October 26, 2006 Board Meeting

Special Meeting - October 26, 2006
12:00 PM Midtown Center Meeting Room

MINUTES

At 12:05 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Chair, Vern Newby. Also present were Edie Brooks, Christie Wood, Sid Fredrickson and Diane Zipperer.

Chair Newby began by stating this would be a workshop-type of meeting to share information. He thanked members of the IEA and CEA for bringing Proposition 1 forward, especially in light of limited state funding. He also thanked Michelle Williams for her efforts with this campaign.

Mrs. Wood spoke in favor of Proposition 1 saying that the State should chip away at the amount of money needed for corrections in favor of education; and while it’s not going to be an easy fix; it’s time to head that direction as a State. Mrs. Brooks hopes that as a Board, this Proposition could be supported. It’s time to let the legislature know that we want more money earmarked for education. This is a way to begin a dialogue with legislators and find money in the budget without harming other public services. This sends a message to the State that now is the time to do this.

Mr. Fredrickson took exception to the recent Spokesman-Review editorial regarding “balloting without budgeting”. The number one natural resource in this country is our children and we must improve for their sake. He feels the money is there or can be there. Will it have an impact on our citizens; yes, but the time has come. If sanctions continue to be in place because of No Child Left Behind along with increased math and science requirements, funding will be necessary. Mrs. Zipperer agrees and wants to see a campaign that informs voters that this does not add an additional 1 percent to the current sales tax. She asked Michelle Williams if there is some sense of where the equivalent amount will come from. Michelle responded that the original intent was not to take sales tax to 7 percent. The voters should have a voice when determining where this money will come from. Mrs. Brooks said she would not want to see an increase to 7%. Instead look at reducing some of the current exemptions. One example might be non-producing agricultural lands.

Chair Newby read an e-mail he received from Senator John Goedde. A portion of the response states that Proposition 1 does not give clear picture of what funding source would pay the additional funds needed and also that the current legislators cannot obligate future legislators. Chair Newby shared some statistics he found about student funding in Idaho vs. other states. In order to be world class, additional funding is necessary. If we paid doctors like we pay teachers, our health care system would be failing. He still has problems with details of the initiative and is concerned that it will cause considerable amount of commotion at the legislative level and especially about district requirements and validation of how funds are expended. That process could be time consuming. If the proposition is passed, will it be significantly changed between now and the year 2020? Once a district has applied funds to a particular category, are they obligated to fund the same category each year? Michelle Williams responded that it is at the local district’s discretion. As the needs of a district will change year to year, funds can be flexible and that’s the beauty of it.

Mr. Fredrickson stated that schools listed as “needing improvement” are due to test results of a specific population. We are not able to retain teachers and resources as needed to address these student populations. Assistant Superintendent Hazel Bauman agreed and said that programs and/or staff may need to be moved in order to supplement “schools needing improvement.” Mr. Fredrickson agrees that this will be a burden but feels the legislature has other methods of funding. Mrs. Wood agrees with an earlier remark by Mrs. Brooks that adjustments can be made regarding exemptions. Mr. Newby hopes the state legislature will maintain the “rainy day” fund. Mrs. Wood feels the proposition calls the legislature to task and directs them to find ways of funding. Mrs. Brooks felt strongly that the most needy citizens and primary homeowners should not have to pay for the initiative.

Superintendent Harry Amend commended Board members about speaking publicly to this issue. Our district sees 40% of kids who qualify for free and reduced lunch. Public schools are the great equalizer and our job is student success. High school reform is right around the corner and resources will be necessary. Proposition 1 gives taxpayers a voice.

Mr. Newby supports the position. Motion by Mr. Fredrickson, second by Mrs. Brooks to adopt position of support for Proposition 1, passed 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

Vernon L. Newby, Chair
Board of Trustees

Lynn M. Towne, Clerk
Board of Trustees

Home