 Welcome everyone. Thank you for joining us. We are fortunate to have Jay here and hopefully Larry Sakowicz, our other rep, will join us. I hear Mark McDonald is there at the school and welcome Jeff Francis, who is the Executive Director of the Vermont Superintendent's Association. Thanks for joining us as well. First, I do need to assign or ask someone to volunteer to be a meeting evaluator. Do I have a volunteer for that tonight? Monk's one of our board members. Hannah, would you be willing to do that? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Oh, Ashley. Okay. Thanks, Ashley. Thanks for volunteering. All right. Is there any public comment? We did have a schedule for some time for public comment. There will also be time after we hear from the legislative tours. But I did want to make sure that if someone had something nonrelated to what we're going to be talking about later, they could have a couple of minutes now. Hearing none, I'm going to give the floor to Jeff Francis and Jay and Mark. Thanks. Thanks again for joining us. Sure. First, I want to check my audio. Am I coming through okay? I've had some trouble with my internet today, so I hope that that matter is resolved. I want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you, be it on an online platform. One of the highlights of my winter each year is coming down to Randolph to meet you with you all and give you a little bit of update on what's happening in Montpelier. As you know, the dynamics for the General Assembly have been affected by the pandemic, just like the pandemic has affected everyone else. And it's really a different form of interaction that we have. Whereas in a typical year, you would be visiting committees and talking to people such as Senator McDonald. I haven't had occasion to see him virtually yet this year. I've been visiting the House Education Committee, where Jay is a member. But it's different. And the high priority for the state in general is navigating the pandemic. But the dynamics in public education have caused the General Assembly to turn into an array of issues that are not central to the pandemic, but are reflective of what is necessary and desired in public education in general. So what I thought I'd do is just sort of give you the high points on what I've observed in the session so far. Talk a little bit about key pieces of legislation and then step back, let you have a discussion amongst yourself with the legislators. Maybe some of it in response to what I'm about to say, but I'm sure that they've got some topics to bring up with you as well. So there's a resource that goes out to school board members and administrators, the Education Legislative Update. And the last one was published at the end of January. And there's a lot of comprehensive information in there about the status of legislation currently. But there's a few things that are happening that aren't reflected in that report. So I'll hit the high point of the report first and then talk about another issue or two. So the first piece of legislation affecting schools out of the box was age 48. And that was the bill that allowed municipal legislative bodies, including school districts, to move the data their 2021 annual meeting to a later date if they chose. And also require the clerk to mail out 2021 annual meeting absentee Australian ballots. So that was a COVID specific response. School districts weighed in heavily in the development of that legislation, really with two things in mind. One, for unified union school districts, there was an interest in making sure that the municipalities that made up those districts, to the extent they were able, all voted on the same date. And two, we wanted to make sure that local school officials were working closely with town clerks in particular in order to accomplish that. There was a statement of intent in that bill that indicated that. That bill has been approved. And I would imagine that your plans in your district for your voting are all set. So that was one issue. Another significant issue that has not, it's a bill that hasn't been enacted into law, but it was intended to convey to school district officials an improved picture related to the yield for every dollar of taxation. So you'll recall that in December, the letter that went from the tax commissioner to leaders in the general assembly basically forecast a very bleak and dismal fiscal outlook for the coming year. And a yield that was based on pandemic circumstances at the time. And specifically with respect to education, a very sizable deficit in the education fund. Because of some broad-based taxes and Mark McDonald knows this better than I do, the picture for the Ed fund improved dramatically on what I think is a one-year scenario. But it allowed the Ways and Means Committee to pass a bill out of their committee that increased the yield for a dollar of resident property taxation to $11,385. That was up measurably over the yield last year. And, you know, I don't like to characterize it this way because I think that everything is sort of more moderate than this. But school district officials across the state did breed a sigh of relief because some folks were dealing with very modest increases in education spending, modest increases in Ed spending per pupil, but they were seeing pretty substantial tax rate increases. And the increase in the yield had the effect of moderating those tax rates. I think it was to the credit of the Ways and Means Committee. And I expect to the credit of the General Assembly in total when that bill is ultimately acted upon that they recognize the need that school districts were experiencing with regard to their FY22 budgets. And they took the yield calculation to a place that reflected what the current status of the education fund is. So that was another significant action. Right now, there is a pretty vigorous deliberation going on around the construct for statewide bargaining for school employees' health benefits. Two bills that are under consideration in the House General Affairs Committee are H63 and H81. Last year, the state completed its first round of bargaining for school employees' health care at the statewide level. And the commissioners on the employers' side raised some concerns about considerations for affordability in the context of those negotiations. So there were two bills that were introduced to the House Committee on General Housing and Military Affairs. One's H63, the other's H81. The H63 was the bill that was reflective of the views of the employers and the School Boards Association. And it had a couple of very significant proposals in it. One was to ask both sides in the negotiation to submit a full-cost estimate for the respective proposal with a breakdown of how the cost within that proposal would be borne by employers and employees. And a second pretty significant proposal was a requirement for an arbitration panel to determine which of the two proposals most appropriately balances health care benefits and reasonable cost containment. So that issue of whether the underlying statute for that statewide negotiation, the second round for so they're so bargaining is about to start again for the second cycle in this method of establishing those health care benefits in April. And the House General Affairs Committee is deliberating what provisions they'll put in a bill. So that's something that we're keeping an eye on. There was an estimate that the last best offer that was accepted by the arbitrator in the round, which is affecting health insurance costs right now, may have added up to $25 million cost statewide because of the negotiation that was or the proposal that was selected. I'm not an expert on this bill because the lead on it is the school board's association. So my colleague, Susan Glowski, has been paying close attention to this. But it's a piece of legislation or an issue that we covered pretty extensively in the legislative report. So you may already be familiar with it. But it's something that at least in its first iteration, which would be a vote by the House Committee on General Housing and Military Affairs is likely, they're likely to vote on it this week and possibly as soon as tomorrow. I also wanted to talk about another very significant issue that the General Assembly is taking up, which is the response to the so-called weighting study Act 173, which was approved several years ago, included a requirement that the General Assembly caused the agency of education to commission a study to see if the weights that are applied in our education funding formula for students in different age, excuse me, grade configurations and students from lower socioeconomic status or for those for whom English is a second language were appropriate. There was a extensive study that was conducted by Professor Tammy Colby from UVM with colleagues from around the country who were experts in education funding. That study found that our weights were not up to date as it were, and there were recommendations put in that study for adjusting the weights. And the legislature is grappling right now with a couple of different proposals on how to adjust those weights. There's a bill in the House age 54 and one in the Senate S-13. They take somewhat different approaches and that age 54 would move into an acceptance of the weight recommendations from the study and implement them over several years in order to mitigate the tax rate changes that would happen in communities that would lose equalized pupils as a result of the weightings being changed. And then the Senate takes probably a different approach. Their bill is S-13 and that requires a process of community education recommendations on implementation which involve sort of a more collaborative approach including the Education Associations and the Agency of Education. I'm not exactly sure what the disposition will be of the General Assembly with respect to this. That hasn't started to really reveal itself yet, but what I will say is that it is a pretty significant matter to change the weights. I don't think anybody questions the study that acknowledges that the weight should be changed, but the tax rate implications as a result of changing equalized pupils responding to weight changes is measurable in some communities. So at least for the Superintendent's Association we've been talking about approach and values as opposed to the outcomes because it's pretty hard to represent all communities in the state from a district to district perspective because the implications of the weight changes may have. I'm not sure how your district's affected. Lane may know, but there's plenty of information online that would help you understand that. Something else that we're happy to see underway right now the House Education Committee is trying to do what it can to get school construction aid restarted in some form or fashion. There was a suspension on school construction aid in 2007, so for all intents and purposes, except for emergency situations, the state has not been contributing to capital construction aid through any type of capital construction aid program at least. So we are working to support a bill that would see a analysis of facilities in Vermont statewide sort of get a benchmark on the overall condition, restore capital construction aid, upgrade the standards for school buildings, etc. So that's one aspect of this issue. Another aspect of the issue is both responding to and preparing to respond to the matter of need for health and safety improvements in schools. So you'll recall a couple of years ago the General Assembly passed legislation that was intended to address lead in drinking water in schools. We now have the environmental situation up in Burlington with PCBs, that contamination. So with an aging stock of schools like we have in Vermont, we know that these schools are going to need upgrade and improvement both environmentally and just in terms of their physical space. So we're working with the General Assembly to turn into that this year. Another big sort of news item and again Senator McDonald probably has been thinking about this and because I know it's been discussed in his committee are the current liabilities of the pension fund. So Treasurer Beth Pierce has been traveling from committee to committee in the State House explaining the circumstances associated with pension funds which are pretty bleak frankly and we've reached a point where the Treasurer's recommendations are to adjust the contributions and benefits that would be available to future retirees who are participating in the pension fund and that's something that is very concerning to us because there's no apparent resolution and if teachers are asked more to contribute to the pension fund system and then be beneficiaries down the road of lesser retirement it takes Vermont system which is already doesn't compare favorably to many other in the country and exacerbates a situation where we're trying to make sure that we can recruit personnel to our system. So that that is something that is we're really paying close attention to. I'm going to pause there because I've given you a fair amount to think about and reflect upon and I suspect that that Jay and Mark will want to weigh in with perspectives on at least one or two of the items that I've spoken about. So thanks very much for allowing me to join you and I'm happy to participate in the conversation from this point forward. Should I go ahead Madam Chair? So for anybody who doesn't know me my name is Jay Hooper. I represent the Five Towns of Brookfield, Braintree, Randolph-Cranville and Rocksbury in the State Legislature. This is my third term it's my second term on the House Education Committee and I am forever grateful that Jeff Francis is in my committee daily and comes here to tell us in great detail what's going on. So the waiting study is something I would want to add perspective to. It's something it's such a huge topic that I believe this well as Jeff mentioned the the legislature at large there's no way to gauge sort of when that issue might sort of start start becoming a conversation that the General Assembly is engaging with collectively because well frankly it takes it takes the Vermont Principles Association a minimum of 11 minutes to explain the basics right just the nuts and bolts of our education funding structure on a YouTube video which I would encourage you all to review over and over which means that each of the new members of the House Education Committee and even those of us who have had a few years of exposure to this to this structure this process this system it's extremely difficult to wrap your head around and therefore make decisions as to how it should change. So correct me if I'm wrong Jeff but I think there's four or just about half a dozen current weights W, E, I, G, H, T weights in the the funding formula of today which is obsolete and maybe never really was based on accurate metrics but the Tammy Colby the Professor Colby and Professor Baker study that was commissioned by the agency through Act 178 I think it includes eight or 10 weights so several additional several new categories so this is a conversation that's going to take several legislative sessions to see a change the the the various bills that Jeff just mentioned will probably see the light of day this session but I would doubt that that would come to a vote until at least next year or maybe later. One of the things I'd like to emphasize to you all this evening is that there's sort of a consensus in the House Education Committee and potentially also over in the other chamber that right now being that we are halfway or better through a pandemic we've been so disconnected with what was normal that we actually have an opportunity now to redefine what's normal so I don't know if there are there's a wishlist on this school board for things that would change you know fundamental changes like for example how long the school day is or well something like that you know that that's the kind of thing that we're we're looking into or how can we better utilize public buildings like schools you know because they're empty all summer and empty all night amongst well I guess other than all the things that Mr. Francis just articulated well I guess the only thing I don't I don't know if you mentioned literacy we maybe will take on the sequel to lead which would be radon remediation but you know I think between teachers pensions the waiting study and school construction it seems to me like the House Education Committee will have quite a full plate and so you know I actually I think there's a push from the chair and a couple other members that that we pick up where we left off before the pandemic hit last march on the literacy topic so senator mark mcdonald if you have anything to add I'm happy for questions afterwards he's coming up I'm gonna set him right in front of my computer and you're on and live the second thank you j mr. Francis's presentation makes me is having three adjusts and one readjust I have a copy of the editorial from a member of the school board's association about the the new healthcare plan where the was decided amongst the various parties that the state would and the teachers would put together bargain statewide and this year that been for a readjust the first item that came up was how much money was going to be raised by current taxes to operate our schools and in september the view was there's it was going to be desperately short and a few weeks ago there's a health care plus and the revenues are really a roller coaster there's a consensus that the decision probably should not be made on that in the next few weeks and wait for the roller coaster to kind of level out because that will determine the yield that makes sense the waiting of pupils if your pupil is has a higher weight you should be entitled to more money to run your schools and if your pupils have lower weights then perhaps they've got enough money and you don't need as much that's a heck of an adjustment and in the legislature adjustments like that are made only when there's enough money to make sure that no one loses if you're going to make changes if we are going to make changes on weighted pupils you're not going to get a change unless you can keep the school district's whole that are likely to lose funding and it's pretty much a rule of thumb and last of all anyone who can explain how the current funding system works in 11 minutes um ought to be on a speaking tour um that's nicole mace i believe actually they they leave a few things out senator mcdonald in order to get it to in order to get it to 11 minutes but it's pretty good it's pretty good video i'm shocked that something got left out it's on the school board's association website when x 60 was being put together there was a meeting in strafford vermont and it was being the proposal was being explained and um someone asked how can you trust the legislature to fully fund this new plan and um paul silo stood up and threw his hands in the air and says trust the legislature are you kidding you can't trust the legislature because they only last two years and then you have to deal with a new legislature and they don't have they're not obliged to do what the previous folks did well that bell eventually got passed and it's been in place for um coming on 22 years now and that that is a shockingly long time for legislators excuse me for state aid plans to work and i i want to add a a little second story on to explaining how the current system works after it passed into law it took about a year to put it into place and uh jay your father um had a group of russians who were visiting the united states to come and see how democracy worked in the united states and it was a meeting over in the town of washington and explained there was an explanation of how the state aid formula worked and it took an hour and it was a night like tonight where people were cold and ready to go home and when the explanation was finished everybody looked at each other and said with their eyes i don't want to hear any questions we want to go home and um then was a voice from the back of the room and the russian guests one stood up and he says in the russian accent this is very good plan how can you trust the legislature to fully fund it and the fellow that was explaining it um didn't know how to tackle the question well the answer was in strafford and then again in washington you need to have a formula that works no matter what the legislature does you have to have one where everybody is affected if there are any changes if you're gonna you have to be prepared to make it work no matter who the legislature is so you've got we're looking at a rewrite attempted rewrite of the healthcare statewide contract negotiations you're looking at measuring pupils differently and assigning money differently and you're looking at revenue sources that are going up and down like a roller coaster um and i was amused by the school boards association saying that they were trying to look at this as an issue of values instead of an issue of money which is my hats off to them if we can get away with looking at it as values instead of money but to change and recognize school districts that are have a tougher challenge than others is going to require answers that are tougher and cost more same with um fame with teachers retirement i have a story on that one but i'll save it so thank you thank you mark and jay and jeff um questions from anyone uh who is attending this meeting uh do you have questions for um any of our presenters nora go ahead hi um i don't know if it's so much a question as as a comment but i'm going to go for it here um one is i want to speak to to two the issues that the legislators have brought up that i think affects a lot of people at this meeting um that is the health care um the fixes that that are needed um for the health care negotiations and um because i want to put a another plug in for um h 81 um that's the proposal that would allow the negotiators to negotiate separate um copayments for um people depending on income having income sensitivity basically so um it's really unfair um to ask somebody who is earning um maybe 15 000 um dollars a year to have the same copay um in terms of percentage of the premium that they're asked to share or to pay their part of as someone who earns um 80 000 dollars or 100 000 dollars a year and we already have many people who can afford um the health insurance that is being offered um because that percentage that amount is so high and to make it be equal is is just um not right so want to put a plug in for that one um i also wanted to to mention it on the pensions um i realized that there's a lot of things floating around out there and um but i i think there needs to be some discussion about the the root of the problem and not having the solution come off with the backs of um teachers um teachers have put the amount that's been asked of them um regularly into it and that money has been taken um and over the course of years spent on other things um so instead of investing it as this the legislature as the state has agreed on their part of it to invest it into the pension fund they've taken the money that was supposed to go into the pension fund and used it on other things and now there's the deficit in the pension fund um and we're being asked from or at least it's being proposed out there by some people to have that come um now off of us as well um and that again i would say is really not right and and i would urge our legislators and our board members to speak in opposition um of that thank you um hi you guys don't know me really and not um i know not many of you know me but i've teach art at the high school and um i just want to weigh in if i could a little bit um because uh it's been interesting i've heard some conversation about um the uh the pension system going to a contract system right and you know so that your contract you're written into a contract uh with your pension well speaking it for myself it's always been a contract okay when i signed up to be a teacher 21 years ago it was a contract that i would have a stable pension i may have not entered the profession if that wasn't a piece of it yearly we're asked to contribute more we're asked to where um our benefits are depleted more and the things that we went into understanding as careers have been picked away at slowly consistently and i asked the board i asked our administrators to get everybody on the same side because this is not us versus them thing this is a systemic situation that needs to be rectified and we have to pull together to do this um and i just and parting comment i just want to say that you know if if our pensions are picked away at you know we're looking at um older folks senior citizens um running into situations where their livelihoods are in danger okay um maybe they can't keep their homes maybe they can't keep their health care maybe they can't keep these things that are essential and again things that they agreed that were a contract when they started teaching many years ago okay what is it going to cost the state of vermont to subsidize those people when those things like housing and health fall apart it's going to be a lot more than paying the pensions that we all agreed on long ago thank you well uh thank you both for for your remarks and uh we're i hear you um anybody else have anything to add to that um this is tev kelman if i could speak sorry i'm not sure if i should raise my hand but um yeah i think thanks laura um yeah i mean i think i think kreg you you said everything that needed to be said beautifully i just wanted to add a couple more points um one is that i've heard in some of my outreach to my local legislators um this idea that that they agree that changing the pension for current retirees or even currently vested retirees isn't fair but people coming you know into the system the future should um have you know should see it restructured and again i just want to say the people that we're talking about are if that is you know a compromise being considered are the people who are going to determine what our schools look like you know when my kids are graduating um in in 15 or 20 years um and i think we should also remember that this generation of people coming out of college into the workforce is under historically crushing college debt um and so i you know i think the idea that people are talented people right because you know the people i work with are talented people and a lot of them are people who can and have done other work in their in their lives and i think um i just really want to underscore the point that kreg was making about like the investment in the future of our of our state's um workforce but you know more than that like our society if if we see um this as as something that that we can afford to do um and i guess the other point i just wanted to make is i'm confused and i don't expect an answer you know because this is pretty inside baseball but i'm just very confused about given the performance of markets over the past you know 10 or 12 years since the great recession and particularly given what i understand has been a really strong recovery at the top 10 or 20 percent of the income scale i'm very confused why the state feels that um you know working people people making 20 30 40 50 maybe 60 000 a year are the ones who need to pay for this mess and why why um this yeah why why this gap wasn't dealt with through raising revenue during the good times um so those are just two points that i wanted to add to what kreg was saying thank you and if i could just add something i'm sorry i'm Beverly tap my camera's not working so i can't i can't show myself but um one thing i also wanted to piggyback on what tab was just sharing is senator hooker has also introduced s 59 which looks at a tax surcharge for folks that have done so well and have incomes of 500 000 or greater so we've got some things on the table the governor's assured um funding for this year which i know we're just kicking the can down the road but i you know jay and and mark i'm going to appeal to you guys that hopefully people are slowing down and i get that the senate pro tem and the speaker you know want this all taken care of super quickly which is baffling to me but um you know we've got some things on the table that that can help dig us out of this hole and and again i'm i'm going to to appeal to you both to to look beyond the fuzzy math that tends to get tossed about when it comes to um our pension and some of the um things that treasurer pierce is recommending are there other comments or questions for the legislature sleep tours and for jeff david white thank you laura um different topic though i support the the idea of our legislators pushing back on the treasurer on that subject so i do hope you do that but i read in digger recently i think it was yesterday that there's a bill being introduced for um banning the hiring and employing of school resource officers and i'm just curious if we have one pre-pandemic in our districts and if so would this bill impact us and if so what our legislators think about it thanks david i saw that headline today and i haven't yet read the article but it was an you know i was kind of intrigued to know where that's coming from and certainly who who brought it about um i think jeff maybe would be the guy to ask as to whether or not the state really has very many officers in in school systems uh i don't know the answer to that but um i i have an idea as to why somebody would want police to be you know not in the school system or an officer of some sort but i also think that that's a that's a discussion that would have a pretty valid uh rebuttal to that okay well this article claimed more than half of the schools currently in vermont have a school resource officer and while they are supported by the students most interacting with those officers i think there's other studies that people of color may be disproportionately feeling um over overly targeted by those resource officers so i think that's the the source of of where it's coming up but i'm i don't even know if our district has one i know we talked of one when there was a security threat a few years ago and i'm not sure if we put one in or not so we we had actually um talked about it at that point in time um during my time here we have not had one um during the discussions about whether we should have one during the open forums um the the message at least that the folks that were attending was loud and clear that they did not want that in the schools um at that point in time i can say that um as a high school principal for a couple of decades um in massachusetts that in those schools we always did have a resource officer and it was a very good and cordial relationship that those individuals had with all students um in those schools were very diverse um especially compared to to most of vermont thank you are there any other questions or comments while we have them here well i'm gonna stay on the call uh for a for a good deal after this but um i just wanted to say thank you all for for your positions and for articulating that to us one thing i forgot to mention in my uh review of what we've been up to is that the state colleges uh are getting some attention this session so if you've got thoughts on uh vermont tech or uh the system at large please do give me a call i'm going to put my phone number in the chat shortly and senator mcdonald um is here um was able to listen in on all the conversation um and on the topic of the uh resource officers in school said you know for the most part that is a local decision um that he supports so i guess i i do have one question that's about um this proposal of resuming um funding for school construction and rehabilitation and that sort of thing where is there a funding source suggested for what seems to me could be quite a sizable um financial output not yet that's part of the bill so the the bill as it currently exists has three parts one is to reestablish standards two is to get a baseline condition study and three is to get to work trying to identify a source of money um probably the first two are more easily accomplished than the third but when you think about the the age of the school buildings in vermont um very very little done in the last 15 or so years not much in the 15 proceeding that and then there was money in the 70s and you know at various intervals but it's difficult to well you know in my experience visiting schools at least in randolph you've got schools you know that are in really good condition it's not the same as you'd find in other places so you know i don't mean to sound trite about it but the the old adage is when was the best time to plan a tree 40 years ago or yesterday and we're at the yesterday stage if we don't get if we don't tackle this problem head on then the buildings are going to continue to deteriorate and we won't have the type of education system that we want to so there's not a funding system yet but that's part of the legislation would be to try to find one thank you so last call any other questions or comments um before we let jeff and mark and jay go i just would like to thank you all for posting me i hope to be down there in person next year i hope so all right thank you very much we really appreciate um you guys taking the time to brief us and and take questions and so far thank you very much moving on um on our agenda next is just a reminder really we've got an ossd budget informational meeting on wednesday february 24th um that will be at 6 30 p.m in the auditorium at ruhs it's also accessible remotely um so that will just sort of review for our stakeholders you know what our budget is as proposed and for for ready them for the vote which will take place on march 2nd um which is generally town meeting is not town meeting at least in brookfield this year um but the vote will continue to take place on march 2nd um both in person and uh by absentee ballot so we also do have a um what is it called a school meeting i guess it's called uh on march monday march 1st the night before march 2nd vote which will also take place in the auditorium at ruhs and remotely just to do our regular sort of organizational business for the school board um next we've got a review and approval of support staff side letter um this was uh in our agenda packet for uh school board members to look over um i will plow forward and just introduce it a little and then open it up to comments and questions and clarifications um if people from the union also want to sort of better explain it than i happen to be doing um this uh issue sort of was an unresolved issue um since last the period between march and june of 2020 so as everyone remembers um we were forced into emergency remote session um in mid march and we remained there until the end of the school year students were all taught remotely and so for professional staff their jobs continued more or less less sometimes but i mean as usual not easy but they were still able to do their jobs um some support staff were not necessarily able to do their jobs remotely um so there was this unresolved issue of what to do about support staff who were uh not able to work because they were either COVID vulnerable health wise or because they had to do child care at home and were not able to be in do their job at the school for instance cleaning cooking those sorts of things which did continue um at the schools itself themselves um at that point the school district asked those support staff members who were not available to work um to take their sick leave uh or leave time first uh before being paid um and pay continued for everyone throughout that time period but they were people were asked to take their sick leave first um then later in in august or july august period of time uh the union and the district sat down and created uh drafted a memorandum of understanding um to cover work conditions in this school year 2021 at that point um we agreed to excuse people from taking leave time if they had a doctor's order um a written doctor's order um and it covered anything uh sort of described as COVID related uh condition under the CDC guidelines um but we did not resolve this remaining issue of last year's march to june's healthcare um leave problem so right now we have a side side letter and settlement agreement between the district and the union um which is as i said uh written out in our agenda packet and that is something that we need to discuss and decide whether we are going to approve this as written sorry that was kind of a awkward explanation um there's some history and yeah anyway i didn't do a particularly good job on that but you get the gist of it so um anyway questions comments noria you're welcome to weigh in lane um anyone else who would like to sort of better explain or clarify it that would be welcome i think he did a nice job for thank you it what this really is is just um it's almost a an addendum to the memorandum of understanding it would it would just go into it it was the one thing that we that we didn't um resolve when we were working all of that out and then hopefully it has now resolved yeah it basically uh extends to that time period what we decided to do for this current school year correct so it basically will ask those support staff members to put forward a doctor's letter uh for them to recoup that leave time right the the one the one there are two categories where they wouldn't need the doctor's note and just to make sure people are aware of that that is if they were um are are older than 65 during the time we think we didn't need to have them go through the trouble of getting a doctor's note for that because that's a matter of record in the personnel file and um also the the folks that needed to do childcare because this was before there were other things in in place for that and it was anyway there are some other reasons that go with that too that I can go into so those would be the two categories that would not need doctor's notes so Nora the union has decided that they would accept this correct it has been rather by the by the union yes by the members of the union okay are there any other questions from board members or from the public but board members first any other questions or comments are we ready for a vote then okay is may I have a motion to approve the side agreement as written I move to approve the side agreement as written this is Hannah is there a second it's Megan all second any further discussion um because I can't see all the board members on my screen I'm gonna have to do a voice vote um so I'll call your name and just say I or nay um Hannah I Megan hi and hi Ashley Brian Rachel hi gotcha hi okay and I'm in agreement as well so um we're all in agreement over the side letter and so that's great we can sign that and sort of finish that last piece of unfinished business thank you all right um sorry I have to go back on my screen here next we have the review of the reduction in force letter um I'm sorry Laura yeah before you go um this is Ashley mm-hmm and there is the official agreement here in my hand to sign on behalf of the board um do I have approval to sign that as the secretary of the board or does that need to be signed by you there is um we assigned someone to sign in in absence of the chair and I can't remember who that is it may well be you since you may may have volunteered as you go by the office all the time Linda Lubel do you happen to know who that person is it is actually yeah so Laura I'm gonna go ahead and sign it perfect that's great thank you all right um Lane do you want to speak about this um this riff or and then we can hear from Nora or someone else on on behalf of the union so um as part of following through on contractual obligations anytime that the district is considering um a refer reduction in force um for those that are out there in the audience and don't know what that means um basically a layoff um we notify the union give them an opportunity to talk about it with the board because the board is actually deciding uh authority on whether or not um to riff uh an employee um in this particular case uh we've discussed this um a little bit previously over the last year or so um we do have a program at rtcc um that has been chronically under enrolled um for a number of years now um and we were at the point where we were planning on closing the program at the end of this year um the staff member who runs that program was notified in writing last year um to give uh that person plenty of time um to look um to make some decisions about the future um but the intent is to close that program um which requires us to lay that employee off to to riff that employee and I'm open to questions or thoughts or comments so I'm not sure procedurally when I should make my statement or not so let me know uh we've already been informed that this uh would likely be coming down the pike so um as far as board members this is not the first time we've heard that this was um going to be a decision that was going to be made so why don't you present your case Nora okay so um I'm here on behalf of the the union um to ask that they not that you not riff this position that this position remain in place and I have three main reasons for this um one is um in spite of the low enrollment the past couple of years that that graphic arts in today's um world is essential um given the digital nature of the world it's a skill that's needed for web design for publishing for um political work for advertising um in almost every aspect of our life um and the demand for people in this field is higher than ever before if we want a program like the tech center to be attracting students from other districts I would say that we would it's essential that we have a strong um digital and graphic arts program um which this could become um it's it's never been in as far as in the history and then asking around for other teachers um the job of a teacher to recruit students we are not a charter school we don't you know usually go out to recruit students um if there's recruitment to be done which I think RTCC does need to to be doing um then I would say that that is really the job of the administration to to do um certainly can ask the teacher to um assist with that but not to have it say that you know if you don't get so many students in your program then we're going to have to eliminate this program um I would also say that this is not the year to be judging enrollment while I know that notice was given last year that the numbers were low and to try to improve enrollment in this program um then the pandemic hit and so you know there's not really the opportunity to see if any recruitment efforts were done um if there was any success to those recruitment efforts or or not um and again I would say that that's really the administration's um job place to do that um but but to judge it on on a year when we've had a pandemic when it's all that teachers can do to get through each day and to give the students that they do have the best possible education under the circumstances that we're under um to then say well enrollment is low um so we're going to be eliminating it um I feel is is unfair um so I think you know we don't know after you know the pandemic is over if there has been recruitment um if enrollment numbers could have gone up um and if if the program had been promoted um what that impact might be um can I add on to uh Nora's statement um a couple of things here um being a fine arts teacher at the high school um I'm closely connected to Michael K. Louie runs that program and the first thing I want to say before anything else is that this gentleman is the ultimate ultimate professional not only is he a great spokesperson for his industry but he is it holds his students to the highest standards and the result that they come away with is amazing um I want to present to you guys real quick something that I've really been emphasizing to my students over the last year or so and that is a list of art careers I'm going to show it to you right now okay um this is not a fluff subject this is not a superfluous subject whatsoever these are life skills these are skills that students can walk away from the college and be starting at a really nice starting salary and grow in the profession I'm going to quickly just show you this and to boot to to go any further with this this is a partial list of things that people can do in the arts okay so it hits it hits to my core when we when I when I see things like the graphic design um program being you know kind of targeted because it seems like it's connected to the arts and that's a thing that we standardly do is kind of is kind of pick on those areas these careers are just as valuable just as lucrative as anything else anyone is going to walk away from after their post-secondary uh career look at all these jobs well-paying highly professional jobs it's just the comment I want to make I'm sorry and thank you are there any other comments go ahead uh Rebecca I would like to say that I totally support Craig and not just because I'm also an art teacher but because I know lots of people who are employed in the field of graphic arts and their starting salary is a lot more than teachers and it's the kind of job that people are going to be able to do more and more remotely so the more people we have doing those types of jobs here in Vermont um the better that is I think for us um so aside from the benefits of the arts and the fact that that really is about visual communication I think that's visual literacy is the essential skill that our students should have um as much as and this isn't putting down early childhood or putting down um automotive but maybe first we should be trying so I guess I I would like to echo that I think rather than eliminating the program I think putting the effort into um and there and therefore eliminating that position I think putting the effort into modifying or creating the program um improving it changing it making it more robust that way and um and just to be looking at this next year as a as an opportunity to do that rather than saying that RTCC is not going to have on the graphic arts program any longer so I'll speak for a little while um to kind of respond to some of the comments that have been made first off um there's a picture being painted in the portrayals that are being rendered that is not realistic and not accurate to what is happening here the arts are not being targeted the arts are not being picked on by this we have a program um who extra effort has been put into for at least the last five years in terms of recruitment to make it viable and to keep it healthy every year for five years we get a minimal number of students that are in that are just enough to keep the program viable and then later in the year after the program has started those students leave the program and the numbers get down to about three students this cannot be sustained it has an impact a negative impact on everyone else at the tech center because these programs that are not not reasonably enrolled cause tuitions to go up which puts a drain on all the other programs at the tech center and yes the other schools are not supposed to be looking at tuition costs as students are making decisions to come to the tech center but that is not the case as those costs go up we do have decreases in enrollments that occur um this has been thought out for a long time there has been lots of discussions around recruitment there's been lots of discussions with the individual excuse me with the individual that teaches the course um and it still has not made things viable the graphics arts per se is not necessarily going away there is a one-year plan in place to try to combine it with the film program which has also been suffering a little bit in recent years and trying to see if we can combine the concepts of those two into one curriculum under one program so the program itself in part or in whole is not going away it's going to be combined with film under a different curriculum that combines the two to try to keep that going so i don't know if there's other questions or other thoughts or other concerns what's the next step here lane um so the next next step again this would be a bored decision um to follow through um you guys in terms of professional staff um you are the body that hires um within certain circumstances you are also the body um that determines an outcome such as a rift um so you would have to vote on this could can make one more um one more point before um it goes to the board for discussion is um i i guess i i would ask that you know is this about the program um or is it about something else and and if it's about something else then maybe that needs to be addressed um but the eliminating that what we're talking about tonight is eliminating a particular program um from rtcc it's not about um the position it's the because the position is or the person it's it's who's teaching it it's about the the position itself the program itself i'm not sure if you're asking a question or making a comment norah well maybe it's kind of a combination of both um and and i don't i don't want to get into to a discussion on a particular um an evaluation of a person's um performance john performance or not i i think we need to look at this as maybe that so it is more of a comment we need to look at this as an evaluation of a particular program and the position that goes with it i the reason that we are even looking at this is because we have a program um that has not been sustaining itself we have not mentioned i've not mentioned talk anything whatsoever about an individual here tonight so i'm not sure where that piece is coming in from the program that we were talking about is graphic arts which has been under enrolled for a year after year despite efforts um in terms of recruitment um the program itself as it currently stands is going away and being combined into a single program combined with filmography that's the intent and we're not even sure if that's viable we want to give that a try for a year and see how that goes but we're hoping you know that in that way we'll be able to preserve those components so lane i wonder um have you researched places where those two programs are put together um because it would be it's not a very common you know amalgamation of different skills um they're both in the arts but they they employ pretty different skill levels and so i just wonder um has that been looked at and has it looked have you looked at how um you would meet two different sets of national core art standards um to do those felicia is an expert she has taught the graphics arts for years um believes it is possible and they have actually been working on the curriculum for that combination this year um oh she's awesome she she really is i guess the the other question and this would be a question and and i um you know i was trying to say it very respectfully here but but to maybe ask what what has been done to promote this program and to look at um maybe looking at that a little closer to be trying some other things um before eliminating it nor our work has been done um directly uh with the instructor to generate ideas um additional work has been done on the evenings that the students come in to visit the programs work has been done on the flyers and the advertisements that go out um the everything that was possible to try to preserve the program especially given the equipment that that program uses um is quite extensive was done to try to preserve it um we are at that point where it has not been viable it has not been viable for a long time and we need to make some decisions um that are going to keep the enrollments up at the tech center um about programming so that the tech center as a whole can remain viable for all the other instructors that are there lane can i just add i i serve both the randolph tech center in my professional job as well as the harford area tech center and harford has done the same thing they've merged the the video and the and the digit and and they call it sort of illustration and digital media i forget exactly what it is but they've combined these two as well so it's sort of like the way i explain it to students it's sort of like digital media and it and it includes the whole spectrum of of those uh fields no i think i think it's a very good very good comment and again i have have a lot of faith in felicia um and what she has presented uh in our conversations over the course of time as well as with jason before her um was the idea that the combination you know has a good possibility of success the way that they're envisioning it are there other questions or comments then would this make sense to have this vote be um because really we're not talking about personnel per se but about programs so then should the motion reflect that yes okay um is are we ready for a motion would someone um make a motion about this closing this program at rtcc uh laura this is ashley um i make a motion that the um that a program be created at rtcc that incorporates digital film along with media arts for the school year 2021-22 ashley would that maintain um both instructors positions both um carlos that's enough i'm sorry am i speaking at a turn um ashley would that kill would that maintain michael k louis position and as well as um carlos diases no it wouldn't we it would be combining two programs into one program so there would be as i understand there would be just a single instructor for a single program is there a second to that motion sorry about that laura we had the speaker down so we weren't getting feedback okay so i could hear a motion from ashley that uh we would combine the graphic arts with the digital film program to make a single rtcc program i heard that motion made is there a second um i'm sorry laura i need to add to that and with this motion it would include the reduction of one staff member okay this is brian i'll second is there any further question or a discussion before we take a vote hearing none um we will do a roll call vote uh again um these say a or ne uh ana uh meg hi ann hi ashley hi ryan hi rachel hi gotcha i did you say no or or i did i thank you and i'm in favor uh i as well um so the vote stands seven to one thank you very much um all right let's um move on uh next we have a discussion an update from ann kaplan and perhaps lane as well about the strategic planning process that's under undergoing ann so we have had um four feedback sessions so far um with our focus groups um the first series of feedback sessions have been focused on the middle school uh academics and climate uh transition and structure and we've uh heard from our uhs students alumni non-teaching staff and uh the business and nonprofit community uh community leaders um and we have four more to go they're all going to be happening i believe it's uh this week yes they'll all be done by the 11th um so we're having on the February 9th the middle school students get feedback form uh on the 10th the administrators on the 11th the uh professional teaching staff and then on the 11th also um parents um and then what's going to happen is the design team for the strategic plan is we're going to sort of synthesize that data we're also trying to push out to the community through um the the uh board website um facebook um a front porch forum the newspaper we're going to be putting out um a link to a survey and basically that will be for community members who haven't been in these these uh focus group sessions to provide that same feedback so they're going to have the same questions and um and then the design team has to take that information and sort of sense that synthesize it down into a few um goals so we're going to have our meeting to do that on the 16th on those middle school questions and then um we have a whole nother series so again eight feedback sessions with the same um feedback groups that are going to be focused more on the high school and the high school focus is also going to be on academics and climate and then uh uh I didn't take the actual note so academics climate and there might be something else that I can't remember exactly but it's sort of taking those um initial areas that the board had done in its initial strategic planning process and and developing those um so things are going pretty well it's been great to um I so far I've only um I've overheard the alumni because my son participated and then I was a part of the um uh community leaders and business nonprofit group so um but it's really um it's been kind of interesting to hear what folks have to say can I just ask how are you getting students to engage in a feedback group students um so uh we have what we have a number of staff people so teachers um are in this group so they already have a bit of a relationship um with the teachers so it's been it's been working well and in addition to the the surveys going out to the community those are also going to go out to individual students because again these forums are taking part on on a you know an electronic google meet like this um so some students are less um are less open or or you know it's a little intimidating to come in and and be a small group and do a google meet where you're having to uh express your opinions so that's also all these surveys are going out and all students will be able to give us feedback so um but we're just doing the focus groups with the small number of uh students as well as all the other uh groups as well we're keeping the number sort of slow uh small so that you can have a little bit of a more intimate um experience and we're trying to make sure that we've got a broad um and diverse representation of the community and can I just jump in for a second? Sure. The way I understood just to answer the question about who um how were they or selecting students um from what I understand there was it's driven by student leadership particularly at the high school and that was what elicited the middle school feedback from this past um interview survey uh meeting that they had so it I think it is student driven I just want to add that to it or a combination of both. Lane was there anything you wanted to add to the strategic planning discussion? Just a quick uh thank you for David Roller and Lisa Floyd which have um who have been a part of this process the admin team is meeting to go through its own process related to this which will be on Wednesday to provide our feedback um at our uh Wednesday cabinet meeting we'll spend some time on it so I think it'll be fun. Any other questions or comments um for Anne or for Lane around strategic planning? Thanks Anne for your work on this. All right um well next on our agenda Lane is a negotiations update so would you speak to that? Yeah we had our first round in negotiations on the teacher's contract that happened last week on February 2nd um the big part of that meeting was that both sides get their initial kind of proposals on the table about what potential changes they're looking for um the district on its side made five different proposals um the first was that it asked to reduce the length of time a position is held available for a staff member on long-term disability currently it's at two years um and we were asking for that to be reduced to the contract year in which the disability occurred um we asked for the ability to be able to lay off a technical center teacher whose enrollment falls to zero during a contract year they would still be able to keep their seniority their bumping rights but the bumping rights would come into play at the end of that contract year. We asked to reduce the yearly allotment of sick days from 18 to 16 and then to eliminate the remaining emergency days that are a part of the contract and probably the most important one for us was we asked to be able to front load the full professional development days to the beginning of the year. As part of that as a separate piece was seeking kind of the elimination of the clause that is in the contract that allows the teachers not to make up the first two snow days each year. We paid them 185 days a year as per the contract but two of the days if they're snow days they don't have to make up so typically in Vermont it's 183 days but they work. We offered a one-year contract with concerns about the next round of state healthcare negotiations that are happening next year because we can't tell what the financial landscape is going to be two years out and a salary increase of 1.6% including STEP. On the union side they made five requests. The teachers are seeking an early retirement slash resignation benefit. They are asking that a teacher who has 25 years of teaching experience overall with 10 years in district they are asking the district to provide them with a cash payout of 60% of their salary. They would like an additional 60% of their last year's salary to buy additional times towards retirement from the state. They are asking the district to pay for insurance coverage for an individual for one year after they leave the district. In a separate proposal they asked to increase some number of paid leave days they can use under the Family Medical Leave Act from the current 30 days to 60 days. They asked for each teacher to have one hour of self-directed time free from duties during each work day that does not include their lunch time. They asked the district to hire a consultant to do an annual audit of indoor air quality and then they asked to have air quality inspections done quite extensive ones on all buildings and rooms monthly. They are seeking a two-year contract and they are seeking an increase in salary of 13% over those two years including STEP. The first round of negotiations with the support staff will be this week on the 11th and then the second round with the teachers will be on February 16th at 5 30 p.m. The one thing and there may be questions I'm happy to answer the board as part of the agreements that we have in terms of ground rules there always needs to be somebody from the district side who has the ability to sign off on tentative agreements and things have gone very well in the last couple of years but I would ask the board to do a vote to allow me the authority to sign off on tentative agreements if a board member is not present at this negotiation sessions just in case. I thought we did that last year and that you do right now have that authority. I would assume that that was good for last year's negotiations. If that's the understanding of the board you know I'm happy to not have you vote again. Well we could vote again and give you that right if we so decide I guess. So are there questions from anyone to lane about the first round or first yeah step of negotiations this year? Do we want to vote on giving lane the authority to sign on our behalf in case no board member is present? Laura I get one quick question. Does the board members on the committee have authority to sign? Yes we do yes so you know it would just be in the absence of any board members in that meeting at that time. So if it is in our interest would I have a motion to to allow lane to sign in the absence of a board member during you know in a tentative agreement during negotiations? So moved. Is there a second? It's actually a second. Any further discussion? Just just for my information who right now is on the professional staff negotiations team as far as we're going. So it's Brian, Hannah and Ashley. Okay great. Yeah I mean it seems like most often someone has been there. Laura yeah you said you're a professional staff right? Yes that's me and Hannah and Meg. Okay great. So we've got a motion on the table here. Are we ready for a vote? Not hearing any other discussion or questions. I guess I'll go around again since I still cannot see you all. Hannah are you in favor? Can I can I say a comment? Is that okay? All right. I think that lane has been a super super strong influence in this district. I think he's been a great superintendent has done a great job. I get really nervous about giving that kind of straight up sign-off power to a single individual in absence of others. That's that's all I'm going to say on it. I think he's got a really great level ahead. I think he makes great decisions. I just don't like that unilateral kind of paradigm. And that is exactly why we we do assign three board members to be present at these meetings and they do generally try to be there. I do think it's important to have a board presence. Thank you for your comment. So Hannah I'm going to start with you again. Are you in favor of this motion? I. Meg. Hi. Ann. Hi. Ashley. Hi. Ryan. Hi. Rachel. Hi. Gotcha. Hi. And I'm in favor as well. Thank you everybody. Next we have two new Yale monitoring reports submitted by Lane. This is a first read of these reports. We will approve them next month. So please if you have further questions, Lane will give us a brief overview right now if he wants to. But you can both read them over and get further information at the OSSD office for background materials. Lane do you want to speak to either of them? They're kind of boilerplate and it's kind of nice that they've timed them during this time of the year to kind of go along with budget season. Executive limitation 2.3 is financial conditions and activities. Basically what it's doing is making sure that we're following accepted protocols to prevent putting the district in a state of financial jeopardy. We're not spending more than we receive. We're spending it on what's agreed to and then making sure that we're collecting what's owed to us in a timely manner. And we are in compliance on reporting that we're in compliance on EL 2.3. EL 2.6 is about asset protection. You know, are we taking care of our facilities? Are we safeguarding our money? And a lot of that is, you know, making sure that we're carrying a reasonable amount of insurance. And are we preventing a conflict when we make large purchases, you know, making sure that we're not making deals with people we know as opposed to following through on what's required under state contract law in terms of going out to bed and whatnot. So just kind of in general what those two are about. Thank you. And did someone have a question? Sorry. Okay. Please take the time to thoroughly read those over and review them so we're ready for a vote next month. All right. Next we have a consent agenda. First to approve the minutes from our OSSD meeting on the 11th of January. We need to approve a professional contract. A title funded teacher. We need to approve the summary of accounts of trustees on the fake Haudry account. And we need to approve the benefit plan document. All are available in our packet. Were there any additions or substitutions, corrections to the minutes? So Laura, do you want to approve the entire consent agenda packet or one by one? I would suggest that we could do them as a whole. They're pretty rude. Someone has an objection to that. Please state so otherwise I'd like to just approve them as one. Was there someone speaking? I can't hear you. Okay. All right. All right. If there's any no further questions or corrections, comments about these may have a motion to approve the consent agenda as a whole. I'll move to approve the consent agenda as a whole. Is there a second? I second. Hannah, are you aye or nay? Aye. Meg? Aye. Anne? Aye. Ashley? Aye. Brian? Aye. Rachel? Aye. Gotcha. Aye. And I'm in favor as well. Thank you, everybody. Next, we scroll down here. So we've got the superintendent's report. Is there something you want to add or highlight laying in your report? I think the biggest piece to kind of talk about for just a minute or two goes along with what our legislators had mentioned at the beginning of the year when we planned out the school budget. Their predictions for the money flowing into the education fund were very, very dire. What they realized after the fact, you know, after all the folks, all the districts in the state had gone through their budget processes is that actually there was a lot more money that flowed into the education fund this year than they had thought or that they had predicted. A lot of it came from the fact, if I remember my reading correctly, that there was a lot of online buying in the state of Vermont is now taxing for online purchases during this time of COVID. And some of it was due to coronavirus relief funding that came in. And so when I did the original budget, at least in the original presentation with the board, what I said was, you know, using some of the surplus to subsidize, you know, we were looking at the average homeowners taxes going up by $96 a year. The reality is, is right now what they are predicting for a new property yield, which is basically one of the ways of interpreting that is how much money they give us per enrolled student has gone up enough that our tax increase will be zero, based upon what they're talking about in the Senate right now. If they actually increase it further to the amount that Jeff Francis spoke of today, our taxes will actually go down on average for the average homeowner in our three towns by about $200 per year. So it all depends upon where they land, but the outlook is actually pretty good in terms of the impact that the school budget will have on folks' taxes. At a minimum, what's expected in terms of them adjusting the yield is going to put us at a neutral footing. In other words, a zero increase to their communities, which is awesome. So that's the only thing that I wanted to talk about because it's good news. I see there's principles reports, also the financials. How are we doing as a district right now? Actually, really good. I talk about, you know, I do look at some of the finer details of the finer lines that are in the budget, but the rule of thumb is I take a look at how many months we are in. I do a division. And right now we're 58% through the school year. So that means we should have at least 58% of our budgets left at the school district level and at RTCC. Right now, RTCC has got 59% of its budget left. So we're right on target. OSSD, we've got 52.88% left. But the reason that is, is that we're still waiting for $700,000 in coronavirus relief funds to come in and replenish the extra that we used to kind of support operations during this kind of COVID. So we're actually in really, really good shape right now. We also, a little bit of that is we accelerated some of the maintenance work this year too. So stuff that would have been spread out a little bit more over the course of the year happened a little bit earlier in the year. So we're in good shape. Robin gave it her stamp of approval when I talked with her this afternoon. Okay, we're ready for the board evaluation. How'd we do? All right. So we got lots of fours and fives. This meeting, I felt like we did a really, really nice job sticking to our agenda tonight and being timely, which is great. The meeting was very well attended by all board members and staff. So thank you. The board appears to be prepared and that we proceeded without interruption or distraction. There was discussion prior to decision making as to why we were following that process. Our participation was not balanced across the board. That's probably something we could certainly work on. However, people listened attentively and folks were treated with respect and courtesy. Our work tonight certainly did focus on a policy level and not on an operational level, which is the way we're supposed to work. And the actions considered by the board were our duty to consider. Kind of jumping around. I think we should spend a minute or two acknowledging our board chair as this is, I believe, maybe her last meeting, she thinks. Laura once again did an outstanding job leading the discussion and leading our board. So I think we can all thank her for her years of service. Thank you very much. Thank you. Wish you were here, Laura. And I also would like to give a shout out to Ann Kaplan. I think she's clearly doing an excellent job owning the strategic planning process. Really good work is happening and I have no doubt it is a lot of extra time. So huge kudos to Ann for that good work. So overall, I think we did a great job, team. Well, thank you. Thanks for doing the evaluative work. We do have an executive session to talk about some personnel issues and following that we will do have time because we're so early to do a policy governance training. So we will return to this link for that. And for now, though, we will leave this link and move to an executive session. So thank you, everyone, for attending. We'll be back.