PALOUSE SCHOOL DISTRICT #301 - GARFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #302
JOINT BOARD MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2003
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mike Cronk at 7:02 p.m. The flag salute followed.
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 Bev Fox, Business Manager Patsy Dunning and Recorder Frankie Swinney
Guests: Sherri Partch, Cindy Kimberling, Kurt Kimberling, Janet Barstow, Ben Barstow, Rich Olson, Skip Wilson, Dan Parrish, Steve Swinney, Kathy Pinter, Debbie Anderson, April Pfaff, Cheryl Curtis, Ron Rosebrook, Peter Bishop, Jarrod Pfaff, Jiggs Anderson, Jack Neal, Archie Neal
Item #2 of the Agenda, Executive Session, was moved to Item #1. The Work Session/ Cooperative Matters would follow.
At 7:04 p.m. both boards went into Executive Session.
The joint board meeting reconvened at 7:38 p.m.
Superintendent Fox prepared a statement to make sure if there were rumors, everyone would hear the same thing. She stated Thursday evening, March 27, the Garfield Board will approve her resignation. She has enjoyed her years at Garfield and loves the cooperative. Mrs. Fox feels she has accomplished things to make the cooperative better, however, she understands that the cooperative and board are going through some philosophical change and it is best for everyone that she move on.
Mike Cronk presented his statement to both boards. Please see Attachment A.
Kent Keller presented his statement to both boards. Please see Attachment B.
Chairperson Mike Cronk followed by asking if the boards would like discussion for next year’s administrative structure or wait until the next board meeting.
Jerry Schwartzman needed more time to consider options.
John Leendertsen agreed with Mr. Schwartzman stating that emotions could be very high at this time.
Jill Palmer made a motion to adjourn the meeting and John Leendertsen seconded the motion.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ATTACHMENT A
Opening Statement March 24, 2003 Meeting
To begin let me say a few words addressing the negotiating process and recent comments that indicate that Palouse may choose to dissolve the co-op.
First of all, at the work session in Garfield on March 11, 2003, we all agreed to the statement that follows, “With the idea of keeping the co-op together, we’ve agreed to explore each others position and find common ground.” To me finding common ground implies concessions on both sides in order to reach a solution acceptable to both parties. In my opinion, of the three proposals presented in Palouse on March 18, 2003, only one met the common ground criteria. Warren’s proposals provides for the administrative staff in the Palouse building to remain status quo. Bev remains as building superintendent and Bill remains as building principal. The letter I received from members of the Garfield-Palouse High School and Palouse elementary staff indicates that they would regret losing Bill and confirms my personal belief that Bill LaMunyan is highly regarded as a professional building administrator. Students respect his authority and appreciate the enthusiasm he shows when involved in student events. This respect has led to a student body that behaves appropriately and is respectful to both other students and staff. Why then would anyone risk losing such a valued employee. The only change in the administration of the Garfield building would be one new individual, a part time superintendent. This configuration allows for the least amount of disruption of students and staff in both buildings. This proposal, while not exactly the same, is similar to the administrative structure operated under in 2001-2002. That administrative organization included an administrative appeal committee that would resolve issues that the superintendent could not resolve before reaching the board level. We all operate under this one-year pilot proposal and appear to have survived unscathed. Other proposals include no areas of compromise to find common ground.
Craig’s proposal for both boards to non-renew, followed by board resignations would force Palouse to non-renew an employee they have indicated they would rather keep. It appears to be the direct opposite of Jerry’s proposal and includes no common ground.
Jerry’s proposal, with support from the Palouse board, is simply a demand that Garfield renew the present superintendents contract or face the possibility of co-op dissolution. I appreciate the boards may, in good faith, have a difference of opinion concerning the superintendent’s performance. How that difference becomes linked to be a threat of dissolving the co-op puzzles me. I would be very surprised to think that parents of either district would consider this current dispute as having any relevance to the continuity of the cooperative program. If it is in the best interested of the Garfield and Palouse children to attend school cooperatively with Mrs. Fox as superintendent, why would it not in their best interest to attend school cooperatively if a different individual were appointed superintendent? We have all continued to emphasize the importance of the cooperative program and what is in the best interest of the children. We all confirmed our dedication to the cooperative by an individual vote at the January joint board meeting. If that dedication has been compromised because of a disagreement over voting procedures, we need to address this issue separately from the issue of superintendent of our districts. The interpretation of voting procedures given by past board members and founders of the cooperative documents, indicate that it is imperative for the two boards to vote separately in order to ensure that the two towns will be perceived as two distinct districts. This insures that each district will receive a small school supplement in state funding. I propose that we first address the issues of who will lead our districts and secondly purse a solution to the conflict over our voting procedures. It is difficult, if not impossible, to modify disputed language in the administrative procedure document, code 1312, while in the midst of a dispute over our superintendent.
In closing: Let’s attempt to resolve our differences keeping in mind what is in the best interests of communities, parents, and most importantly the children of both districts. I suggest that we begin our discussion by addressing concerns in Warren’s proposal and attempt to reach a compromise i.e. Common ground.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ATTACHMENT B
To the patrons of the Garfield-Palouse Co-op,
From members of the Joint Board of the Garfield-Palouse Co-op
In recent days, without the knowledge of the rest of the Joint Board, some members of the Garfield Board requested the resignation of an employee and threatened that employee with discharge if this request is not met. We learned of this unilateral, private action only today. This action comes as a shock in the face of recent weeks of apparently sincere discussion of the critical importance of openness in cooperation. We believe this action is intended to force us to go along with them by holding the kids hostage. As such it clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the Co-op agreement.
Cooperative governance of the Districts cannot serve the best interests of the kids unless it is ethical (fair and aboveboard) and legal. The recent action by Garfield members fails this test. Its arrogance demonstrates disregard for the cooperative structure. We are, very clearly, no longer a functioning Co-op.
This situation is not tolerable and it forces us to reconsider all of our options. We will seek input from all patrons in a public meeting to decide what to do. We are sorry it has come to this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -