Overview of March School Board Meeting

It was an active School Board meeting last night, with around 20 citizens attending. Several folks signed up to make public comments.
1. One man spoke against the idea of a 4-day week. The Superintendent said that it was being considered as a last resort should they need it for budgetary concerns or should the citizens/teachers decide that they wanted to add staff with the savings from going to a 4-day week. Mr. Hancock suggested that people email him (thancock@cmsbears.org) with their thoughts about the 4-day week.
2. Another man asked about the school's priorities. He said that when the board was asked about its priorities that the students were never mentioned in the response. He referenced programs like "Character Counts" in the elementary school and asked what was being done along those lines in the Middle and High School. Mr. Hancock suggested that he get with the school's principals and they could fill him in on the various programs at the Middle and High School.
3. Dulaney Barrett handed out this letter pointing out that the executive sessions which were held to appoint both D'dre Brock and Ed Woten to the school board were in violation of the open meetings act. (see blog post "Open Meetings Act" posted on February 5th). Mr. Hancock suggested that the school board consult an attorney, which they voted to do. Mr. Hancock also commented that "this could cause the school to have to consider a 4-day week if they have to pay an attorney to fight it."
4. A woman asked whether any follow-up action had been taken with regards to a staff member using tobacco products on school grounds. Mr. Hancock informed her that there were specific procedures for filing complaints and that they needed to be specific with names and dates before any action could be taken. He said that there is a complaint form that needs to be filed with the person's supervisor. (Here is a copy of the complaint form.) Then if the matter is not resolved, they can come to the superintendent, and if the matter is still not resolved they can come to the school board. He stressed that they need to go to that person's immediate supervisor so that person has the details, otherwise the board and superintendent are not going to spend time trying to figure out who/what they are talking about. The woman said that they had gone through channels, that the channels didn't work, and that when they complained their children were harassed.

After the public comments, the Action items included:
1. Changing the next board meeting date to April 5th due to Spring break.
2. The "first reading" of Policy Advisory No. 69 (GBEB) which deals with "self conduct" and No. 70 (JFC) which deals with student withdrawals. I asked that copies of these proposed changes be provided for the public, but they were not. (see "Making Policy Advisory Changes available to the Public")
3. The board approved a waiver for a senior who just moved here from another state so did not have New Mexico history.

In the Information Items, Assistant Superintendent Amy Lane gave a summary of the various testing that is required by the Feds and the State. Apparently New Mexico's Public Education Department (PED) has received numerous complaints from schools that the unfunded testing mandates were becoming a financial burden with the ongoing budget cuts. The result of this is that some testing can be eliminated next year, saving the school approximately $3,200.

Mr. Hancock said that, if the Governor signs the budget bill, we would be looking at another 1.8% budget decrease, on top of the 2% decrease from the Fall. He said this would amount to about a $150,000 cut. He noted that we had already cut about $110,000 through "personnel." He also brought up the 4-day week and said the biggest issue with the public is babysitting on the fifth day.

It was also announced that the school had hired a nurse.

As acting school board president Jackie Cates was about to close the meeting (Terry Buttram was absent from the meeting), John Braziel, spokesman for the "Concerned Citizens" objected, saying that he was told that the board would read and respond to the questions that he had supplied earlier (see February 25th blog posting "More Questions for School Board from Concerned Citizens"). Board Secretary Doug Porch said they had decided before the meeting not to read the questions. I had some trouble following the timeline of who promised what to whom, but the bottom line sounded like the "Concerned Citizens" thought their questions were going to be addressed by the board and the board did not do that. Mr. Braziel also said that the issues had been taken through the chain of command and the result was the kids were being harassed and intimidated when the parents made a complaint.