Attendees: Elaine Carpenter, Robin Freeman, Chris Hogan, Peg Stewart, Kim Johnson-Lesny, Ben Langelier, Barb Murphy, Tom Walsh, Lisa Delorme, Mike Clarke, Bruce Chattman

Peg called the special meeting to order at 9:00am

The Board entered executive session (personnel) at 9:03am.

Exited executive session at 9:25am. No action was taken.

The special meeting resumed open session at 9:26am.

There was discussion around the recent break-in at the school and many in the community. A number of concerns were raised around keys to the building; the entire facility was re-keyed two years ago. It was suggested that the school reach out to the Sherriff’s Department. Right now they are understaffed and there hasn’t been a lot of response to resolve these issues. There was a question regarding the hiring of a School Resource Officer. This is something that was discussed in the past but no recent cost analysis has been done. Mike added that also the SAP grant is not going to be funded this year so there will be a shift of those services to the Guidance Department. There would be some advantages to this kind of position. This is a conversation that we can have and look at costs. Bruce noted that the Officer in Winooski it cost around $60,000. You have to have the right person in this role to make the program effective. There was discussion around further cameras to monitor the facility and parking lots. Tom added that the State Police will come immediately if you ask which is good. Bruce mentioned that this is a good time for Principals to emphasize this incident with the staff and remind them not to prop doors open, etc. and consider the safety of the school. Peg and Robin noted that it is not just staff but coaches and community members using the building. Custodians and Principals have been following-up with people who violate the policy. Robin noted that people have been ignoring these notices and he has seen people propping doors open etc. Bruce noted that this is a problem with many schools. He asked the board for direction around how strict the administration should be enforcing the policy. Tom added that although there are issues, things are much improved over the past when evenings at the school were chaotic. There is more control and custodians are able to do their work, etc. Barb noted that you want the school to be open and welcoming as well as safe. There needs to be more communication. Robin asked if these expectations are clear in the building use form. Tom noted that this is clearly laid out.

K-12 Dress Code – Discussion

Peg asked for discussion around enforcement of the dress code particularly in warm weather. This is not just for administrators, but all staff as well. There needs to be fair enforcement. Ben noted that it has depended on who the student is on whether the policy is enforced. Elaine noted that this is a very challenging area. Mike noted that this is an interesting situation and he shared a document that he created outlining the dress code. He shared that what is interesting in transitioning to BFA is that in Colchester he has a 4 paragraph page vs. a single paragraph. He noted that a lot of things in the handbook are open. Fairfax’s discipline model is around expectations of student responsibility rather than enforcing rules. Colchester was much more defined. Fairfax has less specific rules and more emphasis on students taking responsibility as an overarching principle. Finding the balance can be a challenge. Ben shared that the students feel that they can try to see how much they can get away with and it is more about who they are than what they are wearing regarding how they are treated. Kim shared that the more specific the guidelines, the better, since it is a sensitive issue. Ben added that it is more that some teachers enforce dress and some don’t. Tom cited that case law is more and more ruling that schools are creating the substantial disruption not the student. Bruce noted that we are always looking at a smaller group since the vast majority is following the rule. Put it into perspective. Elaine noted that we need to treat all students with fairness and so that students like Ben are not saying a year from now that some students are treated one way and others are treated differently

Student Parking – Discussion

Mike shared that he has been researching student parking at BFA. Last year, students paid for parking and later in the year were reimbursed. He asked for the board for guidance around how they believe parking should be conducted at BFA. It did not appear that space was an issue in the past. He is willing to go either way, but he suggested that if there is paid parking then spaces need to be numbered and students are assigned and then setup a fine system for those parked in wrong spaces and students can report violations. The system in place last year did not work well and the same results will occur. Robin shared that there was issues with faculty or students parking in visitor spots and that issue seems to be resolved. Before last year it appears that people parked everywhere. With a numbered system, students do the enforcing and they reported it so that staff can follow the "$25/$50/Tow" fine system. Any time there was a parking violation, parents were notified. Peg noted that she has researched that the land adjacent to the tennis courts and it could be developed into a parking lot without any permitting, etc. Ben noted that there will be 111 seniors this year.

Bruce suggestion is that the Board let Mike decide how to address this issue and let him work with the students to see how to resolve it. Let him assess the situation first. The first piece is rules and enforcement of parking rules before charging a fee. Elaine added that some of the issues are around parents dropping off children and cars stopped in the middle of the traffic flow etc. There have not been accidents but that situation is dangerous. The Board agreed to let Mike handle it and bring back a report in October.

Mike introduced the possibility for a member to member agreement between two schools to allow students to participate in sports activities that are not available at the local school. He provided details. The schools under consideration are Lamoille Union High School, He met with Mike Brown and the coach and had some discussions. They agreed that it would be just JV Football and 4 only 4 member players. The MTM agreement makes sense for kids and would not be a loss for BFA students. Lamoille has helped us out with the lacrosse program and it would be a way to partner with them. Bruce has asked Mike to double-check on the VPA rules. The agreement requires board approval and we would have to follow the rules whatever they are. If the board would like to move forward, they can sign the paperwork and the next regular meeting. The board agreed.

�@

Elaine Carpenter introduced Laura Soares who has served as a school board member in Randolph for the past16 years and has been with the VSBA for the last 10 years.

Laura Soares shared a presentation on the Policy Governance model. Currently 14 school boards and 8 Supervisory Unions in Vermont use this model. It is a work in progress and the process of implementation has been fairly consistent across these groups although the specifics may very.

The Policy Governance empowers school boards to understand themselves as governors of the district. They are the owners. Laura described how the model is adapted specifically to school boards. The board goes "first" and "last". It lays out the desired end results and holds the Superintendent accountable for progress. In this model only the Superintendent is held accountable by the board as a single point of contact. Other staff are procured and managed by the Superintendent. She explained that the "means" and the "how" of the process.

One important piece of the model is that the Board sets executive limitations for the Superintendent on what he/she can NOT do rather than detailing what IS permissible. This empowers the Superintendent to act and frees the Board to focus on end results and outcomes and hear only that the Superintendent has stayed within limitations and is making progress toward the ends established by the Board. There is a mindset of delineation of responsibility. The Board has to decide what is going to be for the superintendent and what will be for the Board’s jurisdiction. It emphasizes what cannot be done and everything else is open for the Superintendent to determine within his professional duties. With this model everything gets delegated to the Superintendent and he/she hires/fires the rest of the staff. With this model, the Board is not deciding whether to hire a teacher or interviewing principals – they give the Superintendent the authority to make these decisions based on his/her own process and expertise within legal parameters.

The Code of Ethics is part of a broader role of the Board. This is very important.