March 28, 2014 at 4:00 PM - Superintendent's Weekly Update to the Board of Education

Description: 
In October 2011, I made a conscious decision and effort to support the board and Royalton School District.  One month before the public election on an operating levy, I settled a three-year contract with "hard freezes" for my salary in years one and two.  It was to set the tone for all other individual and group employee contracts.  This did not happen, however, except for David Lemm's contract.  It was supposed to be an important and factual message the school district doesn't have enough financial means to properly operate.

Tom Justin told me one evening, weeks after the board approved my contract, we can reopen my contract later and the board would make it up to me.  I didn't think that was necessary or possible until now. 

David and I are requesting the board reopen our current contracts to discuss salary.  We are the only two employees out of 160 who did not receive either step advancement or a cost of living increase.  The enclosed documents detail the history and purpose for asking.

I visited with MSBA's attorney John Sylvester about procedures for reopening contracts.  He said because these are two standalone contracts (not a part of any bargaining unit) they can be reopened for discussion.  Both parties just have to agree to it.

John said he understands why the request to reopen these two contracts and "it's appropriate and reasonable" given the significant change in available funding to Royalton.  And the fact that all but these two employees received a step advancement and COLA.

I will be contacting Tom, Jeff and Liz to schedule a negotiations meeting.  Please let me know if you have any questions or thoughts.  I will consider each board member is okay with reopening our two contracts unless I hear otherwise by Tuesday, April 1st.

Thank you, in advance, for listening to our concern. 

Description: 
Only Dale and I were able to attend the SEE Day at the Capitol.  Jim had some more farm issues to address and Liz was not feeling well.

What happened?...

In short, what we learned is the state approved on Friday, March 21 several million more dollars for schools.  They took advantage of the budget surplus and funded all Minnesota school districts more equitably.  The bill had +90 percent bi-partisan support from legislatures.  

The legislatures have fully been aware of the underfunded schools like Royalton.  There has been too much disparity, and drastically growing, for the past 10 years in Minnesota.  Today, the sun shines much brighter on all Minnesota children!

What does it mean for Royalton?

On top of the $300 per pupil we'll receive an additional $424.  School boards do not need to approve of the $424 like they did with the $300.  It will automatically happen in our funding.  A school board can choose to lessen the amount if they want to.

Remember to last year that a third tier was added to fund an operating levy.  The third tier was for, and continues to be, for the first $300 of an operating levy.  For Royalton that means we're going to receive 78% of the $300 per pupil from the state and 22% will be local.

The additional $424 per pupil will be in tier two.  And even though we'd not receive the "super charge" of tier 3 there is equalized funding in the calculations.  The $424 would be split about evenly between the state and school district 50/50.  This is much better than schools that receive 25%, 15%, none, etc.  Both tiers 3 and 2 take into account a school district's taxpayers' ability to pay taxes.

The earlier we know the scope of our facilities project the better.  We want to look at both the new $724 in operating money and the revenue needed in building bonds.  We may want to adjust the $724 down to a level we need...as long as we're receiving bond dollars to address our facility needs.

Lots to happen and important decisions to be made at school...as always!       

Description: 
I want to give you all a heads up on potential future problems with school employees.  We've certainly had a rash of them this month; even requiring consequences for some employees with unexcused absences.  Some of this is because we're a growing school district and constantly hiring new staff.  Some new, and yes even 10-year plus veterans, are unaware of the higher expectations we have in a school setting (e.g., oversleeping because of your alarm 2x in the same month is not acceptable, not attending parent teacher conferences because you're on a family vacation is not acceptable, etc.).

The point is we must deal with all issues that come before us - no matter how big or small. 

Description: 
Please find attached the first edition of our new eStaff Newsletter.  It's in an ugly test email format because David is working out a few bugs for me.  It'll look clean and pretty when it's sent out next week.  

You will receive the eStaff Newsletter each month when we email "all staff" members.  The purpose is better communication with our employees.

Description: 
Don Lifto is recommending we send a team of members to his conference on 2014 School Finance Elections.  We will be attending the one in Alexandria on April 16.  Please let me know by April 2 if you're interested in attending.

Description: 
For the near future, I'll be sharing progress and communication related to the new GTE program.  I realize many of you want to be informed about what's happening with this exciting new opportunity for our children.  

Description: 
Please find attached an email Mr. Swenson sent out to all employees.  You should have been included because I asked David to add board members to the "All Staff" group emails.

John Walburn from Jim's Electric said the two school buildings should be fully operational by the end of next week.

Description: 
We are looking at a network upgrade for the district.  This project requires the formal bid process because it is expected to exceed $100,000.  The bid request will be in the Morrison County Record on March 30th and April 6th as we are required by law to advertise for it.  The request for bid does NOT lock us into doing the project, but it is necessary as part of the capital outlay planning process. The bids will be brought to the board for approval at a later date.

Description: 
Attached is an email from Mr. Jeff Schoenrock regarding our recent decision about comp slips.  Please let me know if you feel any differently about our decision based on his comments.  It doesn't change my mind, but it may yours.  Thank you.

Description: 
I spent two full work days blending a MSBA model contract with our current practices in the District Policies on the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Non-Union Employees.  In the end, what I ended up with is attached.  Both Mary and Kelsie reviewed it twice for me.  

First, we need to form a board committee to review the document and be the negotiators.  Then, we need to schedule a negotiations meeting with the secretaries.  We can visit about the first step at our next closed negotiations meeting in April.  

Description: 
I wrote a contract for Sarah Funk, Community Education Director.  Dr. Gurbada was once assigned "Director" because Angie did not have the necessary license nor did Sarah when she was first hired.  

Sarah has now completed the necessary coursework and does have a proper license to be called "Director" and carry full responsibility on her own.  For example, previously Dr. Gurbada would have to oversee state reports and sign.  It should also be noted that Sarah is only a couple college classes away from her Master's degree!

I will place this agreement in the April board meeting agenda for board approval. 

Description: 
I need your help understanding how board members are reimbursed for attending meetings.  We haven't been able to find anything in district policy or minutes from the January organizational meeting.  

As you know board members are assigned to a variety of committees of the board.  It is clear board members assigned to these committees are financially reimbursed for their time.  What I'm uncertain about is when a board member attends a board committee meeting their not assigned to. Do we pay them too?  I did not have an answer for Kelsie.

One school of thought is anyone can attend the committee meetings, but board members are only board members when they're officially acting in an assigned role of the board.  Board members who are not assigned to the committee are attending/acting as any regular community citizen.

I feel bad for asking board members to attend some recent important facilities planning committee meetings.  I did not give it thought as to whether or not they would be paid for being at that committee meeting.

Please let me know if you want this to be a discussion item at the April board meeting.  I do think it would be appropriate to pay any board member who attends the facilities planning meetings, but then again they have to be on "official board business" to be paid.

I don't know ... rambling now.  

Description: 
Please find attached confidential information regarding a personnel item.

Description: 
Please find attached the weekly bills for your approval.