Unified Union Study Committee
Session #7
September 28, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Vergennes Union High School Library
Agenda
ANWSU Governance Study Committee
Meeting Minutes
Committee Members Administration Guests/Visitors
Kristin Bristow Laurie Gutowski Tom O’Brien Diane Cousino
Samantha Kayhart Amy Johnston Donna Corcoran Allison Vigne
Adela Langrock Nancy Larrow (absent) Greg Hamilton
Linda Hawley David Kayhart Consultants
Dennis Mueller Scott Gaines Ray Proulx
David Tatlock Paulette Bogan
Karen Petersen Sid
Bosworth (absent)
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by K. Bristow
at
2. Approval of
Minutes: Motion by D. Kayhart, seconded by L. Gutowski
to approve the minutes of
3. Public Comment: G. Hamilton commented that if in fact it is true that there is no money savings to be gained and all students are arriving at VUHS on the same page, why mandate it by unification.
Ray Proulx indicated that two meetings ago, when the special education director, the curriculum director and the literacy coordinator reported to the committee, several inequities were presented. In terms of money, there will be a leveling off in the future, however no monetary savings will be seen initially.
K. Bristow commented that, when we first began discussions about this, it seemed unnecessary with all that the boards already have to do. However, after hearing the administrators and the talk about continuity between schools, etc, we need to look at our district as 2 entities – elementary and high school – vs. the 4 that currently exist.
A. Langrock commented that selling the idea to the public is going to be difficult – because most taxpayers look at what it is going to cost vs. why we are doing it.
D. Tatlock indicated that his understanding is that most of the inequities are in band, technology, extra-curricular, etc.
K. Bristow noted that she sees this as a way of solidifying what we already do, but better.
G. Hamilton commented that he does not want us to ride the wave that “bigger is better.”
Superintendent O’Brien noted that the various governance studies are being underwritten by the Wallace Foundation, which is interested in the process because the idea is not mandated from the top down. Mr. O’Brien commented that savings will benefit the students – not monetarily - but in the sense that we will be able to provide additional/better opportunities for all students.
G. Hamilton commented that diversity is a good thing – we don’t want/need all students arriving at the middle school having every opportunity.
L. Hawley commented that selling this idea is the key point. People in Vergennes look at the money piece and many of the taxpayers are not parents. We need to get parents involved to support this idea.
4. Study Committee Members’ Comments: K. Bristow brought to the committee’s attention, for those that didn’t see it, the article in the Addison Independent written by Andy Kirkaldy.
Ms. Bristow reported that she and the Superintendent are presenting “What We Are Learning About Governance Consolidation” at the VSA/VSBA Annual Conference on Friday morning, October 15th.
L. Gutowski indicated that she thought the middle school teachers were going to be at this meeting to talk about what they see as students from the 3 elementary schools arrive in 7th grade.
Superintendent O’Brien indicated that, because of the amount of work needed to be completed at this meeting we decided not to invite them this evening and perhaps use their input as part of the public forums that will be held later.
A. Johnston noted that there are other ways to obtain the information from them, i.e. a survey for example, vs. hearing from them directly.
D. Tatlock commented that their input is an important piece of the puzzle and feels that it is important to hear from them.
P. Bogan commented that having faculty here would help us get more of a public perception as well.
5. Continued Discussion of Findings, Analysis and Recommendations – Ray Proulx (prior
to the start of the meeting) distributed 2 sets of materials – the draft Planning Committee Report and the “Food for Thought” that had been updated since the September meeting, indicating that the Committee would be working from one and would need to refer to the other.
Article 1 –
establishment of the
Article 2 – was voted on last time – keeps the 5-town structure
Article 3 – was voted on last time – to establish a PreK-12 school system
Article 4 – facilities – Ray explained that this is not the assets etc. but the construction of an addition and/or renovations to the existing buildings – i.e. Addison and Ferrisburgh proposed building projects. There are 3 options to consider: 1) build into the referendum, 2) leave open ended, and 3) pass on to the new Unified Union Board.
Since they are similar in nature, the Committee skipped to Article VI – debts/financial assets – also has 3 options to consider: 1) $1.00 purchase price, 2) form the U.U. and have all debts/assets remain at the current school district/local community, and 3) have each town pay an equal distribution of asset/debt load to buy into the Unified Union. Ray explained that if we pick option 3 – then the amount of money would be built into the referendum.
In response to the question – Ray
indicated that all districts that have done this have chosen option #3, except
one. It was noted that when VUES was
formed, Panton and
Discussion ensued regarding how to establish an equalized amount for the five communities to “buy-in”. The number of students, use building values, tax rates, and square footage were all suggestions.
Mr. Proulx indicated that tax rates is a separate discussion – since there are so many variables and with the changes of Act 68.
K. Bristow indicated that she does not want to make a decision without looking at what the tax rates are going to be – with and without the construction figures.
K. Petersen indicated that we need to look hard at all 3 options before making a decision.
Ray noted that the ANWSU is unique in that all 5 towns already own the high school and 3 of the towns own one of the elementary school – only Addison and Ferrisburgh own their own facilities.
L. Hawley indicated that we need to find an equalized way for all towns – suggested using the values of the buildings.
A. Vigne - what message are you sending – money or equity for students?
A. Johnston asked if we agree to move forward with this in March, can Addison and Ferrisburgh then move ahead with their proposals, or would w e include it in the vote to unionize?
D. Mueller commented that the $1.00 purchase price would include the debt as well as the assets. Therefore, any bonding done after the Unified Union was voted, would entail all 5 towns voting, not just Addison or Ferrisburgh. Discussion ensued.
G. Hamilton commented that it would be an advantage to Addison and/or Ferrisburgh to bond after the unionization.
K. Bristow asked what happens if we equalize? D. Corcoran explained that it would work the same as it currently does with the high school – based on an equalized per pupil cost, times the number of students in each town and assessed to each town.
A. Johnston asked if the towns would elect the board members. The answer is yes. Discussion ensued.
R. Proulx indicated that Articles 4 and 6 need more discussion and suggested that the Committee move on to Article 5, which has multiple parts. Ms. Corcoran, in the meantime, will work with the figures to determine an “equalized” cost.
5(a) – Transportation – would remain the same
5(b) – Master Contracts with staff – would honor those already in place, until their specified termination date. Reduction in force is the only issue here – would need to be determined across the district (rather than by individual building)
5(c) - Individual contracts would remain in place for the first year of operation (of the Unified District).
5(d) – Curricula – current and planned/proposed would remain in place.
5(e) – Education programs would
remain in place for the first year of operation, with any changes made after
The committee skipped Article 7 since it also deals with current debt and financial assets.
Article 8 – During FY 06 allocation
of allowable expenses will be based on average daily membership (ADM) PreK-12
for the preceding year – as defined by VT State Statutes. FY ’07 will be based on the proportionate number
of equalized pupils PreK-12 for the preceding year – as defined by VT State
Statutes.
Discussion ensued regarding pre-k students. Superintendent O’Brien indicated that the intent, once unionization is in place, is to include pre-k students eventually.
Article 9 – apportionment of board
members. – based on the combined population of all member towns, using the most
recent State Census Report. Each member
town district will be entitled to 1 board member for each 600 citizens rounded
to the next highest number
(never to less than 1). An alternative
to that (using the same population numbers) would be that each town be entitled
to1 board member for each one-eighth (or the greater portion thereof) of the
combined population. Discussion ensued
regarding the size of the board.
P. Bogan commented that the size is important – a 7-9 member board is a good size. However, with a unified union board, you would need a larger number to ensure better representation.
S. Kayhart
noted that she had spoken to an
L. Hawley indicated that we need to look at this proposal as what is best for all students and get over the mind set of size, town lines, etc.
D. Kayhart commented that there is language throughout the document being prepared regarding the equity issues.
Article 10 – election of board members – would be elected for 3-year terms, except those initially elected at the time of formation (of the Unified Union). Following is the suggested apportionment – a total of 12 - based on the alternative referenced in Article 9.
Ferrisburgh: (4) 2 for 1 year, 1 for 2 years, and 1 for 3 years
Panton: (1) 1 for 3 years
Vergennes: (4) 1 for 1 year, 2 for 2 years, and 2 for 2 years
Article 11 – when to present the proposal to the voters, the election of board members, and when the Unified Union will commence operations. Discussion ensued.
K. Bristow indicated that if we move forward for a vote in March, 2005, we would need to vote not only the question, but we would also need to vote for board members and a budget as well. Discussion continued and it seems that the question of forming a Unified Union and electing board members will be enough, since we cannot move forward until we know the answer.
Superintendent O’Brien suggested that the time of commencing operations be
Returning to Article 4 (facilities) - D. Corcoran reported that she looked at all current debt, etc. and if unified - spread over the 5 towns – would equate to approximately $6,132.00 per equalized pupil.
Ms. Corcoran reported per equalized pupil cost by town, using the current debt as it is currently allocated for the two union schools, etc. as follows:
Ferrisburgh - $5,841.00
Panton - $5,513.00
Vergennes - $6,249.00
Ray pointed out the options for the committee to consider. 1) Leave any proposed construction for the new board, or 2) include the figures in the referendum.
Superintendent O’Brien indicated that Addison or Ferrisburgh could look at their absolute needs and bond anytime during the process
Ms. Corcoran indicated that Addison
and Ferrisburgh would gain if they bond after the
unionization. – using possible debt, it would equate to approximately $7,698.00
per pupil. A stand alone vote for either
of them would be much more. Without the
unionization, it would equate to approximately $9,547 for
Mr. Proulx indicated that we will need to include proposed construction figures, architect designs, etc. under Article 4, if construction is included in the unionization vote. Discussion ensued regarding including the debt in the Articles of Agreement. Ray recommended a clause for any future construction, as anticipated be included.
Ray noted that the Committee needs to act on each Article and collectively, needs to make decisions relative to the unionization.
K. Bristow suggested that between now and the next meeting, the Committee think about all this and perhaps share thoughts, ask questions, etc
Ray suggested that we not ask Winton (Goodrich) to the next meeting, since the Committee is not ready for his piece in the process.
Superintendent O’Brien suggested
that the Committee hold an additional meeting and invite Winton, since the
middle school staff will be invited to the next meeting. A second meeting in October was scheduled for
the 26th at
The next meeting is October 12th at
The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at
Respectfully submitted,
Sally A. Bushey
Recording Secretary