12/10/08 BOE meeting recap
Hi and a happy holiday wish to one and all! Here we go....
The Architect presented his report to the board and did a detailed presentation about his analysis of the facilities and grounds. The Board stated that it would post the report on the district website and it would be a worthwhile exercise to take a look at the areas analyzed and the relative building rankings.
Any questions or discrepancies, some of which were pointed out at the meeting, can be directed to the Architect directly or through the Business Office, Mr. Sanasac or Mr. Massa.
The Architect also clarified a remark he heard at the last meeting he presented at regarding the triggering events for building upgrades. Specifically, he said the current Code (I assume he means building/construction code) provides that if a facility, classified as in "educational use," were "mothballed" and later reopened for educational use, the code would not be triggered and upgrades would not be required.
Also, if a facility were leased for an educational use that would not trigger code upgrades nor would the expiration or cancellation of the lease to return the facility to the district's own educational use, if we found we needed the space in the future.
Likewise, renovations to a part of a non-code compliant building (one that is grandfathered, as I understand it), would only require the renovated portion of the facility to be code compliant but would not trigger a building-wide upgrade.
The only thing that would trigger the code and require upgrades is if the use classification changes, from educational to something else. If we lease to another entity (presumably public or private sector) for non-educational use, the code would kick in and somehow the upgrades would have to be addressed (whether the district would make them or require the leasing body to do so would be a subject of contract negotiations between leasor and leasee). Obviously, we would want the leasor to make the upgrades at their cost, but that might not make a lease situation a very attractive option. Leasing a code compliant building, while retaining ultimate title, might be more attractive to both the leasor and the board. But, this is all under consideration at the board level now as it considers the meaning of the Architect's report.
Other than this, the board was updated on the new kindergarten registration procedure, which will be mostly completed on-line by parents and only requiring in person meeting for parents to show proof of residency and child's medical/immunization records. This will save money in terms of not having to pay folks to come out on two Sats. in Feb., as I recall, and should streamline things. If parents do not have internet access, forms will be mailed and appointments scheduled for completion of the registration process.
But, yes, it does not address the issue of for what school the kindergartners will be registering. That should come about, in my estimation, sometime in the spring, hopefully at the latest.
The board did respond to some of the ideas shared by the public at the Forum recently and gave indications that those items are being pursued.
Members of the public spoke about the salary bubble (the $30,000 pay increase received by teachers/school nurses when they enter their 14th year of service and a slightly lower increase, I think about $20,000 or so for maintenance/custodial staff after that same 13 years of service). There was also discussion of the district's labor costs (salary and benefits) compared to other socioeconomically similar districts in our area and that Howell Township seems to be the highest paying district and that our staff hits their bubble (allegedly all districts have them negotiated in their contractual salary guides) much sooner than other districts (13th year vs. 18-24th years).
The board was also asked to contact the union president, Bill O'Brien (teacher's association), to see if his leadership would be willing to meet and discuss any concessions to address our economic crisis.
I do not recall the board specifically saying they would or would not do this nor do I recall a discussion of "the bubble" and comparable salaries from the table, but a few board members suggested individually with members of the public that the information on salary may be deceptive in how it is reported. For instance, Howell does not have an additional longevity pay scale - where, for example, an employee receives an additional amount on top of his/her salary on a progressive scale each year after so many years of service. Rather, our guides reflect the whole salary (but not benefits). It was suggested that other districts have these additional longevity payment so comparing our salary guides to theirs without reference to the additional longevity payment may account for our higher salaries.
An analysis of comparable base salaries (which would include "bubble" and longevity for those districts that offer it) and ours will give a clearer picture of that and I know folks are looking into that.
There was a brief discussion of certified school nurses and the board appeared to concur that the law does not require one per building. The potential savings comes in here where the number of certified school nurses (and several are in the $90,000 range having hit the bubble) could be reduced and that nursing professionals, without the additional educational services endorsement from the State Dept. of Ed., could be brought in at a lower salary without compromising health services to students. It does not mean that there would be no medical staff at any building, which would obviously be a concern to all.
