OFFICIAL MINUTES FROM THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING OF THE
The Board of Trustees for the
Present: Dr. Douglas Watson, Chairperson, Henrietta Williams, Vice-Chairperson; *Brenda Gullett, Secretary; Andrew Tolbert, Board Member; Beth Gray, Board Member; Johnny McGehee, ASB Parent Representative; Jim Hill, ASB Superintendent; Dr. Marcella Dalla Rosa, ASD Superintendent; Katie Becker, Zania Musteen, Interpreters
*Brenda Gullett was present via teleconference.
Absent: Brett Ketchum, ASD Parent Representative
Call to Order
Dr. Watson called the meeting to order at
07-J-008 Motion to Approve Consent Items
Dr. Watson asked for a motion to approve the Consent Items. Mrs. Williams made the motion to approve the Consent Items and Mr. Tolbert seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion Item
Drug Policy
Mr. Hill said that the Drug Policy is ready and thought it would be best to discuss it in the Joint Meeting and then vote on it during the each school’s agendas. Dr. Watson asked if everyone received the update that Dr. Dalla Rosa sent out. Copies were given to those members who had not received the updated copy and time was taken to read over the policy at that time. The changes to the policy were printed in red ink.
Dr. Dalla Rosa said that the schools worked together on the drug policy and then it was shared with Amy Ford, Office of the Attorney General and the changes she suggested are printed in red. The original policy stated that pre-employment drug testing be done only for external applicants. Ms. Ford told the superintendents that either the test be done for everyone or no one, and that change was made in the policy. The reasonable cause is still in the policy and the random is only for those who hold a commercial driver’s license. Ms. Ford also told the superintendents that the schools did not want to approve a rehab program and that it only has to be proven that the employee successfully completed a program. Those were the two changes Ms. Ford suggested.
Board of Trustees Meeting
Joint Session
Page 1 of 3
Mr. Hill said he has been told if there is a policy to be approved and there are three agendas, Joint and two individual school agendas, the motion for approval should be included in the individual school’s minutes.
Mr. Tolbert referred to the section If Selectee Disagrees with Findings, which deals with if the second test comes back negative and states that the superintendent may either accept the second result or have a third test performed. He asked at what point would the superintendent want a third test if the second test is negative and has been done by a lab certified by National Institute of Drug Abuse. Mr. Hill said that he believes that the thinking was if there was one positive and one negative result, either one could be incorrect and, in order to be conclusive, a third test could be done. Mr. Tolbert said he is not against it, but from the employee’s perspective, if the employee did what he was told to do and the test results was negative, and then the employer had it tested again and it shows positive, the employee could say the employer is trying to get him. He felt this could pose a legal problem. Mrs. Gullett said she agrees with Mr. Tolbert and that most likely there will be a false/positive before a false/negative. She felt if the result comes out negative, there should be no need to go further. Dr. Dalla Rosa asked if the policy should state that the result of the second test will be considered conclusive. Mr. Tolbert suggested that they meet with Amy Ford to be sure that the second test is sent to a lab that is certified by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. It was decided that the policy should state that the results of the second test will be considered conclusive.
Johnny McGehee – A.S.B. Parent Representative
Nothing to report at this meeting.
A.S.D. Report
Dr. Watson reported that the Alumni met two days at A.S.D. early in July, and one day at the Peabody Hotel. He said it was a very successful meeting.
Superintendent Evaluation
Dr. Watson asked Mr. Tolbert for his thoughts about the evaluation form. Mr. Tolbert said that he is not familiar with the evaluation form and suggested letting the superintendents discuss it.
Mr. Hill said that the state developed a plan to give raises to all state employees and, characteristically, superintendents and directors of agencies do not get that raise. However, the state has set it up so that all employees will get a 1.5%, 3%, or 4.5% increase based on their evaluation and superintendents and directors were included to receive raises. Mr. Hill referred to the handout regarding performance evaluation guidelines and discussed the information. He said the information points out the chairman
as the lead person for the evaluations and Dr. Watson has
expressed that all of the board
members fill out the evaluation form for the
superintendents. Lengthy discussion of the
Board of Trustees Meeting
Joint Session
Page 2 of 3
evaluation and how to score the evaluation took place. Dr. Watson asked that the evaluations be returned to him prior to the August board meeting.
Mr. Tolbert said he thinks the evaluation form is good but thinks it is too vague. He said that he does not feel comfortable rating the superintendents on some of the categories because he has not had the opportunity to observe the superintendents in certain capacities. Mr. Hill said he thinks the evaluation is based on what can be observed from the board members vantage point. Mrs. Gullett asked who has requested the forms and Mr. Hill said the forms were created by OPM. Mr. Hill explained that he and Marcella could qualify for the 4.5%, 3%, or 1% increase, based on the board’s evaluation and before they can qualify for the raise, the board must complete the evaluation. Lengthy discussion took place regarding the pros and cons of the board completing the evaluation form for the superintendents. Mr. Hill said the board can develop their own evaluation form but OPM only wants to know how the board rates the superintendents in the areas they have listed. Stan Bryant said it is his understanding the governor indicated the governor wanted something simple and the evaluation was designed for directors throughout the state. He said it is his understanding that the board cannot design their own form.
Mrs. Williams said that the board developed, or agreed on, an evaluation form about a year ago and this form might be used as a guideline when completing the OPM form. Dr. Watson said he was told by a former board member that the board had developed an evaluation tool. Mr. Hill said that form was in the discussion stage but it was never developed or approved. After discussion the board members agreed they would do their best to complete the superintendent’s evaluation. Mr. McGehee asked how the parent representatives are affected by the evaluation process since they are not voting members. Dr. Watson said that the representatives can articulate any concerns they want to share with the board members. The evaluations need to be submitted to personnel by September 1. Mr. Tolbert suggested that the board go into executive session at the next meeting, discuss the evaluations as a group, and come up with a rating. Dr. Watson will not be physically present at the next meeting, but will participate via teleconference.
There being no further business of a Joint nature, the
meeting moved to the
__________________________________
Dr. Douglas Watson, Chairperson
___________________________________
Brenda Gullett, Secretary
Board of Trustees Meeting
Joint Session
Page 3 of 3