curnowc Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Proceedings of the Board of Trustees Ad Hoc Policy Committee Elementary District No. 2, Yellowstone County High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County Billings, Montana April 4, 2006 Call to Order The Policy Review Committee met on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at the Lincoln Center, 415 North 30th Street, Billings, Montana. The meeting was chaired by Katharin Kelker and called to order at 1:35 p.m. Those present included: Trustees Katharin Kelker, Malcolm Goodrich and Mary Jo Fox. Also in attendance were Leo Hudetz, Jeff Weldon and Janet Baum. The committee discussed the following items: Sarbanes-Oxley Act Leo Hudetz reviewed information received from MTSBA regarding implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The two areas that are covered are whistleblower protection and document destruction. MTSBA will be coming out with recommended model policies. Leo Hudetz stated that the district has the whistleblower protection portion covered through the employee complaint form. It may be necessary to formalize the policy at some time or add the words Sarbanes-Oxley recommends in order to cover all bases. School Board Meeting – Policy 1420 Jeff Weldon informed the committee that the School Board Association has informed the district that you may alter your policies to allow for 24 hour notice of agendas for regular board meetings. The Billings Public Schools meet these requirements by getting it out on Thursday or Friday. Kathy Kelker thought that perhaps electronic participation at board meetings may be worth considering because of the effectiveness. Leo Hudetz had visited with MTSBA to clarify that electronic communication is not through computer email. It was decided that the district is covered in this area. Kathy Kelker wanted to clarify the fact that for years it was believed that all materials that support the agenda had to be out 48 hours in advance. Kathy Kelker confirmed that this is not what the statutes or our policy states. Jeff Weldon stated that a Missoula County case helped clarify that fact. The Supreme Court said that a person needs to have reasonable notice of what is going to be discussed. If a decision is going to be made the information the Board uses to make that decision needs to be available to the public in a reasonable amount of time. Kathy Kelker said that you cannot anticipate what someone will bring up in the course of a conversation, and as long as it is not some pre-determined document, the Board is not obligated to present it to the public 48 hours in advance. Leo Hudetz wanted a decision on who has the final say on what items are to be placed on the agenda. Kathy Kelker stated that it is clear to her in law that it is the Board’s agenda. Malcolm Goodrich said that it is the Board that places the items on the agenda after the Board’s decision at the agenda meeting. People may route potential topics through the Superintendent, but it is up to the Board to pick the items, not the Superintendent. Leo Hudetz talked to MTSBA and they said that the Board Chair and the Board are the ultimate authority on what goes on the agenda. Leo stated that the Superintendent is supposed to prepare the agenda based on direction from the agenda setting meeting. Jeff Weldon stated that typically in districts the Superintendent creates the agenda – the BPS policy is different from that in that we have an agenda setting process and the agenda setting process includes the Superintendent and other administrative staff and members of the public. Jeff Weldon stated that the agenda setting committee is the chair, the vice chair and the Board committee chairs - these people set the agenda - other board members participate. Leo Hudetz informed the committee that there is a 1700 complaint presently going through the process. It is now at the Superintendent level. The first time it could logistically go to the board is sometime in May. This would be decided at the agenda setting meeting. It will be up to the Board to decide if it goes before the full board or the panel. Jeff stated that some Policy 1700 issues in the complaint may go before the board and some may not. Budget & Financial Policy Series The Business Manager, Thomas Harper proposed changes in this area. Leo Hudetz presented the information and stated that proposed changes cover the overall financial policy of the Board not only budget issues. Kathy Kelker asked if this was being proposed as an addition to Policy 7000 or if it is in lieu of – Leo’s understanding was that it was in addition to Policy 7000 but some of the items are very specific - it will be hard to deviate from the policy. Malcolm Goodrich disagreed with the proposed policy for two reasons: 1) These will ultimately be viewed by underwriters that would solicit the bond purchases, so if we deviate from those we may be in default. 2) If the district did not meet specified conditions in this policy it would have to vote to suspend the policy. This would not look good to bond issuers. It would be best to leave this out and try to be fiscally sound rather than giving this an actual policy. Kathy Kelker said that the fund balance objectives in the document are more procedural rather than policy. Malcolm thought that perhaps Thomas is trying to establish a policy that shows you have a plan for reserve levels so that we can meet the bonding requirements. He would rather have our bond integrity and credit worthiness based on our budget rather than statements that we may breach that would condition the bond underwriters and bond counsels opinion letters. It would be better for a bond issuer and a person behind a bond to look at our financial equity based on our budgets rather than seeing strong cautionary language from bond counsel. If the district did not meet specified conditions in this policy it would have to vote to suspend the policy. This would not look good to bond issuers. Malcolm Goodrich wanted to make sure that we weren’t boxing ourselves into a corner on a financial covenant. Kathy Kelker suggested that the Business Committee take a look at putting together a financial handbook that could be used as a guide. Kathy said that it should be issued to all members of the Audit Committee and the Business Committee. Native American Education – Policy 2450 Leo Hudetz and Rod Svee previously looked at Policy 2450 and thought that it addresses the requirements of receiving tribal input on Native American educational issues. Rod Svee’s original suggestion was that we put in policy that any educational or curriculum discussion go through the Native American Advisory Committee for input. A procedure could be written under 2450 incorporating a Native American Parent Advisory Committee that would direct curriculum staff to advise the committee. OPI has funding for curriculum development coming to the district this Fall. Meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Next meeting will be held on June 6, 2006 at 1:30 ______________________ _____________________ _______________ Katharin Kelker, Chair Malcolm Goodrich Mary Jo Fox ___________________________ Cynthia Curnow, Recorder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.