Superintendent search, consultant services, school attorney, technology/integration position, negotiations on agenda
The opening item on the agenda for the special meeting of the Butterfield-Odin Public School (B-OPS) School Board on Monday, January 11, returned to the discussion of the resolution passed at the board’s Monday, December 21 regular monthly meeting authorizing for a superintendent search and the hiring of a consultant service to assist in the search, as well as help the board plan for the 2016-2017 school year.
The resolution approved at that meeting opened up a one-half time superintendent position, beginning on July 1, 2016 – or as soon as the post is filled. It additionally authorized B-OPS School Board Chair Joel Penner to take any and all necessary and proper action to begin the search for an individual to fill the position, although no one will be hired until approved by a vote of the school board.
The second part of the resolution also authorized Chair Penner to search for and arrange for a consultant service to assist the board and plan for the 2016-2017 school year. That part of the resolution included language that such a consultant would perform services for the school district up to two days per week from the time the position is assumed until on or about June 30, 2016. It was stipulated in the resolution that no consultant would be hired until approved by the school board.
(At the school board’s October regular monthly meeting, the majority on the board moved to approve a resolution for the non-renewal of B-OPS Superintendent Lisa Shellum’s contract – and curriculum duties. Following a closed meeting with Shellum in November, it was decided, again by a vote of the majority, that Shellum did not present enough evidence to overturn the board’s earlier decision. The decision for non-renewal was reiterated by a board vote at the December 21 board meeting.)
School Board Director Kristy Haseman opened the discussion by sharing that she has many questions on the resolution, including its wording. “From what I was told, public schools don’t use consultant services.” She added that the verbage in the resolution was too broad, and that, “There is no cost for a consultant service in the resolution. I am concerned about the cost for a consultant. Why is one needed? Why not work with the administration already in place? Why just the board chair? What is the purpose? Why are we giving the board chair such authority? Did School Attorney Kevin Rupp instruct things to be done this way? What is the plan?”
Board Chair Penner responded that the cost of, and the reasons why, a consultant service was being looked at was answered at the December 21 board meeting. “We want to create a viable school; one where all kids get a good education.”
“How are we going to do that?,” questioned Haseman, “Hire all new staff? I am proud of our staff.”
Board Treasurer Andy Pierson replied to Haseman’s question about the cost of hiring a consultant with the speculative statement, “I imagine it would be similar to how we hired the interim superintendent.”
Penner summed up his duties as the board chair with, “I am just gathering applications, starting the search. It is up to you guys to hire or not.”
Tammy Wolle, Board Secretary, in response to Haseman’s questions and concerns over the passing of the resolution at the earlier board meeting, referred to an e-mail she had received from Haseman. In it, Wolle shared that Haseman had written that once a vote had been taken on a motion, and a decision made, it was time to move on, with Wolle noting that the decision had been made.
Superintendent Shellum interjected that she had never head of a consultant service being hired to help a school board plan ahead for a new school year. “Why is this necessary if it is to be a public school? Public schools have administration to do that.”
“Will you guarantee,” Haseman followed, “that nothing will be done until you (Penner) come before us with firm figures and plans on which to vote; that there is no secretive planning; that the process is open to the public?”
Following the discussion over the previously-approved resolution, Haseman presented the motion, seconded by Board Director Renae Meyer, to rescind the resolution authorizing for a superintendent search and hiring of consultant services, as passed at the December 21, 2015 meeting. That motion failed on a 4-2 vote. Voting against the proposal were Penner, Wolle, Pierson and Board Vice-Chair Leon Wenner, while Haseman and Meyer voted in favor. Board Director Diane Peterson abstained from the vote.
The next item on the agenda was a motion presented by Meyer, and seconded by Haseman, to terminate the services, effective immediately, of School District Attorney Kevin Rupp of the firm Rupp, Anderson, Squires and Waldspurger.
In discussion on the motion, Pierson requested that the reasons for those wanting to terminate Rupp’s services be presented in writing in order for board members to study those reasons, and that the vote on the motion be postponed until the next board meeting.
Peterson echoed Pierson’s request for more time to consider board actions. “I would like the board to return to when we would receive information in our board packet at one meeting to be considered for a vote at the next meeting. I need time to think about these things.”
Board members unanimously agreed to postpone this decision until statements from those proposing the termination be presented to be studied.
The school district received one applicant for the technology/integrationist position, and, after discussion, the motion made by Peterson, seconded by Haseman, to hire Steve Christianson for the post at a salary of $34,000 for an 11-month contract (January-June and August-December of each year) was tabled until the next meeting by unanimous vote.
Christianson is already a bus driver for the district, and the new position would include those duties, along with computer maintenance and assistance for technology use in the classroom, as well as keyboarding instructor.
Wenner requested more clarification in the contract and job descriptions, wondering what percentage would be technology, what percentage teaching and what percentage as bus driver.
As it is a new position in the district, the board decided to postpone this agenda item.
The meeting was then closed for negotiations/labor strategy pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.03.
This special meeting was called by members Romsdahl, Meyer and Peterson.
The next regular meeting of the B-OPS School Board will be Thursday, January 21, beginning at 6 p.m. Board organization for the next year will be included on the agenda.
