The executive session ended at approximately 10 am.
After the executive session ended, we took up the question of the uses of executive sessions. Initially only school committee members were present, but Ken joined us after a few minutes.
In May 2000 we began the practice of starting each meeting with an executive session, on the recommendation of Patrick Basset; the idea being to get ideas out into the open early and not let them ferment until later. Unfortunately, without specific topics to discuss, these sessions had a tendency to be disorganized and nearly interminable.
More recently we have decided to have an executive session only if the clerk were informed of a topic for discussion in time to put it on the agenda. This practice appears to be working better and will be continued.
There was extended discussion of the fact that our practice in the past has often not included the director in executive sessions, and had staff outside the room waiting for the open session to begin. We recognized that this was inappropriate, in that it created unnecessary tension between committee and school.
It is important to be able to reach unity in executive session, but we must come to the session prepared to work. We have as a goal to be respectful of staff and let them know when to expect the open session to begin.
The director will be included in all executive sessions except when discussing director evaluation or compensation.
Except in extremely rare circumstances, executive session will only happen if topics are provided to the clerk in time to be announced on the agenda.
Some additional "Rules of Ettiquette" concerning school committee meetings were discussed:
Copies of the book Trustee Handbook by Mary Hundlye DeKuyper have been provided for each committee member. Please return it to the school when you leave the school committee. If you wish to contribute toward this expense, the books cost $25 each.
We reopened with a discussion of the search committee.
There were several corrections to the minutes of last meeting. The most significant of which was that it be clear that we did NOT decide to require international staff be quaker; we recognized that it is easier to do so, because they are classified as religious workers and getting visas can be simpler.
The minutes were approved as corrected
The Director's Report [link] provided the framework for the rest of the meeting as a section was read and the accompanying committee reported.
The committee met but there is no written report. The subcommittee discussed the idea that new teachers are eager to do their own course planning, but often find it quite difficult. Therefore, it may be useful to have some statement of the expectations about curriculum for courses, but this needs to be seen by them as a suggestion rather than as a requirement.
The Mexico trip is not happening primarily because there was more logistical support and enthusiasm for having it next year rather than this.
Someone asked the question: Has the "war" affected / filtered into academics? Nan answered that it has to some extent, but the level of interest in international politics on the part of students is low; they're focused much more on the local community.
Praise was directed at Heather Godley for the fine job she's been doing as college counselor.
The subcommittee would like to thank Jeff Kisling for his effort to put his objections into text -- his remarks were very helpful in helping focus the evaluation process.
There were two threads of discussion, one concerned with the paid work experiment itself and the other concerned with the question of how to procede when the School Committee is not in unity on an issue, particularly when a SC member has an objection.
In discssing the experiment itself, Nan pointed out that when living in the community, the program is so small as to be a non-event, while in SC meetings it seems to be a major issue. She also pointed out that the staff and students are very committed to the Crew system, and recognize it's importance to the school; they would not allow anything to damage the system. The need for a mechanism to earn some money is particularly acute for some of the foreign students.
Some creative ideas were offered about how to have an alternate program for students to get small amounts of spending money. Additional suggestions should be passed to the Spiritual and Community Life committee.
The discussion of how to procede when a SC subcommittee makes a recommendation but the SC is not in unity did not reach a conclusion. Comments that this is what the subcommittee structure is designed to minimize, and that the staff shares the concern raised by those objecting but not so strongly still leave us with a lack of unity. In this case, those objecting said they did not want to block action.
[let's hope we can avoid having to learn the difference between unity and unanimity]
There was some discussion of tree planting for windbreaks on the West side of campus and around the 4plex.
The soundwall makes a great difference in the Meeting house. It ends at the county road right of way on the east end of the hockey field. Extending it to the north will require zoning variances or other creative solutions.
The primary discussion focused on relations with the Foundation. Historically, money received from the Foundation / Endowment has been a percentage, and was around $60,000/year. The new way the foundation manages money has not reflected that process and as a result, the sharp stock market downturn has produced a substantial drop in the funds available to the school. We recognized that the need to avoid "we/they" thinking, and that economic pressures cannot be ignored. Nonetheless, we feel the need to have better budgeting information, and wonder if the Foundation is properly sensitive to the wishes of the donors.
The School will research the history of donations and provide the information to the foundation. The school will also investigate how other school/foundations deal with these issues. At the next Foundation meeting, we will report the impact on the schools budget.
Ken noted that we have no more copies of the Scattergood History book. He is investigating making it available on the Web, and perhaps having it brought up to date.
No significant discussion
There is more professional development going on than ever before, and the staff is looking for more. The increasing complexity of life and the increasing use of technology on campus may require either a staff reorganization or outsourcing of some functions -- which, of course, has budget impacts.
The school has decided to increase the network bandwidth we buy from 1/4 T-carrier to 1/2 T-carrier -- the trial period has shown significant improvements in performance with the larger bandwidth.
There have been different interpretations of the role of the School Committee in conducting exit interviews. Specifically, having designed the exit interviews, is the committee responsible for conducting the interview with each exiting staff member, or merely for seeing that the interviews are performed?
Discussion revealed that to be helpful, the interviews need at least a partial focus that is only meaningful to someone intimately familiar with the operations of the school. Experience among school committee members who've conducted exit interviews supported this. Both Nan and Ken thought that Board members conducting interviews of Staff was not useful for this reason, and implied a lack of trust between the Board and the head.
In the end we decided:
The "Trustee Handbook" has a chapter on Principles of Good Practice. Practice #4 is relevent:
#4 The Board selects, supports, and nurtures the Head. The single most important act of a board is the selection of the head. [...] The board needs to support the head in formal and informal ways __ paying the head well, keeping the board focused on the big issues and allowing the head to administer the school, [...]
Thanks to subcommittees for including references to the LRP in reports.
Thanks to Ken for his initial draft of the "Credo" [link] or marketing statement. This is a significant change in how we've been approaching the Long Range Plan.
Please provide feedback to improve the draft, to Margie.
Thanks to Jeff for compiling and summarizing the results, and to Walter, Nancy and Michelle for their effort.
We decided to setup a workshop as a "Mini Scattergood" for junior high students and their families. This is clearly a recruiting function and is appropriate for the school, sidestepping the issue that needs more discussion within IaYM concerning the appropriateness of workshops at Scattergood. The school will involve Deb Fisch (as IaYM clerk) and then prepare a letter to be sent to all monthy meetings.
School Committee Meeting Schedule:
Ken noted that having the committee meeting this early means there are only 2 weeks between the beginning of the second semester and the first committee meeting, and a little more time is helpful; something to be remembered when planning next year's meetings.
Went over the time, but did a much better job of staying on topic and being relvant.
People took the opportunity to encourage moving on. Everyone spoke respectfully to each other and remained pertinent.
The meeting closed with silence at 3:45