PALOUSE SCHOOL DISTRICT #301 - GARFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #302
JOINT BOARD MEETING - TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jerry Schwartzman at 7:13 p.m.
Present: Palouse Board members; Jerry Schwartzman, John Leendertsen, Paula Echanove, Kent Keller, Mike White. Garfield Board members; Mike Cronk, Roger Pennell, Warren Neal, Jill Palmer, Craig Cochran.
Also present: Superintendent Beverly Fox, Principals Bill LaMunyan and Skip Wilson, Business Manager Patsy Dunning and Recorder Frankie Swinney.
Guests: Deborah Anderson, April Pfaff, Cheryl Curtis, Patty Kent, Debbie Holbrook, Jody Akins, Mike Burt, Rich Olson, Kurt Kimbering, Sherry Partch, Janet Barstow, Tim Coles, Ron Rosebrook, Mark Hegg, Dennis Griner, Vickie Griner, Dan Parrish, Patty Rippee, Diane Main, Steve Swinney.
Chairperson Jerry Schwartzman opened discussion. He said the purpose of the work session is to consider everyone’s ideas and to reach middle ground. Jerry presented his proposal which consisted of two positions that he feels as a board member, he must follow:
#1. The coop agreement as he perceives it, must be followed.
#2. He can’t consent to dismissing an employee of nearly 30 years without implementing a fair process.
Mr. Schwartzman said, since the Garfield Board will not consent to renew the superintendent contract and the Palouse Board will not consent to non-renew the superintendent contract, I propose that neither board take action on the matter. This way no board member has to relent their position and we can say that in order to preserve the coop agreement we cannot come to a definitive consensus agreement and we will not violate the agreement by taking action. Everyone’s position is respected. The result is that the superintendent contract is renewed on April 1st because she was not notified of either renewal or non-renewal. This will give the employee the opportunity to reconcile any concerns and receive due process. Jerry continued by stating that the boards would agree together to formulate a plan to reconcile the differences between the superintendent and the Garfield Board and the differences between the two school boards with the goal of reconciliation of all parties and solidifying the cooperative. We would name specific goals and acceptable results which we would all be accountable for.
Jerry would like to see Jill Palmer and Kent Keller be executors of this plan. He said the board would also agree to participate in work sessions with WSSDA representatives to clearly define their roles as board members and agree on courses of action for problem solving and work on their communication skills. The boards would also agree to clarify the cooperative agreement with input from staff and community members to make the procedures clear and acceptable to all parties.
Jill Palmer agreed with Jerry’s proposal but had some concerns about her and Kent’s duties
Mike White and John Leendertsen expressed their support for Mr. Schwartzman’s proposal.
Warren Neal presented his proposal to the board. Under this proposal, each district would have their own halftime superintendent.
1. Each building principal reports to their respective superintendent and both boards.
2. The half time superintendents report to the board that employs them.
3. If an issue arises with a child who resides in the community other than the school they attend and there is the need to address an issue above the principal level, then that principal and or parent would then contact the board of the community in which that child resides.
4. Each board retains the level of interaction with the building principals as they always have had.
5.The students and staff of both schools are least affected by this configuration because for them they are already accustomed to the administrative style and the expectations of the current principals.
6. Each superintendent’s contract would be funded completely by the district that employs them.
Mrs. Palmer expressed concern with item #3. She felt there would be a significant problem in reporting and doing evaluations for the principals.
Warren stated that this proposal is the best for the students and staffs of both districts since the only change is the superintendent.
Dan Parrish believes that it would be difficult to find and hire two halftime superintendents.
John Leendertsen made his point clear that he supports Jerry’s proposal over Warren’s option. His reason for discussing Warren’s plan with him was as a last option before dissolving the cooperative. He believes two 1/2 time superintendents would uncouple the administration.
Dan Parrish said a concern he has heard from teachers and staff is that with a combination halftime superintendent / halftime principal you lose the go-between person.
Jerry said it would be more efficient with an administrative assistant as the go-between person for staff and students with some duties transferred somewhere else. Mike Burt asked if this would be a qualified person, such as a principal or educator. Jerry and Warren both replied, yes.
Jill asked what this option would cost. Warren said it would change very little, approximately $7,000. Mike Cronk stated he looked at last years costs and it should be a wash. Mr. Schwartzman felt like these numbers would be much different. John said it creates an inefficient system. It would cost Palouse approximately $5,000 and Garfield much more. He stated it could cost up to $25,000 if it is done correctly.
Jerry said if the superintendents is a split position, it may take more time to do the job. With one superintendent a large amount of the work load is repetitive for both districts and it could take more time if the position was split.
Mr. Leendertsen stated if the administration was reorganized, it would be very top-heavy. He feels Jerry’s idea best and Warren’s proposal is better than dissolving the coop.
Kent Keller said a superintendent/principal in each respective building is setting up a situation of two separate schools and moving down the path of not having a working cooperative.
Mr. Neal said his proposal is just a band-aid to the situation. The best idea is for the two boards to agree on one person. Based on past experience, the boards should find a new person. This proposal is a plan to meet on common ground. This plan is similar to last year when we had an assistant superintendent. The proposal would need to be tweaked if it was seriously looked at. Warren said he respected Jerry’s opinion, but felt it did not consider Garfield’s feelings and why they are here. Based on past experience, the boards need to hammer it out and find someone else.
Jerry Schwartzman spoke with former board member Doug Willcox. Mr. Willcox stated the past was a different situation than what they are presently dealing with. Jerry said he was elected to work for the staff, patrons, and students. With his plan the board can work on irreconcilable differences and clarify the cooperative agreement so this does not happen again.
Mike White stated that the board has the trust of teachers and support staff. The schools can continue to be great, but we are in danger of losing trust of the patrons and people here to support this cooperative. Jerry’s proposal has many positive attributes and offers an opening for all this to happen. Separate superintendent’s is moving down to a separation point. We need to look further into the future. The boards need to work together and communicate better.
Jill Palmer said that Warren’s proposal is going to cost Garfield too much money.
Kurt Kimberling asked what is best for the kids and John replied, Jerry’s proposal.
Kurt aren’t we all here tonight to provide the best education for the kids.
April Pfaff said she did not think that we should discount Garfield’s intention and they she feels trust is a big issue.
Jerry Schwartzman said there are a lot of issues that we have to find a way to reconcile.
April said it is hard for two boards to work together if trust is lost. Dennis Griner stated that the issue is to determine the districts future for the staff. The staff wants to know if they should leave or wait to be RIFfed. There are some things people cannot compromise on. You must talk to work it out. If due process is good for the staff, then it is good for the administration. Whatever you can do to keep the cooperative together is what is best for the kids. Make a concerted effort to get over the obstacle.
Jerry Schwartzman said the cooperative agreement has to be followed. It takes my proposal to do it and it doesn’t violate the agreement.
Sherri Partch recalled when the cooperative was formed and the dedication it demanded from kids and parents of both communities. She was concerned how four members could discount this and felt if they could not agree, they should resign. Jerry replied that all ten board members are responsible.
Craig Cochran stated that he did not see the boards workable as they are. He felt that the board should not renew the superintendent’s contract and then ask two members from each board to step down. These will be chosen by opposite boards. Mike Cronk and Warren Neal agreed with Craig.
Warren said he has no problem being voted off. The four Garfield board members stand where they are because they feel what they are doing is the best thing for their district. The value of the cooperative is the highest thing we need to keep in mind. There is no question that the kids benefit from the cooperative. I do not want to see the cooperative end.
Jerry said he agreed and disagreed with Craig. Jerry said he cannot relinquish his position.
Jill Palmer stated that the board did not follow a fair and equitable process. For that reason, we have to start over at ground zero. She suggested a combined proposal of Craig’s and Jerry’s. This would be to follow Jerry’s proposal and ask two board members from each district to step down. Then take the ideas of the executors and follow the process completely with goals and where people are treated fairly.
Kent Keller felt Craig’s proposal did not allow for due process. To non-renew is a breach of trust. Jerry’s proposal commits to a fair procedure. Feelings and concerns must be worked out.
Jerry Schwartzman believes his proposal addresses the board-staff and board-board relationships.
Mr. Leendertsen state another option would be to have all the board members resign in a staggered sequence.
Mike Burt supports Jerry’s proposal first and then Craig Cochran’s idea of having two board members from each district resign. He also asked if by not voting, is the superintendent contract automatically renewed? Jerry replied, yes.
John Leendertsen favors the board resignation proposal due to the fact that this could continue on for another year. He feels a lot of the problem is the dis-function of the boards. This plan would be the most immediate fix. He would like to see some old board members come back in that have a solid working knowledge of board functions. This would benefit kids and everyone.
Mark Hegg feels rather than abandoning board positions, it would be better to stick with it and come up with a solution and agreement. This would be reassuring to the communities.
John mentioned that it may be short term for some previous board members to get on, since November elections will be coming up.
Debbie Anderson asked who votes on board applications and what stops this from happening again. Jerry said Palouse votes on Palouse and Garfield votes on Garfield board members. He also said the community needed to encourage workable people to get on the board.
Craig suggested maybe more than two people from each district should resign.
Mark Hegg said that if you move away from the cooperative, you are moving away from the kids. Looking for a halftime superintendent for a cooperative that is falling apart is not going to be easy. I’m concerned that this will fall apart and not go back together. This will hurt both communities, staff will leave, and staff won’t come in. Whatever it is, is it so serious to put the cooperative at risk?
Warren said he had no problem being voted off. The problem we have is that we are addressing issues that none of you know about. We voted for the superintendent even with a huge number of patrons not wanting her in. We didn’t come to agreement at first, but we came back a second time. Things have taken place the last six months. The fact is community and staff members do not know the issues. I would not sit through this because of personality. I’m making this stance because I feel it is what I should do.
Debbie Holbrook stated that the board did not take the correct steps. We were blindsided by the board. There was a communication problem with the Palouse board and it seems the Garfield board did everything in secret. It is hard to trust that you really have something legitimate. Warren replied that all ten board members did meet and that they all knew the issues. They presented the issues to the superintendent. We did not demand her resignation, but told her that our confidence was lost. I know we didn’t do everything perfect, but issues were shared. Debbie felt this is bad publicity. People will not look at Gar-Pal schools to bring their children to.
Dan Parrish is concerned that the people in the communities view the boards as one board. It is Gar-Pal. There are four members who do not want the superintendent and six that do. As a group, it is 60-40 split in favor of the superintendent. This is how the community views this.
Mike Burt said it seems that the boards disagree on how the cooperative works. Jerry said he interprets the coop to work as a majority. Mike and Warren view the cooperative as separate board votes. Mike Burt stated that under Mike and Warren’s interpretation, we are two separate schools. Jerry said that his proposal will clarify this issue. He feels that the Garfield and Palouse boards should work in the best interest of their communities.
Mike Burt asked Warren if his proposal would work financially. Warren said, yes, if we continue to cost share, but reminded Mike that this is only a band-aid.
Mark Hegg said if you can’t agree, then don’t take action. In the past, we agreed not to bring an issue up for vote, if it was something we could not agree upon. That was the goal and that was how it worked.
Jerry said he was not sure if he disagreed with Mike’s interpretation, but felt opposite votes would cancel out if you voted separately. Mr. Hegg responded that is why you agree to agree.
John mentioned that November elections will take care of some board members. He does not like Warren’s proposal, but we may have to couple it with the resignations of some board members.
Sherri Curtis asked if the superintendent contract is a one year contract and if so, would it be looked at again. Jerry replied, yes.
Steve Swinney stated that both communities are affected by these issues and feels that the cooperative is in trouble if these are not resolved. He feels that each community has it’s own clicks that apply pressure to board members. The combined schools is the best for the kids, but if these problems are not fixed soon, the cooperative will suffer.
Kent Keller said there is a unanimous understanding that the boards have agreed to make the coop work. He told Warren that he cannot tell him how to feel, but believes that Warren is committed to the board and board-employee relationships. He asked Warren to take that commitment and Jerry’s proposal because it does not ask you to back down, but to go on in a more deliberative, but perhaps slower process. Kent said he did not question Warren’s commitment.
Debbie Anderson believes a levy failed several years ago due to superintendent issues. She said if the Garfield Board concedes, make sure you know the issues. Patsy Dunning replied that Mrs. Anderson had no way of knowing why a levy failed.
Dennis Griner stated that we have not done due process in his perception. Due process allows people to be treated fairly and equitably. That process needs to be above board. It looks like time is what you need to do due process. Therefore, you don’t need to take action. Common sense almost demands due process.
Chairperson Jerry Schwartzman called for a break at 8:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Jerry suggested the board go around the table for comments, then go home and think about it. There may be another board meeting before the regular monthly board meeting.
Jill Palmer said she disagrees with Warren’s proposal. She believes it is not fiscally responsible for Garfield to spend more money on administration.
Jerry stated that everyone needs to get more numbers together. He suggested the Business Manager, Patsy Dunning could help.
Mrs. Palmer approved of Jerry’s proposal without Kent and her as executors.
Jerry advised board members to go home and consider all this information. He asked that board members communicate and let the board chairmans know if they want another meeting before the regular meeting.
Mr. Schwartzman adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.