The Agenda and assorted documents for the Sep 10th Regular Board Meeting are up on BoardDocs.
Below is an email I sent to the Board and Dr. Wiegand:
I trust each of you are enjoying the cooler weather – it was quite beautiful today. 🙂
In looking over the agenda for the September 10th Regular Board meeting, I have a few comments and questions.
- 8a – MAC presentation: will this be the same presentation that was posted on BoardDocs for the July 9th Board Meeting? I realize the previous one was rescheduled because the presenters could not make it.
- 8c – First reading of proposed change to 705.06: It is not clear to me why enrolling in both CECC and Head Start (even during the first quarter) is a conflict. This is probably obvious to most people, so I apologize for being dense.
- 8e – Educational Programming Committee (EPC?): First, kudos for considering all the input you have received over the past year about possible configurations! I appreciate that you are thinking a little more outside the box.
- Who is on the Educational Programming Committee? When will it have a dedicated webpage/site?
- I realize the GST of 2008 recommended the EPC, and it is finally coming to fruition. However the GST did not really specify community stakeholders in the EPC. What is the charter for the EPC? The goals and mission?
- The 2nd slide of the EPC report suggests that there will be a referendum in March 2014. What specifically (other than hiring a PE firm) will be done to elicit a broad-base discussion and deliberation of the goals of the referendum prior to March 2014? I would love to go into March 2014 knowing that the community fully understands the motive and justification of the referendum, even if we do not all fully agree.
- Slides 8 and 9 suggest we need more office space. Why?
- 9b – Public Engagement Firm: I am glad we finally have a firm decided upon; it is obvious that Dejong Richter has a lot to offer and that the selection committee had their work cut out. However I am distressed that we will be paying this group from Ohio a goodly sum of money to conduct yet another demographic survey. I urge the Board to reconsider this! There is at least one local company that has expressed a desire to help with demographics (ploughman-analytics.com), not to mention an excellent GIS Consortium. I understand that there was no bid specifically for a demographic survey, thus companies like Ploughman would not have been notified and/or made aware of such a possibility. I urge the Board to strike out portions of this contract that can be fielded by local corporations, or at the very least, rebid those major components.
- 9c – Carrie Busey expansion: To highlight the positive first, I am as excited as the rest of you that Unit 4 has had so many incoming students. Obviously, it is a challenge to deal with these drastic numbers and the school district is scrambling to do its best. My hat is off to those folks who are working their tails off (and pulling hair?) trying to figure this out. I am concerned about the price of the recent changes to Carrie Busey. Nearly $1 million for two classrooms? And when we build on additional classrooms, another $3 million or so? Something seems wrong with this math.
- 9e – Abatement of working cash fund: Unfortunately, the financial jargon goes over my head. May I request that someone explain this a little more? How does this relate to the Working Cash Bond that Unit 4 recently issued?
In regards to the questions above, it is my hope and expectation that they be addressed during or before the September 10th Board Meeting.
I thank each of you for your hard work and loyal dedication to our fine school district. Unit 4 is truly accomplishing awesome things and I continue to be very excited about the new changes.
I am tempted to pronounce EPC as “epic” – I truly believe that this is a big giant opportunity for our community to help shape the next couple of decades for Unit 4. The Educational Programming Committee is one of the many “action items” from the 2008 Great Schools, Together effort that should have kicked off in 2008. On the one hand, it is great that we are starting now. On the other hand, I think it is going to be really hard for folks to make that connection.
Also Unit 4 is required by state law to publish all salaries – I am little confused about the verbiage stating that it must be presented at a board meeting first. For those that like that kind of thing, I have it linked below.
- DeJong-Richter: http://www.dejongrichter.com/
- Ploughman Analytics: http://ploughman-analytics.com/
- DeJong-Richter contract (BoardDocs): http://www.boarddocs.com/il/champil/Board.nsf/files/8XWQCH67226E/$file/DeJONGRICHTER_Champaign_Contract_090712.pdf
- Educational Programming Committee Final report (BoardDocs): http://www.boarddocs.com/il/champil/Board.nsf/files/8XWSNX738F11/$file/Final%20%20Educational%20Programming%20Committee%209%207%2012.pdf
- All Unit 4 salaries and benefits (BoardDocs): http://www.boarddocs.com/il/champil/Board.nsf/files/8XWMKV5B6EF3/$file/Copy%20of%20ISBE%20Upload%20File.xlsx