Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
President Weir,
I would like to point out what I believe is a major flaw in your reply about the AG Opinion DM-473 (1998). The DM-473 (1998) was in regard to the City of Dallas which is a home-rule city where they can make up their own laws as long as it does not go against state law BUT our school district if I understand correctly is not under home-rule we are under general law, so I believe opinion DM-473 (1998) does not apply to our board. I also believe therefore TASB does not use opinion DM-473 (1998) but instead references DM-228 (1993). Please do not use DM-473 (1998) when reviewing my issue here. Please let me know if this is incorrect.
President Weir,
If you recall at the meeting on Thursday March 4th, 2021 per board policy you are stating above, I asked for the item to be added to a future agenda and asked for other board members to agree (consensus). Trustee Weston verbally agreed that this issue needed to be addressed, and other members nodded their head so that is consensus especially as I looked around every Trustee looked supportive and not one member objected, not one verbally or physically objected, and you did not state that consensus had not been achieved so you are now not following board policy (BE Local referenced above) by denying this. If you as the President needed more than what took place on March 4th for consensus then that was your duty as Board President to have clarified that at the time of consensus NOT after the fact. I again fully believe I have jumped through every policy and hoop and you are still denying this agenda item. I should not be made to bring this yet again to board since I have fully followed the policy you outline. Please follow board policy. The meetings are recorded so please go back and review Thursday March 4th, 2021 meeting where I already abided by BE Local #2 that you reference above. Again, as President you had every right to acknowledge on March 4th that I did NOT have consensus but to say this now is not in line with our policy. Again, NOT one member of the board, not even you President Weir said that they objected to this item. President Weir you did say we would start with a board update, which “start” implies there will be more to come, and it is not uncommon for the board to ask for information in a board update and then have the item on the next agenda. You did not say that I was being denied my agenda request and if you as President needed more for consensus it was your duty to get that at the time. The President should make it very clear that the item is being denied at the meeting but as you have already stated, you are denying this after the fact and you have not mentioned that there was not consensus at the March 4th meeting so maybe you had just forgotten that I had asked per policy and this can be quickly resolved. I hope you can understand my frustration as I feel I have done everything in policy and yet expected to do even more. This goes beyond just this topic if we are going to make an agenda item this difficult to get on an agenda, I think it is very dangerous precedent and hope other Trustees think of the precedent this sets.I would also stress that our Board precedent is already set for this policy. The policy states “Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.” Many agenda items have been placed on past agendas through the exact same type of request I made on March 4th the board has not taken a formal consensus so to say I needed that would not be in line with what the board has historical done. And note that the word “only” means that those other agenda topics from the past that have been placed on past agendas could “only” have been done with consensus. My whole point is that historically consensus appears to be defined as a majority of the board NOT objecting or disagreeing then the item has consensus and is placed on the agenda. It does not appear from an historical standpoint a Trustee needs to get a majority to verbally agree. Silence in the past has been taken in favor of the agenda item being added to a future agenda. I do not understand why the way this policy has been implemented in the past is now attempting to be changed for this agenda item.
Now since, like you have pointed out, I have followed our local policy I expect this to be added to the next agenda.
Yes I know our local policy and have obviously followed it because the Board President denied the agenda item. The policy referenced above is BE Local key word “Local” and I take the position that the Attorney General’s opinion mentioned above supersedes the local policy. In fact as TASB stated local school boards “CANNOT adopt a procedure that has the net effect of precluding individual board members from placing an item on the agenda”. I feel this policy is precluding me from placing an agenda item and therefore not affording me my right as an elected Trustee. I do not believe I should have to take this to the Attorney General to get an opinion when there is already one that is readily used (i.e. TASB) in this situation and clearly stated.
I will ask yet again that the agenda item be added in a timely manner to the next possible agenda and not use this debate as a time delay. This AG’s opinion has been pointed out and brought to the attention of the board. I feel it should be taken into the utmost consideration in this decision. If the board can clearly tell me why this opinion does not apply in this situation then I will concede and ask for a majority vote at the next meeting but I fully feel I deserve an answer as to why I do not have the right to get an item on the agenda as afforded to me by the State of Texas? I will clearly state I am ONLY asking for “District Wide Prom Discussion” be placed on the agenda.
After research I feel as a Trustee I have the right to have this topic added to the agenda. Per TASB documents regarding Trustees and agendas items I was pointed to the Texas Attorney General Opinion Number DM-0228 (1993) conclusion statement:
“This conclusion does not mean that a commissioners court cannot adopt a procedure for placing items on the agenda. The net effect of any procedure adopted, however, cannot be to preclude a member of the court from placing an item on an agenda so that it may be discussed publicly. While votes on any particular matter may be subject to majority rule, we cannot condone the implementation of any procedure that would effectively preclude a duly elected representative on the commissioners court from at a minimum providing a public forum for discussion of any particular issue.”
The TASB document titled “Juggling More than One Role as a Board Member” that referenced this above opinion states “However, a board member does have a right to place an item on the agenda for discussion by the entire board (including herself) at a subsequent, properly posted board meeting.”Also, another TASB document titled “Roles and Responsibilities of Individual School Board Members” that references the above opinion states “The attorney general has noted that a board cannot adopt a procedure that has the net effect of precluding individual board members from placing an item on the agenda.” I would like to be clear that I feel that I am being precluded from placing an item on the agenda. Our own policy is clear that if two board members would like an agenda item it is absolutely the right thing to add it. I do not know why one Trustee would feel they have the right to blatantly deny an agenda item of two other Trustees, this is not a good precedence in my opinion. Are we going to make all Trustees take their agenda items to a majority vote?
I would ask that the board president quickly remedy this issue and add the discussion item asked for by both Trustee Weston and I to the next possible agenda. I do not feel this game of kicking the agenda item down the calendar until it is a moot point is acceptable. Please point me in the right direction if I am incorrect or mistaken about the rights of individual Trustees. The Attorney General’s Opinion is very clear to me and every reference I read from professional organizations regarding agenda topics for school boards in Texas states it only takes ONE member to get something on the agenda so we should also possibly review our own policy if it is not in compliance with this opinion.
I would also like to see the topic of Audits placed on the agenda. Since it is my understanding the bond oversight committee has not met since February of 2020, I think some type of external audit to fill in this gap of oversight would be invited. Also, an audit to look for any places the district could be more efficient in the use of our funds might be helpful at this time.
Regarding item D3 (now E3 in updated agenda): Adoption of Resolution for Retention and Incentive Payment Due to COVID-19 Pandemic and Amendment to the Round Rock ISD 2020-21 Compensation Plan
I like to request that items that are placed on the agenda that affect the budget have attached documentation of how the budget will be impacted. I personally do not look at expenditures as a singularity but how they fit into the whole budget and impact the budget overall. If this is expenditure will increase our projected $27 million budget deficit, I would like to understand how. Also is there a budget modification needed for this item then I assume we have to vote on that also?
Regarding item D5 (now E5 in updated agenda): Student Recovery Plan
I reviewed the six slides and had similar thoughts to Trustee Weston’s first post.
I clearly see the desire from Trustees to meet all students needs and am happy that is something I know we can all agree on. Currently the district is not fully serving all children so we should discuss this as a board so that recovery can take place for all students. The emails we receive stating how students are not being served in-person; the data that was provided in our board update on Friday January 5th which showed that we had a net decline of 44 students from December 8 to January 5th; along with the over 3000 students that did not show up this year point to the fact that the district is not serving the needs of these students. Also, if 48% of elementary students are attending on campus then those same families, we can assume for the most part would want their middle and high school student(s) to attend in-person also, right? This is not happening as we can tell by the percentages. The district only has 33% of middle schoolers and 18% of high schoolers attending on campus. This directly points to the fact that the district is not serving potentially 15% of middle school and 30% of high school students that want to be back on campus but are not. Another point of data is across the state TEA posted that as of October 2020 54% students were learning on campus, why are RRISD numbers overall so much less than across the state? I do not believe it is all due to demographics.
I am continuing to advocate for BOTH virtual and real in-person choice. I am urgently concerned about the high school students that do not have years to recover from the learning loss, especially seniors. I think the board should afford these students some urgency in providing them a real choice in their education. RRISD students should be afforded the opportunity to stay academically competitive and receive real in-person education with fidelity. I hear Trustees say they want families to have choice and I fully agree with you, let us provide choice! Maybe Trustees believe there truly is choice of virtual and in-person education? That is just not true there is virtual at home or virtual in person. The slight difference is that a student can possibly interface directly with the teacher in-person during asynchronous but so can the virtual student. There should not be a contest or argument between virtual and real in-person. Our district should provide BOTH choices virtual and real in-person. Real in-person is what many parents and students have been waiting for all year and here we are in January and 10 months since this all began with no real in-person choice for our students.
I will continue to place urgency on this issue of real in-person education with fidelity because I care about those thousands of students that our district is not serving by not providing it. In a Texas Tribune article dated December 15th and titled “Texas school leaders urge state not to cut funding as they struggle with declining enrollment” stated that “Enrollment increases as more students attend school in person, Morath said, referring to data collected between September and October.” So, giving our middle and high school students a choice of real in-person would not only be serving them as we are called to do but it could also help bring students back to our district which would help with the shortfall of funds that Trustee Vessa points out in other posts.
In the December 17th meeting Trustee Vessa at around 6:20 (hr:min) stated that we all want to make in-person middle and high school conditions better and looking around she asked if anyone disagreed, which not one Trustee did, so I am asking that we all get behind that and ask the district to make the conditions better? What would it take for my colleagues on the board to act and make the in-person experience something that the middle and high school students can thrive in academically and socially? What are the roadblocks to getting a better in-person experience for our students? As Trustee Harrison has stated many times and it is presented on slide 4 of the presentation hybrid is not sustainable so what are we doing to improve this not only for our students but teachers?
I am here to work with other Trustees to get all our students what they need to be successful and to give families with middle and high school students an actual choice (it is my understanding this is already happening in elementary). I hope this starts conversation because after watching the December 17th meeting and seeing Trustee Xiao agree with a nod of the head that the district needed to improve in-person and Trustee Vessa state, with passion, the same it gives me hope that we are all moving to consensus and can work to give clear direction to the administration to provide families choice for virtual and real in-person education.
Dear Fellow Trustees,
First thank you President Weir for your work to get this conversation started.
These are my comments correlated to President Weir’s original post:
1. I agree with the 3 groups indicated at the end of the original post ( online sign-up, virtual speaker; online sign-up, in-person speaker; in-person sign-up and speaker). I think people wanting to speak either in person or online should be able to signup online 27 hours in advance or even as early as when the agenda is posted. I agree the online ability to signup can close 3 hours in advance for logistics purposes which is why I would add the 3 hours (for a total of 27 hours) to give a full 24 hours to sign up. I would like to allow public speakers both virtually and in person. The speaking order I prefer is in-person followed by online.
2. Agree.
3. I am inclined to not favor changing the time with number of speakers. If a member of the public clears their schedule to come address the board, I think speakers should know in advance their time allocation and we should highly respect that time. I know this might make our meetings longer but to me public comment is very important. I have heard and seen the disappointment as speakers scramble to cut down their thoughts in the allocated time.
4. See #3 directly above but inclined to agree only under extreme circumstancesDear Fellow Trustees,
I am open to the type, depth, and focus of an audit as the district transitions leadership. I agree that it should be an external audit. With the bond oversight committee having not met for almost a year I think the I&S area is one that should be focused on. I think an audit of the expenses related to the development of the Police Department would also be helpful along with other areas that have already been suggested in this thread.I have been told that an audit of the McNeil project has been completed in the past and will be requesting a copy from the district.
I would like the board to review and understand how and why the bond oversight committee has been allowed to fall by the wayside for this long and work towards implementing policies and procedures that ensures this does not happen in the future.
I wanted to inform you all that I will not be attending any of the the “Discussion with Trustees” meetings that have been setup with all Trustees in groups of 2-3 today, January 8, 2021, with Dr. Presley and his team. The invite states that discussion is regarding Budget, Audit, Bond Oversight Committee, Construction Workshop. I personally feel that these discussions should be done in an open meeting so the public can hear the discussion between Trustees and administration. I feel transparency is very important to our community and the trust they have in our district; I feel these discussions out of the public view could impair both.
Dear Fellow Trustees,
As tonight approaches I am reflecting on many thoughts. My main thought comes back to our Mission Statement “Each student of Round Rock ISD contributes to society, continues to learn and confidently embraces the challenges of a competitive and ever changing world.”
I think a lot about EVERY STUDENT. The multiple needs of our students and I reflect on the remainder of the mission statement that talks about embracing challenges of a competitive and ever-changing world. I understand not all schools across the country are being impacted the same through this time. Many schools are open for traditional education and have limited or eliminated virtual education because educators have determined that virtual does not met the mission of educating students for college readiness. We must acknowledge that our students, especially those in high school, will be competing with these students that are already back to traditional instruction. I am NOT suggesting for our district to fully eliminate virtual this school year, but I am asking that as the Board of Trustees we give the direction to start a path to move students back to in-person learning. This should be done now and not after the holiday break to allow administration to begin thinking about how this should be accomplished.
It is time for the board to act and be the leaders of the district. While we have these long stream of thought discussions that result in no action the future of our students are at risk. The administration has provided us much data and will show us more this evening that the district, led by us, is not meeting the needs of our students as outlined in our goals. In regard to future readiness of Seniors only 55% currently are meeting the standard with our goal at 74% what does this mean for the future of those 19%? We need to stop making excuses and we as a board corporate need to step up and make hard decisions. I will stop short of saying we are failing a significant amount of students but if we continue down this path failure, I feel, would be the appropriate word.
I listened again yesterday to Austin Public Health (APH), Dr. Escott & team, pointed out multiple times that schools ARE safe and they are NOT seeing significant transmission of the virus in schools just as our district staff demonstrated to us last week with data. To be clear APH said they are seeing transmission in extracurriculars but they are not seeing that transmission filter into the classroom. I am data driven because we can give all the feeling and anecdotal reasoning but that does not ground our decisions in fact. The data shows that schools not only in the US but across the world are safe. Especially now with the vaccine being rolled out we need to start preparing and planning.
I implore us to be the leaders that will focus on EACH student and our mission. To me this means to maintain the virtual option for students that need it but start encouraging students to come back to campus with those failing required to come back unless deemed high risk or living with a high-risk individual. I would leave the details and execution of this to our capable administration, but I believe the administration deserves the Boards direction, so they know our desire and that they have our support to move back to traditional in person education. The Board Corporate should also clarify intentions of ending virtual learning at the end of the 2020-2021 school year in May 2021.
I understand not all Trustees may agree with this and I support diversity of thought, it is excellent, and I am not trying to change minds, but I am just asking that the Board Corporate act and take a stance that we need to begin planning to get students back to traditional education. I also ask that Trustees share references to data so that the Board can drive to data-based decisions. I study and work with safety critical systems and the only way I know how to make educated safety related decisions is through information, data, and facts. I am NOT asking to stop our safety precautions and protocols but to acknowledge they are working and to continue investing in them.
I would like us to act tonight and I propose we direct the administration to begin planning and preparing for a move back to traditional in-person instruction while maintaining virtual instruction only through May 2021. This includes figuring out what the families and students in the district need to move to in person instruction. As I mentioned in the last board meeting it is my understanding that many high school students want to come back to campus but will not under the current conditions. We also need to ensure our Seniors are in this conversation and figure out how we can give those that desire traditional Senior experiences those to the extent possible.
Trustees, to move along the RFP process I updated the document with my proposed changes and emailed it to Dr. Presley. I hope Trustee’s will think of their expectations of this process and bring those tonight so those expectations can also be captured in the RFP. Some of the key considerations I feel Trustees need to weigh in on are:
1. Desired start date for Superintendent, proposed July 1, 2021. Thoughts?
2. Expectations regarding type and frequency of Community/Stakeholder Involvement during process.
3. What does the Board want the firm to do in regard to soliciting stakeholder feedback? (Surveys, Online Forums, in person forums, also how many forums, etc.) At least five (5) forums, one for each high school feeder, thoughts?
4. How does the Board want the firm to work with the District and/or the Board? Independently or with a community committee assigned by the Board to work in conjunction with the firm? Other?
5. How often and what type of communication does the Board want from the firm? In person, virtual, written reports, weekly, bi-weekly, etc.? Do we want them to manage a website and updates (could ask as a option to see what the cost is)?
6. Is there specific information or questions a Trustee would like to have regarding the firm?
7. Category Scoring – What is most important to the Board? How is that reflected in the categories and scoring? My proposal is below (slightly modified from the original RFP).
Firm’s Experience in Providing Executive Recruitment Services (20 pts.)
Strength of Project Team (20 pts.)
Ability to deliver and quality of the scope of worked proposed (15 pts.)
Reference and Reputation (10 pts.)
Philosophy/Method to Recruitment (25 pts.)
Cost of Services (10 pts.)
Total Overall Points 100 pts.Thanks Trustee Weston for starting this discussion. I also feel that I need more education on the process that was used to get to the current point. I have recently asked about community input during this plan and was not fully convinced that the CDF community had enough opportunity to provide input in this decision that will dramatically impact their students. I would also like to know more about the almost $50M price tag and have asked for more information.
I think a Workshop in January is the best path with four new trustees and such an important decision.
TIMELINE – I think the Board needs to lay out the WHOLE timeline for this process of hiring a Superintendent not just the RFP for the firm. What is the date the Board wants a Superintendent in place and then back the dates of the RFP out to ensure the Board meets that goal. This final date should also be included in the RFP and firms should respond if they have the bandwidth to met our date.
RFP PROCESS – The way I have been trained to view an RFP is that it is not for the firm to tell us “what” the Board wants the firm to do but it is for the firm to tell us “how” they can achieve what the Board wants with their resources and skills. It is the responsibility of the RFP developer to articulate and clearly define the “what”. Superintendent searches from everything I have studied are unique to each district with some common components, but each district wants a different process and have unique needs/requirements.
I believe the Board should put together a clear statement of work and expectations so that when the firms create their proposal response, they address the desires and the expected work of the Board. A clear RFP also allows the board to consistently evaluate each firm against our requested work and expectations. For example, the community input expectations can be very wide in scope. If it is not defined how the Board would expect a firm to provide us a cost? One school district I reviewed required their firm to work closely with a district Community Search Committee. If that is something the Board wants then it should be expressed in the RFP otherwise the firm will not know to put that cost in the proposal nor express how they may achieve that work. The proposals the Board gets back eventually will become contractual and it is hard to be told “no” or “we want more money” because it is not in the contract. The cost in the proposal is highly based on the expected amount and type of work so I feel the Board must be clear in our RFP to get good cost estimates. For example, if the Board expects the firm to report to the board weekly, monthly, etc. then the RFP should state this. This type of expectation will drive the cost and it also will become contractual through this process. To get what the Board wants in a search firm I feel the board needs to work toward articulating what the Board wants clearly. I have reviewed other school districts RFP’s for Superintendents (in Texas and other states) and again express they are each unique, so I feel the Board needs to come up with expectations of the hiring process and include them in the RFP. I hope trustees will comment on “what” they expect in the hiring process (type & method of stakeholder input, type & frequency of reporting, Board involvement, Community involvement, expectations and outputs from the firm, Superintendent characteristics, etc.) I tried to capture some of this in the form of questions in my above post but I am sure there are other expectations that I have not thought about.NATIONWIDE FIRMS – If the Board wants national firms to respond to the RFP, then the Board must also ensure the RFP is shared to national networks and posted where those firms can find it our invite them. This is a conversation I feel the Board should have with Mr. Poolman.
Here are my thoughts on the RFP:
I would like to see more details of the expected work in the RFP. This includes:A. Timeline:
o Develop the Superintendent search schedule and timeline
o Recommend method of advertising including publication, frequency and duration, and coordinate advertising. Advertising costs are not to be included in the proposal price.
o Develop application package including requirements, submission, and timelines.
o Ensure process is designed to attract a national pool of highly-qualified and diverse candidates.B. Candidate Selection Criteria:
o Assist the district in defining the leadership needs of the district and in establishing selection criteria for a new superintendent by soliciting input from the School Committee, parents, staff, administration, Town officials, and the community through focus groups, interviews, and an online survey.
o If requested by the district review the current job description for the position of Superintendent of Schools, and recommend revisions subject to School Committee approval.
o Organize, publicize, and facilitate at least four (4) and up to ten (10) focus groups to gather input on the type of leadership to be sought from the next Superintendent from all stakeholders in the community, including, but not limited to, school department employees, (including educators), elected and appointed town government officials, parents, students, community partners, and other interested residents of RRISD.
o Conduct an online survey approved by the district to collect broad community input for those not able to attend or not invited to a specific focus group.
o Provide the background check process you will use on every one of the semi-finalists.
o Describe how you collect information from candidate references and what you do to gather information beyond formal references. How will you be able to assess candidates’ working styles and personalities? How do you assess each candidate’s ability to work with this board and how will you convey that to us?I would like the categories for scoring to possibly be:
a. Methodology and Networking Strategy for Recruitment
b. Ability and Capacity to Deliver the quality of the scope of work proposed
c. References and reputation including timeliness
d. Experience with similarly sized school systems (over 35,000 students)
e. Ability to conduct a community process that provides useful guidance to the board
f. Cost of the searchGeneral information I would like to see requested on/with the RFP:
1) Conflict of Interest questionnaire2) A list of specific questions. This list comes from another ISD in Texas but edited for what I think would be helpful to us.
a. Please explain in detail your methodology for determining which RRISD stakeholders from which to solicit input.
b. Please explain your methodology for soliciting input from the selected stakeholder groups.
c. A weekly status report is required of the selected search firm by the Board reporting search activities and status of deliverables of the previous week and the progress as related to the entire project timeline. Please provide a sample report you might provide for one week of a hypothetical search.
d. Please specify your firm’s method(s) for recruiting and/or soliciting potential candidates for the superintendent. (e.g. local vs. national; receiving applications vs. actively recruiting employed, successful candidates)
e. Do you propose to determine and recommend the desired characteristics RRISD needs in a superintendent and if so, what methodologies do you propose to employ toward that end?
f. The Board of trustees plans to seat a new superintendent as soon as it is practicable. The desire is to have a new superintendent in place by TBD 2021. Please comment on the efficacy of this proposed timeline and describe how your firm would work toward that end. If you feel the timeline should be altered, please propose a timeline you feel is more appropriate for RRISD.
g. How will or should internal RRISD candidates’ process be different from external candidates?
h. How do you propose to communicate with the Board during the search and selection process? (e.g. face to face, video conference, frequency, as a group or individually)
i. How and when do you propose the Board communicate with candidates and references?
j. How do you propose to conduct the initial introduction of the candidates to the Board? (e.g. resume, recorded video, video conference, etc.)
k. What are your expectations of the Board as related to your proposed search method(s)? (You may propose multiple methodologies if desired.)
l. How do you determine how much Board involvement is appropriate and when and how they should be directly or indirectly involved in the process?
m. What is the proposed group and individual tasks required of the Board during the process? Please provide a timeline if applicable.
n. Please list the longevity of all placements of school superintendents since 2000 and if they moved, where and if you know, why they moved?
o. Describe your firm’s non-traditional superintendent placements and the percent of your practice in non-traditional placements.
p. List the non-sitting superintendent placements done by this firm in the last five years.
q. If the superintendent did not work out, what was the firm’s response and responsibility? What percentage of the firm’s placements lasted less than a year? Please list those over the past five years.
r. What is the firm’s process for recruiting candidates who do not apply? What is the percentage of districts over the past five years where the firm has placed superintendents who did not apply for the job?
s. What is the number of superintendent searches your firm completed for Texas school districts in the past 12 months?
t. What is the number of superintendent searches your firm completed for school districts with enrollment more than 35,000?
u. How many employees does your firm currently employ and how long have you been performing superintendent searches?
v. What percentage of your firm’s revenue comes from superintendent search placement? (Is this your primary business?)
w. List your experience in developing surveys for targeted groups (faculty, staff, parents, faith-based community groups, etc.).
x. What are the qualifications of the employee(s) from your firm who will be reviewing and ranking the qualifications of the applicants?
y. We are requesting that the superintendent search firm host community forum meetings. (morning, evening, and weekend) Would your firm have the resources to accommodate this request?
z. List your capabilities to perform social media screening, credit searches, and background checks.I agree that the COVID Discussion agenda topic must be added to the Thursday Dec. 17th meeting. I would not expect a formal presentation from staff, but an update posted with the agenda addressing the two items President Weir mentioned above would suffice for me. I would like the trustees to continue our conversation, the COVID priorities are a high priority for me.
