PALOUSE SCHOOL DISTRICT #301
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING - TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jerry Schwartzman at 7:05 p.m.
Present:Palouse board John Leendertsen, Jerry Schwartzman, Paula Echanove, Mike White, and Kent Keller.
Also Present:Business Office Manager Patsy Dunning and Recorder Cindy Kimberling.
Guests: Marv Pillers, Janet Barstow, Pat Flansburg, Patty Kent, Kurt Kimberling,Ruth Vertrees, Larry Warner, Archie Neal, Amity Wagnitz, Scot Cocking,Bill Broughton, Debbie Anderson, April Pfaff, Holly Thomas, Jill Palmer,and Larry Palmer.
John Leendertsen and Jerry Schwartzman met with Warren Neal and Mike Cronk in Spokane.
The district's attorney, Greg Stevens and Terry Munther, Superintendent of ESD 101 were also present. This meeting was intended to be the start of a resolution between the two boards.
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the Garfield School Board members asked for Beverly Fox's resignation before there was a consensus of the two boards. It is his opinion that the hiring and firing of the superintendent is a cooperative issue. The superintendent's contract states that she is employed by the cooperative board. The cost sharing of the superintendent's salary states that Palouse will pay the larger portion because it is based upon enrollment figures. With the cooperative board, Palouse Board Members have 5 out of 10 votes on the decision making process, now with this situation they are being told they have none.
Pat Flansburg asked what do you mean that the Palouse Board has no vote?
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the Garfield Board has not brought this issue to the joint board.
Scot Cocking asked that was it in fact an asking of her resignation. That he was inclined to believe that she was given options.
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the Palouse Board was not informed that these options were going to be given to the superintendent at the meeting in December. Palouse had asked to discuss the issues further before action was taken.
Rich Olson stated if there was any decision made about the superintendent's position that needed to be a cooperative ruling.
Jerry Schwartzman agreed and added that at that time the Palouse Board thought that the issue was going to be presented to the employee to talk over. Jerry thought that this procedure would be done but the Garfield Board did not. They called the meeting with two board members from each district and Mrs. Fox. It was at that meeting that Mrs. Fox was given the options. Bev Fox was not aware of any of the issues before that meeting.
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the Palouse Board believes that all employees have the right to be evaluated and from that evaluation, be given the chance to improve.
Archie Neal stated that he is not privy to the concerns at hand, but having served on the board he has a perspective. School boards are in a unique situation, there is no discipline. Their main duty is to provide all resources for a good education. plus they are responsible for policy. They will get feedback from the community. The primary conduit is the superintendent. Ninety per-cent of the information that goes to the board, comes from the superintendent. The Board must have faith and confidence in the superintendent.
The cooperative is unique, we must maintain confidence within the two boards, if you lose confidence of the two boards, then you probably have the wrong person for the job. Archie said that there was a time years ago that they were in a situation somewhat like this, one board said they did not have confidence in an administrator and the other board went along with them because of the cooperative.In his opinion, it has got to that point now. You can't make it work with the people you have now.
Kent Keller said that the two boards must discuss this and come to a mutual decision.
Archie reiterated that if one board has lost the confidence, then you have to go along with it.
Kent Keller said that this is an important matter and the difficulty is much greater than any one employee. No one involved in this discussion is trying to say the employee is all good or all bad, it is perfectly possible that something needs to be disciplined, but this needs to be discussed within the cooperative boards.
Scot Cocking asked what happens with the trust within the boards? Will there be a trust between the boards? Have you come to the point of not seeing eye to eye and whoever gives in then it will be a losing battle. What's going to happen?
Jerry Schwartzman said he would take this further, the problem is the way that things are working. There are cost sharing and cooperative issues, the principal and superintendent salaries have to have a procedure to allow all board members to have a say. We are talking about the way the cooperative works. This is how the cooperative works and how it has for years. This action is changing that because all board members don't have a say.
Scot Cocking said there has to be some individual say on the issues.
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the cooperative shares students and funds. At this time 55 % of superintendent's salary is paid by Palouse.
Pat Flansburg stated that it sounds like a difference of opinion on how the policy isread. Kurt Kimberling gave her the policy to read.
Scot Cocking read the policy aloud. He stated that Palouse Board is trying to change policy.
Jerry Schwartzman replied no, the Palouse Board is trying to keep it the same.
John Leendertsen stated that the board needs confidence and trust in the employees and the employees must trust the board.
Larry Warner added, "The boards need to trust each other."
Jerry Schwartzman said that the Palouse Board believes that the policy has been broken. That is their concern. The resignation was never talked about at a cooperative meeting. The consensus has not happened. Patron input has always been taken into consideration in the past. Jerry added, if we say that one board can take action without the other, the principal would probably not be a position. It would probably be a superintendent/principal position. A Palouse patron would have no say in the middle school and a Garfield patron would not have say in the high school. It would be a big change in the cooperative. It would leave the schools to pay for their own administration. This would be a burden on Garfield. The matter of superintendent was not dealt with by the policies set forth by the cooperative.
Three/four options for reconciliation were generated at the meeting with Greg Stevens, attorney, and Terry Munther, ESD 101 superintendent.
1. Binding arbitration – both say case to arbitrator and the winner would maintain their position.
2. Accept the Garfield decision - hire individual superintendents.
3. Dissolve the cooperative.
4. Mass resignations of the school boards. Two members of each board and new members would rotate.
--
1. Binding arbitration – would solve the immediate problem but the problem wouldn’t be gone. It would be back up for discussion. They could either go with the decision or opt out of the cooperative. This would resolve the superintendent issue and then they would have to clarify the policy issue. This is on the table no matter what the outcome of anything else.
2. If they accept the Garfield decision there would be a huge financial burden, and thequestion of can we coexist without each other?
Holly Thomas asked why this issue is dividing the coop? She does not understand the issue about splitting the cooperative.
There is an issue, the procedures are not being followed, and the boards should not be takingaction without a consensus.
3. Dissolve the cooperative because the policies of the cooperative must be followed.
Holly asked, what is the problem?
Jerry said the majority of the Garfield board is not following the policies.
Larry Palmer stated that arbitration should only be held when it’s a deadlock situation. He asked why can't they get it together. Maybe there should be a 10- vote.
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the optimum situation is to agree to agree.
Rich Olson stated that the boards do not have the legal backing to do a 10-vote.
Jerry is working on setting up a joint meeting.
Scot Cocking suggested that if the Garfield Board is wrong in what they are doing, wouldn’t the attorney say so.
John Leendertsen said the attorney said he could see each side on different issues.
Jerry Schwartzman stated the attorney suggested the arbitrator.
April Pfaff asked if the Garfield Board had done it differently, would they be in the same situation?
Jerry Schwartzman replied that it wouldn't have been in open session had it been handled by the policies.
Bill Broughton stated that it doesn't sound like the agreement can remain as it is. The two boards would have to hash out. In theory, there are not two boards. The majority of one board is adamant to get rid of the present superintendent. The two boards seem to be in combat about this.
Jerry thought we were moving towards a solution with the Spokane meeting. We will have a meeting after this meeting.
John Leendertsen reported that the two boards were going through the proper proceduresin November and December, until the meeting with Bev Fox and the four board members.
Bill Broughton suggested that the boards have to start acting like a cooperative.
Archie Neal reiterated that they have to start with the cooperative boards. They need to hash things out.
Holly Thomas stated that it's not just the school boards it’s the patrons. The board needs to let everyone know more about what is going on. She and maybe some of the public is intimidated by the boards, and not sure that they will listen. The patrons need to let the board know what they want.
Patty Kent stated that she has for years contacted the boards and they all have been open for discussion.
Ruth Vertrees suggested the boards prioritize the issues. After the January board meeting, there was a meeting, it didn’t happen.
Jerry Schwartzman replied that the boards met with the attorney and Terry Munther. They thought it would be more productive.
John Leendertsen asked that a straw poll be done on the three proposals.
April Pfaff suggested a mediator be present instead of an arbitrator.
John Leendertsen stated that the meeting will be an open meeting.
Rich Olson stated that this is a policy issue not an executive session issue.
John Leendertsen suggested an open meeting with no public comment.
Larry Warner said that would better than binding arbitration where someone is going to lose, and it would only solve the issue at hand.
Jerry Schwartzman said that this needs to be resolved before the next regular meeting.
Jerry Schwartzman summarized the priorized list:
1) - Work session meeting with no comment for the public comment. No personnel issues. There will probably be a section that would be closed. A facilitator/mediator could be at hand.
2) - Arbitration: The other options are not acceptable. Rich Olson stated that is polarization within the boards and the lines are drawn hard. With that, it is hard for people to back away from that. Those of us that have sat on that side of the table understand that personalities must be left in the hall. It is known that the cooperative provides the strongest education for the students. There are not winners or losers. When meeting, the board members must think of the way things are going to turn out with the actions taken.
Bill Broughton added that maybe the facilitator is a necessity.
Jerry Schwartzman believes that Terry Munther is willing do that.
Jill Palmer suggested that they explore WSU's education department for a mediator.
Marv Pillers added a thank you to the Palouse Board and Jill Palmer for conductingthis meeting and listen to the public. Can you ask the Garfield Board to do the same?
Jill Palmer said that she can bring it up. She will call Mike Cronk, Garfield Board Chairman. She asked that the same people attend the Garfield meeting so the same flavor of the discussion is at that meeting.
Jerry Schwartzman stated that the boards need to discuss what is a cooperative issue, thisshould be the first item to be addressed. This needs to be clarified.
There being no further business the meeting was closed at 9:00 p.m.