Special Session School Board Meeting

This is for the special session tonight:

Listening Session

OPEB Funding Bond - An easier way to tax?

At the working session last night, they spent a lot of time talking with financial advisors about OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefits) funding bonds. In a nutshell, the state has given the School Board permission to fund OPEB out of bonds. The payment of the bonds comes out of an increase in property taxes. As Steve Antolak pointed out last night, the State has basically given the School Board permission to raise taxes without the need for voters to weigh in. In a way, it could be seen as a backhanded way by the State of increasing taxes through the School Districts. So, the payment of the benefits ends up coming out of new tax dollars thereby freeing up more money in the general fund -- around $1.3 million per year if I am understanding everything correctly. (Those that know more about these things, feel free to weigh in as it was a very complex meeting.)

The one confusing aspect to the discussions around certain budgetary models for the coming year is that it also removes the need to make any cuts during the coming 2008/09 school year. This would indicate to me that there was more than $1.3 million.

Here are a few advantages and disadvantages that I gleaned from the discussion.

Advantages to OPEB

In a contentious polling season, the District does not have to go to the polls to increase funding.

It takes far less work to implement than running a costly campaign for a levy.

It appears to potentially solve the budget crisis for this coming year. Since the budget and expenses are very fluid, it would potentially alleviate the need to make cuts this coming year. It makes the budget more manageable. Therefore, it would put off the need to get a levy until next year rather than during an election year.

Nearly every School District in the state is doing it, because it offers even more significant relief to other districts. (I'm not sure we want to do it just because everyone else is.)

During the discussion last night it was pointed out that this is something that the State might take away next year. The reasons for taking it away centered around it potentially costing the State more (it really doesn't cost the State anything -- unless you view this from a political perspective and voters understand this is just a tax by the State in disguise.). This really isn't a reason to do it, but it was pointed out.

Disadvantages

It is a tax.

Doing OPEB might very easily results in even less of a chance that a levy would pass.

Although it solves the immediate budget shortage, I do not believe it is as much as a full levy.

These are just my initial notes -- please chime in with corrections or additions.

Live Blog

Court Update

I just received additional information.

There were 25 documents. HOWEVER, I was just notified that the documents are actually thousands of pages. So, the 25 PDF documents contain thousands of documents within the PDFs.

Imagine receiving what looks like 25 normal PDF files only to find that the files are thousands and thousands of pages long. They are also not searchable. As a result, Joe has to go through each page one at a time to find any information. There are also no document breaks and you can't order the documents by date.

If anyone has seen the Rainmaker, which is a John Grisham novel that was made into a movie, this is similar to the scene where the insurance company dumps a truck load of paper documents at his door step.

Ouch.

Court Update

I've dug through quite a few of the publicly available affidavits and court orders on the request for public data by Joe Shoult from the District. I also talked with Joe today to find out whether the District provided the documents.

How much did Joe receive? Was it provided to Joe in a reasonable fashion?

First, a few facts from the June 3, 2008 affidavit:

---

57,000 potentially responsive emails were gathered.

"As part of the School District's attorneys' review, it was discovered today (June 3, 2008) that as a result of a software glitch, only 43,000 of these documents have been printed. The consultant has been contacted and has informed the School District's attorneys that the printing of the remaining 14,000 emails will begin today."

This appears to mean that all of the emails are being printed and then hand reviewed rather than reviewed electronicly -- a huge, huge waste of money not to mention paper resources. Given that emails are approximately 2.5 pages on average, the total number of pages for the 57,000 emails would be around 142,500. A standard box of paper is around 2,500 pages. So, this would be 57 BOXES of paper. Electronically, this would fit on a thumb drive! I work in the legal discovery world and know that these can be reviewed and redacted electronically, saving a significant amount of time and money.

Of the 43,000 printed, 34% were determined to be unresponsive and will not be provided.

No indication as to how the emails were determined to be unresponsive.

"Subsequent to the initial review, this office began a more exhaustive review of the documents. As of this date, the School District's attorneys have reviewed approximately an additional eight percent (8%) of the pages representing the 43,000 printed emails. During this review it has been established that approximately fifty percent (50%) of these documents are responsive."

Let me take a stab at this: The law firm reviewed 3,440 emails (8% of the printed population), of which 1,720 emails (50%) are responsive.

What is not clear is that if the 34% were removed before the 8% were reviewed or not -- the law firm indicated that it was "subsequent to the initial review", which was what? Oh well, that is my best guess.

The District has a very broad definition of any private data. "Many of the emails were sent by parents with children in the School District. Data that identifies the parent is classified as non public private educational data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subd. 2(c). Any data maintained by a school district that relates to a student, which would include email documents, constitutes non public private educational data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subd. 1(a). Consequently this data must be redacted from any responsive email documents."

This definition means that nearly 99% of the responsive data has information that the District believes must be redacted.

Here are some facts from subsequent affidavits and court orders:

The judge ordered all data to be given to Joe by 5 p.m. today, June 15, 2008.

On Friday, June 13, 2008, the District subsequently requested a conference call with the judge and explained how they are working on the request and their progress to-date, but could not meet the timeline. They requested an extension and also indicated that the District would put off a vote on the 2008-09 budget until July 1. The District would turn over all materials on June 28. However, the District would provide the materials that they had compiled already by 5 p.m. today (June 15).

The District will provide the materials on June 28, which leaves 2 days for review before the final budget vote on July 1. The District had months to review the documents and Joe gets 2 days.

---

So, that brings us to the original questions: How many emails were turned over today? The District and Knutson (the District law firm) indicated on June 3, 2008 that they had reviewed 1,720 emails that were responsive. Given an additional week or two they probably reviewed more, right? So, let's say an even 2,000 just to be very, very conservative.

A DVD was delivered to Joe Shoult today. 25 PDFs were on the DVD. Only 25 emails/PowerPoints total were delivered today!

So, did the District provide it in a reasonable manner? The PDFs are not searchable, which is a rather reasonable item to request. The District through Knutson uses NightOwl for producing the responsive documents. NightOwl could have OCRed the images going into the PDFs and made them searchable. Remember, as it stands right now, Joe gets 2 days to review unsearchable PDFs prior to the July 1 vote.

If there is nothing to hide, why is the District working so hard not to provide anything to Joe? I was really, really hoping to build up confidence in the District again by them simply saying, "We have nothing to hide and although this is laborious, we would be more than happy to turn over the documents in a reasonable format."?

If there is nothing wrong here, one must wonder: why take on these tactics?

Court Update from FINS

Families Involved In Neighborhood Schools (FINS) is involved in requesting more information from our School District. They had a court hearing on Tuesday. Here is there statement:

===
The complaint filed against ISD 279 was heard Tuesday in Hennepin County Court. The result was positive and a big first step in the right direction. Among the action taken by the Judge was a mandate that the district file affidavits by the end of the day Tuesday outlining how, and when, the data will be produced. The Judge questioned what and how much data the district had compiled since the original request more than three months ago in February. The Judge did not seem at all interested in hearing excuses for why the data has not been produced, but rather, when we will see results.

We will pass along updates as we have them. Thanks for your support.
===

It is disappointing that the District continues to fight this rather than turn over the documents or even a portion of the documents.

Michael Thomas Redux

As discussed in the District 279 United group and amongst parents, there are a number of questions surrounding the hiring of Michael Thomas as a Junior High Principal.  Due to the timing of the hiring decision, it appears to some as though Michael Thomas advocated for a highly controversial Administration proposal, sold out his elementary school, and then was rewarded by being hired as the Junior High Principal.

Was this just a case of bad timing?  Or, did he play his political cards just right?

I spoke with Richard Melvin the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for the District.  What follows is a summary of the situation based on Richard's comments:

After the former Junior High Principal resigned part-way through the year. The first decision was to either hire an Interim Principal or mount a full search immediately for a replacement.  If the District mounted a full applicants because few administrators are looking at switching positions or looking for new jobs part-way through the school year.  As a result, the administration made the decision to hire an interim principal and look for a new principal starting in the Winter and ending in the Spring.  This decision, made prior to the controversial proposal involving closing schools and redrawing boundaries, drove the ultimate schedule.  It appears to be unfortunate that the final decision landed where it did.

Here is an overview of what I understand to be the process:

•  Around January 30, a group of parents, teachers and staff built a leadership profile.  The profile contained over 4 pages of comments distilled down to three areas.  Those areas were very loosely defined as having teaching experience, having secondary school experience, and having experience with minorities.  This step is done each time a significant hiring decision is undertaken.  Most of the time, the participants come back wanting someone directly experienced at the particular level.
  
  
•  24 applicants applied by February 22. Michael Thomas submitted his application on the final date.
  
  
•  The 13 people were interviewed by System Leadership (stakeholders in the hiring decision).  These are preliminary interviews and ended by March 7, 2008.
  
  
•  Six candidates were interviewed by Kate Maguire and Richard Melvin using a behavioral based tool.  (Asking questions about how a candidate has previous handled difficult situation.  This interviewing technique has a greater statistical correlation to a successful candidate.  I personally use this interview methodology as well.)
  
  
•  Six of those candidates made it through and were interviewed by 16 Site Stakeholders.  The Site Stakeholders performed an advisory role.  They were not asked for a ranking, although they may have provided a ranking. [Actually they were confirmed to have NOT provided a ranking.]  Their primary function was to provide general feedback concerning each candidate as the candidates attributes related to the Leadership Profile written in January.  The District views this interview process as only a single snapshot in a photo album.  The District has considerably more information on each candidate and uses this feedback as one component.
  
  
•  3 candidates make it to the final round and are interviewed by the Cabinet.  The Cabinet is comprised of individuals selected by Superintendent Hintz.
  

That summarizes the process as I understand it from Richard.

As previously discussed on various email discussions and on this blog, it was believed that the Site Stakeholders had all of the information necessary for making the hiring decision and ranked the candidates. However, the District is indicating that the Site Stakeholders only had a portion of the information and that the decision was made based on all of the information, including candidate potential.

One source of mine confirmed that at least two of the parents involved in the process believed that Michael Thomas was a very distant third, at best.  However, he did make the cut into the final group.  There is antidotal evidence that I do not have time to verify that quite a few of the members of the staff at the Junior High are quite upset about the hiring decision.  (Email me if you can verify this.)

Did Michael Thomas sell out his school for a better Principal role?

The process as I understand it does not insure that he did not.  The process of selecting a Junior High Principal overlapped the discussion of a highly controversial proposal.

Is he the best person for the job?

Michael Thomas made it though all steps in the process.  The final step is impossible for us to evaluate.  After all, wouldn't you hire someone that supports your own controversial plans?  Sure.  We want people that believe in the same ideas that we have on our team.  However, it appears all too coincidental at times.

The bottom line is that we will never know for sure.  It is unfortunate that the process took place when it did.  Had it taken place earlier, then the community would have known where Michael Thomas stood long before the controversial proposal.