Board Retreat October 28, 2005

[Diane Blevins]

Proceedings of the Board of Trustees

District No. 2, Yellowstone County

High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County

Billings, Montana

 

October 28, 2005

 

Call to Order

 

The Retreat of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 2, Yellowstone County, Montana, and High School District, Yellowstone County, Montana, was duly held at The Lincoln Center, 415 North 30th Street, Billings, Montana, October 28, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.

 

Chair Katharin Kelker presided.

 

Registered guests included Jerry Hansen and Laura Tode.

 

Steve Struthers and Lauri Olman were present from Public Strategies Group to discuss a new budget process. Mr.

Struthers stated it was important to reach consensus with the Board and the leadership team. Trustee Stroebe wanted to explore the revenue side, not just what is available but what is possible.

 

Steve Struthers explained there must be ground rules in this process, such as respectful candor, openness to new ideas, one conversation at a time, and stay focused on the agenda. Those present split into two teams to list their hopes and fears as follows:

 

Group #1 – Hopes

 

1. Understandable budget process to the Board, schools and the public

2. Involvement and ownership

3. Believable process to the public

4. Consider schools needs

5. Allows for creativity or incorporate new ideas

6. Provides for good decision making

7. Accountability for results

Fears/Concerns

1. Won’t result in real change

2. Won’t improve trust from the community

3. Won’t result in educational improvements

4. Won’t improve trust between trustees and administration

5. Will create undue impossible circumstances for staff

6. Set the administration up to be blamed for failure

7. Won’t result in change

8. Won’t consider alternative revenue sources

 

Group #2 – Hopes

1. Continued spirit of getting together and collaborating between the Board and administration

2. Community trust

3. Collaboration among everyone and build in a mechanism of it can happen

4. Community understands budget

5. Consistent message to community

6. Founded on delivering results

7. Numbers are agreed upon

8. Clearer way to establish priorities

9. Process that won’t pit one level against the other programs

10. Be realistic—budgeting is messy, be civil and trust

11. Community understands what it costs to deliver the services and the value

12. Measure success

13. Really change the process

14. Measure what doesn’t work

Fears/Concerns

1. Finding time to do the budgeting accurately

2. Board needs to get ‘the facts’ and in a form that is understandable

3. Ability to defend the choices/priorities that are made

4. Gap between reality & citizens’ perceptions (hidden pot of money)

5. Can we really get out of the box-rules-politics

6. Perception of value of understanding

7. Constraints on grants and other money

8. Making things too complicated

9. Staff do not understand the fiscal status of district

10. Real/perceived rift between Board and administration about new budget process

11. New process triggers even more public mistrust

12. Better results are worth more dollars

13. Negative perceptions

 

 

Trustee Mossman and Kathy Olson felt the budget should be built on the positive things. Dave Williams suggested more time be spent with staff to show there are no more rabbits in the hat. The following are suggestions for principles to guide the 2006/07 budget process as listed by those present:

 

1. Always remember the purpose is to improve student achievement

2. That all determine the information that is needed before the budget process is started and it is disclosed to everyone and everyone starts from the same point at the same time (no other information is used during the process)

3. Be open to new ideas and be willing to challenge the status quo

4. Commit to hold ourselves accountable for the results we expect the budget to deliver

5. Keep the right perspective on where and how we spend out time

6. Give each other grace and affirm the positive and remember that its about progress, not perfection

 

The following are the expected outcomes from the budget:

1. Set the District-wide results and indicators

2. Establish the ‘price’ of education in Billings (estimate expected revenue and how much is available)

3. Create requests and results

4. Generate budget offers in response to RFR’s (requests for results)

5. Evaluate and rank the offers

6. Build and approve the final budget

7. Communicate the budget with staff and public

 

Lauri Olman stated, instead of adding on to last year’s budget, those involved should get the amount available and go from there. Dan Martin felt there needs to be a clear idea of how to set the priorities and where to draw the line. Steve Struthers explained to those present how to project the budget to the public. The public needs to be shown what is offered and where the money comes from. Creating requests for results and generating the budget offers will be the most time consuming. The Board sets the results and indicators, reviews the requests for results, and affirms the price assumptions. The information needed in an offer is: does it fit into the Board’s goals and objectives; how the offer contributes to the accreditation standards; overcrowding and dropouts; and, five-year plan goals for every school. Those involved must set the parameters in the requests for results and could focus on strategies without the parameters to make room for creativity. The group must also think about what types of offers would be accepted. Dan Martin felt both districts would have to be treated equally to do bargaining with the various units. Input should be received from staff and price assumptions set. The Board should review and affirm the requests for results. COLT should create the template. The offers should be evaluated and ranked. COLT, staff and citizens should provide input to the Board. Those involved must also make decisions on who can make the offers. Chair Kelker felt they should be careful measuring the results. It was the consensus of those present that they favored the process.

 

Kathy Olson stated the process will be good but not sure there would be any more money to make any changes. Dan Martin was concerned there may be no dollars left after the bargaining is complete. Trustee Goodrich felt it was important to have the Board involved from the beginning and a template be drafted. He suggested a plan be ready by the next regular Board meeting in November. It should go to the Business Committee on November 14th. Putting a plan together should be a collaborative effort. It should also be presented to the Education and School/Community Committees.

 

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Katharin Kelker, Chair

 

 

 

Diane Blevins, Recorder