THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
MINUTES, FEBRUARY 16, 2004
The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Special Meeting at 1:00 p.m., in the Board Room, at the Dr. Vernon McDaniel Building, 215 West Garden Street, Pensacola, Florida, with the following present:
Chairman: Mrs. Cary Stidham Vice Chairman: Dr. John DeWitt
Board Members: Mr. Gary Bergosh
Mr. Ronnie L. Clark (was not present)
Ms. Linda Finkelstein
School Board Attorney: Mr. Francisco M. Negron, Jr.
Superintendent of Schools: Mr. Jim Paul
I. CALL TO ORDER/ADOPTION OF AGENDA
(NOTE: The purpose of this Special Meeting was to address issues on policies to be presented for advertising and/or adoption at the February Regular Meeting.) Mrs. Stidham called the Special Meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. On motion by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Mr. Bergosh, adoption of the agenda was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote. Motion by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Mr. Bergosh, to add an item to the agenda entitled “Discussion Regarding the 2003-2008 Escambia County School District Strategic Plan” was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
II. PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT RULES
1. Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment to School District Rule 6Gx17 – 3.02(7)f.8 – Magnet Programs or Schools; 3.02 (8) – Voluntary School Choice Selection Policy
Upon discussion of the “Magnet Programs or Schools – Voluntary School Choice Selection Policy,” motions were made concerning the following sections:
3.02(8)(d)
Motion was made by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Mr. Bergosh, to make the following revision: 3.02(8)(d) – (insert as item (2) and renumber subsequent items) Applications must be submitted yearly. If a student is not selected for the current school year, the parent must resubmit an application for consideration into the lottery for the next school year. Motion was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
3.02(8)(d)(9)
Students will only be allowed to enter choice programs and magnet schools in the beginning of the year and at semester break. The only exception is Brown-Barge which may admit students at the end of the 12 week stream. Students from out of district or out of state will be accepted into magnet schools or choice programs if the student was in a similar program prior to coming to Escambia County and the school or program has seats available.
Motion was made by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Ms.
Finkelstein, to make the following revision: 3.02(8)(d)(9) – Students will
only be allowed to enter choice programs and magnet schools in the beginning
of the year and at semester break. The only exception is Brown-Barge which
may admit students at the end of the 12 week stream. Students from out
of district or out of state will be accepted into magnet schools or choice
programs if the student was in a similar program prior to coming to Escambia County and the school or program has
seats available.
3.02(8)(d)(10) – Students from out of district or out of state will be accepted into magnet schools or choice programs if the student was in a similar program prior to coming to Escambia County and the school or program has seats available.
Motion was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
3.02(8)(e)(1)
The lottery will be utilized to select students whenever the number of eligible applications exceeds the program/schools capacity.
Motion was made by Ms. Finkelstein, seconded by Mr. Bergosh, to make the following revision: 3.02(8)(e)(1) - The lottery will be utilized to select students whenever the number of eligible applications exceeds the program/schools capacity. Applications may be randomly audited by a team consisting of the Choice Office, designated directors and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. Motion was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
3.02(8)(e)(2)(c)(i)
Determine the capacity of the school/program/grade level.
Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Bergosh,
to make the following revision: 3.02(8)(e)(2)(c)(i) – Determine the
cCapacity of the school/program/grade level. Motion was approved
4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
3.02(8)(f)(2)(a)(i) –
For students to enter the selection pool, a minimum of 3 of the 5 following criteria is required, one of which must be Test Scores or Grades.
· Grades: Overall “B” average of higher when considering current and recent grade history OR
· Test Scores: A composite score at the 75th percentile or higher on a recognized, nationally normed test. (75% in either reading or math is acceptable when using FCAT scores).
In addition to meeting the requirement above the following will be considered:
· Task Commitment/Motivation: An above average indication of persistence, intensity, self-direction and independence, goal-orientation, and diversified abilities shown by a score of 3 or higher on information submitted by current teacher on the nomination form.
· Creativity: Highly inquisitive and imaginative; intellectually curious; enjoys the unusual; able to elaborate, combine, substitute elements of the whole; “toys” with ideas.
· Demonstrated Need: Academic or creative ability, motivating, talent or potential is easily recognized but the development of these indicators is precluded due to circumstances beyond the control of the student. When using the “demonstrated need” statement, consider these or similar circumstances:
1. Limited resources in the home 4. Lower socio-economic status
2. Single parent family 5. Limited experience outside school
3. Family or school trauma 6. Limited peer interaction with
students of the same ability.
Motion was made by Ms. Finkelstein, seconded by
Dr. DeWitt, to make the following revision: 3.02(8)(f)(2)(a)(i) – In
addition to meeting the requirement above the following will be considered:.
Motion was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
3.02(8)(f)(2)(a)(ii)
The student enrollment at Brown-Barge is set at minimum of 518 students. Brown-Barge will begin each school year with no more than 547 students ensuring normal attrition will not affect the ability to offer academic programs during the course of the year. Once the school year begins the only students, who will be allowed to enter Brown-Barge will be students who transfer into the district from a similar program.
Motion was made by Ms. Finkelstein, seconded
by Dr. DeWitt, to make the following revision: 3.02(8)(f)(2)(a)(ii) – Once
the school year begins the only students, who will be allowed to enter Brown-Barge
will be students who transfer into the district from a similar program.
Motion was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.
2. Notice of Intent to Adopt Revisions to School District Rules, Chapter 7
No discussion was held.
3. Notice of Intent to Name the Physical Education, Art, and Music Building at Wedgewood Middle School the “Lawrence Young, Sr. Building”
No discussion was held.
4. Notice of Intent to Advertise Amendment to School District Rule 6Gx17 – 5.04(6)(c) – Telephone Service for Schools
(NOTE: The following motion relates to a section of the “District Cellular Telephony and Radio Guidelines” which are referenced in the rule amendment.)
District Cellular Devices Issuance Process
Department directors will identify employees under their supervision whose communication requirements meet the District Cellular Communication Criteria. Department directors will then forward those names, the cellular services appropriate to each employee’s duties, and the proposed funding source for the cellular services to their supervising Assistant Superintendent for consideration by Senior Staff. Upon approval of Senior Staff, the department directors will forward their cellular services requests to the Information Technology Department for processing with the Purchasing Office and with the current cellular vendor and for issuance of the cellular device. The receiving employee will be director to the District Cellular Telephony and Radio Guidelines and the Guidelines for Acceptable Use of District Information Systems documents to review the acceptable procedures regarding use of District issued cellular devices. It is the responsibility of the supervising Directors to monitor employees that have been issued cellular devised for compliance with guidelines contained in the documents cited above. Failure of an employee to follow those guidelines will be reported by the supervising Director to the supervising Assistant Superintendent for consideration of possible disciplinary action by Superintendent (including but not limited to monetary compensation to the District and nullification of the issuance of the employee’s cellular device).
Motion was made by Ms. Finkelstein, seconded by
Mrs. Stidham, to make the following revision: District Cellular Devices Issuance
Process – Department directors will identify employees under their supervision
whose communication requirements meet the District Cellular Communication
Criteria. Department directors will then forward those names, the cellular
services appropriate to each employee’s duties, and the proposed funding source
for the cellular services to their supervising Assistant Superintendent for
consideration by senior staff the Superintendent. Upon approval
of senior staff the Superintendent, the department directors
will forward their cellular services requests to the Information Technology
Department for processing with the Purchasing Office and with the current
cellular vendor and for issuance of the cellular device. The receiving employee
will be directed to the District Cellular Telephony and Radio Guidelines and
the Guidelines for Acceptable Use of District Information Systems documents
to review the acceptable procedures regarding use of District issued cellular
devices. It is the responsibility of the supervising Directors to monitor
employees that have been issued cellular devices for compliance with guidelines
contained in the documents cited above. Failure of an employee to follow those
guidelines will be reported by the supervising Director to the supervising
Assistant Superintendent for consideration of possible disciplinary action
by Superintendent (including but not limited to monetary compensation to the
District and nullification of the issuance of the employee’s cellular device).
Motion was approved 3 to 1, with Mr. Bergosh voting “No” and Mr. Clark
absent for vote.
The Board recognized Sheila Romaine, expressed her thoughts regarding the election process for adopting the District-Wide Uniform Standard, as outlined in Section 7.17 (4) “Uniforms.” (Item II.2, “Notice of Intent to Adopt Revisions to School District Rules, Chapter 7.”)
Board Members expressed various concerns with regarding the Strategic Plan, as presented. Ms. Finkelstein suggested the possibility of accepting the Strategic Plan as a “framework,” yet continue to work on it throughout the year. She also suggested that the “strategic planning process” be incorporated in the upcoming budget meetings.
III. ITEMS FROM THE BOARD
1. Request for Update on Walnut Hill North End Transportation Garage Lift
(previously discussed at the January 16, 2004 Regular Workshop)
Mr. Shawn Dennis, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, gave a brief update on the situation regarding the Walnut Hill North End Transportation Garage Lift. He explained that the leak source had been removed and within the next few days, the remediation process would begin. He stated that “as soon as we have a sense for the size of the hole, then that will allow the Purchasing Department to scope out the site-work required to go ahead and structure the bid for the remaining component, including a new lift and the site-work itself.” Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Steve Sharp, Coordinator of Safety, Health and Environmental Operations, stated that the remediation process would involve the removal and disposal of the contaminated soil, and would be conducted by a “qualified agent” that the District had hired. He noted that the soil itself was not ‘dangerous’ per say, yet ‘toxic’ because it contained a petroleum-based product. Regarding the purchase of a new lift, Ms. Finkelstein questioned “why was the initial equipment to be purchased from Mobile Mechanical a 50,000-pound capacity lift, when the largest bus to be serviced by the lift would be 10,500 pounds, possibly a dump truck weighing 14,500 pounds, and the smallest vehicle weighing 3,000 pounds?” Based on her visit to a local car dealership to look at their garage lifts, she suggested that staff look into the following options: 1) a 30,000-pound capacity lift (as opposed to a 50,000-pound capacity lift); and 2) an aboveground lift (as opposed to an in-ground lift). She noted that a 30,000-pound capacity lift would certainly “accommodate anything that the District would service” and an aboveground lift “seemed to be safer.” At the suggestion of Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Dennis stated that he and Mr. Terry Orso, Garage Manager, would “personally” visit the local car dealership, to take a look at those options themselves.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Special Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Attest: Approved:
________________________________ ________________________________
Superintendent Chair