mentioned up to 50, but there's not a limit set in the lease. No, we've, for now, set aside a square foot area. And they're going to look to develop that. It is approximately 20 spaces for this first phase now. I'm just concerned that we have only a minimum of not a maximum. I mean, I know you guys don't have 400. Well, we put in a maximum square footage area of about 15,000 square feet just to try to give some parameters to the area that they're going to look to develop. And we'll stake that out somehow. We'll eventually stake that out. Once we can determine the exact size and the shape of it, we'll be able to come back with a more formal plan on what it looks like to be able to let the board know specifically what we're proposing when we know specifically what it is. It's my understanding that if we're going to do a lease of three years or longer, we need a public vote. We would need a vote of the electorate, which is why this is a short-term lease to start the conversation. It was really to get the ball rolling. So once we do a year-to-year, and as future needs dictate, if it went to a longer-type situation, that would need to be a vote of the electorate. I have a question. Thank you. Currently, we have a lot of state employees that park behind Green Mountain Power and that take a shuttle up to the state housing and around town. They take the circulate. How would we know it was your employees, the credit union employees that are actually parking there and not large numbers of state employees or the public? Do you want to go first on that one? No. No. It probably comes down to policing or monitoring the parking lot, not policing necessarily, but we could work with you on that as far as the parking ID tag. Okay. Yeah, I guess so. Okay, good. Yes, we have a very similar informal process here at the high school. We visually monitor it. Because of the issue, we kind of know whose cars on the basis are not ours. We talk them individually. I'll give credit to Genwell Howard for that. She has an eye for... She's such a good eye. As NICO needs smiling, so I know I'm right. Genwell Howard has an eye for the cars that don't belong. Gotcha. So we're going to continue to work it that way. Yes. Okay. We're very used to that. I bet you are. We're a very popular spot for the lifetime. Yes, you are. Thank you. All right. Any further questions? We need a motion to approve. Please. I'll make a motion to approve the short-term lease with the BCCU. I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All right. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. We'd like to thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. Nice to see you. All right. So that brings us to our new item number four in which we ratify the vote taken at the March 29th meeting. And I'm going to turn Bridget for... Yes. To talk about that. Right. I wanted to apologize to the public for the fact that the meeting was not properly warned last week. That was not consistent with the district's values and which include a very strong desire to maintain community engagement and community communication. It was not... The board members... It was totally unintentional that board members did not know that the posting steps had not taken place. It was not visible to us in the way we received the warning. But nonetheless, it's our responsibility and we take responsibility for it and we apologize to the public. We immediately put in a plan to correct on the advice of council that mistake and that's what we're doing tonight by taking a vote to ratify the action that was taken in that meeting. So I think the motion that we need is to ratify and confirm the action taken at the March 29th meeting. I'll make a motion to ratify and confirm the action taken at the March 29th special meeting. I'll second that. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. So there have been a lot of questions raised in the paper this week. And I want to... I want to provide some answers to some questions. I do also want to note that the board will no longer be responding to questions from the times, Argus. Oops. And I have to step out and take my phone. Okay. We just have to pause for a moment. I'm sorry. So I was starting to say that we are not going to be able to respond to the times Argus questions because their reporting on Brian's contract in the past week has been so inaccurate, including attribution of statements to the board's attorney that we're never made and are not true. The headline in this morning's paper was absolutely false and baseless. Sorry, it's very disappointing to me because I love newspapers. My husband and I have subscribed to the Times Argus for 20 years. I believe what I read in the paper and I'm sure that others in our community rely on it as well. And it's important to me that we have a press that we can count on. And so I'm feeling pretty upset by how false and misleading the reporting on this situation has been. The story that we have here in reality is a board and a superintendent who have worked together diligently and respectfully to come to a mutually acceptable resignation agreement through a process that respected the privacy and dignity of a valued employee. I do have a statement about the contract that I hope answers some of the more complicated legal questions for people. We, the Montpelier Board of School Commissioners believes it's necessary and important to clarify the nature of its legal obligations contained within its employment contract with Superintendent Brian Ricca and to publicly indicate that such considerations influenced its determination to negotiate and execute the resignation and settlement agreement with Superintendent Ricca. The board retained experienced employment counsel who advised the board about its obligations under its contract with the superintendent. The contract was for a stated term of July 1st, 2016 through June 30th, 2018. Under section four of the agreement the superintendent was obligated to notify the board of his intent to seek renewal on or before March 1st, 2018. He did so. On or before April 1st the board was to vote on whether to offer the superintendent an extension of his employment for not less than two years. If however, the board did not offer to renew the superintendent's contract by April 1st the contract gave the superintendent the option to automatically extend the current contract for an additional one year period. Further, the board's counsel advised that under section six of the contract the superintendent was granted the right to a hearing before the board upon request in response to any board decision of non-renewal. Additionally, the contract required that the board demonstrate that its decision to non-renew was supported by just cause. The articles appearing in the Times Argus have suggested that if the board provided notice of non-renewal by April 1st this would automatically cause the superintendent's term of service to end June 30th without any further action required by the board. In the board's view, this is an incomplete and misleading reading of the agreement. Because the contract included a standard of just cause for non-renewal and a right to a hearing on that issue, the board believed that as a matter of prudence it needed to be mindful of the risks time and expense potentially involved. The board came to the unanimous conclusion that the better course of action was to preclude the risk, time delay and expense by reaching a clear and mutually satisfactory agreement with Superintendent Bricka. The board is very hopeful that this explanation will help the public have a better understanding of the board's actions in this matter and the reasons for them. The board is comprised of seven members who work with great integrity on behalf of our district and all members work together to derive mutually acceptable and unanimously supported agreement so that the district can move forward positively. Which is what I'm hearing from the community as opposed to the paper what I hear from members of the community is what they want is to move forward. I think most of our community understands the situation for what it is. It's not an unusual executive contract it's not an unusual executive settlement and what we're hearing from the community is that the new hires for Superintendent Curriculum Director and now Union Elementary School Principal are their top priority and a very thoughtful search process that reflects community values is their priority. I think we'll be hearing that from members of the public this evening. What we're hearing from is people who are looking forward to the future for this district and to having leadership that reflects the values of the community and involves the community in the process of running the district. That is the statement that we have. I realize that was a lot of legal contract stuff to try to follow while somebody is speaking it but that is why we held public comment until after. I could say that. We now have an opportunity for a public comment and if anyone would like to share a comment you can come to the microphone. Jerry Kilkos is the only one who has a mic. We'd like to hear some of your people. Sorry. Jerry Kilkos, do you hear that? Actually the microphones don't amplify in the room. They just run to the TV. Jerry Kilkos, Ridge Street Montpelier. What exactly you said the reporting of the Times Argus was false. What was false? Was there a non-disclosure agreement? Is that false? There's a non-disparagement agreement. Why? Can't say. And it's supposed to be according to the Times Argus McNeil, the lawyer Mr. McNeil will avoid a review which would be expensive. It was something that decided to do the severance pay of $93,000. Is that right? So we made a statement. Michelle made a statement on behalf of the board and we're taking public comment but I don't think it's a question and answer period. The way this was handled that's of course you have questions. The way this was there's no posting on the meeting. Non-disclosure agreements just doesn't seem right. Thank you very much. People are wondering about it and then I asked about the Times Argus article. There's two of them. I'm asking what is false? The headline this morning for one. Again, this public comment is an opportunity for the public to offer comments. We don't typically engage in a question and answer of a comment. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Good evening. I'm Barbara Thompson and I would like to express also my disappointment in the Times Argus coverage of this event. First of all, this is a confidential personnel matter and I think it's really important to keep that in mind. It seems to me that the Times Argus has tried to create a big story where there really is not a story and has confused the issue. The issue is complicated. It's complicated legally. I did not understand it either initially and I still don't understand this kind of a clause in a personnel contract. But I do think it's the duty of the reporting and the editorial of our community newspaper which claims to be focused on community news. That's why I'm paying $57 every three months so that I can get an accurate picture of my community news which affects me and my family. I'm very disappointed in the fact that in this case it seems like the Times Argus has been just trying to create a scandal for additional coverage. Tim Sinett from Montpelier and I was just going to ask if you can release your statement in any other form. I can. Unfortunately, I don't have a paper copy but we will have it available on the website tomorrow. Because I think that there are additional statements that people may have. You mentioned that the community has been supportive and wants to move forward. I didn't think of one person who has said that. I think there is some there are still some questions. I know there's a lot that can't be answered but I think there is some that can be answered. Maybe not for this particular contract but for contracts moving forward. So I think it's important to have this information for us moving forward because we will be hiring a new superintendent and it will be a new contract. I think the public should be as involved as they can be and everything should be as transparent as possible respecting MBAs and such. Thank you. Hello, my name is Matthew Nunley. I have three children in the Montpelier City School system and they say thank you all for your time and efforts. I can't imagine sitting where you are. So thank you. I do feel like and I know a lot of the community feels like we want to know why even though it's not necessarily for us to know why. I do feel like we want to move forward now that we know this has happened. So we want to move forward and we just want to know that there is a possible person for the job. No matter what that means we want the best for our kids. I know you guys all want that. It is difficult to sit back and think about what is what the issue was what is our new superintendent going to bring that Dr. Rika has not brought. So those are my thoughts. Thank you. My name is Lillianne Savard and I'm the mother of four children in the district and I had the honor to work with this school board and the health and wellness policy last year and with Dr. Rika and I'm also a contracted employee as a physical therapist for the district and I would second what you just said. It's just hard for me to not understand I have high regards for each one of you on this board I trust that you had thoughtful discussions about that matter I have seen a lot of rotation in superintendents in the past 10 years about 10 years which have deeply concerned me and I really appreciated having somebody in that role that I could go up to that would return my emails and my calls within 24 hours that felt I could easily talk to responsive at similar values as mine as far as supporting children with special needs in our district I know those are positions that are very demanding and that require a lot of commitment and a lot of stress and Vermont is a special small, teeny little place to live in Montpelier even more maybe and I'm very thankful Dr. Rika for your service I think it was an honor to have you and I I kind of doubt that it's going to be that easy to find somebody who's committed to our community to stay here for the long term when we have like relationships like neighborhood relationships and that like those private relationships that we necessarily need to work on we don't get along with the neighbor push them away of our life and that kind of solves the issue but when we get to know people and at the deeper level and I'm not talking about my personal relationship I'm just saying about when we are in a small community and we need to work through problems I think maybe looking into the future for really building those relationships and working above you know the issues that might rise because school boards there's also a rotation like you guys are not I'm not sure what the term is but so three years I don't know for me it's hard to swallow that we can really have somebody that's going to be more dedicated and committed to our district and that will stay with us for the long term but thank you everybody for your work on this Any other comments? Okay so that is it for we missed a co-curricular that's on people's and it's a pending one and I don't want to have to wait until next I move that we approve the co-curricular recommendations One second All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay and we have a motion to adjourn so we can turn it over to the next board I move we adjourn I'll second that Okay