Meeting note: due to inclement weather, the board meeting
proceeded with an abbreviated agenda via Webex, an online platform with a
telephonic component. Livestreaming was available to the public, and the board
room was open to anyone who wished to come observe or make public comment.
Livestream archive link: http://livestream.com/DCSDK12/events/4570453
The agenda was as follows.
1.
Suspension of rules to permit electronic participation
2.
Renewal of Lobbyist contracts
3.
Approval of the accreditation report
4.
Mil levy override setting
5.
STEM K-4 resolution
1. Suspension of rules to permit electronic participation
The board has certain rules that govern its regular
meetings. In order for all board members to participate
electronically/telephonically, we had to vote to suspend the rules. I voted yes
due to inclement weather restricting the attendance of nearly all board
members. Several staff members were present in the board room, as were a few
members of the public and media. The motion passed via a 6-0 vote.
2. Renewal of board legislative services contract
The Board contracts with JLH Consulting and Public Affairs
for legislative services. This contract must be renewed annually before the
legislative session begins, which will occur before the next regular meeting. I
voted yes, since I am familiar with the past work that JLH has accomplished and
the benefit it has had for the district, and I am satisfied that this contract
should continue. This motion carried 6-0-1 (aye-nay-abstention).
3. Approval of the Accreditation Report to CDE
Colorado
State Statute, C.R.S. § 22-11-206(4)(a)(I)&(II), requires that this
Accreditation Report be submitted with the FY 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report and Audit. CDE provides a form for districts to complete. It
is meant to provide assurances that the district complied with state law and
generally accepted accounting principles. Audited financial statements provide
part of the assurances that the district has complied, as well as other
information provided by the district.
The
report was made available as part of the board agenda. Financial documents,
including the Comprehensive Financial Report and Audit, were included. This
report must be provided, statutorily, by 31 December to CDE, necessitating a
vote during this meeting. I voted yes because in reviewing the documents, I am
satisfied that the bar has been met for compliance with the law. The motion
passed on a 7-0 vote.
4.
Mill levy override setting
Statutorily,
the board needed to vote to certify the mill levy by 5pm on 12/15. This
deadline was the reason that the board met an hour earlier than usual.
The
mill levy override is authorized by voters, and stems from four separate
authorizations, totaling $33,713,000. The MLO is calculated as follows:
(Amount
required / Assessed valuation) x 1000
Voter
Approved Overrides: $33,713,000
Assessed
Valuation: $5,620,055,765
Mill
Rate: 5.999
($33,713,000
/ $5,620,055,765) x 1000 = 5.999
Since
the total net assessed value in the District grew from $4.8B to $5.6B, a nearly
17% increase over one year ago, the recommended total mill levy rate dropped.
I
voted yes to set the mill levy at the recommended level. The district provided
a thorough explanation of the mill setting process and how it is related to
valuations, past voter authorizations, and how it includes other factors such
as abatements and bond redemption funding to satisfy our bonding obligations.
The mill levy is set for the current fiscal year; the motion passed 7-0.
5.
STEM Expansion to grades K-4 (beginning 56:00 on the livestream recording)
The
purpose of this agenda item was to respond to a request by the Douglas County
Planning Commission (PC) to hold a hearing on issues related to the STEM
expansion. This request was made November 24. State statute dictates that not
only is this hearing at the sole discretion of the BOE, but also if such a
hearing is to take place, it must be within 30 days of the county’s request.
This would make December 23 the last day for the hearing, otherwise STEM’s
request would be deemed approved.
Due
to the format of the board meeting, the original planned presentations by STEM,
the planning commission staff, and the district were not able to continue as
planned. I requested that Rob Ross, the district legal counsel, draft a
resolution stating that STEM would be conditionally approved based on eight
conditions that addressed the concerns laid out in the PC’s documentation. One
of those conditions would be that a hearing would take place so that all
concerns could be heard. Mr. Ross worked with Mr. Barry Arrington, the STEM
legal counsel, on this resolution.
Some
facts:
- The STEM expansion had been under discussion for well over a year. STEM expanded their offerings to fifth grade for 2015-16. This program has been extremely popular, and STEM had made known that their plan was always to expand downward to K-4. The district had numerous positive and productive conversations with STEM board members and administrators about this plan. This effort was by no means rushed or hurried.
- December 23 is the deadline for the hearing to take place. Unless a vote was taken by the BOE specifically to disapprove the STEM expansion, if there is no hearing, then STEM’s request to the PC would be deemed approved. Postponing the resolution until January 5, or any other date past December 23, would not have had any effect on the PC’s request to the district.
- Contained in the resolution is a requirement for a hearing. This hearing will take place and the PC staff, STEM, and the BOE will all participate and will be able to voice their concerns and questions to the public. This hearing is unscheduled but must occur no later than March 1.
- Postponing the resolution would have created an issue with the students that are seeking to enroll in STEM because the district’s open enrollment deadline is 5 January.
- If the district were to force STEM to wait until the open enrollment deadline, then STEM would be accepting enrollments without knowing if their expansion were even approved. If it were not approved, then all of those students would have to be sent back to their neighborhood schools. There would be no opportunity for parents to make any other choice because January 5 is the deadline.
- This resolution was not about open enrollment. It was about giving the PC, STEM, and the BOE the chance to have a hearing at a later time. The timing of any hearing held after December 23 is irrelevant in regards to automatic approval. The only thing we can do is what we were doing: set conditions that must be met for approval.
- Public comment was solicited before a vote was taken. No one was in the room to make any public comment. This opportunity will be made available again when the hearing does take place.
- The planning commission’s December 15 letter to the BOE acknowledged that the board might decide to go forward with approving the STEM charter amendment. They requested that, if we did, then we at least 1) require STEM to abide by the PC’s conditions of approval set forth in the PC staff report and 2) extract commitments from STEM to meet with its neighbors that attended the PC meeting and expressed concerns. As I note below, this was done via an amendment and the approval of the resolution itself, which contained all of the conditions of approval.
There
were a few motions made on this resolution.
A
letter sent from PC staff on December 15 made the additional request to ask
STEM to meet with the two nearby businesses that attended the PC meeting to
express concerns about the expansion. A motion was made to add a condition to
require STEM to meet with these neighbors. I voted yes to alleviate any PC
concerns around this. It carried 7-0.
A
motion was made to postpone the resolution’s vote until a future time; January
5 was suggested but not made part of the motion. I voted no; as stated
previously, January 5 was an arbitrary date that occurred after the PC’s
statutory deadline of 23 December and would have occurred on the open
enrollment deadline. The motion failed 3-4.
A
motion was made to call the question (i.e. force an immediate vote on the
motion on the table, which was the entire amended resolution). I voted yes, as
I ensured that in the resolution, all PC concerns were included as conditions
for approval, and I knew that we would not meet again as a BOE before the PC
deadline of December 23. The motion carried and the resolution was passed, 4-3.
What
happens if STEM doesn’t meet the conditions in the resolution? If they don’t,
then the approval is not finalized and the expansion will not take place.
Again, postponing or failing to approve the resolution does not affect the PC’s
request to have a hearing if no action is taken by December 23. Failing to
approve the expansion, however, will affect hundreds of children who are
entering the lottery and open enrollment for STEM’s proposed K-4 grades. I do
not believe that it is appropriate to inject this kind of uncertainty
needlessly into the process for STEM children, whereby they are forced to wait
until literally the eleventh hour to know whether the grades into which they
want to enroll their children even exist.
