ACT 46 STUDY COMMITTEE
Representing the Brattleboro Town School District, Dummerston Town School District,
Guilford Town School District, Putney Town School District and the Vernon Town School District
http://www.wssu.k12.vt.us
NOTICE OF MEETING
The Act 46 Study Committee will meet at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6, 2016 in the WRCC Cusick Conference Room.
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 p.m. – Alice Laughlin, Committee Chair
II. REVIEW, PRIORITIZE AND ESTABLISH DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR MEETING BY CHAIRPERSON.
III. REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBER ROLES AND PUBLIC COMMENTS BY CHAIRPERSON
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 16, 2016
V. REVIEW STUDY COMMITTEE PROCESS BY CHAIRPERSON
VI. RECOGNITION OF GROUPS AND/OR INDIVIDUALS
VII. STUDY COMMITTEE WORK SESSION:
Review and Discuss Articles w/Chris Leopold and Nikki South (via skype)
Review and Discuss Vernon School District Withdrawal From the Existing Brattleboro Union High School District w/Chris Leopold and Nikki South
Review Proposed Timeline
VIII. PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN
Set Draft Schedule for Study Committee Individual Town Presentations
IX. FUTURE MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Note: In accordance with the following excerpt from WSESU Policy E-12 Electronic Communications Use and Retention
II. Use of E-Mail and Electronic Communications
The school board and administration will not use email as a substitute for discussion at board meetings, or for any business properly conducted at board meetings subject to the Vermont Open Meeting Law.
…
Brattleboro Town School District, Dummerston Town School District,
Guilford Town School District, Putney Town School District and Vernon Town School District
Act 46 Study Committee
Work Session Agenda, Minutes & Action Items – June 16, 2016 from 5-6:45 PM WRCC Cusick Room
Present
Brattleboro: Kim Price*, David Schoales**, Jill Stahl Tyler*, Mark Truhan*
BUHS/ BAMS/WRCC: Ricky Davidson*, Ian Torrey* * denotes voting member,
Dummerston: Kristina Naylor** ***, Amy Wall* – Clerk ** denotes alternate voting member,
Guilford: Beth Bristol*, Alice Revis**, Eric Feindel *** denotes ex officio member
Putney: Richard Glejzer**, Alice Laughlin* – Chair
Vernon: Walter Breau*, Mike Hebert** -not participating
Also present
WSESU: Lyle Holiday – Curriculum & Assessment, Frank Rucker – Business Manager, Ron Stahley – Superintendent
Others: Nikki South – Act 46 Implementation Project, Christopher Leopold – Wells & Leopold
BCTV staff, members of the public including Shaun Murphy, Howard Weiss-Tisman/VPR, Jody Normandeau, Thomas Ehrenberg, Ines McGillion, Richard Virktis,
1. Work sessions will start and end on time.
2. Work sessions will last 2 hours unless decided otherwise by the Committee.
3. Members will give and receive with good intentions.
4. Members will follow “3 before me” as a guideline so all members have the opportunity to speak.
5. Members will conduct Committee business in front of the group.
6. Members will understand that silence on the part of another member does not imply agreement.
7. Members will site sources of evidence during discussion.
8. All members will be included in conversation and no side conversations will be conducted during the work session.
9. Members will stay on topic during discussions and will request the Clerk make note of additional topic(s) for future discussion.
10. Members will engage in the work at hand and administration will provide the space and support as needed to do so.
Agenda Items Led by
– Call to order Alice Laughlin
– Review, prioritize and establish desired outcomes for meeting Alice
– Review Study Committee member roles and public comments by Chair Alice
– Approve of minutes of previous work session – May 26 Alice
– Review Study Committee process by Chair Alice
– Study Committee Work Session Alice, Ron Stahley, Frank Rucker
– Review Proposed Timeline
– Review and Discuss Articles w/Chris Leopold and Nikki South
– Public Information Campaign – Set Draft schedule for Town presentations Alice
– Future meetings, Discussions Alice
– Adjournment
Work Session Minutes:
Chair Alice Laughlin called the work session to order at 5:01 pm with a review of the agenda. She welcomed the public present and the Committee agreed to provide time for public input as noted on the agenda with additional time near the end of the meeting, if possible. On a motion made by Ricky Davidson seconded by Kim Price and so voted unanimously, the minutes of May 26 were accepted as written.
Alice Laughlin opened the work session to public comment. Thoughts, comments and/or concerns included the following:
Citing the article in today’s Reformer about the Brattleboro program and
Request for communication with legal counsel Chris Leopold to be in writing.
Alice introduced Nikki South, the former Act 46 Project Implementation Manager who is now an associate with Wells & Leopold, and Christopher Leopold, Study Committee legal counsel, Wells & Leopold. Alice provided an overview of the district and its members. Introductions by Study Committee members followed. Alice noted that Guilford School Board member Eric Feindel is representing Guilford since Beth Bristol and Alice Revis could not attend.
Ron Stahley reviewed the proposed timeline. He shared that Vernon has confirmed that they will develop warning articles to exit the BUHS district and form a independent K-12 district with a vote of the electorate tentatively set for 8/9/16. The only change in the proposed timeline is the meeting date with the State Board of Education. Based on feedback from the VT AOE, the SBE meeting on 9/20/16 was recommended. Assuming an affirmative vote by Vernon to exit BUHS, Frank Rucker advised that an agreement between BUHS and Vernon on the terms of Vernon’s exit is needed prior to the 9/20/16 SBE meeting. The terms of the agreement would address Vernon’s interests in assets and its share of liabilities for the BUHS construction bond. The financial details of such an agreement are being researched by Paul Giuliani. When sending students to BUHS, Vernon’s tuition would be equivalent to actual cost. This is not expected to have a substantial overall impact because future Vernon students sent to BUHS will offset Vernon’s departure. BUHS will remain viable as long as any town exiting is not Brattleboro. Chris Leopold commented that no Vermont school district has voted to withdraw dating back to the 1960-70. In the 1970’s the state statute was changed to the current requirement for all member districts of a SU to agree to release the district wishing to leave. Additionally, the State Board of Education must approve the withdrawal. This decision would likely be based on Vernon’s ability to send their students elsewhere for Grades 7-12. Chris added that the State Board will also want to be sure of the viability of WSESU if Vernon exits. The State Board of Education has never addressed this issue before. The law provides that WSESU member districts can approve Vernon’s exit before it renders a decision. In the present scenario, the timeline is reversed from what would be expected and makes sense. Chris shared that this will need to be justified to the State Board of Education as a rational approach; otherwise, the overall timeline may be extended. Chris described it as a “chicken and the egg” situation. If the State Board of Education agrees with the process and timeline, then a November 2016 vote by Australian ballot with three warning articles can take place in all member districts except Vernon. Article 1 would allow Vernon to withdraw. A negative vote by any town can stop Vernon’s withdrawal. Article 2 adopts the Articles of Agreement approved by the State Board of Education. With all towns (except Vernon) listed as necessary, Article 2 will succeed if all towns vote favorably. If one town vote fails, then a new unified union district will not form. Article 3 elects directors for the proposed unified union district board. Chris stressed the need for articles to be worded and warned clearly. Another factor that may affect the timeline is if Vernon votes to remain in the BUHS district. In that case, the Study Committee will need to rethink its options and timeline. Chris shared that if one town is listed as advisable (instead of necessary) and votes no, then the other towns can form a MUDD as long as this is warned clearly in the voting language and detailed in the Articles of Agreement approved by the State Board of Education. If Vernon opted to remain in the BUHS district, then a new governance structure would need to be agreed to by all member districts. If Vernon is listed as advisable with other towns in the Articles of Agreement, then there are only two ways to proceed – as described previously or all towns agree to form a unified union district. If all towns are listed as necessary, advisable or a combination thereof and the towns all support Article 1, then a MUDD is formed. An example of this is Chittenden East which formed in 2015.
Alice Laughlin questioned the need to maintain a Supervisory District if a MUDD is formed. Chris Leopold confirmed it is needed because it would remain two distinct districts – the newly formed MUDD and Vernon. While not offering the efficiencies of a unified union district, governance could be streamlined with approval from the State Board of Education. The composition of the SU board could reflect the populations of each town if the Articles of Agreement specify this. It is legally possible for districts to be reassigned to another Supervisory Union but the State Board of Education has not done so to date.
Ron Stahley reviewed and noted changes in the June 15th draft of the Report and Articles of Agreement from previous version.
1. On the cover page, Vernon voting member Walter Breau should not be crossed out and Mike Hebert should be listed as alternate member from Vernon. On a page 4 in the Executive Summary, the bold print shows changes made. Frank Rucker’s financial information based on the Picus study will be added to support the expected savings described. These figures need to be updated to reflect the transition support of $0.08/0.06/0.04/0.02. The following changes to the Articles of Agreement were reviewed:
2. Article 1 deletes all references to Vernon and the remaining towns are listed as necessary. Each town listed must vote on the Articles and approve them individually by town.
3. Article 2 deletes all references to Vernon.
4. Article 4 is revised to clarify the date on which the new unified union district begins operation of existing facilities.
5. Article 6 is revised to add the date for assumption of capital debt and interests of each town district. Section B addresses the assumption of surplus/deficits of the Supervisory Union. Section C provides that restricted funds of each member town and BUHS are used for their designated purpose (i.e. scholarship funds, capital plan funds, endowments).
6. Article 7 includes changes to clarify language that requires one year of study and public input prior to a vote to close a school, there must be one year of study and public input. It also specifies that no schools will be closed during the first 5 years of the new union district’s operation.
7. Article 8 removes directors allocated for Vernon. Total board membership is kept at 9 members with 3 at large seats.
8. Article 9 is revised to meet the requirements of Act 46. The law provides for 2, 3 and 4 year terms upon formation of the new unified district. The language specifies that the 2 year terms commence in January 2017 and ends in spring 2018. After these initial terms, all board directors serve 3 year terms which is specified in statute.
9. Article 10 changes the date of the vote to November 8th, 2016 or another date selected by the Study Committee.
10. Article 11 deletes references to Vernon.
11. Article 13 includes the date that the new unified board will establish policies regarding public participation and before the new union district becomes operational.
12. Article 14 requires a vote by Australian ballot by each town to approve the unified district budget. The majority of Study Committee reports require an Australian ballot.
13. Article 15 includes revised language to meet the requirements of state statute. Chris Leopold suggested that the Study Committee should include this language as Appendix B, not as an Article. In his experience it is important to strike a balance between the Articles of Agreement for what is necessary and appropriate while not placing the Study Committee in role of making decisions that a newly formed unified district board would make on policies and procedures. It is important for the Study Committee to not encumber future boards. With the Leadership Council language as an Article, this falls into the latter and the Study Committee should proceed cautiously. Ron stated that advisory councils were part of a national movement in large urban districts with student populations of 40k and were intended to provide voice to invisible board and administration due to the scale of the district. In other states with the advisory council structure, statute prohibits union district members from serving on an advisory council. Chris stated that there should be a division of roles and serving on both a union district board and on the Leadership Council may be a conflict of interest. Chris emphasized that union district board members need to make independent decisions. If union district board members serve on Leadership councils, then it changes the nature of the Leadership Councils’ roles and may subject Leadership Council meetings to Open Meeting law. Chris made a change to the wording regarding the town voting for Leadership Council members at Town Meeting. Election of Leadership Council members is inconsistent with state statute and beyond the powers of a union school board. School boards are permitted to create offices like the Leadership Council with members nominated and appointed by the union board. Another change needed in the language regarding Leadership Councils concerned hiring committees. Current state law vests total authority for hiring of school staff to the Superintendent. Ron pointed out that a Superintendent can recruit, nominate and hire candidates based on input from hiring committees. Chris stated that the wording was changed in this revision of the Articles to be consistent with state law. It is not appropriate to restrict the Superintendent’s rights and responsibilities. After discussion on how communities can have a voice in a union district, the consensus of the Study Committee was to keep the language regarding Leadership Councils as an Article. Chris Leopold does not recommend this but the current version as written is less problematic. He suggested some further revisions of the language to align with statute and to be less specific (re: 1% funds, etc.). He also suggested the addition of a sunset clause. This would allow the union district board to evaluate the role of Leadership Councils within a certain timeframe and reaffirm their usefulness as a communication conduit from local communities. If the concept of Leadership Councils doesn’t work as hoped, then the unified union board can let it lapse. If communities want it and it is working, then it can be renewed every 3-5 years for effectiveness. Chris added that the idea of Leadership Councils has been around for a while but generally there is not board policy concerning them. Chris reiterated that it is important to not place the union district board in a voting it out if a sunset clause was not added. If it stays as Article without a sunset clause, then the union district board would warn changes regarding Leadership Councils for an upcoming meeting to amend the Article.
Chris Leopold confirmed that the new union district board can change some Articles relatively easy while others need the vote of the electorate. State Statute Chapter 11 Title 16 fundamentally identifies provisions in control of the electorate.
Articles requiring the vote of the electorate are: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14. Articles that can be changed by the union district board are: 4 (not an important Article), 5 (yes but the first year of operation is decided by the union board anyway), 11 (but this is transition language to prepare of operation of the new union district), 12 (theoretically), 13, 15 (depending on the language used), 16, 17, 18. Chris stated that in the past 25 years, he has seen few Articles changed and those were primarily due to legal requirements of statute. The Study Committee and union district board members are charged to do the best things for their students, taxpayers and communities.
Alice Laughlin suggested that the Committee have a conference call with Chris Leopold during its next work session if questions remain or new issues surface. Regarding leadership council language, Alice confirmed that the consensus was to include it as an Article rather than as an appendix. Richard Glejzer suggested that Chris draft language with and without the sunset clause for the Study committee to consider at its next work session.
Alice confirmed that the next work sessions will be on July 6 and July 20 at 6 pm in the WRCC Cusick Room of WRCC. She then opened the floor to public comment. The public present shared the following thoughts, concerns and/or ideas:
Releasing Vernon from BUHS construction debt,
Using the Leadership Councils to balance the power of the unified district board,
Information on Vernon’s activities including a risk/benefit study and the need for financial info for Vernon,
Need for an exit plan to be included in the Articles and for it to be more flexible than that current statute,
Concern about the time line,
Request for the formation of a subcommittee to document official communications with the VT AOE and legal counsel,
Consideration of other options, and
Thanks to Nikki South and Chris Leopold for attending this work session
In response to one concern shared, Chris Leopold stated that under current law each town is jointly and separately libel for the BUHS construction bond.
Agenda for next meeting include:
Review of the latest draft of the report and
Conference call with Chris Leopold.
Alice Laughlin requested that Study Committee members forward questions – legal and financial – to her so she can seek answers from Chris and Nikki. Frank Rucker shared that financial questions about Vernon and its departure may be difficult to answer.
On a motion made by Ricky Davidson, seconded by Mark Truhan, and so voted unanimously, the work session was adjourned at 7:02 pm.
Action Items before next meeting and Responsible party
– Forward financial and legal questions to Alice at alicelaughlin@rocketmail.com All
– Verify that info is posted on Act 46 Study committee page on WSESU website Amy, Barb Nowakowski
– Provide financial data and list of assets excluded/included in consolidation Frank
– Review Executive Summary and Articles of Agreement with local boards All
Respectfully submitted, Amy Wall – Committee Clerk
Vexit
so if vernon leaves the WSESU will we call it Vexit?