INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS MEETING
4/20/10
Present: Sally Walkiewicz, Chair, Dr. Caine, Kevin Calvert, David Hargrove (Lincoln), Beckie Rogers (JH), Terry Varnell (WR), Jamie Pratz (R), Robbie Duck (HP), Dana Rink (WW), Keri Mathis (SR)
April’s meeting addressed the problem of communication between the Technology Department and teachers. After discussing the issues on both sides, we came to several conclusions.
1) If teachers have any problems at all with technology, they need to send a track-it. This is vital for the Tech department so that they can record what is occurring and note any patterns that indicate problems. (They are happy to have simple problems to solve, so teachers should not be embarrassed to ask.)
2) Many problems that teachers perceive as technology issues are actually curriculum problems that the techs cannot solve. If a problem involves instruction, it needs to be taken up with the site principal.
3) Requests for technology should go through the site principal.
4) A list of the programs available to teachers is contained on the district’s web site. Among the licenses now available are Campus, AESOP, Office, STAR reading, Accelerated Reader, School Messenger, Destination Reading/Destination Math, various web sites (for example, Smart Training)
Kevin would like for teachers to understand that the Tech department exists to serve teachers, that he wants all spending to be purposeful, and that he wants to purchase technology that will make teaching more effective. The CLEP plans should address technology issues that may arise and create a plan for integrating both hardware and software. The Technology Department is exploring ways to present and deliver technical training online.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS
2/16/10
Present: Dr. Caine, Sally Walkiewicz (Chair), Beckie Rogers (JH), Laura Gordon (MS), Dana Rink (WW), Jamie Pratz (RI), Keri Mathis (SR), Terri Varnell (WR), Heather Newman (SK).
The first problem was present by Jamie Pratz and concerned United Streaming. Richmond teachers were concerned that they were not informed that it would be discontinued. The reason given was lack of use. Richmond felt that there was not enough communication between IT and teachers about availability, licenses, etc. If money is invested in such ways, the district needs to make sure that everyone is aware of and can use the program. Dr. Caine pointed out that lack of use meant that a click at SR cost $.92 while a click at Richmond cost $11.00. The conversation moved on to SmartBoards and the confusion surrounding their distribution and use. Teachers wanted to share folders, but were told they should not. Now they can, but those who had already been through SmartBoard meetings did not know that. There is also some confusion over the criteria for receiving a SmartBoard, particularly because one-year contract teachers obtained one, while permanent teachers did not. The problem seems to lie in the requirement that the teacher has to show a SmartBoard lesson to get one, and there is no feedback if the request is denied, so teachers do not know what they have done wrong. The overall feeling was that communication needs to improve so that teachers know what is available, how to use it, and what they need to do to receive technological teaching aids. Dr. Caine has asked Kevin Calvert to attend the next meeting to address these concerns.
The second problem was raised by Keri Mathis and concerned the discrepancy between elementary and secondary professional development time. On February 12, the elementary had to stay until 4:00 p.m., while the high school was only scheduled until 2:45. Dr. Caine said she would bring the matter to the Professional Development Committee’s attention for discussion.
Other matters:
Is is true that Pre-K and K planning time will drop to 20 minutes next year? Dr.Caine—No.
Inside recess days mean no planning time for elementary teachers.
Dr. Caine said that elementary report cards are being revamped; 3rd-5th grades are at least 25 years old.
School will be in session April 3rd to make up for the January snow day.
Internal Communications Minutes
December 15, 2009
Attendance: Sally Walkiewicz (HS; Chair); Eivi Deveny (HS); David Hargrove (LA); Beckie Rogers (JH); April Thompson (MS); Robbie Duck (HP); Jamie Pratz (RI); Heather Newman (SK); Keri Mathis (SR); Laura Flesner (WW); Terry Varnell (WR); Dr. Ann Caine (Supt.); Jim Ryan (Asst. Supt.); Mike Dicks and John Price (Board Members)
The Stillwater Negotiations process has had difficulties for some time and both teams have felt a lack of respect from the other. This year impasse was declared and fact-finding initiated. Both teams realize communications have broken down and that changes need to be made in the process.
At this meeting, Board members Mike Dicks and John Price addressed questions presented by teachers in the district concerning salaries and the negotiations process. These questions were given to them prior to the meeting. Each member was speaking for themselves and not for the entire Board. Each was allotted 30 minutes to address these questions. The meeting time was limited so there was not time for much follow-up.
The questions are given first, followed by their responses.
Salaries:
1 and 2) We understand that the state faces a potential fiscal crisis both now and in the next two years, but what about the last four? We have not had a raise even when times were booming in Oklahoma. Why?
Over the last three years, District revenue has increased 13% while, again, our raises have totaled an average of 4.7%. Why?
Board members cannot create revenue and can only allocate the limited revenue they are given to work with. They were aware a recession was coming and tried to plan ahead. This foresight has left us in better financial shape than many districts. Shifting some expenses such as utilities from the general fund to the building fund, freed up $1.8 million and along with other cost-cutting measures has kept the carryover at acceptable levels. The Board is required to prepare contingency plans and begin implementing reductions when projections reach the 5.25% level. Notification of funding cuts already received from the state for this year will be substantial and new communications project even further cuts. Philip Storm's total budget error is very low at only about 1.35%.
The district only has about 18% of the budget (about three million dollars) that is not fixed and less than one million dollars of that is discretionary. Once given raises given cannot be rescinded and must apply to all on the salary schedule, including those paid with federal monies which do not increase. Many programs are funded through federal monies rather than the general fund allocation from the state.
About 87% of the budget is salaries which is unhealthily high. District funding increases have been taken up by increased numbers of teaching staff, increases in health benefits paid, and in rising special education costs. For example, fourteen new teachers were hired this year and the elementary school enrollment is growing.
3 and 4) How, exactly, does the Board view step raises? We have no built-in methods of promotion and advancement, so what are they? Cost of living raises? Merit raises? Survival raises? We would like the definition clarified. The reality is that the step raises in many instances do not even cover the increased cost of the insurance that teachers have for their families; the reality is also that the Cost of Living Index has risen 13% in the last four years while our average raise total is 4.7%. In other words, we are actually making less money each year.
Do you believe longevity certified personnel deserve and should receive a raise every year? If so, what should be the minimum amount of that raise?
Mike Dicks felt that teachers should acquire more education or be Board certified in order to receive more salary. He is a firm believer in merit pay.
5) Why hire so many new people at the Board Building if we are in a financial crisis?
Only one new staff member has been hired at the Board building and the Professional Development Center staff was eliminated. However, some who were formerly on Memorandums of Agreement at a cost of $117,000 were actually placed on staff at no additional cost to provide greater visibility on how monies were being spent. These changes have given us a more focused curriculum department.
6) While it may be good financial management to underestimate revenue for four straight years, at what point do we feel that reward should override caution?
Negotiations:
7) Why did the Board hire a lawyer to conduct negotiations? Why expend limited resources in that way?
A lawyer was originally hired as the Board representative to provide a more objective third party.
8) Why is the Board’s representative at the arbitration meeting a member of Moyer’s law firm? How is that not a conflict of interest?
When the fact finding committee was formed, each side was allowed to pick their own representative and then a third neutral person served as chair.
9) Why did the Board not give a counter-offer to the negotiating team’s original proposal? Why go to impasse without any kind of discussion?
This year teachers presented only one proposal and no counter proposals. This left the Board team in the position of negotiating against itself. Impasse was declared when no movement occurred on the issues.
10) Why are Board members not present at negotiations to hear the positions and arguments of teachers?
Board members typically are not present at negotiations because it takes five members to make up the Board and to act. One or two cannot speak for the whole Board. However, Mike Dicks did attend as an observer on one occasion. The Board representative in the process keeps them informed in executive sessions.
11) The Board has presented many of the exact same proposals every year for the past three years. What does the Board want?
Typically, in negotiations each side often revisits items previously negotiated that were either tabled or unsuccessful. This is the basic negotiation process. Movement on an item can occur as circumstances vary each year depending upon other items that are presented. In addition, some of the items that the Board brought had to do with new law.
12) Why go to fact finding, which was costly, when we could have proceeded to mediation, which is free?
13) What is the rationale for not specifically responding to the explanations and decisions of the neutral third party of the fact finding committee? Has the Board talked to the head of that committee to see why he decided as he did?
14) How should negotiations take place?
In the limited time left, teachers asked questions about the Bereavement policy, ways of contacting Board members, and problems with the negotiations process.
A new partnership needs to be forged as we go forward. There are a variety of processes to consider as communication lines are reestablished and trust rebuilt. This positive discussion was a good beginning for this process.
Respectfully submitted,
Robbie Duck, Recorder
Internal Communications Minutes
