Ad Hoc Community Partnerships Committee Madison Metropolitan School District

MINUTES – November 12, 2012 Board of Education

Ad Hoc Community Partnerships Committee Madison Metropolitan School District

Page 1

Madison Metropolitan School District

Madison, Wisconsin

Jane Belmore, Interim Superintendent

BOARD OF EDUCATION

MINUTES—AD HOC COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS COMMITTEE

(Board action in italics)

The Ad Hoc Community Partnerships Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Beth Moss at 6:43 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:Maya Cole, Beth Moss, Arlene Silveira

MEMBERS ABSENT:None

STAFF PRESENT:Jane Belmore, Joe Gothard, Steve Hartley, Dylan Pauly, KathyPrice, Marcia Standiford, BarbaraLehman—Recording Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:Board Members Mary Burke, James Howard, Ed Hughes, Marj Passman

1.PUBLIC APPEARANCES

There were no public appearances.

2.APPROVAL OF Minutes dated November 12, 2012

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Maya Cole to approve the minutes from the Ad Hoc Community Partnerships Committee meeting datedNovember 12, 2012. Motion unanimously carried.

Maya Cole arrived at this time.

3.PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENT OF PARTNERSHIP POLICY AND GUIDELINES--—Appendix OOO-6-5

Mr. Hartley briefly reviewed the changes since the last iteration and provided some partnership examples for how the decision-making matrix would work. He also referred to the latest version of the policy and procedure language and what it does and does not govern.

Committee members did not have any questions or comments on the proposed Guidelines. Ms. Moss noted that this framework strengthens and streamlines the process and tries to get more information up front. Mr. Hartley added that the process attempts to troubleshoot at the beginning.

Committee members provided feedback on the decision-making matrix:

Managers on site will make decisions about whether a medium- or high-category partnership has to fulfill certain criteria. There will be some flexibility between each of thoselines about where it fits.

Both medium- and high-intensity would use a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that also considers scale and scope.

Point at which the Board is engaged for medium- and high-intensity partnership proposals.

• No chance for Board discussion before they enter the schools and no discussion around continuity. Same process as donations that go to the Board, no MOA could be approved without Board approval of the expenditure or for FTE, subject to all district contracting checks and balances. Board may want to set some limits on the MOA policy because the volume could get overwhelming.
• Must think through that we may be creating a bureaucracy that will scare partners away and creates hurdles at the school level.
• Commitment up front is better than after putting in time and work only to get turneddown.
• Board is involved at the initial stage. Written notificationto the Board can includethe medium-intensity as well possibly through the Update. If there are no questions, it moves forward. Adding more language to involve the Board.
• Board automatically approves high-intensity.
• A manager could help people over the hurdleson how to proceed through the districtand also be responsible for ongoing communication with the board.

ChangingBoard policy so this committee becomes a standing committee instead of an ad hoc and wraps into City’s Common Council.

How “surprise” items are handled via the MOA.

Still is not equitable to all schools.

Mary Burke left at this time.

Memorandum of Agreement feedback:

Page22, section 10, last sentence, “It is mutually acknowledged that future funding from the Boys & Girls Club is dependent upon defined student selection, retention and successful program outcomes.”—Working draft, some of the language is still in flux. AVID/TOPs participates in a national program but most partnerships do not. MOA should define how the district and the partner work together. Should ensure that there is good criteria for when a program is stopped that comes under the MOA.

All Human Resources policies would apply to selecting and training personnel.

Other:

If a standing committee is preferred, Board policy would be revised to reflect that and when the Board provided input into the process.

Follow-up:

Administration will work on language responding to committee members’ concerns for the next meeting for the January meeting with a final draft for the February meeting.

Administration will get input from some key district partners, face-to-face.

Committee members were asked to provide additional feedback to Mr. Hartley.

4.DATABASE AND INQUIRY FORM

No additional information was raised.

Follow-up:

Include database and inquiry form in the finished product.

5.NEXT MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION AND AGENDA

Next meeting date--January 7, 2013

6.ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Maya Cole and seconded by Arlene Silveira to adjourn the meeting at 7:30p.m. Motion unanimously carried.

bl