Clicking off the board meetings

Richland Two Board Policy limits the number of paid school board meetings.

After I heard a rumor this week about one board member who might bail when the board hits that number (after all, who wants to work for free?), I wondered how that Policy reads and also how many meetings the board has already had this year.

I didn't have to look far to find the Policy; it's on the agenda for the May 23 board meeting. Board Policy BID is Item 9.1 on the agenda.

Board members are paid $384 per board meeting, and the chair is paid $480. The limit of paid meetings is 30 in a calendar year (not to confused with the School Year).

By my count there have been 9 Regular board meetings and 11 Special-Called Meetings, including a workshop and a retreat. Approximately 38% of the calendar year has passed. Ten paid board meetings remain between now and December 31.

The board will obviously continue on an accelerated pace, because of the need to hire a superintendent. My guess is they will hit that 30-meeting limit about the time the School Year ends on June 30 and the optimistic hiring date for the new superintendent is reached.

There are 13 more Regular Meetings, including the Summer Retreat, already on the 2023 Schedule of Meetings, and the board no doubt add more Special-Called Meetings.

Previously, board members were paid a stipend of $800/month (and $1,000 for the chair), until the District woke up and realized it was out-of-compliance with state law when it paid a stipend, rather than a per diem. When the old board majority had to fix it, they set the current per diem rates in Board Policy.

Board income, whether stipend of per diem, is reportable to IRS and taxed as ordinary income.

Hiring Guideline assures failure

Be sure to read carefully the advertised position for Richland Two's new superintendent.

It's your typical HR blather. Notice how general it is. 

The Board is three months behind on a serious start of its search. They lost February, March, and April.

And then they blew it by not figuring out that Baron Davis would very likely to be joining the recruiter's business. McPherson & Jacobson LLC obviously knew it was in discussions with Davis and failed to disclose that to the board, "Oops, sorry" is not good enough.

The Search Timeline almost guarantees failure.

Search Timeline:

Closing date for applications: May 31, 2023 (11:30 p.m. central time)

Board of Education selects finalists to interview: June 12, 2023

Interviews with the Board of Education: Week of June 19, 2023

Selection of new Superintendent: June 27, 2023

Start date: July 3, 2023

 

Why will it take from June 1 to June 12 to select finalists? The initial ranking could be done on June 1. Then only one week for interviews? Will all the best candidates be available? And one more week to make an offer? And then expect the new superintendent to start a week later? Will the new guy hold out for more than the $240,000 (plus benefits) that the District paid Davis?

Doesn't this mean that the pool of candidates will be all unemployed superintendents? Or those willing to quit jobs on short noticee? Will Richland 2 end up with the dregs from the coffee pot?

And, just because I'm picky, why does M&J state the closing time for applications as May 31, 2023, 11:59PM (Central Standard Time). Isn't almost all of the U.S. on Central Daylight Time?

Parliamentarian?

Whatever happened after the board's discussion of getting a Parliamentarian?

Nothing happened.

When the Chair calls for a Motion, why do all the board members sit there as if they have been struck dumb?

Why does the Chair then have to make the Motion?

And why isn't there a quick Second?

Does the Board have any idea how hard it is making it to attract a new superintendent? He (or she) will be watching board meetings and just shaking his head. Who will want to walk into such a snake pit?

Was there a problem tonight with the Agenda for the executive session? Item 4.6 was "A Contractual Matter Regarding the Leasing and Purchasing of Properties."

When it was time to vote during the public session, the Motion was explained as Due Diligence, not a contract. 

Trustee Scott said she was not going to support the Motion (and she didn't). I didn't understand her comment about not wanting to saddle a new superintendent with something decided on by the board before he was hired. She was apparently thinking of the actions of the previous board majority to hamstring the new board with travel and training restrictions.

A board decision on property leasing or purchase is different. The superintendent is to carry out the decisions of the board. He'll do what he is told.

Inspirational Moments

 Could we just have an inspirational moment?

Is it really necessary to give an extended introduction?

Are we hearing a commercial tonight by the man who is speaking?

How about something inspirational?

Consultants' meeting with board 5/8/23

This morning I continued watching last night's board meeting with the consultants from McPherson & Jacobson.

This is too slow and painful. It was a typical round-robin approach. Board members were asked to write down what qualities and characteristics each board member wanted. That could have been done before the meeting.

Then each board member recited one from his list. Each consultant wrote down long-winded answers on poster board. I was surprised that not one board member spoke up and said, "Let's move this along faster. We'll be here all night."

"Someone who is competent" was one of the responses. Seriously? 

At 58:10 on the Livestream recording I gave up. Two hours to go.

How can I get the Cliff Notes' version of the next two hours of the meeting, without having to endure the pain of slogging through it?

Why didn't M&J show up with a list of qualities and characteristics to suggest to the board? They should have done their homework on this school board, and they should have learned of the level of (in)experience in making executive decisions.

Surprise! Open Meeting; no Executive Session

When tonight's board meeting (May 8, 2023) started (scheduled starting time of 4:30PM), the chair asked for a motion to approve the agenda.

Trustee Trapp made the motion. Trustee Nash, instead of seconding the motion, wanted to amend the primary motion to have the meeting in the open, rather than in executive session.

Hello? Protocol! Chair Agostini explained there was a motion on the floor that needed a second. After the second, Trustee Nash made her secondary motion and it was approved 6-0-1; that's One Not Present. Trustee Washington was absent.

Then the primary motion was approved as amended.

Trustee Scott was called on. She explained that Trustee Washington would be arriving late, and then she introduced "Mac and Jake", the consulting firm for the superintendent search.

The name of the search firm is McPherson & Jacobson LLC, not "Mac and Jake". Their internet domain is "macnjake.com" which, to me, sounds more like a burger joint.

That introduction occurred at 18:15 on the recording at   https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10850332/videos/236139017. 

The recording ends at 3:21:16. 

For me it is 9:30PM now, and I can't imagine what took three (3) hours to discuss. The consulting firm should have shown up with recommendations; maybe it did. If it did and this meeting still took three hours, by now they'll know they are going to lose money on the Richland Two superintendent search. 

Gender equity - coming soon?

Check out this PragerU Kids video titled "When Equity Removes the Words 'Boy' and 'Girl' from 5th Grade Lessons".

Jill Simonian does a great job of ripping Essex Westford School District, in Essex Junction, Vermont, for its April letter to fifth-grade parents and caregivers, in which the school district informed them of new terms to be used in the fifth-grade sex-ed class.

The new terms?

"Person who produces sperm" in place of boy, male, and assigned male at birth.

"Person who produces eggs" in place of girl, female, and assigned female at birth.

Is any of this nonsense going on in Richland 2?