MINUTES OF REGULAR & BUDGET MEETING,
MARCH 13, 2006
PRESENT: Chairperson Dori Zaleznik,
Vice-Chairperson Marc Laredo, Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Anne Larner, Reenie
Murphy, Claire Sokoloff, Jonathan Yeo, Mayor David Cohen, Superintendent
Jeffrey Young, Tim Smiley, student representative – Newton South High School
ABSENT: student
representative –
OPEN SESSION
MOTION: At
5:58 p.m., it was moved, by roll call vote,
to
convene in executive session for the purpose
of discussing matters related to
collective
bargaining. If passed, the Committee will
reconvene in open session at 7:30
p.m.
(
7
– 0 – 2
Absent for vote: Sokoloff, Mayor Cohen
Roll call vote by ward:
Ward l, “yes” (Glick); Ward ll,
“yes” (Murphy); Ward lll, “yes” (Larner); Ward lV, “yes” (Yeo); Ward V, “yes”
(Heyman); Ward Vl, absent for vote (Sokoloff); Ward Vll, “yes” (
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Dori Zaleznik called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ely
Goldberg, senior at Newton North, related some students’ personal experiences
about the impact of large class sizes, such as teachers taking longer to return
assignments, waiting in long lines for extra help, groups of five students
sharing a lab so that not everyone gets hands-on experience, students having to
self-grade quizzes, sitting on the floor because of insufficient numbers of
desks, lack of opportunity to participate in class discussions, and rarely
getting called on or receiving sufficient personal attention.
Jennie
Leland, junior at Newton South, presented similar comments from students at her
school, such as fear of speaking up in large classes, inability to make an
appointment to get extra help because too many students are doing the same, not
enough desks in a classroom so that students are sitting on the floor,
confusion around assignments, and no time to ask questions.
Jan
Lewis, speech & language pathologist at
George White, advisor for the Newton South Denebola
newspaper, announced that their publication was awarded the Massachusetts Press
Association Award for general excellence at the Suffolk University Greater
Boston Journalism contest last week.
This award is given by working journalists. No newspaper has taken this award more than
twice and he is pleased to announce that this is the seventh year that Denebola
has been so honored. He introduced the new
staff for next year: Hisham Bedri, Co-editor
in Chief, Elizabeth Pezza, Co-editor in Chief, and Michael Gordon, Managing Editor.
Vivian
Zeizel, President of the Mason-Rice after school program, asked the Committee
to consider the ramifications that an increase in the per child user fee will
have on the programs. While a cursory
look may make it appear to be minor, these families have already experienced
tuition increases due to 1.) increased health insurance costs, 2.) increase in
demand for financial assistance as a result of the reduction of other financial
aid resources, and 3.) salary increases for staff to stay competitive. After-school programs are non-profits that
serve approximately 1/3 of all elementary school age children. Mason-Rice alone serves 30% of its student
body. Taxpayers can see the value in the
fact that public schools are not sitting idle after the school day ends, but
are vibrant and safe places for children.
Marc
Kaufman, Co-chairperson of the Newton North School Council, requested that the
reduction of faculty positions at the high schools be reconsidered. The impact of these cuts will mean higher
class sizes, especially in the majority of curriculum I and honors classes. The core teaching subjects, except for
English, are already approaching an average of 25 before the cuts are even
instituted. This is also going to result
in fewer opportunities for students and longer waits for extra help. Finally, fewer teachers and larger classes
raise serious questions about safety and security.
Sue
Rosenbaum, Co-chairperson of the Newton South School Council, talked about the
joint meeting between the School Councils and PTSO’s of both high schools held
earlier this month to discuss the impact of the budget cuts. They heard from parents, staff, and students
at this meeting and it was the student voices that were most telling as they
explained what it is like to try to learn in large classes. Although some additional staff is being
transferred from Newton North to Newton South to make for a more equitable
situation, the cut of 7.4 full-time equivalences (FTEs) will minimize the gain
for Newton South and maximize the loss for Newton North. Both schools will have 23% of their classes
over 25 students, which is 8% over the School Committee’s target goal. Cutting staff often leads to limiting or
eliminating electives causing more students to sign up for fewer classes. They simply will not be able to meet the
needs of all students. Those interested
in technical vocation will be hit especially hard and these type of courses are
actually smaller learning communities (SLCs) in every respect.
Liz
Richardson, Waban, talked about the need for more supports for struggling
students at Newton South, but not at a cost to Newton North. While they applaud the School Committee’s
efforts to keep class sizes small at the elementary and middle schools, the
high schools should not have to suffer the consequences. Classes over 25 or more students at Newton
South have increased from 11% in 2002-2003 to 19% in 2004-2005 and 34% this
year. At the beginning of this school
year, 40% of classes in the five major subjects were at 25 or more
students. While lowering this percentage
to 23% is vastly better for their school, it represents an increase to Newton
North. Each FTE at the high school level
goes a long way. Last fall the addition
of 1.0 FTE lowered the percentage of classes of 25 or more from 40% to
34%. One FTE creates 16 additional
blocks per week. They urge the Committee
to preserve enough staff so that no more than 20% of classes have more than 25
students.
Rita
Sheinker, Family & Consumer Science teacher at Newton North, addressed the
Committee regarding her concern about the cut in this program that has been in
place for 30 years. This is a true SLC
in that they serve a diverse group of students who may not otherwise feel that
they fit in the school and it prepares them for the future. The program covers everything from health
issues to nutrition, cuisine, fashion design and how to manage finances. Not all students are going to go on to become
doctors and lawyers, but with these types of programs and supports they can go
on to lead extremely productive and successful lives. So much of the hands-on courses have been
lost over the years, such as auto body and electronics, and this will create
yet another huge gap for students.
Emily
Prenner, Waban, talked about the fact that Chapter 70 aid in
Christine
Caruso,
Xueming
Wu, Chairman of the Board of the
David
Koven,
Toby
Richard, high school parent, expressed concern about the cuts to the special
education program, whose children are most vulnerable. More students are being mainstreamed into the
regular classroom without the teacher necessarily being prepared to deal with
the various needs. Students in
curriculum II classes require more attention and cannot be served well in the
larger classes and he fears these decisions will sacrifice their progress and
perhaps put them at risk in passing the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS) exam. Fewer electives will
be available and more students will not be in classrooms, which is a safety and
security issue.
Rich
Parker, Oak Hill parent, talked about his daughter who was born with a severe
brain infection that could have resulted in her never having the ability to
walk
or talk. However, fortunately she is
doing both today and is a happy and productive child. This would not have occurred had it not been
for the services she has received in this system since kindergarten. He would never want to see regular and
special education pitted against one another because every child is
important. The investment made in
special education programs has an enormous payoff that cannot be counted in
dollars only.
Geoffrey
Epstein,
Walia
Dungan,
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES’
DISCUSSION
None.
RECOGNITIONS
The
following students were acknowledged for being selected as National Merit
Scholarship finalists:
Newton
North High School: Madeleine
Abromowitz, Jacob Auchincloss, Loren Chen, Gabriel Daly, Liora Goldensher, Benjamin
Gurvis, Stephanie Kaplan Benjamin Landau-Taylor, Eric Messinger, Jason Sullivan,
Anne Triest, Daniel Waldinger, Michaela Yule
Newton South High School: Jared Arnold, Andrew Brody, Igor Dombrovsky, Benjamin
Gifford, Jesse Gubb, Samuel Michel, Sy Chotz, Lily Silverstein, Leigh Soares
APPROVAL
OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
The following corrections were noted to the
minutes of 1/9/06:
page
11, 4th #: “board” should
read “broad” and page 14, 3rd #:
“Brenda Healy” should read “Pat Kelly.”
MOTION: It
was moved to approve the School Committee
regular
meeting minutes of 1/9/06, as amended,
and executive session meeting minutes of
1/23/06.
(Larner
– Glick)
unanimous
REPORTS
SUPERINTENDENT’S
PERSONNEL REPORT
There were no questions on the report.
FY06
BUDGET UPDATE
Jeff Young reminded the Committee that they
have approved and instituted a $300,000 spending freeze through the rest of
this fiscal year. The update shows where
they anticipate achieving the savings.
OPERATIONS
STATUS REPORT
Jeff Young pointed out that they are running
into some problems in the charter maintenance account, where the repair orders
to address heating issues have been multiplying.
Marc Laredo asked about the status of the
energy audits.
Michael Cronin, Chief of Operations, provided
the Committee with a summary of the audits and is sending the full report
electronically.
Dori Zaleznik pointed out the 123 HVAC work
orders in February and asked what those entailed.
Mike Cronin will be glad to provide more detail
on those work orders for the Committee.
Susie Heyman requested information on the cost
of overtime for city personnel to work in the buildings after 3:00 p.m.
Mike Cronin will be happy to provide that
information.
Jeff Young mentioned that progress continues to
be made at Newton South although at a slower pace than they would like. The architect and design team have been busy
meeting with staff at Newton North to talk about their building and he will be
attending a faculty meeting this week on teacher work space.
Heidi Black, Administrator of High School
Construction & Strategic Planning, added that they have nearly completed
the schematic design meetings and will shortly move into the next phase of
design development. Currently they are
focusing on appropriate adjacencies for programs and then will move into the
more detailed classroom needs, such as location of light switches, data drops,
furniture, etc. Faculty members have
been instrumental in these discussions.
Dori Zaleznik asked about the report on the
commissioning at Newton South.
Heidi Black replied that the document is
currently with the Law Department.
SPECIAL
EDUCATION UPDATE
Jeff Young noted that this monthly report
remains relatively stable, with a slight increase in contracted services, which
illustrates how the needs of students evolve over the course of the year.
ACTION
ITEMS
FURTHER
DISCUSSION/VOTE ON USE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS FEES
Anne Larner began the discussion by noting that
tonight the Use of School Buildings Subcommittee is looking for the full
Committee to vote on their recommendations for an increase in the basic hourly
fees, as well as an increase in the per child hour charge for the after school
programs. The basic fees have not been
raised in five years, while during that same timeframe custodial and utility
costs have increased. The increase for
the after-school programs was a much more difficult recommendation to make
because of the relationship the system has had with these programs over the
years and the important role they play.
However, it was their responsibility to review all areas where fees are
charged. Even though the proposal
doubles the fees, it still only brings it closer to the actual marginal cost
and they believe it is a fair share toward the costs associated with the use of
the buildings. Unfortunately the fees
have not been reviewed on a regular basis and increased to keep pace, so it
seems a steep jump to do it all at once.
MOTION: It
was moved to approve the recommendations of the
Use of School Buildings Subcommittee regarding
increased fees as outlined on the 2/23/06
memorandum:
·
Increase the basis hourly use of school buildings fees by 31%
·
No increase in
rental fees for C permits
·
Increase fees
for after-school care programs to .34¢/kid hour
(Larner
– Heyman)
Discussion:
Susie Heyman commented that while she seconded
the motion it is with a lot of discomfort because of the value of these
programs for
Marc Laredo thanked the Subcommittee, which
took on a difficult task. He will
support the recommendations even though he shares the discomfort expressed by
Susie. However, in this fiscal climate
they have to act in a prudent fashion.
This should in no way appear as if the Committee is reneging on its support
of these important and critical programs.
Reenie Murphy will also support the motion and
would like to review the fees on an annual basis so that they do not end up in
a similar position.
Dori Zaleznik noted that it was unfortunate
that they had a turnover on the Subcommittee, but the new members have stepped
up to the plate and done a yeoman’s amount of work in a very short
timeframe. By addressing this now, they
are able to notify people in a timely fashion so that this does not come as a
surprise to users who need to make their own program plans. Part of the problem is the fact that five
years has elapsed since these fees have been reviewed and during that time
costs have skyrocketed. She agrees that
they need to review these on a more consistent basis. The fact that the fees being proposed are in
the middle vs. the highest of what the formula could bear attests to their
desire to be fair and supportive while at the same time recouping costs.
Claire Sokoloff admitted that this is a
gut-wrenching decision because of the commitment to the after-school
programs. However, it is their fiduciary
responsibility
to make sure costs are being at least partially
covered. She hopes this will not result
in any rift between the school department and these programs. They need to make sure they work together as
partners to preserve this relationship and as they work on other critical issues,
such as space.
Vote
on motion to increase fees: unanimous
Anne Larner next brought up the subject of a
group that has been receiving special rental fee rates. In the review of all of the user fees, four
anomalies were found that for some reason were receiving special rates not
approved by the School Committee:
The last issue she raised was the directive to look
at the possibility of a surcharge for air-conditioning for summer use of buildings. Their recommendation is to raise the consciousness
of the school system itself in terms of how they use buildings and place
programs so that they are steering workshops, conferences, and meetings to the
most energy efficient buildings. They are recommending that the administration
begin to have conversations around taking this into the planning process. There are also recommendations from the
consultants that by investing in some relatively inexpensive, short-term
solutions at Day and North they can provide air-conditioning to staff who are
in the buildings all summer, but also operate the rest of the building more
efficiently by lowering the cooling systems levels in empty classrooms and
directing programs to the more efficient Newton South. An investment of approximately $7,000 -
$10,000 at Newton North could result in an $80,000 a month savings. The Subcommittee will be prepared to return
at the next meeting with a more specific proposal around air-conditioning charges
to be phased in starting 7/1/06, as well as to further discuss and vote on the
increase for the four groups who had been receiving special rates.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS
FY07
BUDGET DISCUSSION
Special
Education (SPED)
Jeff Young began tonight’s budget discussion in
this area by noting that SPED will experience cuts just like every other area
in the budget, not because anyone wants to do this, but because they are
necessary to meet the gap. They are
diligently making sure that any program changes that will be proposed will
still enable the system to comply with the requirements of students’ IEPs. While they are proud of their decision making
process they are not happy with the decisions that have had to be made.
Marc Laredo asked why there is a 10% increase
in the inclusion facilitator line item when the staffing does not appear to be
increasing.
Sandra Guryan, Assistant Superintendent of
Business, Finance & Planning, explained that the ’07 budget reflects the
appropriate amount for the 6.3 FTEs. It
was the FY06 budget that was understated due to some vacancies where the
dollars had not been transferred before the budget book was printed. As the vacancies were filled, the budget was
adjusted by transferring funds between SPED accounts, but it did not make the publication. Tonight’s budget update provides more
detail. The actual percentage increase
in this line item is approximately 3%.
Reenie Murphy would like to hear more about
contracted services and whether they might have the expertise in-house to be
able to bring some of these services into the system rather than paying outside
professionals.
Margie Daniels, Assistant Superintendent for
Pupil Services, stated that they were able to add a .5 autism specialist in
last year’s budget and with grant funding they have been able to bring that to
full-time. This person will actually be
looking at contracted services, particularly for students on the autism
spectrum, where they spend a large amount of money, to see if there are any
efficiencies or ways to consolidate without having the program suffer. It is premature to make any recommendations
for this area.
Susie Heyman asked for an overview of the
changes in the SPED area and the thought-process behind the decision-making.
Margie Daniels stated that the Pupil Services
budget is 6.1% above FY06 and over 50% of that is contractual increases because
they are so staff-intensive in this area.
Thirty-five percent of the total increase in the FY07 budget is in this
department. They began the process with
the directive of seeking efficiencies and cost saving measures that would still
provide the same high quality programs and services for students. While she cannot state for certain at this
point that they will be of equal quality, they certainly will comply with all
state and federal regulations and mandates.
Increases were necessary in the medical
supplies and repair and maintenance areas, as more medically fragile children
enter the system. Out-of-district
tuitions, transportation, and contract services are other areas that are seeing
an increase. In programs there were some
additions that they felt were necessary, such as the creation of the integrated
kindergarten program for students on the autism spectrum, which is modeled
after the Angier and Memorial-Spaulding programs, with the location yet to be
determined. They also plan to expand the
learning disabilities program at Oak Hill from 6th to 7th
grade and hope to bring some students back from out-of-district placements for participation
in this program. They are expanding the
Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) program into the high schools next year to
follow specific students and will be expanding the integrated program at South,
which will have 25 students entering from grade 8 and only a small number
leaving.
As for reductions, there will be a cut of 14.5
FTE SPED teachers (5.0 elementary, 6.5 middle schools and 3.0 high schools),
which could include inclusion facilitators.
They are also recommending a .5 FTE reduction of a school psychologist
at the middle school level, a .5 FTE reduction of the Assistant SPED Head at
Newton North, of which there is no equivalent at Newton South, a .4 FTE
reduction of the speech and language therapy coordinator, and a 1.0 FTE
reduction in guidance counseling at the high school level.
Jonathan Yeo asked if she could elaborate on
bringing the Bigelow integrated model to the other middle schools.
Margie Daniels explained that at Bigelow there
is one integrated teacher for the three grades who writes the IEPs, does
evaluations and selects the specialized equipment. She has a number of teaching assistants
working under her direction to carry out the program. The other middle schools have an integrated
teacher at each grade level. Replicating
the model at these schools means reducing the number of teachers.
Claire Sokoloff stated that the schools are
different sizes, with Bigelow being the smallest, and wondered if there will be
an issue in trying to replicate this model at the larger schools.
Margie Daniels stated that the very nature of
SPED programs requires flexibility.
Staffing patterns can change depending upon the numbers and needs of
students, so they are prepared to do some shifting if necessary.
Jeff Young added that while there is some room
for fluidity it is very limited and this is an extremely tight budget. It is possible that they could run a deficit
and may have to cut in another area, so he does not want people to have the
impression that there is a large pool of money available to allow for a lot of
flexibility. This is an experiment that
has a risk component.
Dori Zaleznik asked if the kindergarten
integrated program is different from the elementary integrated programs.
Margie Daniels replied that the structure of
the program will basically be the same in that they will have a regular and
special education teacher in the classroom.
The difference would be that there will be a greater emphasis on pragmatic
language and social development and they will probably have a behavioral
therapist vs. a regular aide. While this
is a pilot program, they do envision it possibly extending to first and second
grades in the future. The goal is to
provide a preventative program with an early childhood emphasis. The kindergarten schedule will also
accommodate this program excellently in that the long days with half the class
will be a good opportunity to facilitate smaller group work that can focus on
these needs.
Gail Glick asked, for the benefit of the public,
if she could explain pragmatic language.
Margie Daniels responded that pragmatic
language is everyday conversation having to do with social development, which
children on the autism spectrum do not naturally develop. They need practice in what other children
pick up easily and naturally. Some of
the tools used are script form and social stories with structure in how to
interact.
Marc Laredo asked if there are ways to lower
the costs of outside consultants without sacrificing the quality of the
programs, such as putting things out to bid or shopping around for better
prices.
Margie Daniels stated that they are always
looking for cost efficiencies in this area.
One of the difficulties they face is the shortage of specialists in the
field of autism and the number of students presenting on the spectrum. They always look at the fiscal side of things
but with programs that rely on good, qualified consultants who are in short
supply they do not have much leeway.
Another factor that comes into play is the focus this year on getting
students back from outside placements and that often requires certain types of
services. It is their hope that the new
autism specialist position will be helpful in coming up with some strategies to
reduce the budget.
Jonathan Yeo expressed concern about the cuts
in staffing, particularly the inclusion facilitators. He asked about the decision-making process
around how to choose where to take these cuts and whether they would be
eliminating full positions or spreading it out.
Margie Daniels replied that they are struggling
with these decisions. They will be looking at a variety of things, such as the
needs of students, school schedules, distribution and class size, and
enrollment data. They also have to
review the range of expertise among the SPED staff.
Susie Heyman commented that in reviewing the
Budget Guidelines, the administration has done exactly as asked. Now that they are beginning to understand the
impact, it is the School Committee’s responsibility to discuss these decisions
and decide whether this is what they still want.
Reenie Murphy stated that there may have been
more questions about the Bigelow program had the Committee not had the
opportunity to visit the school today and meet with the teachers who gave them
good feedback.
Margie Daniels stated that they would not be
recommending replicating the Bigelow model if they did not feel positive about
that step. However, they are mindful
that Bigelow is the smallest school and will be proceeding cautiously and be prepared
to add staff if needed.
Jeff Young added that if the Committee approves
these recommendations, they will be reporting back on the Bigelow program at
various times throughout the year because it is not so much a risk in terms of
compliance but rather from the perspective of keeping it an excellent program
and that is not something they are willing to sacrifice.
English
Language Learners (ELL)
Margie Daniels noted that this area remains
status quo.
Anne Larner asked if there are any concerns or
issues about the change in laws around this area.
Margie Daniels stated that her greatest concern
has to do with training mandates for regular education teachers who have
students in the classroom whose first language is not English. Students are spread out across the system vs.
being clustered, which is a good model, but causes compliance issues that they
need to address. While they have made
some strides in the right direction, they still have a way to go to get all
teachers trained. The mandated training
is five full days. In a less difficult
budget year she would have recommended an increase for this purpose. Next year there will be a compliance audit
and this is an area of concern.
Curriculum
& Instruction
Carolyn Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum & Instruction, provided an overview of the Curriculum &
Instruction area. They are proposing a
change in the mentor program from a two to one year process. In every year since she has been in
Dori Zaleznik asked if the critical friends groups
(CFGs), which are a large component of the SLC grant, could step in to fill
some of the void in this area.
Carolyn Wyatt replied that peer collaboration
is one of the elements of CFGs, but it is not the same as professional
nurturing one-on-one. CFGs involve staff
meeting together to discuss how and what students are learning and best
teaching practices. Fortunately METCO
has been willing to pick up some of the funding in this area, so they will
continue to capitalize on this collaborative work.
Jeff Young mentioned that CFGs may have an
impact in some indirect “byproduct” way but they do not replace the mentoring
program.
Dori Zaleznik suggesting thinking about
arranging some of these groups in a way that joins experience and inexperienced
teachers, in order to foster professional development.
Jeff Young agreed. In a time of limited resources they should
review all structures and supports.
Gail Glick asked if the cut in the mentor
program has implications regarding compliance issues.
Carolyn Wyatt stated that they will not be out
of compliance. However, they will have
to think about other ways to support staff who need recertification and re-licensure
within the work day and within the professional development opportunities that
have been cut.
Gail Glick asked if this means that teachers
will have to pay for their own professional development.
Carolyn Wyatt replied that by law school
systems are required to provide the opportunities at no cost, so while teachers
may do some of this on their own, that does not relieve the system of its
responsibilities.
Paul Stein added that the 50 hour requirement
is only for teachers going from their initial to professional certification
rather than for re-licensure. While the
full 100+ teachers will not require this, at this point they do not have the
exact numbers. They are beginning to
have conversations around whether they can provide something for them centrally
and/or create a plan in the first year mentoring program for the second year.
Carolyn Wyatt talked about the cut to the early
childhood coordinator and its impact on the literacy initiative. What they believe will be lost is the
consistent monitoring of the new assessment system that has been put in place
for the primary grades and the ability to track and monitor the reading
capability of students. There will be
less time to spend on dedicating approaches to early intervention. There will be less professional development
and less supervision of the early intervention aides.
Marc Laredo expressed some confusion where the
budget shows a .5 cut in this area but then shows replacement funding from the
kindergarten grant.
Carolyn Wyatt explained that the kindergarten
grant is K-1 funding and those responsibilities fall under the Assistant
Director for Curriculum & Instruction.
The services they are losing reflect K-3.
Jeff Young suggested that it might be helpful
if the administration prepares a spreadsheet showing what is in place this year,
how it is funded, what will be in place next year, and how that will be
paid.
Carolyn Wyatt mentioned that the reduction in
professional development will, in turn, mean the reduction of a secretarial
position that supports that work and realignment of the services of the
remaining secretaries in that department.
Jeff Young added that his office will also
experience another .5 secretarial cut.
Carolyn Wyatt stated that the last cut in her
area is $47,500 in instructional materials, which will slow their ability to
continue to revise, upgrade and align the curriculum to the State Standards. It will mean less support for teachers as
they try to become familiar with new curriculum, so it will take a longer time
to achieve what might have been accomplished in one year.
Jeff Young added that the goals remain the same
in this area, but will take longer to accomplish because there is a whole
training component germane to its success.
Reenie Murphy asked about textbooks on CDs.
Carolyn Wyatt replied that this is something
that they reviewed but realized that it would require additional funding and a
stronger infrastructure. While some of
the software companies are developing virtual texts, they are still
evolving. However, they will continue to
stay abreast of the progress in this area, since it is a growing movement and
they may be able to capitalize on it in the future. They are planning an on-line course for some
teachers and they will be reviewing that pilot to see if it could result in
long-term cost-savings.
VOTE
TO APPROVE GRANT
MOTION: It was moved to accept the grant totaling $16,498 (Vocational
Technical Education Program Alignment Project), as outlined in the memorandum
of 3/7/06.
(Heyman
– Murphy)
8 - 0 – 1
Absent for
vote: Mayor Cohen
VOTE TO ACCEPT DONATIONS
MOTION: It was
moved to accept the two anonymous
donations of $1,500 and $1,000 to support special area teachers and service
providers and to purchase equipment for the
sensory
integration room at Underwood Elementary
School,
as outlined in the 3/3/06 memorandum.
(Yeo
– Glick)
8 – 0 – 1
Absent
for vote: Mayor Cohen
COMMUNICATIONS
Dori Zaleznik announced a special meeting
tomorrow evening at Oak Hill, at 7:00 p.m., to hear the presentation of the
Gibson Management Study report.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
There were no members of the public who wished
to address the Committee at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.