november 22, 2005 regular board meeting · • to establish and instruct the board’s staff and...

1 of 27 – Regular Board Meeting, November 22, 2005

Approved by the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education March 14, 2006 Regular Board Meeting Charlotte, North Carolina November 22, 2005

REGULAR MEETING of the

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education held a Regular Board Meeting on November 22, 2005. The meeting began at 4:45 p.m. and was held in Room 267 of the Government Center.

Present: Joe I. White, Jr., Chairperson; Kit Cramer, Vice Chairperson; Larry Gauvreau (District 1); Vilma D. Leake (District 2); Louise Woods (District 4); Molly Griffin (District 5); and Liz Downing (District 6)

Absent: Kaye McGarry, Member At Large, and

George Dunlap (District 3) Also present at the request of the Board were Dr. Frances Haithcock, Superintendent; Maurice Green, General Counsel to the Board; and Nancy Daughtridge, Clerk to the Board. Upon motion by Ms. Cramer, seconded by Ms. Woods, the Board voted unanimously of those present for approval to go into Closed Session for the following purposes:

• To establish and instruct the Board’s staff and negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the Board in negotiating the price and other material terms of contracts or proposed contracts for the acquisition of real estate property pursuant to Section 143-318.11(a)(5) of the North Carolina General Statutes.

• To consult with its counsel regarding a matter in which it is necessary to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the Board of Education and its attorneys including the case entitled Hearn v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. This motion is made pursuant to Section 143-318.11(a)(3) of the North Carolina General Statutes.

• To hear and discuss a personnel matter pursuant to Sections 115C-319 through 321 and 143-318.11(a)(1), (5), and (6) of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Chairperson White reconvened the Regular Board Meeting at 6:06 p.m. in Room 267 of the Government Center. The meeting was not televised.

Present: Joe White, Chairperson; Kit Cramer, Vice Chairperson; Kaye McGarry, Member At Large;


Larry Gauvreau (District 1); Vilma D. Leake (District 2);

George Dunlap (District 3); Louise Woods (District 4); Molly Griffin (District 5); and Liz Downing (District 6)

Absent: There were no absences

Also present at the request of the Board were Dr. Frances Haithcock, Superintendent; members of the Executive and Senior Staffs; Maurice Green, General Counsel to the Board; and Nancy Daughtridge, Clerk to the Board.

I. C ALL TO ORDER Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. He introduced the new Work Session format that the Board had previously approved for the 4th

Tuesday meeting of each month. This is the pilot for the Work Session and the Board had agreed that this meeting would not be televised. Chairperson White said this was a full agenda and encouraged Board members to stay timely with the agenda.

A. Pledge of Allegiance

Chairperson White called upon Ms. Downing to lead those present in the pledge of allegiance. Following the pledge, Ms. Griffin recognized three boy scouts who were attending the meeting to earn a merit badge. These students attend Alexander Graham Middle School.

B. Adoption of Agenda

Chairperson White requested that the agenda be amended. He asked that Item VI. (Reports from Board Members) be deleted from the agenda. Upon motion by Ms. Griffin, seconded Ms. Downing, that the Board approve the deletion of Item VI. (Reports from Board Members) from the agenda, the Board voted 8-1 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. McGarry, Mr. Gauvreau, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Leake voted against the motion. Chairperson White requested that Item I. C. (Recognition of former District Six Board of Education Representative) be deleted from the agenda because Dr. Lee Kindberg was not available to attend the meeting. Upon motion by Ms. Downing, seconded by Ms. Griffin, that the Board approve the deletion of Item I. C. (Recognition of former District Six Board of Education Representative) from the agenda, the Board voted 9-0 to approve the motion. Mr. Gauvreau requested that an Action item be added to the agenda which would be the discussion of a new school proposal for the acceleration of construction through COPS funding. Chairperson White said if approved, this would be Action Item III. J. Upon motion by Mr. Gauvreau, seconded by Ms. McGarry, that the Board approve


adding Action Item III. J. (Recommend approval of new school construction acceleration through COPs funding) to the agenda, the Board voted 6-3 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. McGarry, Mr. Gauvreau, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, and Ms. Woods voted against the motion. Upon motion by Ms. Griffin, seconded by Ms. McGarry, that the Board approve the agenda as amended, the Board voted 8-1 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. McGarry, Mr. Gauvreau, Ms. Leake, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Dunlap voted against the motion.

C. Recognition of former District Six Board of Education Representative

Item deleted because Dr. Kindberg was unavailable.

II. CONSENT ITEMS

A. Recommend approval of minutes • November 9, 2005 Special Meeting • August 23, 2005 Regular Board Meeting • August 8, 2005 Regular Board Meeting

B. Construction Items 1. Recommend approval of construction contract for Butler High School

C. Recommend approval of requests for student reassignment and release of students to other school districts

D. Recommend approval of supplementary funding request from US Department of Education for Striving Readers Grant for middle school students

Ms. Griffin moved to adopt the Consent Items A. through D., seconded by Ms. Downing, and the Board voted 9-0 to approve the motion.

III. ACTION ITEMS

A. Recommend approval of appointment of administrative personnel

There were no appointments to present.

B. Recommend approval of K-3 class size exception waivers

Chairperson White called upon Dr. Haithcock to present the recommendation. Dr. Haithcock reported that CMS does not require any exception waivers for this year.

C.

Recommend approval of two appointments to the Equity Committee by the Superintendent

Chairperson White called upon Dr. Haithcock to present her two appointments. Mr. Dunlap said Action Items III. C. through III. H. were appointments to the Equity Committee by the Superintendent and several Board members and each person has the responsibility of appointing his/her own designee. He asked that each of the agenda items be approved by acclamation.


Upon motion by Mr. Dunlap that the Board approve by acclamation Action Items III. C., D., E., F., G., and H., seconded by Ms. Cramer, and a discussion followed. Chairperson White said he would support this motion because he had tried to put these items on the Consent Agenda and was not successful. Ms. Griffin said she would support this motion but would like to know the names of the appointments. Chairperson White said if this motion is approved he would have the Superintendent and each Board member read the name of their appointment. Chairperson White said this process will be addressed in the future. Each Board member making an appointment will be required to provide the necessary information so that it can be included in the Regular Board Meeting packets provided to Board members prior to the meeting. Chairperson White said these are appointments by individual Board members and it is simply a courtesy that it requires a vote from the whole Board. The Board voted 9-0 to approve the motion. The appointments by acclamation were as follows:

• Action Item III. C., Dr. Haithcock, Superintendent, appointed Reverend George Cooke, Jr. and Jim Hinderlite.

• Action Item III. D., Chairperson White appointed Reggie Singleton. • Action Item III. E., Ms. McGarry, Member At-large, appointed Julian Wright. • Acttion Item III. F., Ms. Leake, District 2, appointed Reverend Dr. John H. Walker. • Action Item III. G., Mr. Dunlap, District 3, appointed Alice Bennett. • Action Item III. H., Ms. Woods, District 4, appointed Dick Helms.

D.

Recommend approval of one appointment to the Equity Committee by the Board Chairperson

Presented with Action Item III. C.

E.

Recommend approval of one appointment to the Equity Committee by an At-large Board Member


F.

Recommend approval of one appointment to the Equity Committee by the District Two Board Member


G.

Recommend approval of one appointment to the Equity Committee by the District Three Board Member


H.

Recommend approval of one appointment to the Equity Committee by the District Four Board Member



I. Recommend approval of contract for General Counsel

Chairperson White said this item had been discussed in Closed Session and required a Board vote in Open Session. Chairperson White called upon Ms. Griffin to present the recommendation. Ms. Griffin said she had several recommendations to present regarding the General Counsel’s contract and other compensation that required a Board vote and she would present the items separately. Ms. Griffin made the recommendation that the Board approve the extension of the General Counsel’s contract by one year. Ms. Woods moved, seconded by Ms. Cramer, and the Board voted 8-1 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. McGarry, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Gauvreau voted against the motion. Ms. Griffin made the recommendation that the Board approve for the General Counsel a 2.24% salary increase (which is the same increase provided to the teachers this year) plus $750.00. Ms. Leake moved, seconded by Ms. Woods, and the Board voted 8-1 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. McGarry, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Gauvreau voted against the motion. Ms. Griffin made the recommendation that the Board approve for the General Counsel a 7% bonus plus a 7% contribution to his retirement plan. Ms. Leake moved, seconded by Ms. Woods and the Board voted 7-2 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted against the motion. Upon motion by Ms. Griffin, seconded by Ms. Leake, that the remainder of the contract for the General Counsel remain the same as it is currently, the Board voted 7-2 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted against the motion. Mr. Gauvreau said he would like the record to reflect that the 7% bonus and 7% contribution would be for two 7% payments that total over $21,000. Ms. Griffin moved that the Board authorize the Board Chairperson to execute the contract according to these terms, seconded by Ms. Woods, and the Board voted 7-2 to approve the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted in favor of the motion. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted against the motion. Chairperson White thanked Maurice Green, General Counsel, for his good service. Mr. Green thanked Chairperson White and the Board. Mr. Gauvreau said his decision to not support this item is not a personal decision against Mr. Green’s character, friendship, capability, credibility, integrity, and the merits of what he has accomplished for this Board. This is against the amount of the compensation and the extension of the contract to 2009. He does not believe the taxpayers would want him to support this action. Ms. McGarry said she does not have any reservations regarding Mr. Green’s legal advice, his representation, and his deliberations and a stellar work ethic. Ms. McGarry said this is


primarily where we are getting into the public sector and this is going too far in that realm.

J. Recommend approval of new school acceleration through COPs funding

Chairperson White reported this item had been added to the agenda by Mr. Gauvreau and called upon Mr. Gauvreau to present his recommendations. Mr. Gauvreau said he provided each Board member a copy of his proposal which he calls a new schools acceleration via COPS proposal. Chairperson White asked the Board members to follow the three-minute, two-minute, and one-minute discussion agreement. Upon motion by Mr. Gauvreau that the Board approve $244 million in Certificate of Participation financing through and by the Board of County Commission for the purpose of accelerating new school construction in the building of new schools, seconded by Ms. McGarry, a discussion followed. Mr. Gauvreau said he provided the Board a one-page summary of three proposals for COPs funding. If the Board turns down the first proposal, he will then present the second proposal that is for a smaller COPs amount. If that proposal is defeated, he will then present the third option that is for an even smaller COPs amount. Mr. Gauvreau said he has also provided maps that show the capacities for the elementary, middle, and high schools across the district. He is concerned about the overcrowding, particularly in the northern area which is the area that he represents. He is also concerned about the overcrowding in the south and southwestern areas. These are the areas that this Board, in its failed $427 million Bond proposal, were to build ten new schools. Mr. Gauvreau noted that the Board of County Commissioners had just defeated a $254 million COPs proposal by a 6-3 vote. Mr. Gauvreau said this motion would go to the County Commissioners to ask them to accelerate building these schools. Mr. Gauvreau believes a clear majority in this County believes these are the most important needs for this school district at this time. He believes the Board should have asked for more than the $427 million for the new schools. Mr. Gauvreau said this proposal is a compromise to the $254 million proposal that was presented in June and building these new schools should be accelerated. The proposal also includes a new northern high school that was not included in the Bond package. Mr. Gauvreau said the major reasons the Bonds failed in the northern suburbs were because the Bonds were misprioritized; they did not include a new northern high school; and they were applying more money into an already overcrowded North Mecklenburg High School. This proposal is for $244 million which is less than the $254 million that was defeated by the County Commission and is only for the new schools. Mr. Gauvreau would like to immediately get these schools off the table and moving. He said the Board could then discuss the next steps at the meeting scheduled for December 15th. Mr. Gauvreau encouraged the Board to support the proposal. Mr. Gauvreau noted that in his proposal he has reduced the costs for building the new schools to $14 million from the original costs of $16 million, $25 million, and $50 million. Mr. Gauvreau said if this proposal is defeated by the Board he would offer the next proposal in an effort to get the Board to move on something tonight. A discussion with Board members followed. Ms. Woods expressed concern about the proposal because it does not cut back and it adds a school in a location where a new northern school is scheduled to open next year. She said we all recognize the need to accelerate and that is why we had the 2005 Bond package that the voters turned down. Ms. Woods said some people believe the voters turned down the Bonds because they wanted new schools only but what she heard from the voters was no new taxes. The voters were also concerned that the Board had delayed the renovations that they said would take place and they did not have confidence that the Board would move forward to take care of the serious educational needs in


schools. Ms. Woods said the Board has a capital needs Work Session scheduled on December 15th and she believes the new Board will take very seriously all the concerns of the voters, both those for and against the Bonds. She encouraged the Board to prioritize those students who are in educationally deficient schools. Ms. Woods expressed concern that these schools are not included in Mr. Gauvreau’s proposal. Ms. Cramer recognizes that CMS has huge needs. She believes it would be a huge mistake to ignore what the voters have said to the Board. She believes they are saying a variety of things. She said the Board is going to address those concerns at the upcoming Work Session and the Board should give the voters the consideration that they deserve. She believes the Board should be aggressive in their actions but COPs is not the right approach because that will be usurping the will of the voters. She would prefer that the Board develop a package that can earn the support of the community. Ms. McGarry regards this as a first step and she urged the Board members to support the proposal. She believes this is an alternative compromise and is similar to the one presented in June that the Board would not discuss. Ms. McGarry believes the process should be broken into three steps. The first step is to get the most critical needs met and get the COPs on the plate. The second step is working with the School Board to prioritize. The third step is to explore how to better build schools more cost effective and to develop a better plan to which the public will be more amiable. Ms. McGarry believes the voters did not support the Bonds because they did not trust the School Board with that amount of money; it was too expensive; and poorly designed. She said all of Mecklenburg County had their voice in the Bond issue but they also knew that there was an alternative proposal. If the Board is concerned about the students, they should support this proposal because it will get a seat for every student in the process. She believes the people want CMS to build the schools economically and to build the schools where the students live. Ms. McGarry said since the Choice Plan emerged in 2002 some of the schools were left below capacity. She noted that all the 1997 Bonds went into a certain segment of the community. The most critical needs are for seats for every student. She said this is very important and this proposal is the best approach. Ms. McGarry said the Board should put politics aside and do what is right and best for the County. Ms. Leake said it is all about the students and there are buildings that need renovations. She said people voted for jails and did not support the Bonds. These people supported incarceration and not education. Ms. Leake is concerned that this proposal is a request to the Board that the general public said do not do. The arena is a prime example of this situation. Ms. Leake believes every child deserves a facility that is adequate. She said when the Choice Plan was developed the parents asked that their children be sent to the school closest to their home and that is what the Board did. The parents knew the buildings would be crowded but they said they did not care as long as they were close to home. The parents said they would be happy with trailers. Ms. Leake said the Board has provided a seat for every student and there are no students standing up to have class. Ms. Leake said the Board must do what the community has asked and that is to not support COPs. Mr. Gauvreau said this proposal is very sensible and is in the public’s interest. Mr. Gauvreau senses the Board is not going to support this proposal. He hopes the Board is not going to try to punish the public more. He encouraged the Board to think through what they are going to turn down. This is only a recommendation to go to the County Commission. He said the $427 million was clearly misprioritized and that is the main reason the public voted “no.” This is only asking the Board to get these new schools off the ground because they are already years behind. Mr. Gauvreau said this is an opportunity for the Board to fix what have been clearly erroneous calculations by the Board. He said he has made huge compromises on building big factory schools. We do not have any seats and he cannot believe the Board, in good faith, would suggest not doing this. Mr. Gauvreau


said he would go through this list and give the Board the opportunity to fail three times if necessary. He said he would also come back every single Board Meeting, just like we did with the new Highland Creek School, until this gets passed. He said he would not relent and encouraged the Board to get it over with. Mr. Gauvreau said the arena was a private issue with public dollars which is not what this public school is about. He is talking about public dollars for public schools. Mr. Gauvreau said he recognizes that the Board is planning to do some more analysis but the Board must provide some immediate relief to overcrowding where the need is the greatest. Ms. Woods said the Board did recognize the immediate need for these schools except for the new Northern High School by putting forth the 2005 Bond packet. Ms. Woods said most of the Board worked very hard to get the public’s support for the Bonds but unfortunately all Board members did not and it did not pass. Ms. Woods said the voters voiced to her that they were upset about the arena because they had turned down the public dollars and not the private dollars. The public is upset because the City Council then moved forward to open the arena. Ms. Woods believes many voters saw the Bonds related to the arena and she believes they will be very upset should the Board support this proposal. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Woods did not accept the Point of Information. Ms. Griffin said she would not support COPs even though these needs are clearly critical because COPs are not voter approved and they are more expensive. Ms. Griffin would prefer to wait until the Board would be able to put a proposal before the voters. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Griffin accepted the Point of Information. Mr. Gauvreau asked do you clearly understand when you make that statement that the overcrowding in the northern area, which this Board has let go, is epic? Mr. Gauvreau said if the Board delays this further they would compound the problem. Ms. Griffin said she understands that the growth is significant and she is going to immediately get to work to develop a plan to fix it that the voters will support. Ms. Cramer said the Board must act with speed but they also have to act to win back public support. Ms. Cramer said for the Board to support COPs does not address the root causes. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Cramer did not accept the Point of Information. Ms. Cramer said this list of schools represents the same schools in the Bond package with the exception of the new northern high school. She said there is no confusion that these schools are needed and the voters were not confused. Ms. Cramer believes there are many people who want to support public schools who said “no” to the Bonds for a variety of reasons. Ms. Cramer believes the Board should review those reasons and develop answers as quickly as possible. Ms. Cramer looks forward to the discussion at the upcoming Work Session. Ms. Downing agrees with Ms. Cramer and believes the community will be watching to see that happen. She also represents a high growth area and she will not support this proposal. She believes a proposal should include consideration for the emergency needs that currently exist in some of our facilities. The high growth is a crisis situation but students in an existing school that is not an adequate facility is also a crisis situation. Ms. Downing said she understands that the Bond money for the past ten years has gone into some of these other schools but she is concerned about the facilities that need renovations because several of them are very past due. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Downing accepted the Point of Information. Mr. Gauvreau asked do you recognize that when you say some of these schools need renovations that there is at least a school there where education can be conducted? Mr. Gauvreau said what the Board needs to work on are the areas where there aren’t schools. Mr. Gauvreau said these are the most urgently needed areas and this must be moved forward quickly. Chairperson White said a Point of Information is for asking questions and he would limit Board members to that. Chairperson White asked Ms. Downing if she got a question out of that? Ms. Downing said she understands that


the Board must prioritize but she believes the proposal should include other needs that are also a crisis situation. Ms. McGarry said she would not be in favor of COPs every time but at this point she would support it. She said the interest rate is very good at this time to undertake COPs funding. Ms. McGarry said COPs would also provide more accountability because the voters are saying they do not trust CMS with $427 million and they want accountability. Ms. McGarry said if Cochrane Middle School is in such bad shape why are we not fixing it with the $188 million that we already have in Bonds that are not issued nor spent for renovation repair? Ms. McGarry does not believe this should be equated to the arena because that is like apples and oranges. This is about needs and wants. Education in Mecklenburg County is not a want. It is a need. An arena is not a need. That is a want. Chairperson White said he supported the 2005 Bond package and told everyone that it was a binding referendum, which meant that Joe White gave his word. He said for him to support COPs would mean that he would have to go back on his word. He has no intention of doing that. He thought the Bonds would pass. He will not support COPs tonight, tomorrow night, or any other night. Mr. Gauvreau said in 2002 we had a binding referendum as well and it was misprioritized. This Board had to go back in 2003, 2004, and 2005 to put COPs on the agenda. This is exactly what he is proposing. Two weeks ago the Bond Referendum failed because the public would not take it any more. He cannot believe this Board will not push these new schools that have been pitched to the public. Mr. Gauvreau encouraged the Board to support this proposal. Ms. McGarry discussed the Bond campaign; what is promotional and what is informational; and what is legal and what is not. Ms. Griffin said this is not germane to the discussion. Ms. McGarry said that is why the voters did not trust CMS. Chairperson White said this is not part of the motion. Ms. Griffin said she is sorry the scouts have left. They attend Alexander Graham Middle School which is one of our most seriously overcrowded middle schools and needs serious renovations as well. She believes it was a bad lesson for them to learn that we only care about really overcrowded schools in the suburbs. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Griffin accepted the Point of Information. Mr. Gauvreau asked do you understand that North Mecklenburg High School has 3,000 students in it and it is going to be overcrowded even longer? The longer this Board takes to not put a new school in that area the situation will get worse. Ms. Griffin said she understands. Ms. Cramer asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Cramer asked do you also understand that North Mecklenburg High School is going to be relieved by the Mallard Creek High School that will open in 2007? Ms. Griffin said she also understands that. Ms. Cramer said she has talked with the County Finance Department and COPs will cost an additional $6 million. She said the Board must move quickly on getting schools built but we must also listen to the voters. She said the voters have told us that for a variety of reasons we must change the way we are doing things. Ms. Cramer believes the Board owes the voters some serious consideration. She wants to get the schools built. She campaigned to support the Bond package but the majority of the voters decided they did not like the way the package was configured and they did not like the way the Board was doing business. Ms. Cramer said she could not in good conscience support this proposal. She said our Long Range School Facilities Master Plan shows that 63% of our projects are growth related and 28% are renovation related. Ms. Cramer said the Board should not ignore the needs of a portion of schools. The Board voted 2-7 and the motion failed. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted in favor of the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted against the motion. Upon motion by Mr. Gauvreau, seconded by Ms. McGarry, that the Board


recommend $216 million in Certificates of Participation financing by and through the Board of County Commission for the purpose of accelerating new school construction and building of new schools, and a discussion followed. Chairperson White said he is not sure that there is anything different about this proposal other than the amount of money. He said he would hope that we have heard most everything that could be said about this proposal. Ms. Woods said this proposal leaves out the new Dixie River Road Elementary School and the new Idlewild Road Elementary School. She said the interesting thing is that these schools are not in District 1. Ms. Cramer called for the question, it was seconded by Ms. Leake, and a discussion followed. Mr. Gauvreau said he should be able to speak to the motion. Mr. Gauvreau said the Board is just trying to run this item off the agenda. Maurice Green, General Counsel, noted that Board members normally have an opportunity to speak to their motions. Chairperson White recognized Mr. Gauvreau to speak to his motion. Mr. Gauvreau said this proposal eliminates two schools. He said since the Board did not accept a $244 million recommendation, he offered a motion for a smaller dollar amount. He is hoping the Board will not turn down the voters on a lesser recommendation. He said he would read the list of schools that the Board has just turned down in his first motion for the record. They are as follows:

SCHOOL SITE $$ AMOUNT New Bradley Elementary School $ 14 million New Hucks Road Elementary School $ 14 million New Belmeade Road Elementary School $ 14 million New Dixie River Road Elementary School $ 14 million New Elon Park Elementary School $ 14 million New Providence Road West Elementary School $ 14 million New Idlewild Road Elementary School $ 14 million New Belmeade Road Middle School $ 23 million New Ridge Road Middle School $ 23 million New Southeast High School $ 50 million New Northern High School $ 50 million Total $244 million

Mr. Gauvreau said he offered the second proposal in the interest of trying to get the Board to step up to something that needs to be done. He eliminated the two schools that he believed should be prioritized downward in order to save money since the Board has said “no” to the very sensible proposal that he put on the table previously. The second proposal does remove the new Dixie River Road Elementary and the new Idlewild Road Elementary School because he believes the CMS priority list and the maps show there is less density in those areas. He said there is a need in those areas but there is less density and he is trying to prioritize properly which the Board should have done previously. He encouraged the Board to accept this reasonable proposal to get something done. Ms. McGarry encouraged the Board to vote “yes” to the second proposal. She believes the amount of money in the proposal is important. This is for a lesser amount and it would get the Board to step one. She said the Board has a very small window of opportunity to show some leadership in the capital end of facilities in Mecklenburg County. Ms. McGarry said this is a small window of opportunity and she knows it is hard to put politics aside. She said if we can do that and take the high road this proposal would get us started. Ms. McGarry said at the Work Session the Board could then discuss long range and reprioritization of the money we already have for the


renovation and repair segment. Ms. Leake called for the question, seconded by Ms. Cramer, and the Board voted 8-2 to approve calling for the question. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted to call the question. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted to not call the question. The Board voted 2-7 on the motion. The Board voted 2-7 and the motion failed. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted in favor of the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted against the motion. Mr. Gauvreau said he would present one more recommendation because the Board has just voted down new schools in primarily suburban areas. He said his last recommendation is for the neediest schools in this County. He does not believe there is anybody in this County who would not agree that these are the neediest schools that need to get off the ground immediately. Upon motion by Mr. Gauvreau, seconded by Ms. McGarry, that the Board recommend $138 million in Certificates of Participation financing by and through the Board of County Commission for the purpose of accelerating new school construction and building of new schools, a discussion followed. Mr. Gauvreau said the motion includes the following schools:

SCHOOL SITE $$ AMOUNT New Bradley Elementary School $ 14 million New Hucks Road Elementary School $ 14 million New Belmeade Road Elementary School $ 14 million New Belmeade Road Middle School $ 23 million New Ridge Road Middle School $ 23 million New Northern High School $ 50 million Total $138 million

Mr. Gauvreau asked the Board to step up to approving at least $138 million tonight to be sent to the Board of County Commission for their consideration at their next meeting in two weeks so that we can get this thing moving. Mr. Gauvreau said we cannot delay. Ms. Woods said there was a comment made referencing to put aside politics. She said this is all about politics. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Woods would not accept the Point Of Information. Ms. Woods said when people ask for a Point of Information they should not interrupt people in the middle of a sentence because you cannot hear what they are saying. Ms. Woods said this has happened several times and she suggested that a Point of Information should be called after someone has finished a sentence. Ms. Woods said the three schools that are now left out of the proposal are new Elon Park Elementary School, new Providence Road West Elementary School, and new southeast high school. None of these schools are in District 1. The new northern high school, which is in District 1, is still included in the list even though CMS is putting a new northern high school in that area next year. She said Mr. Gauvreau’s new northern high school was not agreed upon by this Board or the… Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Woods would not accept the Point of Information. Ms. Woods continued… or the staff. This school is recommended in our Long Range School Master Facilities plan but is not recommended ahead of any of the other schools on the list. Ms.


Woods said in terms of politics and what is fair for students, there is nothing on the three lists that include educationally deficient schools in all of the districts where students are not able to succeed. Ms. Woods said this is supposed to be about educating students and there are students in schools that are not adequate facilities. Ms. McGarry said since the $427 million Bond issue failed, she thinks there are some who just have their head in the sand and refuse to look at other options. She said when she is on the minority on many issues they want to know why she doesn’t look at the other side. She said she is open to do that but others are not. Ms. McGarry said this was not discussed by the Board six months ago and anyone who thought those Bonds were going to pass was not listening to the public. She believes the Board is missing the boat here because this is a way to compromise to get the first step completed and everyone should agree with it. Ms. McGarry said steps two and three need additional discussion and prioritization. She said prioritization is primarily what the voters are looking for. She said the Board has been elected by Mecklenburg County and are elected to serve the entire County. Ms. McGarry said this demands that the Board review this item and vote for something that is in the best interest of all the students in Mecklenburg County that attend public schools. Ms. McGarry said CMS is sending students away and this is a way to get the students to return. Mr. Gauvreau said he had some points of clarification. There is not a new school going in this area. There is a new school planned for the northeast area. He said in the north there are thousands of students who do not have seats. He said everybody on this Board knows this and by this Board not taking action they are choosing to punish the voters. Mr. Gauvreau said the Board is an elected set of trustees and we must compromise on the $138 million in COPs to get these schools built. He said if the Board can’t compromise on this they will have a problem at election time. Mr. Gauvreau said this is politics. This is a policy Board and we are supposed to be getting these things done. He said if senior staff will not move on it and it is misprioritized with this Board’s stewardship, we must lead and change that direction. Mr. Gauvreau said these schools need to be built. Mr. Gauvreau is concerned that the Board is sitting on their hands tonight and turned down two and it looks like three proposals to get new schools started. Ms. Cramer said the recommendation of these proposals ignore the fact that the County Commission has already rejected Certificates of Participation. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Information. Ms. Cramer would not accept the Point of Information. Ms. Cramer said the Board has said they are going to address this on December 15th and staff is already working to make develop strategies to address this issue. CMS must build schools and also renovate schools. The Board has plans to address this issue as well as the other concerns of the voters. Ms. Cramer said the Board must listen to the voters and reevaluate a plan to go forward that is fair to all students in the entire school system whether they are in crowded settings or desperately need renovations. Ms. Cramer said the Board must consider all these concerns to develop a package and then educate the public. Ms. Cramer said she would like to move to the discussions on how to deal with growth from a policy perspective. She said the Board has discussed this agenda item for over an hour and she would like to move forward on the agenda. Mr. Gauvreau said the growth is in the north and the Board should have addressed this a year ago. The Board does not need another growth discussion. He has watched this Board weekly go down the wrong road. He is frustrated that the Board will not step up to the most desperate schools in the district because this area does not even have seats. He said the Board is hiding behind weak rationales of listening to the voters and this is disingenuous. He said such rationales have put this school district further in peril. Ms. Downing said although we know that the growth exists and students need seats in the high growth areas, within the next ten years those projections will change because the majority of the students in the future will not be


suburbanites. They will be immigrants and those inner-city schools that were renovated in the past are going to be filled to capacity. Ms. McGarry agrees that we are in a crisis mode and she has a sense of urgency. She encouraged those Board members who have a personal agenda to put it aside because this is a way to get schools built where they are needed most. She said this is step one and then there are step two and three that are also very important. She believes this is a crisis issue. She said she would like to make a point of observation. She said she finds it very interesting that not everyone has weighed in on this topic because we do not have the TV cameras on. She said so we are going to have a shorter meeting on this topic. Ms. Woods said she wanted to reiterate what Ms. Downing said. She said Albemarle Road is already tremendously overcrowded and has a number of mobiles units. Ms. McGarry interrupted the discussion and said that was a comment that was… Ms. Griffin said you are Out of Order. Ms. McGarry said I am sorry; that was harassment. Chairperson White said you are Out of Order. You are Out of Order. Ms. Woods said I am speaking. Chairperson White said Out of Order. Ms. McGarry said Board attorney, Mr. Green, would you please take note of that. Chairperson White said Out of Order. Ms. McGarry said no one calls me “sweetheart” in an open public meeting and they are not recognized. Chairperson White said Out of Order. Ms. McGarry said that is in order, if you look at Robert’s Rules. Chairperson White said I have not heard that comment. If it was made where I couldn’t hear it… Ms. McGarry said that is because you have a hearing aide. Chairperson White said he would ignore that comment because that likewise could be considered as age discrimination but he would not go there. Ms. McGarry said but that is not harassment. Chairperson White asked Ms. Woods to continue her discussion. Ms. Woods said Albemarle Road is very overcrowded and has many mobile units. Many of the schools are already displaying what Ms. Downing was referring to for the schools in the middle ring area. Ms. Woods said the Board should focus on what has been promised to the voters and has been delayed. Ms. Woods if the Board wants to build voter confidence we can’t continue to delay those projects and then say we are reprioritizing. The Board voted 2-7 and the motion failed. Ms. McGarry and Mr. Gauvreau voted in favor of the motion. Chairperson White, Ms. Cramer, Ms. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Ms. Woods, Ms. Griffin, and Ms. Downing voted against the motion. Mr. Gauvreau said he intends to put this item on the agenda for the Regular Board Meeting scheduled for December 13th

and he would also, with or without the interest of the Board, forward this to the Board of County Commission and ask them to consider it. He said he would steamroll this over the Board. Chairperson White said thank you for the information. You have the right to do whatever you desire to do as an individual so long as it is not in the name of this Board.

IV. REPO RTS / INFORM ATI O N I TEMS

A. Report/update on Growth Impact

Chairperson White called upon Debra Campbell, Planning Director for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission, to provide the Board information on the issues of growth in Mecklenburg County and how those issues affect the school district. Ms. Campbell said at the October 25, 2005, Regular Board Meeting, she presented eight strategies that the Planning Liaison Committee had recommended to address the issues of growth and the impact on schools for the Board’s consideration. At that meeting, there was not an opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss the strategies. She said she


would like for the Board to review the eight strategies and recommend to the Planning Liaison Committee the three top strategies that the Board would like for staff to pursue. Ms. Campbell said the recommended strategies are not answers and there will be additional research required to respond to the issues. Ms. Campbell provided the Board a chronology of the discussions that the Planning Liaison Committee has had over the past twenty-four months. The chronology provides the depth of the discussions for the various topics and is the basis for the development of the eight strategies. She also provided the Board a copy of the eight recommended strategies presented at the October 25th meeting. Chairperson White asked Ms. Campbell to review the eight strategies for the Board. He said he would hope to get a Board vote on the top three strategies as soon as possible. Ms. Campbell said the Planning Liaison Committee would meet on December 16, 2005 and it would be helpful to have input from the School Board for that meeting. She said there are similarities between the eight strategies and they have been categorized as regulatory, financial, and cost containment. She noted that the strategies are not staff’s recommendations but are the recommendations of the Planning Liaison Committee. Ms. Campbell provided an interpretation of what the committee meant by each strategy. Strategy One is to involve CMS staff in key initiatives pertaining to infrastructure and development approvals beginning with the General Development Policy (GDP) Infrastructure process. There was a document adopted by the City Council and the Board of County Commissions in the early 1990s. That document was the result of district plans that have been done for seven districts within the County. Instead of having policies related to land use, environment, etc., scattered through seven documents, they consolidated those policies into one document called the General Development Policy. In 2003, the City Council adopted four or five chapters of this document related to retail-oriented and mixed-use development; where to locate higher density multi-family development; the plan amendment process; and transit-oriented development. They are doing another chapter called infrastructure. They hope this chapter will define for certain infrastructure facilities what does adequacy mean and what does it mean to have adequate schools. Does it mean to have adequate roads or streets, utilities, etc.? Ms. Campbell said Strategy One is to involve CMS staff. She said in most all of their planning processes, CMS staff is invited to participate and lately they have been getting a great deal of participation. She commended CMS for ensuring that staff was participating in all of their processes. Strategy Two is an overlay template related to development standards. Schools have to build to different development standards because of the number of municipalities in Mecklenburg County. This has an impact on cost. This recommendation is to try to get a set of single development standards for all seven municipalities. Strategy Three is to evaluate standards and ordinances that may unnecessarily increase costs of school development. Strategy Two and Three are similar in terms of their intent. Strategy One, Two, and Three are regulatory strategies. Strategy Four is about funding and the availability of funding. This strategy provides the types of funding options that we may want to research that may help raise additional revenue to support and build schools. The options include impact fees, real estate transfer fees, real estate property tax increase, and pay-as-you-go options. This is the only strategy that relates to funding. Strategy Five is to consider measures used elsewhere to more directly link approvals with infrastructure adequacy, in particular reviewing Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances. The difference between this strategy and impact fees is similar to what they are trying to do with GDP. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances essentially define what does adequate mean and what types of facilities are linked as development occurs and the adequacy of that public infrastructure. This strategy is regulatory. Strategy Six and Seven are cost containment strategies. Strategy Six is to ensure fiscal accountability. Strategy Seven is to explore


cost containment of school capital construction expenses. Strategy Eight is school site reservations should continue to be examined in relationship to rezoning petitions and municipal approvals. Ms. Campbell said we are already following this process and this recommends that practice be continued. Strategy Eight is a regulatory effort through the rezoning process to try to reserve land for school sites. Ms. Campbell said the Planning Liaison Committee has asked each of the Boards that are represented on the committee to identify their top three strategies from the eight presented. The purpose of this is for the committee to get a consolidated direction from the municipalities to provide direction for staff to follow in an attempt to identify measures that can be considered to relieve the impacts of growth and funding availability. Ms. Campbell said their meeting is scheduled for December 16th and she hopes there will be a recommendation from the CMS representatives at that meeting. From those recommendations, the Planning Liaison Common will develop their top priorities. The committee will direct staff to go forth to seek and provide additional information to bring back to the committee and the elected Boards. Ms. Campbell said she would be glad to answer any questions. Chairperson White suggested that it would be more orderly to ask questions in order of the strategies. Mr. Dunlap said he believes the Board should talk about process first because it may not be necessary to ask questions. He does not want to debate on something that may not be the resulting recommendation. Mr. Dunlap asked Ms. Campbell what is the process in order to bring forth recommendations that the Board can then respond to? Mr. Dunlap said these are the strategies and where does it go from here? Ms. Campbell said four Boards have already taken action on their strategies. On December 16th, the Planning Liaison Committee will vote on the committee’s recommendations. From that, they will direct staff to take that as an endorsement that the Boards want them to review these strategies to respond to the issue of growth and the impact on schools. The Planning Liaison Committee will provide interim updates to any of the Boards that want updates on the strategies. Ms. Cramer said Strategies Six and Seven are the responsibility of CMS. She said at the Planning Liaison Committee she asked what would it take for people to have trust in our methods of construction? She believes these issues are related to the Bond campaign. She said the answer she got was that an independent assessment should be conducted. Ms. Cramer said she has suggested that this be a topic for the December 15th Board Work Session and that the Board take an independent assessment of how we are building schools. She said she did not ask many questions about fiscal accountability regarding capital improvements and what would be helpful. Ms. Cramer asked Ms. Campbell if she had suggestions on what this would include? Ms. Cramer said she would like to give the Planning Liaison Committee the assurance that the Board will be addressing these things immediately. She said the Board has been addressing these items but she would like to see the Board do more in regard to both strategies because it is incumbent upon the Board to do so. Ms. Cramer asked did Ms. Campbell have a response to fiscal accountability and what could be provided that would help? Ms. Campbell said there were concerns similar to the concerns for the City regarding the road building process. There were Bonds approved in the early 90s and there is still not a school built yet. She said the majority of the issue and concern was for the monies that have already been approved. She said have those funds been appropriately used to address specific needs that we know are out there and has there been good management of the resources the voters have approved for school construction? Ms. Cramer said she recalled that they talked about doing a presentation for the Planning Liaison Committee on their accountability measures and involving the Bond Oversight Committee as well. Ms. Cramer said these are things that the Board can immediately address. She encouraged the Board to agree to do this tonight. Chairperson White said the agenda would have to be amended for the Board to vote upon this item tonight but


the Board could reach a consensus without a Board vote. Maurice Green, General Counsel, said he would recommend that the agenda should be formally amended and then allow for the consensus vote. Ms. Cramer moved to amend the agenda for the Board to take a vote on arriving at consensus for the strategies to recommend to the Planning Liaison Committee, it was seconded by Ms. Woods, and a discussion followed. Chairperson White asked is this consensus for Strategies Six and Seven or is this for the top three priorities. Ms. Cramer said this is a consensus on Strategies Six and Seven. Chairperson White said this is saying to the other municipalities that some of you have already voted and said that you did not want to do anything but you wanted to see us do this better. Chairperson White said Ms. Cramer’s motion says we are going to assure you that we are working on this. Mr. Green asked for clarification on the motion to amend the agenda. Chairperson White said this is to consider Strategies Six and Seven of the growth impact of schools strategies as presented from the Planning Liaison Committee. Mr. Dunlap asked what is the purpose of amending the agenda? Ms. Cramer said she did not want to amend the agenda. She would like the Board to agree to work on these strategies and then the Board could talk about having an official motion at the next Board meeting. Chairperson White said he had already talked to the Superintendent about getting this on the agenda for the December meeting. Ms. Cramer rescinded her motion and Ms. Woods withdrew her second. Ms. McGarry is a member of the Planning Liaison Committee and she agrees with Ms. Cramer that Strategy Six and Seven should be the top priorities of the Board. Ms. Leake said CMS already has building standards for building schools. She asked are we going to revisit that for Strategies Six and Seven? Ms. Leake asked what is the role of the Bond Oversight Committee in this process? She asked does this eliminate the Bond Oversight Committee? Chairperson White said we have not said anything about the Bond Oversight Committee. Ms. Campbell clarified that the strategies are very generalized to the specifics of what we do. This is a generalized direction for staff. Staff will further define the strategies to develop a scope of work and a timeline in terms of the specifics of what will be completed. Staff will then present this information to the Planning Liaison Committee and the Board for clarity to say this is exactly what we are going to do. Ms. Downing said several of the strategies cross over and can be shared by several of the municipalities but she agrees with Ms. Cramer that Strategies Six and Seven belong to CMS only. Ms. Downing said she believes Ms. Cramer is saying the Board should not be considering Strategies Six and Seven in their selection of the top three priorities because CMS should take care of these and include the Bond Oversight Committee to make presentations. Ms. Cramer said she wants the Board to communicate to the Planning Liaison Committee that Strategies Six and Seven are the responsibility of the Board and we will take care of them. She said she does not want to include them as one and two of the three because the Board should do them anyway. Ms. Griffin said this is exactly what the Board will be discussing at the Board Work Session on December 15th and that is before the Planning Liaison Committee meeting on December 16th. Ms. Griffin believes it would be better for the Board to discuss this item at the Work Session instead of tonight. Ms. Woods would prefer to amend the agenda to act on this item tonight. She expressed concern that the selection of the top three priorities will take place after the installation of the new Board. Ms. Woods noted that Strategies One and Five are closely related. She asked does the GDP process in Strategy One include the City of Charlotte only and not the towns? Ms. Campbell said


she has planning authority over the City of Charlotte only. The policies that they would normally be adopting would be just for the City of Charlotte. They think because infrastructure crosses all the jurisdictional lines they do need to involve and engage the towns and they promised the Board of County Commission that they would do that. They would have involved CMS in this process regardless. The main point of this strategy is involving the towns because she and the City do not have authority over the other towns. Ms. Woods said the Board should be responsible for Strategies Six and Seven and they should not be included in the top three priorities of the Board. The Board should keep the Planning Liaison Committee informed about what they are doing. Ms. Woods said Strategy One and Five are similar and the Board should combine those into one Strategy. This should include that CMS, the towns, and City of Charlotte should be working together on the GDP and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Ms. Woods strongly believes the Board should also select Strategy Four regarding alternative funding sources. Ms. Campbell asked is the Board planning to vote tonight? Chairperson White said unless he gets overruled his intention is to take no vote on this item tonight and put this item on the agenda for the December 13th Regular Board Meeting. Chairperson White said Tom Tate, newly elected District 4 representative, has been attending the meetings and he would ensure that Ken Gjertsen, newly elected District 6 representative, is provided information on this item. Ms. Leake said many of the strategies impact CMS, the City, and the County. She said the City could also be held accountable for Strategy Six regarding its fiscal accountability and capital improvements. This strategy is not just directed to CMS. Chairperson White said he understands this process very well. He said it is more expensive to put a mobile classroom in certain areas than in others. He said Strategies Six and Seven will be on everybody’s list because nobody believes CMS is doing those correctly. Chairperson White believes the Board must address those strategies to get people to believe we are doing them. He also agrees with Ms. Griffin that this will be part of the discussion at the Board Work Session as to how we start to do that. Ms. Cramer said Strategy Four does not include the half-cent sales tax. She would prefer this be added to the list in lieu of some of the others on the list. She believes it is important for the community to be involved in arriving at some alternative funding methods and they should be including in finding a solution. Ms. Cramer believes the Board should also address Strategy One regarding the GDP process. Ms. Cramer said regarding evaluating the standards and ordinances that may unnecessarily increase costs of school development, have we provided the Planning Liaison Committee a list of the items that give us problems? Ms. Campbell said we have not done that extensively. CMS has identified some concerns but did not take each municipality’s ordinances and make a comparison. Ms. Cramer believes it would be helpful if CMS conducted this exercise. Ms. Leake believes impact fees should be included because it relates to realtors and their responsibilities to helping us with this process and financing growth impact on schools. Ms. Campbell said these are just some of the types of funding options. If the committee selected this strategy they would review a range of different types of funding options, including but not limited to, the ones listed. Ms. Griffin believes very strongly that a funding option should be found beyond property tax because she is concerned that this is being over-burdened. She does not know which funding option would make the most sense or how much money they would generate. She asked did the County include a very small pay-as-you-go option this year? Ms. Campbell said she does not know. Ms. Woods said they did include this and one-half of the increase was not for schools but was for other capital expenditures of the County. Ms. Griffin believes it is very important that the Board has all the facts regarding Strategy Four including the pros, cons, and what legislative approval is necessary. Ms. Woods believes a variety of funding options must be considered


because property tax cannot do it all. Ms. Woods suggested that real estate people and other interested groups be included in the process. This should include someone who has done a study on fairness in funding because some funding methods are very regressive. Ms. Woods believes the Board should include Strategy Three. Ms. Downing said she would recommend that the Board combine Strategies One, Five, and Eight into one strategy because they are all related. She would also recommend the Board selecting Strategies Three and Four. Ms. Leake noted that payroll tax was not included in the list of funding options. Ms. Campbell thanked the Board for the amount of attention they have paid to this issue.

B. Report/Update on Discipline Guidelines

Chairperson White called upon Dr. Haithcock to present the report. Dr. Haithcock said this topic has been heavily discussed recently and this report should be very interesting. Student discipline has also received media and community attention. Several Board members have asked numerous questions about discipline and its guidelines. Dr. Haithcock said she would provide a history of what has happened up to this point. She said because discipline in our schools is a very important issue, the Board asked in July that the Superintendent report in August with a Comprehensive Behavior Plan for the district. The Comprehensive Behavior Plan was presented to the Board at the August 23, 2005 Regular Board meeting and an update to the plan was provided at the November 9, 2005 Regular Board Meeting. The update provided a detailed report on the actions that have been accomplished; data on how the discipline in the system had been reported; and the results of the various initiatives. Dr. Haithcock said Ms. McGarry asked for a detailed report on discipline guidelines with a legal interpretation of state statute and CMS Board policies regarding suspensions and expulsions. Dr. Haithcock said she would like to make four points regarding discipline in general. She stated she wanted to be very clear that our schools are safe and orderly. Staff has performed a lot of work regarding policy and procedures including updating the Student Conduct and Discipline Handbook; providing additional alternatives to suspensions and alternative types of education; developing a Character Education Program; and developing the Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) Program. This system has been working hard to ensure that schools are safe and orderly. There are incidents occurring in our schools. Incidents have been occurring in schools for many years. There is not a plan available that will prevent a large school system from having incidents. Incidents are occurring in public schools, private schools, and Bible-based schools all across the country. When incidents do occur in CMS there are processes in place that take care of those situations in a very expedited manner and in a manner that keep the schools in a safe environment. Dr. Haithcock said the year-to-date data regarding the rate of incidents has significantly decreased. Some of the initiatives that have been put in place are working and are making our schools safer. Even though CMS has great initiatives in place, incidents do occur. The bottom line is the media and the talk in this community at this time has created a perception in the community that CMS schools are unsafe. Dr. Haithcock said this is not true. Dr. Haithcock expressed concern that the media has reported stories about CMS that are not true and they have added to the negative image of CMS. Dr. Haithcock said WBTV reported several times that a Butler High School student was a victim of an alleged gang assault. This did not happen and nothing about that media report was true. WBTV apologized but the damage was already done. She said another incident occurred at Vance and West Mecklenburg high schools when a local television station flew helicopters over the schools to cover a fistfight that occurred between two students. This helped to escalate the situation and ten students became involved in the


fight. Another incident occurred when the noon news reported that things were in chaos at North Mecklenburg High School and CMS had moved all the students from the mobile units into the interior of the school to promote safety. She said in reality, the bell rang and the students in the mobile units went into the school for lunch. This report was totally blown out of proportion and the families watching the news became very alarmed. Dr. Haithcock said what happened at North Mecklenburg High School was clearly unacceptable. She has talked with several Board members who have questioned if this incident was handled correctly. Dr. Haithcock said each of those students have gone through the process that the School Board’s policy mandates and the federal policy mandates. None of those students are at North Mecklenburg High School and, unless they go through an appeals process where the Board allows them to return, they will not be returning this year. Those students have been taken care of. It was inappropriate behavior and CMS dealt with it. Dr. Haithcock talked about an article that appeared in the Charlotte Observer regarding the myth and reality of private school education versus public. She said many of the comments in the article were unfounded and inaccurate. She said CMS is continuously hit with the rhetoric in the newspaper about discipline, and some of the people around this table have rhetoric about discipline that is not based on reality but is based on myth. She said until we as a School Board, as an administration, and as a community start addressing some of these issues as a school system and we become adamant advocates for what a good school system we have, even though we still have issues and incidents that need to be worked on, we are not going to move this school district to the next step. Dr. Haithcock said there is a lot of myth about what is happening but there should be a lot of advocacy about pulling together to work on this. Dr. Haithcock introduced Maurice Green, General Counsel, and Michele Morris, Associate General Counsel, to present the report. Mr. Gauvreau asked regarding the North Mecklenburg High School incident, how many of those students were expelled from all services of the school system? Dr. Haithcock said the students have been suspended from the regular school system at this time and there was one expulsion. Mr. Green said he believes it is important that the Board and administration raise the discussion above individual student situations because there are federal laws that provide for the privacy of information about individual students. He would recommend that the conversation be about policy, laws, etc., and not about individual students and what is happening in individual situations. Mr. Green said as the Board continues to discuss among itself and with the community various measures and initiatives for dealing with inappropriate student behavior, the Legal Department has been asked to provide a short presentation on the legal context of those measures and initiatives. Mr. Green said the objectives of the presentation are to inform the Board of the legal aspects of student discipline; to be sure the Board understands the terminology used when discussing student discipline, for example, what is an expulsion versus an exclusion versus a suspension; and to assure the Board that it has policies and the administration has regulations in place for dealing with student discipline. Mr. Green said the Board has been provided a copy of the power point presentation that reviews the legal standards which create a right to public education, due process, North Carolina General Statutes; implementation of the legal standards by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools; and disciplining students with disabilities. The Board has also been provided copies of the various Board policies and administrative regulations that deal with student discipline. Ms. Morris said, unlike the United States Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution does provide for a right to an education. It states, “The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right.” The Leandro case has defined that right as the right to the opportunity to receive a sound basic education, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been expanded to say


that those rights that are statutorily created are property rights and because North Carolina Constitution creates a statutory right to a public education that then becomes a property right. When a student has a property right they are entitled to due process before that property right is infringed upon. In 1975, the US Supreme Court in the Goss v. Lopez case also held that, in addition to that privacy right, students have a liberty interest in their reputation which is negatively impacted by suspension. When the liberty interest and the property interest is going to be impacted, a student is entitled to due process. There are two types of due process. Substantive due process requires that the rules governing student conduct are reasonable and have legitimate educational purposes. This means that the rules governing student conduct in effect are reasonably related to legitimate educational interest. Procedural due process is the process taken and the amount of the procedural due process is determined by the amount of infringement or interference on that right or interest. The elements of the due process in the Goss v. Lopez case defined those requirements. Ms. Morris reviewed the elements of due process.

• Notice Prior Notice: Students must receive prior notice of conduct that they could

engage in that would get them in trouble and what trouble they would get in. CMS provides students the Code of Conduct Handbook at the beginning of each school year.

Notice after the Commission of the Prohibited Act: After a student has committed an act they are entitled to receive notice of the rule that they violated, the conduct that they have received, and the ability to appeal. CMS provides a suspension notice and appeal forms to the student. Short-term Suspension: Less than ten days. CMS provides an oral and

written notice. Long-term suspension: More than ten days. CMS provides a written notice.

• Hearing A student is entitled to hear the information offered against them and present

their version of the events. The extent of the hearing depends upon the length of the suspension being imposed. Short-term Suspension: CMS provides an informal conference where the

evidence against the student is explained and the student is able to present his/her version of the event. This is required even if the administrator observed the event.

Long-term Suspension: More due process is required in a long-term suspension. This requires a hearing before an impartial hearing officer where the student has the right to examine the information; cross-examine the accusers; present evidence; receive notice of the hearing; and bring counsel at their own expense.

• Evidence required The decision to discipline a student must be based on the preponderance of

evidence. This standard requires only a simple majority of the evidence that indicates that more than likely the student engaged in the conduct to which they are being accused. If the discipline requires a more permanent removal from the educational environment, such as an expulsion, a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence must be provided because of the higher degree of the infringement of the right.

Ms. Morris reviewed North Carolina General Statutes that are related to assigning


students to a particular school and discipline guidelines.

• NCSG § 115C-366 - Assignment of students to a particular school. (a) Affords all students, under the age of 21 who live in the district, who have

not been removed for cause or graduated, the right to all the “privileges and advantages” of the public school.

(a4) Requires that for students transferring into the district that their parents sign an affidavit that the student is not under a term or suspension of exclusion from another district and have not been convicted of a felony.

(a5) Allows the BOE to deny admission or put reasonable restrictions on a student who is under a current period of suspension or exclusion from another district if the conduct is such that they could have been suspended or excluded from the receiving district. It also allows the BOE to deny admission to students whose behavior indicates that their presence is a clear threat to the safety of staff and other students or if a student has been convicted of a felony. If admission is denied, the student may ask the BOE to reconsider that decision per NCSG § 115C-391 (d).

• NCSG § 115C-391 – Corporal punishment, suspension, or expulsion of pupils. (a) Requires the BOE to adopt policies and procedures governing the conduct

of students that is published and made available to students every year. (b) Gives authority to the principal to suspend for a short-term suspension (up

to and including ten days) for a willful violation of the conduct guidelines. During the period of suspension, students are entitled to take any state testing or exams.

(c) Gives the principal, with the prior approval of the Superintendent, the ability to suspend beyond those ten days (long-term suspension). The student has the right to appeal to the Board in the event the suspension is beyond ten days. CMS has developed an appeal process for the short-term suspension by which the student can appeal to the Regional Superintendent and to the Superintendent and can petition the Board to hear an appeal for the short-term suspension but the student does not have an appeal of right as they do for the long-term suspension.

(d) Gives the BOE, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent, the authority to expel a student. The student must be fourteen years of age or older and the Board must find clear evidence that shows the student’s continued presence is a clear threat to the safety of students or staff. Prior to the expulsion, the Board must consider whether an alternative program is appropriate for that student. At specified times, the student may request this decision be reviewed and the student allowed to return if it is determined that the student would no longer constitute a threat.

(d1) Requires a 365-day suspension for the possession of a firearm or explosive on school property. The 365-day suspension can be reduced on a case-by-case basis upon the recommendation of the Superintendent.

(d2) Requires students who are over the age of thirteen who assaults and seriously injures a staff member be placed in an alternative setting for up to 365-days. It also allows for such a placement but does not require it if the student assaults a staff member or another student (if it is witnessed by staff) or causes serious injury to another student.

(d3) Requires a 365-day suspension for knowingly making a false bomb threat or displaying materials which a reasonable person would believe to be a bomb.

(d4) Requires a 365-day suspension for communicating the existence of or


bringing materials which a reasonable person would believe to be a devise or substance to that is designed to create serious injury. It also allows for such suspension for engaging in an act of terror.

(d5) Requires the Board to provide notice of a student’s rights when a student is suspended in excess of ten days or expelled. That notice must be in the language used by the parent.

(e) Decisions for the suspensions that are beyond ten days can be appealed to the Board.

(g) Requires that the Board follow and the policies follow federal laws for disciplining students with disabilities.

Ms. Morris said Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools complies with legal requirements through the implementation of Board policies, regulations, and handbooks. Ms. Morris reviewed the Board policies and regulations related to student discipline.

• Policy JK – Student Discipline. This broadly addresses discipline, prohibits the use of corporal punishment, and provides that guidelines for student behavior shall be developed by the district.

• Regulation JK-R – explains the Code of Conduct; school consequences; notice to the parent of their appeal right; Superintendent consequences; and Board of Education consequences.

• Policy JKD – Suspension, Exclusion and Expulsion of students. This defines the various types of consequences available and the process to appeal to the Board. Exclusion is defined as a long-term suspension that has a definite end period. It is beyond the end of a school year but it has an end period. It is the 365-days or 180-days depending on what the Superintendent decides. It ends at a certain time and the student knows he may return to school. Expulsion is an outright cessation of academic services. It is the removal from any program for an indefinite period of time. The student may return to the school system by appealing to the Board and demonstrating that they are no longer a clear threat to the safety of others. Only the Board of Education can expel a student. The Superintendent cannot expel a student. The Superintendent can recommend a student for expulsion but that is the Board’s ultimate decision. The exclusion is at the Superintendent’s direction and initiation.

• Regulation JKD-R – defines school property; provides a detailed explanation of the various disciplinary alternatives; the appeal procedures; the hearing procedures; explains the discipline documents that will be maintained in the student record; and how to request expungment.

• Regulation JKDA-R – Suspension and/or Placement in an Interim Alternative Educational Setting of Disabled Students. Explains the legal requirements for the discipline of a student with a disability.

Ms. Morris said the Board has policies in place that mirror the law and the definitions required by the law. Mr. Gauvreau said he began reviewing and discussing this issue over a year ago. He believes the Board needs outside legal representation who will take a more aggressive view of their own legal interpretation of the law. Mr. Gauvreau asked how can we get that? Mr. Gauvreau is concerned that this maps down to how we are going to interpret what we think the law says and the action the Superintendent takes is based upon the legal team. Mr. Gauvreau said other districts are handling these same scenarios differently. Mr. Gauvreau believes CMS should take tougher actions not only for the benefit of the student but the benefit of the school system as a whole. Mr.


Gauvreau asked can we bring in outside legal representation to help us interpret the laws? Mr. Green said he has discussed this a number of times. He has stated each time that the Board can always, at any point, get whatever counsel it wants to represent it on issues related to this or other issues. Mr. Green said Mr. Gauvreau has asked specific questions in his discussion. Can we get an additional legal opinion? Mr. Green said we did. We asked the questions that Mr. Gauvreau asked us to ask to thirteen lawyers. Each one came back, without exception, and said that exactly what Ms. Morris explained and Mr. Green explained is absolutely correct. Mr. Green said these are lawyers that are considered experts across the country on student discipline issues. Mr. Green said it is not the law that is limiting the ability for the Board and the Superintendent to remove students. Ms. Morris has just explained the process of how this can be done and when this can be done. Mr. Green said to Mr. Gauvreau if there are students or issues that you think are not being dealt with that is a separate issue from whether the law allows it or does not allow it. Ms. Morris explained that Exceptional Children (EC) can be expelled but you must provide them faith under federal law. Mr. Green said for non-EC students we have tried to explain to the Board again that you can expel students and it is not a question of the law. Mr. Gauvreau said it is the Board’s responsibility to act on the policy that is under North Carolina Statute and he encouraged the Board to expel students in many cases because this will improve discipline. Dr. Haithcock said she would like to clarify that there is a process in North Carolina called exclusion which by any other definition in any other state is expulsion. Those students who had inappropriate activity had the appropriate consequence. Most of them were excluded which means they do not go to any other school until the next school year. Dr. Haithcock said she had never heard of the term “expulsion” where a student never returned to school until they appealed to someone. That is a unique consequence in this state. Dr. Haithcock said when a student is excluded that is as hard a penalty as most states have and they call it expulsion. Dr. Haithcock said we are told we do not expel but in her terminology we expel a lot because we exclude and exclude means they don’t go to Derita Alternative School and they don’t go to any other school. They stay out of the school system for a period of time until they return. Dr. Haithcock said the Board does a disfavor when they imply that this school system does not take appropriate action. Mr. Green noted that North Carolina General Statutes require the Board of Education, in an expulsion situation, to consider alternative placements. Ms. Griffin said she does not want Mr. Green to ask any other lawyers about legal interpretation because the laws are very clear. Ms. Griffin said she supports the concept of a Virtual High School setting. She asked could that setting be used for providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for students during a suspension and for EC students? Ms. Morris said the law requires for FAPE that a team get together and review the child’s needs and make a determination. If that team were to determine that the Virtual High School could address general curriculum issues, the IEP, as well as the behavior issue, this would be an appropriate setting. Mr. Dunlap does not believe Mr. Green needs to get additional legal interpretation because that has already been adequately done. Mr. Dunlap said all this information has been presented previously at the Safety Committee Meetings. Many of the same questions asked tonight were also asked during that meeting. Mr. Dunlap said he appreciates the clarification of exclusion and expulsion. Mr. Dunlap believes it is important to use the right terminology. He said all students have the right to due process and it is the responsibility of the Board to hear their concerns and make a fair determination. Mr. Dunlap said what really is being questioned is expulsion. Expulsion is when students are put out of school and not allowed to return. Mr. Dunlap said what is really suggested is that we should put students out and hold them accountable for having the legal representation to challenge the Board to let them back in. Mr. Dunlap


expressed concern about who this impacts and if it is fair. Mr. Dunlap said he would not support this as a policy. He said it is the responsibility of the whole Board to make a determination based on the recommendation of the Superintendent whether or not a student should be expelled. He said at the time the Superintendent makes that recommendation this Board will take action and no one Board member can make that decision. Ms. Leake expressed concern that one Board member can make a request to the attorney that may be costly to the district. She would like the Board to receive a cost statement of those expenses. Ms. Leake said CMS has alternative schools and they have been established for the purpose of dealing with students whose behavior is not served in a regular classroom. She said she advocated for years for a site that would provide an academic environment for students during suspensions. Today, we have Derita Alternative School which provides a structured, academic program for every child who does not follow the behavior guidelines. Ms. Cramer is pleased that a Virtual High School could be an option. She said as this concept is developed she would like CMS to talk to Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) because they already have course work on-line. She believes CMS could learn from their experience in this concept and we already have a collaboration established with them in several initiatives. Dr. Haithcock said NC Learn is developing this concept and started it last year. We have invited them to visit CMS so that we can have those courses available. Ms. Cramer believes this will work for students who are excluded as well as for students who have a hard time being in the regular school setting or who have chronic illnesses. She believes this concept could be helpful in a number of ways but especially with the discipline issue for students who cannot fit in the regular school setting. Ms. Leake asked if our students go to CPCC are they considered dropouts or are they still considered registered with CMS? Dr. Haithcock said for a Virtual High School setting students would not go to CPCC. This would be CMS courses through a computer system at a given site or from a home. Ms. Woods said a Virtual High School and the use of computers could also make Derita Alternative School more effective for students who need access to courses that are not available at that school. Ms. Woods said a big issue that the schools are dealing with are for the students who are disciplined and they go to Derita Alternative School. When the students return to the school, they are not prepared to go back into the classroom. They are still not doing well and they become disruptive again. Ms. Woods believes people are more concerned about this type of disruption because they are more frequent. She believes a Virtual setting would be more appropriate for these students. Ms. Woods said she would address some of the tough issues that the Board often hears about. CMS is receiving many students from other states and these students are entering the system without their records. CMS is finding out after the student has been enrolled that the information the parents provided is not true. Ms. Woods asked what can CMS do at that point and what are the consequences for parents for providing inaccurate information? Can CMS wait to enroll a student until the proper documentation is received? Ms. Morris said the No Child Left Behind legislation allows that information on a long-term suspension must be maintained in a student record. Once CMS learns the information provided by the parents is fraudulent, the student can be removed or reasonable restrictions may be placed on them during that period. CMS may take action, at that time, as if the parent had been truthful in the beginning. Mr. Green said if the information on the affidavit that the parent submits is found to be false and it is found that the person willfully and knowingly provided false information on that affidavit, the maker of the affidavit shall be found guilty of a Class One misdemeanor and shall pay to the local Board an amount equal to the cost of educating the student during the period of enrollment. Dr. Haithcock asked how many of these have we handled? Ms. Morris replied she is not aware of any. Dr. Haithcock said she wants to ensure that we are not


perpetuating another urban myth. Mr. Gauvreau said that is the problem; we have not handled any. He wants to keep saying that until we pick up on the fact that there are too many gangs and thugs in the schools. He said parents know it and people know it and it is not rhetoric. Chairperson White said Mr. Gauvreau has not been recognized and he does not have the floor. Ms. McGarry said she wanted this on the agenda because it has been a simmering issue that has not gone away. Even though it may have been addressed to portions of the Board, it has not been addressed to the full Board. She felt it was important to have the legalities of this issued clarified and that the Board discuss this concern. Ms. McGarry said she understands that the concern is not in the legalities of the interpretation. The issue of expulsion is because the Board is not doing their job if they choose to further explore that option. Ms. McGarry said CMS has done a good job of providing alternatives for the minor infractions but is not going in the right direction for the felons and the criminals. Ms. McGarry said this is the perception in the community whether it is real or not. Many people believe most of the kids in our schools are good kids but there are a few in some of our schools who are engaging in criminal behavior on our campuses or are engaging in criminal activity. Ms. McGarry encouraged the Board to explore the options to take expulsion to the next level for the major infractions such as assaulting a police officer. Chairperson White asked how many convicted felons do we have enrolled in our schools at this time? Dr. Ralph Taylor, Executive Director of Alternative Education and Safe Schools, said last year the Safety Committee conducted a criminal background check and there were seventeen students who had actually been convicted. Dr. Taylor said we have a number of students who get charged but quite often when the student actually goes to court they plea down or plea bargain and there are different arrangements made. This is a problem with the process. Is it fair for CMS to penalize these students when they have not received due process in the court system? The students who had been convicted were doing time somewhere. Ms. Cramer asked were those students in school? Dr. Taylor said some of those students had completed their time and were back in school. Dr. Taylor said that is another issue, if a student has completed their time should they have a right to an education? Ms. McGarry said that is where the question of expulsion should come into play. Mr. Gauvreau said hopefully that is what we are going to talk about. Mr. Dunlap expressed concern if everyone understands what due process means. This was discussed at the Safety Committee Meetings in more detail and there is much more to this discussion than we have had tonight. Mr. Dunlap is concerned that some people will continue to perpetuate the myth that there are several felons in the school district. Mr. Dunlap asked that the Board allow Dr. Taylor to make a presentation to the Board that includes the additional information that he shared with the Safety Committee about the number of students, what crimes were committed, whether it occurred on or off school property, and how he deals with the students who commit crimes in the community versus crimes in the school district. Mr. Dunlap believes it would be helpful to the Board to hear this additional information prior to determining the next steps regarding this issue. Ms. Woods asked have we prosecuted any parents for providing false information? Ms. Morris said she has not been involved in the prosecution of a parent and she is unaware of an instance where a parent provided false information. Dr. Taylor said we have only one experience with this and after CMS started to pursue that parent they left the school system. Ms. Woods said she believes this is happening more frequently. She expressed concern that perhaps the information is not getting to the appropriate people. Ms. Woods encouraged the Board to take action against those parents who provide inaccurate information. Ms. Woods asked what are the steps that CMS can take against the students who have been accused of assault with a deadly weapon and other major offenses and the people at the schools feel uncomfortable about them returning to the school? Dr. Taylor said he uses a process


called a Development Track where he works with those students. He knows where those students are and consults with administration to understand if there are any issues. If there are issues those students are removed. Ms. McGarry asked are these the convicted felons? Dr. Taylor said this applies to the students who have been accused also. Ms. Woods asked are these students assigned to Derita Alternative School? Dr. Taylor said it depends on what the issue is but the student is provided due process. Dr. Taylor said under North Carolina State Statute if a student is believed to be a clear threat and a danger, they can be removed to an alternative setting or something else. Mr. Gauvreau said this discussion is great. He encouraged the Board to direct the Superintendent to take a more aggressive stance and push out the problems on a more frequent basis. He said he has not said we are not doing some of these things but there are more that are not being handled. He is concerned that CMS is not taking an aggressive enough position on our policy and North Carolina State Statute that allows us to expel more students. Mr. Gauvreau said this is the way we will improve our public programs and restore confidence with the public. Mr. Gauvreau said there are students in this school system that must be removed not only for the benefit of the students but also for everyone’s benefit. Mr. Gauvreau said policy and law is in place and it is time the Board executed a more aggressive approach. Ms. Leake expressed concern that the Board panel decisions in the appeal process are not consistent and fair for some students. Some Board decisions return students to their school and others do not. Ms. Leake said parents must be held accountable for their children’s behavior because students are supposed to be in school to be educated and not disciplined. Ms. Griffin said the most important thing that CMS has to do is to ensure that our schools are safe. Ms. Griffin believes that if a student commits a felony or an assault they should be out of our schools. She is offended by the notion that these types of students are all over our school system. Ms. Griffin has two children at one of the most overcrowded high schools in our system and she would not send them to school everyday if she felt it was not safe. She has had five children to attend CMS schools. Things do happen in our schools and they do get handled fairly quickly. Ms. Griffin said this is not a rampant problem. Chairperson White said he has grandchildren at what is considered the most elite of the CMS high schools and at one of the most challenged high schools. He asks them each week do you feel safe. The grandchildren at both schools feel safe. Chairperson White said there are some students who have problems and there may be some that need to be put out but overall this school system does good job. Ms. Woods encouraged Dr. Haithcock to talk with the principals to find out what concerns exist. This might reveal some things that might be helpful as the Board moves to the next steps. Ms. McGarry said the Board should be responsible for showing due diligence by taking measures to ensure safety in our schools and be more aggressive by expelling those students who are in that category. Ms. Leake encouraged people to tell the truth about our schools. She has visited many schools and they are very orderly and education is taking place. Mr. Gauvreau said the public wants us to reach a higher standard regarding discipline than we have. He said it is incumbent upon this Board to drill down deeper and be more aggressive. Ms. Cramer encouraged discussions with the principals and the parents to hear their concerns regarding discipline because there is a perception that the Board must address.

C. Item Deleted

V. REPO RT FROM SUPERI NTENDENT Chairperson White called upon Dr. Haithcock to present her report. Dr. Haithcock said


she has great news to share and she would prefer to share her report at a televised Board meeting so that the public can hear it also. She reported that CMS has just received its first quarterly data for the high schools. She is pleased to report that, for the first time in several years, the quarterly data has outstanding results and indicates the high schools are improving. She also announced that CMS would be able to report the NAEP data on December 1st

.

VI. REPORTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS The Board approved that this section be deleted from the agenda.

ADJOURNMENT By consensus, the Board agreed to adjourn the meeting. The Regular School Board Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

________________________________ Chairperson, Joe. I. White, Jr.

________________________________ Clerk to the Board, Nancy Daughtridge

november 22, 2005 regular board meeting · • to establish and instruct the board’s staff and...

Documents