The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jennifer Fike, finance director of the Huron River Watershed Council, is interested in joining the greenbelt advisory commission. If nominated and confirmed by the city council, she would replace Laura Rubin, HRWC’s executive director, whose term on the commission ends in June. (Photos by the writer.)

The plan lays out a broad range of goals for the preservation of farmland and open space within the greenbelt boundaries. There are no significant changes from the last version approved in 2009, although the plan does include a new section on education and outreach.

The plan also includes the goal of establishing a greenbelt registry program, to formalize relationships with landowners who aren’t yet part of the greenbelt program, but who are committed to the program’s principles of land preservation. “It’s creating a pipeline of projects for the future,” said Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s chair. Three commissioners – Peter Allen, Shannon Brines and Archer Christian – agreed to work with Ginny Trocchio, who manages the greenbelt program, to develop a proposal for the full commission to consider.

Also at the April 4 meeting, Jennifer Fike – finance director for the Huron River Watershed Council – was introduced as a possible replacement on the commission for Laura Rubin. Rubin, who serves as HRWC’s executive director, fills a position on GAC that’s designated for an environmental organization. Her term ends on June 30. Because she is term-limited, she can’t be re-appointed.

Ezekiel noted that there are other vacancies as well, and that anyone who’s interested in applying should contact their city council representative. [.pdf of application form for city boards and commissions] Meetings for the commission are scheduled monthly, although the April meeting was only GAC’s second one in 2013. Both the January and March meetings were canceled.

Strategic Plan

Commissioners and staff have been working on an update of the greenbelt program’s strategic plan for several months. Proposed revisions to the strategic plan were discussed at GAC’s Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, but commissioners had not yet approved it.

At GAC’s Dec. 6, 2012 meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who provides support staff for the program – had reported that she had hoped to get input on proposed revisions to the greenbelt program’s strategic plan at the November meeting of Preserve Washtenaw, but that meeting had been canceled. Preserve Washtenaw is a consortium of local land preservation groups, including the Legacy Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program, and several township programs. Subsequently, GAC’s January 2013 meeting was canceled.

On Feb. 7, Trocchio told commissioners that she was still waiting for feedback. She expected to bring the strategic plan back to GAC for consideration at their March 7 meeting. That March meeting was also canceled.

On April 4, Trocchio reported that no significant changes had been made, based on feedback from the program’s partners. The plan is consistent with what other land preservation groups are doing, in terms for scoring criteria and priorities. She also noted that there weren’t many changes from the previous version of the strategic plan, which was adopted in 2009. The main change is adding a description of how the program fits in with the local economy, because so much has changed over the past few years. Also new is a section on education and outreach.

Excerpts from the strategic plan include the following, from the section on farmland preservation:

Although there is currently little development pressure in the area, due to the downturn in the real estate market and overall economic conditions over the last several years, over the next 3-5 years, the Greenbelt Program will continue to focus on forming 1000-acre blocks -or larger- of protected farms of varying sizes in order to create a diverse farmland base to insure the long term viability of agriculture for future producers. Thus, this strategic plan recommends a major emphasis on purchasing development rights from farmers.

While it is difficult to assign a percentage of focus of the Greenbelt acquisitions, as the program is dependent upon applications, the Greenbelt Program will strive to have approximately 90 percent of the funds focused on preserving blocks of land.

Recognizing that the Greenbelt’s mission is solely the protection of land, the Greenbelt program will make a priority to protect those farms that are producing foods for Ann Arbor markets and consumers.

From the section on open space preservation:

Applications received either along the Huron River or which contain tributaries of the Huron River will be a priority for the Greenbelt, recognizing the significance of the Huron River to the Ann Arbor residents as their source of drinking water.

The Greenbelt scoring criteria awards points to applications that provide scenic views, and visibility from major corridors frequently traveled by Ann Arbor residents. Examples of these major corridors are along the highways that surround the city, which are often an entryway into the City, or routes that are frequented by bikers.

The Greenbelt will continue to seek partnership opportunities with Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation to provide additional recreation opportunities for Ann Arbor residents. In addition, the Greenbelt will prioritize applications with additional recreation opportunities or along major bike path corridors identified by the County.

From the section on leveraging funds:

Given the decrease in land values over the past few years, the Greenbelt Advisory Commission feels that the benefit of State and Federal assistance may not always outweigh the costs of doing business with these agencies. We still place a priority on leveraging funds, but will consider applications that do not meet the State and Federal grant criteria.

After the plan receives approval from GAC, it would be forwarded to the city council as an item of information. [.pdf of draft revised strategic plan] [.pdf of 2009 version of Ann Arbor greenbelt district strategic plan]

Strategic Plan: Commission Discussion

Several commissioners praised the updated plan, and had only a few suggestions. Peter Allen, who served on the subcommittee that worked on the revisions, noted that the data used in some of the charts was outdated. “Is there any way to get more recent data than 2007?” he asked.

No, Trocchio replied. The charts with information on Washtenaw County livestock and crops is based on 2007 data collected by the USDA agriculture census, which is done every five years. The more recent data from 2012 won’t be available until later this year or early next year, she said. In that case, Allen suggested putting a note to indicate that 2007 is the most recent data available. Otherwise, it creates a credibility issue, he said, with people questioning why the data is old.

Dan Ezekiel noted that the maps and a chart included in the strategic plan should be updated to reflect the most recent land preservation deals. He also pointed out that the chart listing sources of potential matching funds should be updated to reflect a contribution from Salem Township.

Washtenaw County land preservation programs.

Allen observed that the plan will be forwarded to the city council and posted on the greenbelt program’s website. He wondered how it would be distributed to the public.

Trocchio said she could send out an email blast to people who have signed up for greenbelt notifications on the city’s website. Allen suggested also sending it to the townships and other greenbelt partners, as well as the media.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the greenbelt program’s strategic plan.

Greenbelt Registry

After approving the strategic plan, commissioners then addressed one of the plan’s recommendations: Establishing a greenbelt registry program.

Dan Ezekiel noted that the strategic plan addresses the transition and changing emphasis from pure acquisition to stewardship of the existing greenbelt. One part of that would be setting up a registry, he said, and so GAC needs to form a subcommittee to work with Ginny Trocchio on developing a proposal for that.

Trocchio gave some additional background, describing the registry as a more formal mechanism to develop relationships with landowners. A lot of land trusts nationwide have this kind of program, she noted.

From the updated strategic plan:

In addition, recognizing that over the next 3-5 years, the Greenbelt will likely shift in program focus and will not be able to acquire as many properties or easements annually, it is important that the Commission maintain contact with landowners in the Greenbelt District who may be interested in protecting their land in the future. Therefore, the Greenbelt will prioritize establishing a Greenbelt Registry Program.

A land registry program is a listing of the properties that contain “special” natural features or has remained in farmland open space that landowners have voluntarily agreed to protect. This is an oral non-binding agreement between the City of Ann Arbor and the landowner. The landowner can end at any time, and the agreement does not affect the deed. The landowners agree to monitor and protect specific features of the property and notify the City if the landowner is planning on selling the property or if major threats have occurred.

The purpose of the land registry is to identify significant parcels of land and, through voluntary agreements with landowners, take the first step toward protection of the land’s natural resources. Furthermore, a land registry program recognizes landowners for protecting significant open space/natural features. Ultimately, these lands could be protected permanently through a conservation easement.

The landowner, by voluntarily agreeing to register their land, agrees to the following:

• Protect the land to the best of their ability
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any significant changes they are planning or any natural changes that have occurred.
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any intent to sell the property.

Trocchio said the subcommittee would consider how targeted the registry should be – mass mailings versus working with individual landowners directly, for example. Other issues include how the information should be tracked, and how landowners should be honored and recognized for keeping the land in agricultural or open space. She noted that she already has informal relationships with several landowners who aren’t yet part of the greenbelt program. This registry would be a way to formalize that relationship.

Greenbelt Registry: Commission Discussion

Archer Christian asked what the timeline would be for this project. Trocchio said a timeline would be determined by the subcommittee. She also noted that the idea of a registry has been discussed for several years. Now, “we’re getting to the bottom of the market,” Trocchio said, in terms of declining land values. Appraisals are coming back with low valuations, so landowners are deciding to wait until land values increase before selling their development rights to the city.

Shannon Brines of Brines Farm in Dexter will serve on a subcommittee to develop a greenbelt registry program.

Peter Allen asked Trocchio what percentage of farmers she already has contact with, even if they aren’t currently part of the greenbelt program. He wondered if there were a lot of farmers out there who don’t have contact with the program in any way. Trocchio replied that there are definitely some major landowners who don’t have any connection to the greenbelt program. Property is always changing hands, so there are also new people who might not know about the program.

Allen wondered how long it would take to create the registry, and how many people might be on it, when completed. Trocchio estimated it could take a couple of months to put together. She said for the first year, a goal might be to have 10-15 landowners on the registry, eventually with 20-30 landowners enrolled.

She clarified that it’s not just a roster with hundreds of names and contact information. Rather, the registry is a “relationship list,” she said.

Ezekiel reported that this idea has been floated in the past, but until now most staff time has been spent on active acquisition. “This is kind of a bridge to the future, and more visionary,” he said. He imagined that the greenbelt program could give landowners on the registry an aerial photo of their property and a certificate thanking them for being good stewards of their land. Then 20-30 years later, the landowners might have that relationship in mind and decide to preserve their land permanently through the greenbelt. “It’s creating a pipeline of projects for the future,” Ezekiel said.

Commissioners will be transitioning from their roles as giving oversight on land acquisition to becoming ambassadors between the greenbelt stakeholders, Ezekiel said, including the taxpayers who are financing the program. He viewed the registry as a top priority, but said he couldn’t volunteer for the subcommittee because his term was ending.

Peter Allen, Archer Christian and Shannon Brines volunteered for the subcommittee. Allen disagreed that Ezekiel couldn’t be on it too – indicating that Ezekiel’s institutional memory would be valuable. Ezekiel responded: “I’d be more than happy to help.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Commission Appointments

Three commissioners – Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, and Laura Rubin – are term limited and will not be reappointed when their current terms end on June 30, 2013.

Rubin, who serves as executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, fills a position on GAC that’s designated for an environmental organization. At GAC’s April 4 meeting, she introduced Jennifer Fike, who’s interested in replacing Rubin on the commission. Fike is the finance director for HRWC.

Rubin noted that Fike has a strong expertise in the local food sector, as former director of the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP). Fike has experience with farm-to-school programs and local farmers, as well as familiarity with national issues in that area. She also has a strong financial and administrative background, Rubin noted.

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, has served on the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission since 2004 and is term limited. Her current term ends on June 30, 2013.

Fike told commissioners that she was interested in serving on GAC. She’s currently on the board of the Legacy Land Conservancy, and was previously the treasurer of the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy. She was also appointed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm to the Michigan Commission of Agriculture & Rural Development. Fike said she has a strong interest in land preservation, and hopes to bring her skills and expertise to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Peter Allen asked Fike for her opinion about GAC’s work, and what she’d like to do on the commission. He also wondered if there were any trends she’s seen that commissioners should be aware of.

Fike replied that she’s been involved in trying to expand the market for smaller farms in the region. There’s been huge growth in farms selling to local markets in Washtenaw County, she said, and she sees that trend continuing. “It’s great to see that interest and effort from young people going into farming,” Fike said. Land costs can be an obstacle, she noted, and a focus at FSEP had been to help new farmers get started.

Dan Ezekiel thanked Fike for her interest in serving on the commission. He noted that greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council. [For most other city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.] Ezekiel said there are other GAC vacancies as well, so anyone who’s interested in applying for the position should contact their city council representative. [.pdf of application form for city boards and commissions]

Ezekiel fills an at-large position. Bloomer’s position is for a farmer; he owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township.

Another at-large position is currently vacant, following the resignation earlier this year of Liz Rother. She had been appointed in 2011 for a term ending June 30, 2014.

Staff Update

During her staff update, Ginny Trocchio reported that the city has submitted an application to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for grants totaling about $202,000 for two properties covering 169 acres. She talked to the program coordinator in Lansing, who said there had been 18 applications in Michigan, requesting a total of $2.5 million in grants. For Michigan, only $1.8 million in FRPP funds are available this year. However, additional funds are being requested from other states that don’t spend their FRPP allotment, Trocchio said, “so we’re hoping that more money will come to Michigan.” Trocchio expects to hear about whether the Ann Arbor greenbelt will receive its requested funding within a couple of months.

Shannon Brines asked if any other local entities applied. Trocchio reported that the Washtenaw County natural areas preservation program has applied for an FRPP grant, as did Scio Township. There might be others as well, she said.

Laura Rubin wondered if there was any information about the future of the FRPP program. Will funding be decreased because of the sequester?

Trocchio replied that as far as she knew, no funding would be cut that’s already been obligated. So the $1.8 million available for Michigan grants is still available. “As far as future years, I don’t know yet,” she said.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

Commissioners spent about 30 minutes at the end of their April 4 meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions, which is one of the reasons for a closed session  allowed by the Michigan Open Meetings Act. When they emerged from closed session, there was no further action and the meeting was adjourned.

Next meeting: Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Christopher Taylor.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker at the Sept. 24, 2012 meeting of the AADL board. She reported on recent recognition given to the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is administered by AADL. (Photos by the writer.)

But the bond proposal could be seen as the backdrop for a report by AADL director Josie Parker, who provided an update of the district’s five-year strategic plan, which the board adopted in 2010. Parker distributed a copy of the plan that highlighted achievements from the most recent fiscal year. “Our reach in the community is deep and it’s wide,” she said. “The strategic plan is our evidence.” [.pdf of highlighted strategic plan]

Board president Margaret Leary noted that as the community’s attention is rightly focused on the bond proposal, the goal of renovating or replacing the downtown building is only one item in the strategic plan. There are seven pages of actions that the library is taking, she said.

At last month’s board meeting Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee, spoke during public commentary to brief the board on actions of that pro-bond group. And since then, two other efforts – to oppose the proposal – have emerged. A group called Protect Our Libraries was formed earlier this month. Its treasurer is Kathy Griswold, a former member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board.

And Douglas Jewett, who had attended an August forum for potential AADL board candidates, filed paperwork on Sept. 25 for the Save the Ann Arbor Library ballot question committee. He did not file to run for the board. He previously had secured a sidewalk vendor permit on Aug. 20 for space in front of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth. He uses the space to lobby against demolition of the current building, citing its architectural significance. The original portion of the building was designed by Alden B. Dow.

At the candidate forum, Jewett had praised the library, calling it the center of Ann Arbor. Four non-partisan board seats on the Nov. 6 ballot will be contested by five candidates: the four incumbents – Prue Rosenthal, Margaret Leary, Nancy Kaplan and Rebecca Head – as well as Lyn Davidge, who attended the Sept. 24 board meeting.

The positions will be elected by voters in Ann Arbor and portions of seven townships that are covered by the library’s district, in Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior. Those are the same boundaries served by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, with the exception of Northfield Township. The four-year terms begin Jan. 1, 2013.

Director’s Report

Josie Parker began her director’s report by highlighting a newsletter distributed by the National Library Service. A section titled “Best Practices from the Network: Spreading the Word about NLS” featured tips from Terry Soave, AADL’s manager of outreach and neighborhood services, about getting coverage for the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is operated by AADL and serves over 400 people. [Celeste Choate, associate director of services, collections and access, had briefed the board in August about a recent satisfaction survey for WLBPD patrons.]

From left: Terry Soave, AADL manager of outreach and neighborhood services, and Celeste Choate, associate director of services, collections and access.

The National Library Service had reached out to AADL to be featured in its newsletter, Parker said, even though the library has only administered the WLBPD for three years. The newsletter listed a dozen items of advice from Soave about how to promote programs or services. The WLBPD had been covered in a June 2012 e-newsletter of the Homewatch Caregivers of Ann Arbor.

The board gave Soave and her staff a round of applause.

Parker also pointed to a handout of the district’s five-year strategic plan – actions that had occurred in the past fiscal year were highlighted in yellow. [.pdf of highlighted strategic plan]

The document shows how active the AADL staff has been in addressing all elements of the strategic plan, Parker said. ”Our reach in the community is deep and it’s wide,” she said. “The strategic plan is our evidence.”

She noted that some things might seem small, but in fact have broader implications. One example was securing the right to make the movie “Grown in Detroit” available for online streaming by AADL cardholders. It shows how AADL is working to bring different kinds of media to the public, in avenues that aren’t traditional, she said. [Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, had described some of these initiatives in more detail during a presentation at the board's Aug. 20, 2012 meeting.]

Here’s a sampling of strategic-plan actions that were accomplished during the past fiscal year:

• Added all branches to the possible pickup locations for Art Prints.
• Developed and launched Science to Go kit collection in late 2011.
• Launched telescope collection for beginning users and hobbyists.
• Hosted a meeting of area ESL [English as a second language] service providers and educators in order to exchange information and promote AADL resources.
• Launched oldnews.aadl.org with over 100,000 local newspaper articles in October 2011.
• Developed a new sensory play event for children with autism.
• Developed an extremely popular event on funding for non-profits that was repeated several times due to demand.
• Provided a panel discussion on the homelessness issue in Washtenaw County in conjunction with the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. AADL also videotaped the event and as of June 27 (a little over 5 months after the event took place) the video has been viewed over 1,000 times.
• Placed withdrawn AADL materials with homeless students via AAPS Homeless Liaison.
• Partnered with C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital to provide storytelling at regularly scheduled events for patients and their families.
• Added collecting samples of each track into music cataloging workflow for inclusion in the catalog.
• Secured a grant from American Library Association and National Endowment for the Humanities to act as a focus group for book selection for the NEH Muslim Journeys Project.
• Conducted a WLBPD Patron Satisfaction Survey. (37% of WLBPD patrons responded.)
• Host a local listserv for Library Biz Connect, a group comprised of small business and entrepreneur-related support service-providers and libraries that shares information about their respective programs and resources; and, also partners on programming.

Margaret Leary, the board’s president, highlighted a couple of initiatives that she said reflect AADL’s work with the Ann Arbor Public Schools: (1) partnering with Mack School to teach fifth graders how to capture and record family stories, using traditional and modern techniques, including podcasting; and (2) partnering with AAPS, C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the VA Hospital to develop and deliver Valentine’s cards made by local kids to hospital patients.

Leary noted that the community’s attention is focused on the bond proposal, which is important. But that’s just a single goal under one of six strategic initiatives. There are seven pages of other activities that the library is pursuing too, she said.

Finance & Facilities Reports

As he does each month, Ken Nieman – AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief financial update to the board. [.pdf of finance report]

AADL board member Jan Barney Newman.

He noted a sharp increase in AADL’s unrestricted cash balance – from $8.132 million in July to $13.295 million by the end of August. This reflects the receipt of proceeds from the July tax bills. As of Aug. 30, the AADL had received 64% of its budgeted tax revenues for the fiscal year, which runs through June 30, 2013.

Five items were over budget, but are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year, Nieman said. Those line items include employment costs, utilities, communications, and library programming and grant expenses.

In all, Nieman concluded, August was business as usual.

Later in the meeting, board member Barbara Murphy gave an update from the board’s budget and finance committee. She noted that a financial audit is currently underway, and will be presented to the board in November.

Prue Rosenthal reported from the special facilities committee, on which she, Ed Surovell and Nancy Kaplan serve. Speaking in very general terms, she said the committee had met and discussed the state of the downtown building, what can be done about it and how to move forward.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The proposed new Ann Arbor greenbelt logo.

It’s been three years since the strategic plan was last updated. In this latest version, no major changes are being made to the program’s existing priorities: protecting large blocks of farmland as well as natural areas in the Huron River watershed, and building partnerships to leverage other funding sources.

In addition to those, a new priority is being added: Educating Ann Arbor residents about the program’s efforts, and reaching out to landowners in the greenbelt to ensure that the flow of applications continues. [.pdf of revised strategic plan]

Commissioners gave additional feedback at their meeting, and the plan will be sent to funding partners for their input too. The greenbelt advisory commission is expected to vote on the final plan at its Oct. 4 meeting.

The group also weighed in on designs for a new logo to help brand Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The design is intended to show the connection to the city, as well as images representing both farmland and natural area preservation. There’s space for logos of partner entities, and text that indicates what kind of land is being preserved and whether the land is private or public. The intent is to use this image on signs at the properties that are protected by the greenbelt program, and on brochures and other materials.

In updates to the commission, Ginny Trocchio – who is the program’s support staff – highlighted plans to hold another bus tour of greenbelt properties on Saturday, Sept. 22. The trip will focus on the eastern portion of the greenbelt, and its connection to the Superior Greenway. She also noted plans to participate in the Sept. 8 HomeGrown Festival, an event showcasing local food.

In their main action item, commissioners voted to recommend that the city council partner with Washtenaw County and Webster Township, contributing 25.5% toward the purchase of a parcel identified as application number 2005-08. (The first four numbers signify the year in which the application was made.) Tom Bloomer abstained from the vote. He owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, and serves on the township’s farmland and open space board. He did not indicate his reason for abstaining.

Two days earlier, the city council had approved two purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) deals that GAC had previously recommended: the 90-acre Alexander farm in Webster Township, and a 136-acre property owned by Robert H. Schultz in Superior Township. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against both deals, citing concern that no local partners contributed to the land preservation efforts. Both deals include federal grants to cover a significant portion of the costs.

Greenbelt Strategic Plan

A subcommittee of commissioners – Peter Allen, Laura Rubin and Shannon Brines – was formed in May of 2012 to work on updating a strategic plan for the greenbelt program. The first strategic plan had been adopted in 2005, and was most recently updated in 2009 to reflect changing economic conditions and the growing local food movement. [.pdf of 2009 version of Ann Arbor greenbelt district strategic plan]

At GAC’s Sept. 6 meeting, Dan Ezekiel – who chairs the commission – noted that this is the first strategic plan that’s been done without the help of Jennifer S. Hall, so it’s “kind of a maiden voyage.” Commissioners would get a briefing of the proposed changes, but would not take action at that meeting, he said. It will next go out to the greenbelt program’s funding partners for input, with the hope of coming back to GAC for approval at their October session.

Ginny Trocchio discusses the draft strategic plan update at the Sept. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staffer who manages the greenbelt program under contract with the city, briefly reviewed the plan’s history. She noted that although several changes are being made, basic priorities haven’t shifted. Those priorities still include protecting large blocks of farmland as well as natural areas in the Huron River watershed, and building partnerships to leverage other funding sources.

Major changes included the addition of a section on education and outreach. In the future, that will be an increasing role of the program as it matures, Trocchio said: Educating Ann Arbor residents about the program’s efforts, and reaching out to landowners in the greenbelt to ensure that applications for land preservation continue to come in.

Another major change is that the updated plan describes the greenbelt program within a larger context of other land preservation efforts, Trocchio said. The greenbelt is just one piece of the puzzle.

Trocchio showed commissioners a couple of maps that are included in the plan indicating land already protected by the greenbelt program, and areas that are considered strategic for future protection. One map also showed an overlay from township master plans, indicating areas that the townships have designated for agricultural use or preservation. “There’s obviously a lot of overlap in what our priority areas are,” she said.

Peter Allen has often discussed how the greenbelt properties fit in with other recreational opportunities and transit, Trocchio noted. So another map included in the strategic plan shows an overlay of greenbelt parcels with the Washtenaw County map of bike trails. Again, there’s a lot of overlap, she said.

Trocchio also mentioned that in the past, the plan had included a list of goals for the program. The subcommittee decided to remove the goals from the strategic plan, since the goals are also included in the program’s annual report. Often the goals will change from year to year, so it seemed more appropriate to have them in the annual report rather than the strategic plan, she said, which isn’t updated as frequently. The two documents will be linked, she added, because the goals will be based on the strategic plan.

[.pdf of revised strategic plan with changes tracked] [.pdf of revised strategic plan]

Greenbelt Strategic Plan: Commission Response

Shannon Brines, one of the subcommittee members, praised Trocchio’s work on this project, saying she was able to incorporate their thoughts into a “nice, comprehensive document.”

Dan Ezekiel liked the new map overlays, especially the one that showed the township master plans. He hadn’t seen that perspective before, and it was helpful.

Archer Christian clarified with Trocchio that there hadn’t previously been a section on education and outreach. Trocchio noted that until recently, the program has been focused on acquisition. But as the bulk of the program’s funds are spent, there’s a recognition that with fewer acquisitions, it’s important to remind people of the land that’s already protected. They’ve been doing some of those educational activities already, she noted, but this formalizes it in the strategic plan.

Responding to a question about when the strategic plan will next be revised, Trocchio indicated that there’s no specific timeline for updates. It depends in part on whether there’s been a major shift that affects the program, she said. For example, if the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) is eliminated, that would significantly impact the greenbelt program, because the FRPP grants have provided a large amount of funding for the greenbelt. If something like that happens, the strategic plan would need to be revisited.

Dan Ezekiel highlighted a chart that showed other land preservation programs, the amount of revenues from millages or other sources that are generated, and how much of that money has been used in partnership with the greenbelt program. It was helpful to see that information, he said.

Washtenaw County land preservation programs.

Trocchio noted that the chart will be revised to include revenues levied by Webster Township, which has its own land preservation millage. Ezekiel suggested including a chart with the amounts contributed by landowners and the federal FRPP program as well. Trocchio said she could do that, noting that the FRPP funds in particular are significant – the greenbelt program has been granted nearly $7 million to date.

Catherine Riseng raised the issue of not including goals in the strategic plan – saying that’s a significant change. It’s not that she opposes it, but she hoped that the sentence mentioning the goals could be strengthened. She’d like to indicate that specific goals will be identified in the annual report, and that progress toward those goals will also be included in the annual report. Trocchio proposed that the strategic plan can have a separate section discussing how the goals will be handled in the annual report.

Ezekiel concluded the discussion by noting that the commission has had a strong history of leadership on the strategic plan, first with Jennifer S. Hall and now with the current subcommittee members. It’s an active plan, he said, one that informs the greenbelt program’s practices. He’s glad people had the energy to pursue these revisions, and he commended Trocchio, Brines, Allen and Rubin on their work.

Outcome: No vote was taken. The plan will be brought back to the commission for formal approval at a future meeting, likely in October. 

Branding the Greenbelt

A committee of two – Ginny Trocchio and Liz Rother – have been working on a new logo, with the goal of developing a better way to brand the greenbelt program. Some draft designs were presented to commissioners at their June 7, 2012 meeting.

On Sept. 6, Trocchio showed commissioners two final options, and credited Nicole Ray – who works with the city’s communications unit – with the designs. There had been many iterations, as they tried to incorporate several aspects of the program: the connection to the city, as well as images representing both farmland and natural area preservation. She noted that there’s space for logos of partner entities. Also, the text at the bottom can be changed to indicate what kind of land is being preserved, and whether the land is private or public.

The image can be used in a variety of ways, Trocchio said – on promotional brochures, posters, mailings, and posted as signs on the protected property.

Branding: Commission Response

Commissioners generally preferred the logo that they felt had a cleaner design (shown at the beginning of this article). Archer Christian, GAC’s newest member, asked if there had been previous logos or branding efforts. Not specifically for the greenbelt, Trocchio replied. A logo had been designed for Preserve Washtenaw – a consortium of local land preservation groups. [The a prototype of that image had first been presented at GAC's December 2009 meeting.] But everyone has their own sign that reflects their own communities and constituents, she said, so it was felt that the Ann Arbor greenbelt program needed one, too.

Dan Ezekiel liked the flexibility of the design. Signs would likely be most visible at natural area preserves, he said, like the Scio Woods Preserve off of Scio Church Road. [That natural area is protected through a partnership of the Washtenaw County natural areas preservation program and Scio Township's land preservation program – both of those entities already have signs at the preserve.]

Catherine Riseng said she was happy with the design, but wondered if they had tried to incorporate water imagery. One of the greenbelt program’s goals is to protect land along the Huron River and its watershed, she noted. Rother said they’d tried to work a water image into the design, but it had proven to be “one element too many.”

Ezekiel asked Tom Bloomer for his opinion, given that Bloomer already has a Preserve Washtenaw sign on his farm in Webster Township. Bloomer felt that the design was a little “busy,” trying to convey a lot. It’s important to have a distinctive sign that people can recognize easily as they drive by, he said, adding that he wasn’t sure it was possible unless it’s a billboard. The best they can hope for is that people see the image repeatedly in different locations. The main thing is to settle on a design and use it universally, he said. Bloomer also felt it was important to indicate whether the land was public or private.

Ezekiel ventured that if people see the image in printed material, perhaps they’ll more easily recognize it when they drive by a sign. He joked that the schoolteacher in him appreciates the period at the end of the text. [Ezekiel teaches science at Forsythe Middle School.] He thanked Rother and Trocchio for their work. It had been a convoluted process, he said, and no one had expected it would take so much time. He looked forward to getting the greenbelt’s brand established so that the public can see and appreciate how that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent appropriately.

Outcome: This was a briefing, and no vote was taken.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission typically include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session.

GAC recommendations on land acquisition are forwarded to the city council for approval.

Land Acquisition: City Council Action

The Ann Arbor city council had two items on its Sept. 4, 2012 agenda that had been previously recommended for approval by the greenbelt advisory commission. Both were for the purchase of development rights, and included grants from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

A total of $394,417 for the Robbin Alexander Trust farm in Webster Township was approved by council. Of that amount, the city’s portion totaled $226,837 with the remaining $167,580 coming from the FRPP grant as a reimbursement. The greenbelt advisory commission had recommended approval of this deal at its June 7, 2012 meeting.

The 90-acre farm is located along Northfield Church Road in Webster Township. According to a staff memo, “the farm is considered large enough to sustain agricultural production and is in a location that will encourage additional farmland preservation activities. The property is surrounded by additional farmland that has been protected by the Greenbelt Program and Webster Township.” [.pdf map showing location of Alexander property]

The second item for consideration by the council was the purchase of development rights for the 136-acre Robert H. Schultz property located along Harris Road and Geddes Road in Superior Township. That deal totaled $523,567, including $294,247 from the city and $229,320 to be reimbursed to the city by an FRPP grant. Like the Alexander property, this land is also considered to be large enough for agricultural production and is located in an area that would encourage other farmland preservation. According to a staff memo, the property is surrounded by additional farmland that’s been protected by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County and the greenbelt program. [.pdf map showing location of Schultz property]

Eight votes are required to pass PDR deals. Both of these items on the council’s Sept. 4 agenda passed on an 8-1 vote, with dissent by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Lumm objected to the fact that there were no local partners in these deals. Webster Township has its own land preservation millage, but did not participate in the Alexander purchase. Superior Township does not have a dedicated millage for land preservation, but has an active volunteer group – the Superior Land Preservation Society.

Land Acquisition: Closed Session

There was no discussion of the council’s action at the open portion of GAC’s Sept. 6 meeting. Commissioners met in a brief closed session, then emerged and voted on a recommendation that will be forwarded to the city council.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of proposed greenbelt acquisitions are not made public, and parcels are identified only by their application number. For the Sept. 6 resolution, commissioners recommended that the city council partner with Washtenaw County and Webster Township, contributing 25.5% toward the purchase of a parcel identified as application number 2005-08. The first four numbers signify the year in which the application was made – this is one of the older applications that have been acted on this year.

Tom Bloomer abstained from the vote. He owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, and serves on the township’s farmland and open space board. He did not indicate his reason for abstaining.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously, with Tom Bloomer abstaining.

Present: Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Tom Bloomer, Carsten Hohnke, Laura Rubin.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 4, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Summaries of the goals are: (1) increasing the number of public art pieces throughout the city; (2) diversifying the public engagement and participation in selecting public art; (3) increasing the public’s support and appreciation for public art through PR efforts; and (5) pursuing private funding for public art. More detailed objectives are provided for each of the goals. [.pdf of draft strategic plan]

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where the AAPAC meeting was held. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

This early 2009 Chronicle file photo shows Christopher Mark as he conducts a rehearsal of the Huron High symphony orchestra. (Photo links to Jan. 12, 2009 Chronicle article about a visit from lead violinist for the Guarneri String Quartet, Arnold Steinhardt.)

In neither case did the board explain its reasoning or share any details of their investigation. However, public commentary about Mark’s case revealed the board’s concern that Mark had engaged in a possibly inappropriate relationship with a woman when she was a student at Huron High School five years ago. Mark and the woman are currently dating.

Also at the meeting, AAPS interim superintendent Robert Allen presented a draft of proposed changes to the district’s strategic plan. Three of the eight original action teams for the plan, each centered on a core strategy, have been asked to reconvene from January to March of 2011 to clarify the focus of their work in light of the proposed changes. Finalized updates to the strategic plan will be presented in April 2011 for board approval.

A number of additional actions were taken by the board at the meeting, including adoption of a set of principles to be used in drafting education reform legislation. The principles will now be shared with other local districts in the hopes of presenting a unified set of suggestions to legislative representatives early in 2011.

Tenure Charges

In the state of Michigan, after four years of achieving satisfactory performance evaluations, a teacher receives tenure. This means that for the teacher to be demoted or discharged, the board must pursue charges with the Michigan State Tenure Commission (MSTC). An administrative law judge then hears the case, and makes a determination about the teacher’s continued employment with the district that brought the charges. Before the board were two resolutions to proceed with tenure changes – one for Christopher Mark and the other for William Harris. Their cases are not connected.

Tenure Charges: Public Commentary

Ten people made public comments regarding  Mark. Five parents, three students, and Mark’s attorney, Nick Roumel, spoke in support of him.

Parents challenged the board to be confident in their assessment of Mark’s behavior, and not to “rush to judgment.” They likened the district’s investigation to a “witch hunt,” and a “vendetta” brought by the parents of the former Huron student who Mark is now dating. Yi Keep added that there are ethno-cultural issues at play, contending that the former student’s parents are using Mark as a “pawn” to control their daughter’s behavior.

Supporters of Christopher Mark filled the board room to standing-room only at the AAPS board's Dec. 15 meeting. Mark is standing at the far right.

Students defended Mark’s behavior, saying that his spending significant time alone with individual students was not unusual, and arguing that this is “not inappropriate student-teacher conduct, but friendship.” One added, “A lot of us don’t want to talk to our parents, but we will talk to Mr. Mark.”

Another implored the board to consider the testimony of the many students who have spoken in support of Mark, and advised, “Amazing high school teachers can change lives. So can their absence.”

Roumel, himself a former member of the AAPS board of education from 1994-2000, stressed that Mark broke no laws or rules, but “acted from the heart” to help a distressed student. “If you believe some of his actions were not appropriate, it’s up to you to put some guidelines in place, because there were none.” Roumel challenged the board to “punish [Mark], but it doesn’t have to be the death penalty.” He suggested, “We can satisfy everybody’s concerns … I look forward to trying to reach that resolution with you.”

Nick Roumel, an attorney representing Christopher Mark, addressed the board during public commentary.

In contrast, Marian Faupel, an attorney and former member of the Saline Area Schools board of education, encouraged the board to follow the law.  She cautioned, “The children of this district rely on you and your wisdom … The past is a good predictor of the future … If [Mark] admitted to the challenged conduct, but does not see a problem with it, there is no chance of rehabilitation.” As Faupel spoke, hisses from the audience crescendoed until board president Deb Mexicotte, who chairs the meetings, admonished the gathering to afford Faupel the courtesy due all speakers.

Tenure Charges: Two AAPS Teachers

At Wednesday’s meeting, the board voted to proceed with filing tenure charges against Christopher Mark and William Harris. For now, both Mark and Harris remain on paid administrative leave. Ultimately, their continued employment with AAPS will be based on the MSTC rulings, if they file an appeal of the board’s decision to the MSTC. If they do not file an appeal, each will be automatically terminated as an AAPS employee 20 days after receiving the board’s decision.

Several  of Mark’s supporters had also addressed the school board at their Nov. 17, 2010 meeting. A few agenda items before the vote on the tenure resolutions on Dec. 15, the board recessed to a closed, executive session for 43 minutes for the purpose of discussing attorney-client privileged communication. As board members began to stand up and leave the room, one of Mark’s supporters questioned the board’s action, calling out, “Will you be back?” Board president Deb Mexicotte answered that yes, they would return to complete the agenda. The supporter’s reply: “We’ll be here.”

Attorney Marian Faupel, during her public commentary, called upon the board to follow the law.

Following the vote to proceed with tenure charges against Mark, many students began crying, and some parents glared at the board members as they filed out, one offering bitterly, “Justice has been done!” Some consoled each other, saying, “It’s not over.” Mark, who had been sitting hand in hand with his girlfriend during the vote, offered a sarcastic, “Thank you,” to the board as he left the room.

After the board heard and voted on the second resolution – to pursue tenure charges against Harris – Mexicotte read a statement stating that the board followed the due process afforded all Michigan teachers, and that the next step would be hearings before an administrative law judge. She closed by saying that the board would not make any further comments at that time.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to pursue tenure charges against Christopher Mark and William Harris.

Strategic Plan Update

AAPS embarked on its three-phase strategic planning process in 2007, and in late October 2010 strategic planning team members reported to the board on the successes of Phase I.

Strategic Plan: Staff Report

At Wednesday’s meeting, interim superintendent Robert Allen explained that the strategic planning team had reconvened for a two-day meeting in early December to conduct a planned review of the process this far, and to kick off Phase II.

The district’s strategic plan contains eight strategies, each directing the work of an action team made up of staff, students, administration, and community members. The primary charge of the review meetings, according to Allen, was to determine whether the work of each of the action teams was on track, needed a slight correction in focus, or should be abandoned. At the same time, the strategic planning team was asked whether any new strategies should be added to the eight already identified.

Allen reported that the team decided to continue work on the same eight strategies, but that three of the eight action teams would be asked to reconvene to clarify their focus, given language changes to their strategies suggested by the strategic planning team. He highlighted the impact of local and national economic changes in the past three years as the main reason the strategies might need to be tweaked. “We embarked on this process at the worst possible time, as we were about to enter into an economic downward spiral,” Allen said, noting that the outside facilitator working with the planning team commended the district for what it had been able to accomplish during Phase I, given the economic climate.

The strategies around which the three teams will be reconvening are:

• Strategy #1: We will create a complete educational program featuring personalized learning that realizes student aspirations and meets international standards;
• Strategy #5: We will implement a system to ensure continuous development of staff capacity; and
• Strategy #6: We will engage and inform our constituents to engender trust and support to accomplish our mission and objectives.

AAPS has put out an open call to the community to be part of these action teams. Allen noted that, though the first set of action teams met for eight months, these teams would work for only three months, from January to March of 2011. Final revisions to the strategic plan will then come before the board in April of 2011 for approval.

In addition to reviewing the strategies, the planning team also analyzed the strategic plan’s belief statements, mission statement, and objectives. Allen presented the draft of proposed language changes to the belief statements and objectives. Of the mission statement’s review, he said, “We went over every word, but did not reach any consensus as to what needs to be changed … Should [the mission statement] be something you can fit on a pencil or recite from memory, or should it be comprehensive? … We are still working on that.”

Noting that approximately one-third of the planning team members are new to the process, Allen suggested that the time spent on reviewing the beliefs and mission statement was particularly useful for them to “gain a high level of understanding as to what was behind all those words.”

Finally, Allen reviewed the general dynamics of the process, suggesting that more emphasis should be placed on communicating about the strategic plan internally. He asked four members of the strategic planning team – Sylvia Nesmith, chair of the Black Parents Student Support Group; former AAPS superintendent Scott Westerman; Alex Hassan, a junior at Huron High; and Clague principal Cindy Leaman – to share their reflections on the two-day review meeting with the board.

Nesmith noted the variety of opinions shared at the review meeting, saying, “It drove home the importance of having diversity on our planning teams, so as the district moves forward to address the needs of all of our students, it can be done with real meaning.” Hassan agreed, “You can’t just have one perspective – you need everyone’s voice to reach consensus.” He argued that the student voice in the strategic planning process was extremely important, and thanked the administration for inviting student participation.

Westerman said he was encouraged by the work of the strategic planning team so far, and asserted that the board will be impressed when they see the final product of the review in April. “We spent 20 hours together and were pretty productive,” he said. “It didn’t seem like 20 hours.”

Leaman, one of the new members on the team, called the process “challenging and provocative, with plenty of opportunities for creative expression, and the nurturing of human spirit.” She noticed the dynamic of the plan’s mission statement reflected in the review process.

After recognizing the hard work of three administrators – Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelly, interim deputy superintendent of instruction, Liz Margolis, director of communications, and Jane Landefeld, director of student accounting – Allen invited board members’ comments or questions.

Strategic Plan Update: Board Response

Board members asked for some clarification on the way wording changes were presented on the slides in the presentation, and requested that future presentations include strike-throughs and underlines, rather than character color changes, to show wording that has been deleted or added, respectively.

Simone Lightfoot asked how more students could be invited to participate. Margolis said she would be recruiting students to participate on the three reconvening action teams by calling the high schools.

Irene Patalan, who had been on the original planning team, said “it broke my heart that I could not be part of this one due to other personal commitments.” She said the strategic plan has been her “guiding light” as a board member, and she thanked those who are giving of their time to keep working on it. Patalan expressed pride that the plan has yielded innovative and creative programming, even as available funds are dwindling.

Susan Baskett thanked the planning team members, and asked how new action teams members would be recruited, and when the board would be notified of who is sitting on each team.

Allen said AAPS would reach out first to the action teams’ original members, and then seek new members. Margolis added that, in addition to posting information on how to volunteer on the district’s website, AAPS will send out information to all of its parent and community groups. She also noted that she has been collecting names of community members interested in participating for the past year, and that she would follow up with them as well.

Allen noted that the teams will need to be in place by Jan. 12, because the action team leader training will take place on that day. Deb Mexicotte asked that the complete list of action team members for the three reconvening teams be included in the board packet for the next regular meeting, also scheduled for Jan. 12.

Christine Stead shared that she was honored and privileged to be a part of the strategic planning team’s review, and “to see the passion and intellect of the people of our community.” She also expressed surprise that the finance action team (team 8) did not need to be reconvened given the changing economic environment, and noted that much of the work currently being done by the board committees, including legislative reform and broadening funding sources, is the work that had been planned for by that action team.

Glenn Nelson stated that he was impressed with the process, and noted that Patalan’s “regrets turned into my joy at being able to participate.” He encouraged the community to participate by joining a reconvening action team. “If you have any inclination at all,” he said, “… come and join us. I was on an action team last time and really learned a lot.”

Andy Thomas joked that, to him, the 20 hours of meeting “seemed like 40 hours …We were trying to reach agreement on every. single. word. … It was painful, but very much worth the effort, I guess.” Mexicotte ventured that Thomas “needs to work on his trustee-speak.”

Mexicotte thanked everyone who participated, and asserted that the process has yielded some amazing results.

Board Committee Reports

The board has two standing committees. The planning committee consists of: Christine Stead (chair), Susan Baskett, and Irene Patalan; the performance committee consists of: Glenn Nelson (chair), Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas. Board president Deb Mexicotte sits on neither committee.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the performance committee gave an unusually long report, embedding a presentation on enrollment data.

Performance Committee

Nelson turned over his report to Thomas, and then Lightfoot. Thomas shared a chart created by AAPS director of student accounting Jane Landefeld, which showed student enrollment on count day by grade over time.  The state of Michigan determines the official number of enrolled students in each school district by requesting that students be counted twice a year – on specific “count days” in September and February.  The state uses a blended count from these two days to determine total foundation allowance allocations for each district.

The chart Thomas presented included data as far back as the 1994-95 school year. Overall this year, AAPS has 16,552 students, which is a net increase of 110 students from last year, due to new students in the WAY Washtenaw program and those who opted to attend AAPS as a school of choice. Thomas praised the district’s efforts to increase enrollment, asserting that without these new students, AAPS would have lost the equivalent of roughly $100,000 this year.

Thomas then pointed out some trends from the data presented by Landefeld. Student enrollment increases from kindergarten to first grade, then gradually declines through elementary school. Middle school enrollment is steady, and then the high school enrollment numbers show a loss of approximately 40 students per year, which is roughly equivalent to the district’s drop-out rate.

Thomas pointed out that the performance committee is also looking at the reasons why students living in the AAPS attendance boundaries choose to attend school outside the district, and what AAPS can do to bring them back. He also noted that the committee is exploring what local private schools offer, other than religious education, that AAPS is not currently offering.

Lightfoot added to the committee’s report, saying that the board will continue to tweak the district’s achievement gap plan, which is currently in draft form. She suggested that the board talk to those students who are in the gap on a regular basis. Lightfoot also acknowledged that when she came on the board, she wanted to move more expeditiously, but that now she is comfortable with moving just a little slower to “get it right.”

Mexicotte thanked the performance committee for sharing the enrollment chart, and said it can be used to debunk myths, such as a perceived drop in middle school enrollment.

Planning Committee

Stead reported that her committee had met Dec. 9. They reviewed the strategic plan update, discussed the district’s transition to Google Mail, and reviewed an early draft of a document intended to better communicate with the community about the district’s efforts to close the achievement gap.

Next, Stead reviewed a resolution to be voted on later in the meeting for the board to adopt a set of principles on education reform. The principles were crafted by a task force of the board’s planning committee, and include ideas on appropriate funding, performance, and charter schools. The board had reviewed the principles in some depth at a study session earlier in the month. [.pdf of reform principles]

Stead asserted that this is the board’s opportunity to have a chance to change legislation, along with other districts in Washtenaw County. Once approved, the idea would be to forward these reform principles along to other local districts, and then take them to legislative representatives in February.

Mexicotte commended the set of principles put forth by the task force as “comprehensive, and forward-thinking,” asserting that “it is an excellent framework to begin a countywide and statewide discussion.” She thanked Stead for her leadership in bringing the document forward.

Association Reports

At each meeting, the board invites reports from six associations: the Youth Senate, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). At the Dec. 15 meeting, the board heard reports from the Youth Senate, the AAPAC, the BPSSG, and the PTOC.

Association Reports: Youth Senate

The Youth Senate representative reported on a voting age survey taken at Huron and Pioneer high schools. The survey results indicate that most students would vote if the voting age was lowered, while also showing that most students believe that young people do not understand the full power of voting. Some students suggested that students should be able to vote at least in local decisions involving schools.

The Youth Senate also reported a shift in its philanthropic efforts at Pioneer to address poverty locally instead of globally. In particular, Pioneer will look at how poverty affects youth and the rate of homelessness in the local community.

Association Reports: AAPAC

Rick Altschuler reported for the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education. He began by thanking the AAPS administration for its support, and said the AAPAC was pleased to learn of Elaine Brown’s technology vision. Brown is the assistant superintendent of student intervention and support services. Altschuler noted that assistive technology is important, as it is the only way for many children to access the curriculum.

He also thanked Ann Roger, the director of Special Olympics for Washtenaw and Livingston counties, for coming to the AAPAC’s December meeting in the hopes of increasing the number of children in AAPS who can join Special Olympics teams. He noted that the Special Olympics is for all persons who have a disability, and that it also offers an inclusion curriculum program called “Get Into It,” which teachers can use in their classroom for free.

Altschuler reported that parents of exceptional youth are already thinking of upcoming transitions, noting that “a great deal of care goes into helping exceptional students transition successfully from year to year.” The AAPAC, he said, is looking forward to continuing to work with AAPS administration to ensure successful transitions.

Finally, he reported that the Disability Awareness Workshops will be taking place again this year for fourth grade classes across the district. He offered a special thanks to Wendy Correll, of the AAPS Educational Foundation for help with disbursing the necessary funds to keep the program going.

Association Reports: BPSSG

Sylvia Nesmith reported for the Black Parents Student Support Group, first thanking everyone who attended the group’s meeting on Dec. 14. She reported that the BPSSG had discussed ideas on boosting their meeting attendance, and has decided to put together a brochure about themselves, along with information about scholarships and other information that might be of interest to parents and students. The brochure will be distributed at school functions, churches, and community centers. Nesmith welcomed the board’s input to the brochure’s content.

Association Reports: PTOC

In her report from the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council, Amy Pachera said that ongoing training for PTOs would continue in the new year, with treasurer training on Feb. 7 and officer training on Feb. 8. The PTO training sessions are being put on by the NEW Center, and each will cost PTOs $25, which Pachera asserted is well worth the price.

Coming up, the PTOC will hold two forums, each in a round-robin style, at which member PTOs will be able to share ideas and best practices. The January forum will be on enrichment activities, and the March forum will be on fundraising.

Pachera also reported that the PTOC advocacy committee has been busy scheduling meetings with the newly elected legislature, and encouraging other school districts to do the same. The PTOC is also participating on the board task force on education reform legislation.

Finally, she reminded the community that the PTOC is a great resource for PTOs if they have questions about issues coming up within their individual schools. The PTOC, Pachera said, can advise on issues of school funding, or help with the review of bylaws or policies.

Superintendent’s Report

Robert Allen reported on the successes of a set of students, teachers, and individual schools in the district. AAPS homebuilding students won a local competition, Forsythe Middle School students came in fifth in a national Knowledge Master Open competition, and many individual students have won scholarships for next year.

In addition, Allen pointed out a number of holiday service projects in play at some local elementary schools – Thurston students collected 88 coats to be distributed to those in need in Washtenaw County, Logan collected 135 paired sets of pajamas and bedtime storybooks, and Eberwhite raised over $1,000 for local families in need. Deb Mexicotte commented that Allen’s report points out how generous and competent AAPS students are, even at young ages.

Allen wished a peaceful and safe holiday season to all.

Board Action Items

There were no first briefing items at this meeting. In addition to pursuing tenure charges as described above, the board approved a number of other items at this meeting with little or no discussion.

Action Item: Consent Agenda

Outcome: After confirming that there were no questions for the second briefing on the first quarter financial report, the board unanimously approved a consent agenda consisting only of the financial report and a set of gift offers.

Action Item: Nomination of WISD Committee Representatives

Deb Mexicotte explained that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) has a parent advisory committee that is mandated by the state to advise them on special education matters. Recently, the AAPS has not had representation on this particular advisory committee, and members of the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education asked if they could address this lack of representation by suggesting names of parents who would be willing to serve on the WISD committee.

Mexicotte asked for any discussion on the two parents nominated for this committee by the AAPAC – Scott White and Barb Byers.

Glenn Nelson applauded their willingness to serve on this committee, especially as the WISD embarks on a major change in leadership – both superintendent, Bill Miller, and assistant superintendent, Rick Leyshock, have recently announced their upcoming resignations, Nelson said – while working on renewal of the special education millage. He stated that White and Byers are excellent candidates to represent Ann Arbor, and that they are two of the people who first educated him about special education services.

Outcome: Irene Patalan and Mexicotte seconded Nelson’s enthusiasm for White and Byers, and the board voted unanimously to recommend them to WISD as new committee members.

Action Items: Education Legislation Reform Resolution

Christine Stead had presented a resolution on education reform legislation earlier in the meeting during her planning committee report. Mexicotte asked her if she had anything to add, or if the resolution was ready to bring to a vote.

Stead took the opportunity to thank the committee that had crafted the set of principles the resolution would adopt, saying that this body of work came together from the ongoing work of many people.

The only discussion was Nelson’s suggestion of a friendly amendment to reword a piece of the language on charter schools to make it more positive toward their existence in areas where the existing public schools are providing low quality education services.

Outcome: The amendment was accepted, and the board unanimously approved the education legislation reform resolution.

Action Items: Student Discipline Action

Before the board was a resolution to reinstate an unnamed student to AAPS.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously with no discussion to recommend that, as discussed in a closed hearing on Nov. 30, Student A be reinstated to AAPS, but placed in a different middle school in January 2011.

Action Item: Policy Reinstatements

Mexicotte explained that three board policies that have not yet been re-reviewed will expire at the end of the calendar year unless the board votes to extend time for their review. She moved that the board delay expiration of three policies – 3760 (Transportation), 6120 (Pilot Projects/ Innovation), and 7220 (Parent & Booster Organizations) – until March 31, 2011, to allow for their review and renewal.

Outcome: With no discussion, the board unanimously approved extending the expiration date of policies on transportation, pilot projects/innovation, and parent & booster organizations until March 31, 2011.

Agenda Planning

Mexicotte said she would like an update on the district’s special education services before the special education renewal is voted on by the community in May. She requested that Elaine Brown, AAPS assistant superintendent for student intervention and support services, provide such a report in February or March of 2011.

Items from the Board

Susan Baskett pointed out that information on board members needed to be updated on a purple card that the administration created with speaking points on it about the district. Mexicotte added that the mission statement on the same document had been truncated.

Simone Lightfoot pointed out that for her, Dec. 16 marks one year of service on the board, and that she has loved it. She thanked those who supported her initial appointment, and the electorate who voted for her this past November, saying, “It is indeed my pleasure to serve.”

Baskett also thanked the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice for its efforts to create a community-wide task force on the elimination of the district’s achievement gap. “We put out there that the community needs to pick up some of the work, and they picked that up.” In addition, Baskett reported that her fourth grade teacher made a donation to the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation in honor of Baskett’s service on the board. Baskett thanked her teacher – “the first person to introduce me to American civics.” Finally, she wished everyone a happy and safe holiday.

And with that, the board adjourned until the new year.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Glenn Nelson, Christine Stead, and Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Robert Allen, interim superintendent of AAPS.

Next regular meeting: Jan. 12, 2011, 7 p.m., at the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Trustees Glenn Nelson and Christine Stead at the Oct. 27 meeting of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board. (Photo by the writer.)

The decision will be made at a special, regular meeting on Nov. 3 being held to finalize the candidate profile and compensation package for recruiting purposes.

At last week’s meeting, the board also heard two major reports – an update on the first two years of the district’s strategic planning process, and a review of the summer programming offered by the district in 2010.

Superintendent Search Update

The board heard a preliminary report from Ray and Associates, the search firm that is assisting with the superintendent search, about input they had received from the community into the development of a candidate profile for the superintendent position. The final report on community input will be brought to the board at a special regular meeting on Nov. 3, at which all aspects of the candidate profile will be finalized, including desired qualities, qualifications, and anticipated salary.

The board also continued a discussion on whether to allow board trustees to view the full set of candidate applications for the superintendent position. After over a hour of debate, during which trustees mostly cemented their original positions rather than moved toward any sort of consensus, they decided to ask the executive committee of the board – consisting of the president, and the two chairs of the standing committees – to craft a proposal on which they could vote at their next meeting.

Search Update: Community Input to the Candidate Profile

Board president Deb Mexicotte introduced Bill Newman, one of the consultants from Ray and Associates, the firm hired to help the board with the superintendent search.

Newman reported that Ray and Associates met with 11 constituent groups over three days, and that most of the turnouts were average to small. The Chronicle attended three of the sessions – one with 35 people, one with 12, and one with 4. Newman mentioned that the option to take an online survey about the candidate profile may have kept some people from attending a forum, even though the forums are structured to be more open-ended than the online survey.

The goal of the community forums, Newman explained, was to get a clear picture of the district’s needs so that the candidate profile used in recruiting for the position achieves the best possible match of candidate skills and experience to district needs. In general, he said, qualities that were desired in candidates were: decisiveness, strong communication skills, being a visionary, and being a risk-taker. Several groups thought it was important that the new superintendent have a terminal degree, such as a PhD or an EdD, though the board is currently thinking of asking for a terminal degree to be preferred but not required.

Looming issues in the district identified by multiple constituencies are the possible sense that the district might be coasting on its good reputation; budget concerns; uncertainty on the part of the teachers’ union that the innovative formula they recently bargained will be correctly acted upon; and closing the achievement gap.

Christine Stead and Glenn Nelson noted that they were pleased with the facilitation and organization shown by Ray and Associates at the forums they audited.

Search Update: Access to Candidate Applications – Round Three

Mexicotte asked Newman to stay at the podium to answer trustees’ questions on a matter they had discussed twice before without resolving – the issue of whether to allow trustees to have access to the full set of candidate applications for the superintendent position. Mexicotte reviewed how the board’s legal counsel had told the board that such trustee review would be allowable legally, and would not subject the applications to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as long as the applications were technically kept in the possession of the search firm.

Mexicotte asserted that the board does not want to violate candidates’ privacy, and also wants to stick to a strong process that will produce excellent candidates. She noted that she is sympathetic to board members’ desire to see that the candidate profile criteria were properly applied to the search, but asked Newman to speak to her concerns that board members with access to the applications might “cherry pick” applicants to bring to the board’s attention rather than defer to the semi-final list produced by the firm.

Newman responded that just applying does not make someone a candidate. Many applicants might be discounted, he said, because they are not a good match for AAPS. If someone asks us why a certain candidate was not chosen as a semi-finalist, he said, we’d be able to tell them.

Al Johnson, another of the three lead consultants assigned to the AAPS search, noted that “cherry picking would cause a variation in the process,” as not all candidates are fully vetted until they have made it past the first steps of the process. Newman added, “We have a process that is tested and true … We believe in candidate care, and we protect [the board] – you can’t be accused of releasing anything you haven’t seen.”

Newman suggested that any vetting that individual trustees could do would be inferior to the investigations done by the firm. Johnson added that having board members do their own checking on candidates causes “us all to not be singing from the same hymnal.” He added that board members may call or e-mail a friend to research a candidate, but that the friend they call is not working from the candidate profile to assess whether the candidate would be a good match for AAPS.

Stead confirmed, “So there does not appear to be a compelling reason to have trustees have access to all the applications in your view?

Newman answered, “That’s a fair assessment,” but he acknowledged that it has happened in other searches his firm has done for other districts – at the insistence of those boards.

Stead asked whether a summary table of certain characteristics of applicants could be provided, and Johnson answered that it is standard to provide such a table.

Andy Thomas asked whether the standard process followed by Ray and Associates, which does not allow for board member viewing of all applications, is useful at preventing “misguided advocacies.” Newman responded that it does.

Nelson challenged the consultants to justify the stopping point of providing a list of semi-finalists. “If you know better than I who the 10 [semi-finalists] should be, what about the five, or the three, or the one? What’s the stopping rule?”

Newman responded the firm’s expertise brings the candidates, but the board’s expertise leads to the final selections. Johnson added, “We can’t achieve board consensus – only you can banter, debate, and agree.”

Nelson argued that having access to the full applications would allow him to validate the firm’s work. “My perception is that this community wants me to be on top of these processes … I want the community to be able to know that I and my fellow trustees were doing our due diligence, and could come out of [the search] saying that Ray did a top-notch job.”

Stead countered Nelson’s argument, saying that Ray’s success as a search firm has already been reinforced by the references AAPS sought when choosing them, which were overwhelmingly positive. She summarized that what she had heard from Ray at this meeting is that allowing trustees access to the applications introduces incremental risks to the process while not adding any value. “I would prefer us to go down a path that has the least amount of risk,” she argued. “I have heard arguments for why people would want access during other meetings that are fairly concerning to me.”

Thomas suggested that perhaps the decision about whether to allow viewing of the applications could be delayed until the application window closes at the end of January, but Newman explained that the decision needs to be made before the position is posted.

“We need to inform the candidates fairly soon as to how their candidacy and materials will be handled,” Newman stated, saying, “Some of them are fairly wary of who’s going to look at their files.” Thomas asked whether the board’s decision on this issue could affect a candidate’s decision about whether to apply, and Newman answered, “Yes, it can be a factor, and we don’t want to lose anybody.”

Nelson argued that the board should not “overreact” to differences of opinion, and that this particular aspect of the search is not as important as later discussions. By talking about the issue of access to applications for so long, he argued, “we are giving the public a sense that this is a really great big deal, when it’s not on the Top 100 list of what this board is going to deal with this fiscal year.”

Susan Baskett disagreed: “This is a big deal – this is our only employee … No disrespect to you gentlemen, but you are human. We have to live with this person … I think I have some expertise in knowing the community. I want the option to look.”

Irene Patalan weighed in, saying that she respects the process laid out by Ray, that the search firm excels in the screening process, and that she would like to take advantage of that. “We will have a lot of work to do – we will make this decision,” she said. “But, you can help us by vetting and giving us the best group.”

Thomas made a bid to head off further discussion by suggesting that the board’s executive committee draft a set of guidelines that would cover this issue.

Mexicotte asked if such a motion coming from the executive committee would be amenable to the board. She pointed out that although the board had just had a “great conversation,” that the effect had been to further polarize trustees, rather than for any one of them to shift from his or her original position on this issue. Mexicotte stated that, in addition to finalizing advertising, search criteria, timeline, and compensation package on Nov. 3, that meeting should also bring closure to this issue. “I believe that there is a motion in here that is a middle path,” she argued.

Stead questioned whether the executive committee, which is made up of Stead herself, Nelson, and Mexicotte, could effectively craft a motion they would all support. Patalan agreed, saying, “If the executive committee wants to do this, ok, but I’m feeling stronger than ever … like this comes to an all-or-nothing decision.”

Mexicotte pointed out that the all-or-nothing opinion was shared by other trustees. Baskett concurred: “This could make us stronger, or this could break us … I am open to hearing, but I don’t hear any arguments to make me change my mind.”

Thomas asked for clarification on the process. He noted that if the executive committee is unable to reach agreement, the next meeting is just about competing motions, and a lot seems to depend on who the president decides to recognize first.

Mexicotte suggested the board “cross that bridge when [they] come to it.” She pointed out that any successful all-or-nothing motion would need to be supported by at least four trustees, and currently that would mean at least one trustee will need to be persuaded by his or her colleagues.

Mexicotte wrapped up the discussion by thanking Ray and Associates for conducting the community forums, and Newman commended the board for requesting community input. “Not all boards do this,” he reiterated. “It’s a tribute to you to do this – this is better.”

Strategic Plan Update

Interim superintendent Robert Allen introduced a review of the district’s strategic plan, noting that Phase I of the plan took place in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. Phase II, Allen said, is now beginning, and will entail a review of strategies and adjustments made by each of the action teams through this year. The strategic planning team then hopes to present the adjusted plan to the board in April 2011. Allen then introduced Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, and Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS interim deputy superintendent of instruction, to present the update. Board members clarified when they should give feedback on the presentation.

Margolis explained that the process used by the district was developed by Bill Cook of Cambridge Strategic Services. She noted that three current AAPS staff members attended an intensive, four-day training with Cook prior to embarking on the strategic planning process. In addition to Margolis, Dickinson-Kelley and Joan Fitzgibbon, who is the principal at Allen Elementary, have been trained in the process.

Dickinson-Kelley added that many other districts follow the same strategic planning process, so using the Cambridge method allows AAPS to compare itself to other districts.

Strategic Plan: Action Steps Taken

The strategic plan is broken down into eight strategies, around which action teams are organized.  Margolis and Dickinson-Kelley reviewed the action steps taken in the plan’s first two years. They include:

• Implementing a world language program in the elementary schools;
• Implementing an International Baccalaureate (IB) program, which will begin in 2011;
• Holding a K-12 math summit to plan for how to ensure that all 8th graders take and are successful in Algebra I;
• Creating the Achievement Team Process and database, and Choices 2.0 program to work toward developing personalized learning plans for each student;
• Establishing the Equity and Collaborative Action Research in Equity (CARE) teams district-wide via the work with Pacific Education Group (PEG)
• Creating the Rising Scholars program, and expanding the availability of alternate forms of gaining high school credits, such as e2020 credit recovery classes, the Options program, and Community Resource (CR) classes;
• Establishing enrichment facilitators at the elementary and middle school levels;
• Using Power School and School Messenger software to communicate more effectively  with parents;
• Developing a three-year, comprehensive technology plan to ensure students connect to the world beyond the classroom;
• Reviewing history texts for cultural relevance to all students;
• Developing professional learning communities (PLCs) at the secondary level;
• Committing to the Charlotte Danielson framework for teacher evaluations;
• Using the “We Learn” survey to assess high school social climates;
• Provide early release days for professional development at the middle and high school levels;
• Training teachers in the “springboard program,” in order to increase the number of students prepared to take advanced placement and accelerated classes;
• Working with the minority subcommittee of the teachers’ union to assist in recruiting quality minority candidates for open teaching positions;
• Tying student growth to teacher evaluations;
• Developing the Village Fund to ensure inclusion of all elementary students in school activities requiring additional fees;
• Updating the district website;
• Developing a new grantwriter/volunteer coordinator staff position;
• Use of Zoomerang surveys to strengthen district-wide communication tools;
• Performing a comprehensive facility assessment;
• Creating a proposed fee schedule to allow for community use of AAPS building spaces;
• Launching the Energy Awareness and Sustainability Education (EASE) initiative;
• Creating a master building and grounds maintenance schedule;
• Coordinating construction goals and spending of sinking fund dollars across schools;
• Creating “exceptional” district branding program
• Development of a new position to increase AAPS-business partnerships;
• Working to renew and pass millages; and
• Consolidating certain services with other county districts, and creating multiple-district programs.

The one area that was not successfully addressed during Phase I, according to Margolis and Dickinson-Kelley, was ensuring quality customer service for students, parents, and staff.

Strategic Plan: Board Response to Action Steps Taken

Susan Baskett suggested that the elementary world languages program be submitted for a Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) award. Though the financial reward is nominal, she said, it would be a way to showcase the innovative program.

Christine Stead suggested that the Math Summit contain a review of math standards beyond the Michigan benchmarks, and Andy Thomas questioned whether the summit would review the district’s overall math curriculum. Dickinson-Kelley said the standards to be reviewed include the national Common Core Standards, which are aligned with international standards, but that there were no plans to re-evaluate the district’s math program at this time.

Multiple board members questioned the strategy to develop personalized learning plans (PLPs) for each student, suggesting that the district may not have sufficient time or resources to do that. Deb Mexicotte said she believes PLPs are possible, but that they may need to be redefined. Dickinson-Kelley suggested that the wording of the strategy may be amended during the adjustment process to reflect the resource of the achievement team database already in place.

Board members requested a status update on where the district is in relation to PEG’s expectations, and suggested that the district evaluate the services it is receiving from PEG.  Robert Allen responded that part of the internal assessment will include a survey of all stakeholders. Stead suggested measuring the number of staff participating in equity work, and argued that achievement among minority students should be considered the main outcome measure.

Mexicotte expressed some confusion about the purpose and function of PLCs. “I would like to understand the intentionality of this a little bit more,” she said. Dickinson-Kelley responded by saying that it’s an area that will benefit from the next phase of the district’s strategic plan, including refining its definition and application in the elementary schools as well as the middle and high schools.

Dickinson-Kelley noted that the “We Learn” survey would be expanded to middle school this year. To increase student engagement and foster a sense of belonging, she noted, the district will also be attempting to increase parent engagement in the high schools.

Thomas suggested that an important element of customer service which the district has not addressed is providing a formalized way for parents to give feedback to the district regarding the experiences their children are having with their teachers. Mexicotte asked whether language regarding parent feedback could be included in teacher evaluations.

Baskett asked for clarification on the goals of the business partnership office. Margolis responded that the idea is to create ongoing relationships with the business community, not just to seek their help when the district needs it. Dickinson-Kelley added that the assessment by the University of Michigan Ross School of Business will reveal “how well we are looking outside ourselves.”

Glenn Nelson stated that he was glad the process would continue to have strong community engagement, and praised the strategic planning team for maintaining an “audacious” vision in such a poor funding climate. He encouraged the central strategic planning team to keep two dimensions in mind – improving both excellence, but also access to excellence. Nelson requested that the strategic planning team try to have the process at a point where it could be shared with the community by the budget forums in April.

Mexicotte thanked the administration and concurred with Nelson that the strategic plan adjustments are one of a handful of very important pieces of work the district will do this year, including hiring a superintendent, setting the 2011-12 budget, and working to renew the special education millage in May.

Board Association Reports

At each meeting, the board invites reports from six associations: the Youth Senate, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). At the Oct. 27 meeting, the board heard reports from the Youth Senate, the AAPAC and the PTOC.

Association Reports: Youth Senate

Nikila Lakshmanan, a junior senator from Community High School, gave the Youth Senate’s report at this meeting. She announced that Pioneer High students are generally supportive of the renovations recently completed there, especially the removal of the portable classrooms. Lakshmanan also noted that many students are concerned about back pain as a result of carrying heavy backpacks around throughout the school day, and between home and school. One solution the Senate proposed is that the board asks book publishers to provide textbooks for first and second semesters separately. Lakshmanan acknowledged that this proposed solution could be problematic at Skyline High, which follows a trimester schedule.

Association Reports: AAPAC

Kathy Grijalva reported for the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education. She reviewed the disability awareness workshops offered at 16 AAPS elementary schools. As a part of the workshops, students participate in a wheelchair obstacle course, wear glasses that give them impaired vision, and try tasks that simulate reading disabilities. Grijalva noted that the workshop’s goal is to teach respect for all people. The AAPS has recently purchased its own kit for the program, and it is stored at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living between sessions. Grijalva thanked the AAPS executive director of physical properties for arranging transport of the kit to sessions.

Grijalva announced that AAPAC is running a workshop on individualized education plans (IEPs) on Thurs., Nov. 18, 7 p.m. at the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) to review changes to IEP laws, and invited all parents to attend.

Association Reports: PTOC

Amy Pachera reported for the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council, and began by thanking the board and administration for contributing to the success of this year’s launch party on Oct. 18. She noted that the accessibility and support of the current board and administration are very much appreciated by the PTOC.

Pachera also stated that the PTO officer training was very successful, and that the PTOC will be scheduling future sessions for additional officers. She invited the public to the next PTOC meeting on Nov. 15 at 7 p.m. at the Balas administration building, and ended by reiterating the the PTOC is still looking for a recording secretary.

Board Committee Reports

The board maintains two standing committees. The planning committee reviews developing programs and new proposals for board consideration, and the performance committee reviews and evaluates ongoing programs and initiatives. The planning committee consists of: Christine Stead (chair), Susan Baskett, and Irene Patalan; the performance committee consists of: Glenn Nelson (chair), Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas. Board president Deb Mexicotte does not sit on either committee.

Committee Reports: Planning Committee

Stead reported that her committee had reviewed the proposed new field house for Pioneer High, and believed the plans to be “very thoughtful, and really appropriate for what they are trying to accomplish.” She also noted that they reviewed the district’s survey of historically underutilized businesses (HUBs) in more detail, and that the next steps to encouraging application of more HUBs to AAPS projects is determining exactly which projects will be up for bid in the next three years.

The planning committee’s next meeting will be held on Nov. 4, at 10 a.m., at the Balas administration building. According to Stead, their agenda will include a review of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business study on behalf of AAPS last spring, as well as the initial discussion on a resolution regarding charter schools.

Stead also mentioned that the district might want to coalesce its thoughts on desired education legislation reform, and possibly engage with other districts in the county to work toward its enactment.

Committee Reports: Performance Committee

Nelson reported that the performance committee has not met since the last board meeting. Their next meeting will be held on Nov 16, at 9 a.m., at the Balas administration building. The agenda will contain a review of the annual financial report, and continuing discussion on changes to the district’s teacher evaluations.

Superintendent’s Report

Robert Allen reported that the nonprofit 826 Michigan has chosen to work with Roberto Clemente students this year on writing. A book of student writing will be published in the spring as part of the collaboration. He also noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s Natural Area Preservation program thanked students for their recent help in removing invasive species from Ann Arbor parks. Allen also honored various students and teachers for their recent successes, including Skyline’s receipt of an award for energy efficient building management.

Finally, Allen reported that the district’s staged crisis response event on Oct. 23 was a success, and a valuable training tool. He also thanked staff members who maintained calm and order during the school lockdowns on Oct. 21.

By order of local law enforcement, AAPS put a subset of schools on lockdown on both Oct. 21 and Oct. 28 due to bank robberies in the southeast Ann Arbor area. According to 2006 legislative changes to the Michigan School Safety Codes, a “lockdown” is a precaution “in which occupants are restricted to the interior of the building and the building secured, with security measures appropriate to an emergency such as a release of hazardous material or the presence of an armed individual on or near the premises.”

Trustee Andy Thomas also expressed appreciation for how district administration handled the Oct. 21 lockdown, noting especially the leadership of AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis in keeping parents informed. Though Thomas said any such situation causes a “certain amount of confusion and inconvenience,” he praised the district’s management, and coordination with Ann Arbor police.

2010/11 Grant Awards

AAPS director of finance, Nancy Hoover, and Linda Doernte, director of purchasing and business support services/grants, requested board approval of a set of grants totaling nearly $7 million.

Hoover explained that all but one of the grants were renewals. The new grant, in the amount of $101,706, was received from the Ann Arbor PTO Thrift Shop to start a transportation fund.

Doernte pointed out that there was a slight net decrease in the overall grant funding for 2010-11. In response to a question about the decrease, Doernte explained that the Title I and Title II grants are formula-funded, and because there were slightly fewer students last year than the year before, the grants were reduced. She noted that the student count has increased this year, and that next year’s Titles I and II grants should therefore slightly increase.

Christine Stead suggested that looking at increasing revenue-enhancing opportunities, such as grants, should be part of district’s strategic plan, as it moves into Phase II. Robert Allen added that the district has just funded a grantwriter position, which was one of the plan’s strategies.

Glenn Nelson noted that this was the first time Hoover had reported to the board since Allen assumed the interim superintendent position, and thanked Hoover for her “leadership and capacity … to keep everything in very good stead while you are taking on even greater responsibilities.” Allen had been the deputy superintendent of operations, who oversees finance among other departments. As Allen serves the district in the interim superintendent role, his deputy superintendent position remains vacant. Nelson noted that part of the reason AAPS did not “fill in behind Allen … is because of the capacity in [its] finance department.”

Outcome: The proposal to accept these grant awards was a first briefing item, and will return for second briefing and a vote at the next regular board meeting.

PTO Thrift Shop Honored

Robert Allen introduced a representative from the PTO Thrift Shop, a nonprofit store that earns money to support enrichment and extra-curricular activities at participating AAPS schools. The shop was presented with a plaque to recognize their recent donation of $101,706 to the district to start a transportation fund. The fund will be used to offset field trip transportation costs. The shop also contributed $100,000 to the AAPS Education Foundation’s “One Million Reasons” campaign last spring.

Glenn Nelson thanked the shop for supporting the schools, and noted that its gifts were significant as leverage to make AAPS attractive to other donors. He also noted that support for field trips can be very essential to families. Deb Mexicotte also thanked them for their contributions.

Irene Patalan offered “a great, big thank you” and reminisced about her own children earning money for their school trips by working at the shop. Andy Thomas pointed out that it’s no longer possible for individual students to earn money there for class trips, and that student work at the shop now earns pooled funds for classes or schools. He noted that it’s incredibly valuable for PTOs to have these resources available, since there are vast differences among the abilities of various schools to raise money from their memberships.

Review of Summer School Programming

Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, the district’s interim deputy superintendent of instruction, introduced a series of presentations on AAPS summer programming. In a memo to the board, she noted that over 1,400 students were served over the summer months. At the meeting, she pointed out that there are some smaller pieces of summer programming that would not be reported at the meeting, but that the eight reports to be presented cover the eight main pieces.

Following her introduction, the board heard reports from staff of the following summer programs: Preschool Summer Program, Summer Learning Institute (SLI) Elementary Program, Student Intervention and Support Services Extended School Year (ESY) Program, Haisley Title I Summer Learning Program, Mitchell Title I Summer Learning Program, Scarlett Title III (Second Language Learners) Summer Program, Middle School/High School Enrichment and Credit Recovery Program, and Clemente Summer Learning Program.

Summer School Programming: Preschool

Michele Pogliano reported on the preschool summer program, which serves children from birth to age five. The focus for special education students in the program is to maintain targeted skills from their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs); the focus for general education students is to work on achieving outcomes in areas where students had struggled during the school year. Pogliano mentioned that student achievement data is collected three times over the summer, and that the first kindergarten grades are also assessed.

Busing was a big change this year, Pogliano noted, but the program maintained 94% attendance even though they went down from eight buses to just one. There were many musical performances throughout the summer, and weekly or daily singalongs.

In the future, Pogliano said she’d like to see more parent involvement, such as parent training and parent groups running concurrently with the school day.

Summer School Programming: Summer Learning Institute (SLI)

Matt Hilton and Natasha York presented on the Summer Learning Institute (SLI), which serves eligible first and third grade students. Eligibility was determined using teacher referral based on March 2010 report card outcomes. SLI is the largest of the summer programs at the elementary level, serving 257 students.

Hilton reviewed the program’s daily schedule, which ran four hours a day for four weeks, and included one math and one literacy session daily. The focus of the program was to prevent summer regression for students below grade level in reading or math.

Growth was demonstrated for students in both grades, Hilton reported. He noted that the program had high parent involvement, made use of instructional technology such as System 44, and Read 180 (both literacy software), and maintained high student attendance.

Hilton argued that SLI is a “very special place” and that parents had expressed extreme appreciation of the program’s ability to leave their children feeling optimistic about starting the next regular school year as a result of having been in the SLI. York added that the SLI is also a successful partnership with the University of Michigan, which sends student teachers to the program. The benefit to the student teachers is exposure to different forms of instruction.

Next year, Hilton described how he would like to create a podcast of the program’s orientation, and would consider creating a dual language classroom to better meet the needs of second language learners.

Susan Baskett asked for clarification on the different language used to assess progress for first and third graders. Hilton explained that for the first graders, a simple pre-test/post-test analysis was done to measure student growth. Third graders were assessed to determine whether they were at beginning, developing, or secure levels of the targeted math and literacy outcomes.

Summer School Programming: Extended School Year (ESY)

The Extended School Year (ESY) program is a federally mandated support program for students with disabilities. Bill Harris, AAPS assistant director of student intervention and support services, reported that over 80% of ESY students are in self-contained classrooms during the regular school year.

The ESY program is a five-week program that runs four half-days per week. It was housed in Wines elementary, and served 145 students, most of them at the elementary level.

Harris commended the ESY staff, saying they had “wonderful skill sets and hearts of gold.” He noted that staff were able to complete over 20 hours of their annual professional development requirement via offerings during the summer.

The focus of the ESY program, Harris stated, is maintaining skills according to each student’s IEP. Social behavior and functional goals are as important to maintain as academic goals, and are addressed through direct instruction, he said. Harris also praised the ESY’s talented art, music, and PE teachers. The program this year also included swimming and many enrichment activities.

Harris explained that students with disabilities participate in other summer programs beyond ESY as well, including SLI, and the secondary summer school program. Special education students are also provided with social work and other support to facilitate their participation in Ann Arbor Recreation and Education summer camps.

In the future, Harris noted he would like to expand serving ESY students within the SLI program, and increase the level of co-teaching at the secondary level. Co-teaching is when a general education and special education instructors teach classes together to provide extra support for special education students who are mainstreamed into general education classes.

Summer School Programming: Haisley Title I

Title I is a federal program that provides supplemental funding to schools with a high proportion of students from low-income households. In response to questions from board members, Dickinson-Kelley explained that schools who receive Title I funding can choose to use part of their funding for summer programming, but cannot duplicate any district-wide programs.

In AAPS, all elementary students performing below grade level in grades 1 and 3 were offered spots in the district-wide SLI. So the ten elementary schools with Title I funding could choose to offer complementary summer programming to students in grades 2, 4, and 5.

In some cases, schools reserve some of their Title I money for summer programming, but in other cases, schools may end up with a surplus of Title I money at the end of the school year.

Title I summer programs cannot be opened to students from non-Title I schools, but if two or more Title I schools have a small amount of funding leftover, they can join together and pool resources. Any Title I funding left at the end of the fiscal year is lost.

Dickinson-Kelley pointed out that there were many permutations of the application of Title I funding this past summer. Pittsfield Elementary held a correspondence summer school. Dicken Elementary held a two-week intensive program. The Mitchell program served Allen and Carpenter and Pittsfield as well.

Haisley ran a small summer program for just 22 of its students. Most of the students who participated had IEPs, and were at least two grade levels behind their peers in math or literacy.

Charles Davis reported that due to the small number of students being served, the Haisley Title I summer program was able to provide individualized instruction. As measured by pre-tests and post-tests, he said, 100% of students increased their level of math and literacy. In particular, all third and fourth graders went up at least one reading level.

Davis said that the format of the Haisley program was modeled after the SLI’s schedule, but also included a daily walk. The program made use of available district technology such as FastMath, Readabouts, and Read 180. Attendance was consistent, with over 90% of students attending daily. Davis noted that having the regular Haisley office staff work with the summer program helped with consistency and attendance.

The fact that all students were from Haisley, Davis said, allowed for the program to make effective use of limited time, because everyone already knew each other. He also touted the lack of stigma surrounding the program. “We turned it around to make it exposure to what was coming – kids felt smarter since they got a preview of what was coming in the next grade,” he stated.

Though parents were seen each day, Davis said, next year’s program would ideally have greater parent involvement. Davis also acknowledged the effect of a “transportation glitch,” on achieving a larger number of students served by the program, and hopes to resolve that for next year. He noted that future summer programming might include a service learning project.

Summer School Programming: Mitchell Title I

Mitchell principal Kathy Scarnecchia noted that this year was the first time Title I funding had been pooled from schools that feed into Scarlett.

Bernard Bell reported on the shared program, describing its structure as similar to that of the SLI. One difference is that Mitchell program students were fed breakfast and lunch. The program also used Read 180 and FastMath.

Bell noted that the Mitchell garden was special part of program. At least twice a week students aided in taking care of the garden or harvesting food, which was then used in their lunch. The Ann Arbor District Library came in for two assemblies.

Collectively, Bell argued, program was successful, but any one metric is hard to track – due to the movement of many students in and out of the program throughout its duration. During the summer, he noted, a large number of Mitchell students stay in different residences.

Though informal parent relationships were established, which have carried into the fall, the program’s parent coffee was only attended by 50% of parents. Bell suggested that the program hold a parent open house next year which could be more available for working parents.

Summer School Programming: Scarlett Title III (Second Language Learners)

Gerald Vasquez, Scarlett principal, presented on the Title III summer program for Second Language Learners at his school. Title III is a federal program that provides extra funding to help students with limited English proficiency. The goal is for them to master English so they can then achieve the same high standards of content-area learning as native English-speaking students. The predominant first language spoken by students in the Scarlett Title III program was Spanish, Vasquez told the board, with Chinese and Arabic also well-represented.

The Scarlett Title III program served 37 Scarlett students, and a “handful” from Tappan, Vasquez said. It was taught by 4.5 teachers, and had a structure notably different from a regular school day. Vasquez described the program as “highly relational,” with students arriving at 8 a.m. for breakfast and conversation. The program was a great opportunity, he said, for English Language Learners (ELLs) to feel a sense of belonging to and ownership of their school. Teachers could see students in a different light, and students had more of a chance to be themselves in a smaller group. Vasquez said he was pleased to see the ELL’s newfound confidence persist through the fall, which he had not anticipated.

All students in the Scarlett Title III program were pre-assessed in the four core subject areas, and 90% saw an increase in post-test scores. The program also used Read 180 and FastMath.

On Fridays, Vasquez said, the program took students on culminating trips using public transportation, and public resources such as the AADL, Michigan 826, and the UM Exhibit Museum of Natural History. Vasquez touted the low expense, as the program costs were almost entirely limited to the cost of riding the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) buses.

The program’s focus was to enrich academic experiences, and reduce summer loss. Because students usually speak their native languages at home, the program was a valuable opportunity to participate in another month of English-language instruction. Vasquez predicted it will result in academic gains this school year. A survey of participants revealed that 90% of them said the program was a positive experience, and many would want to do it again.

Summer School Programming: Secondary Enrichment and Credit Recovery

Marcus Edmondson and Kevin Hudson reported on the district’s summer programming for secondary students. The program had a morning and afternoon session – students could attend a half-credit by attending one sessionor the other. They noted that AATA does not ordinally run to Skyline, but restructured its routes to support the summer program being held there.

The middle school portion of the program served 120 students and focused on pre-teaching math and literacy skills to 7th and 8th graders. All participating students made academic gains.

The high school program had four divisions: (1) traditional high school courses, (2) pre-teaching algebra and biology to incoming 9th graders, (3) a credit recovery program, (4) and online courses. Over half of the 468 students served by the high school program had IEPs, and support for ESY students was provided through Read 180.

Edmondson and Hudson noted that the e2020 credit recovery program was very successful, with all students completing their courses and receiving credit.

While Skyline was a safe and secure building, which allowed the middle school and high school classes to be held on different floors, Edmondson argued that a more centralized location would be a better fit for the program in the future. He noted that more bus routes run near Pioneer, which would allow for better program access and increased equity.

He also suggested that parents could be given more information, and that the program’s registration process might be improved if it started one week later. The program has usually started before teachers have turned in all student grades at the end of the school year.

Summer School Programming: Clemente

Ben Edmondson and Barbara Malcolm reported on the summer program at Roberto Clemente. Edmondson noted that 95% of its students are African-American, and that 35% of them are special education students. The program is considered an extension of Clemente’s regular school year, and runs for half-days, four days a week for seven weeks instead of four or five like the other programs.

Edmondson noted that roughly 75% of Clemente’s students participate, and that students who were new to Clemente this fall were mandated to attend. The criteria for students to attend were outlined to students during the last school year, and include students who have low grade point averages (GPAs), have more than 15 absences throughout the school year, or are behind in any aspect of credits.

Subjects were taught by the same teachers as during the regular school year, and the program focused solely on reading and math. Edmondson noted that e2020 credit recovery was available, but that most Clemente students learn better in face-to-face classes.

Although the program required three buses, costs were cut in other ways. Malcolm added that the program provided breakfast, lunch, and snacks with funding from the county. Parent involvement was required, and was 100%. The program also made use of grandparent or elder mentors.

Baskett asked why Clemente’s program ran longer than others. Edmondson answered that students need to be in school every day, and said that sometimes his students disappear over the summer. He said he tells students, “If you’re in school, bad things will not happen to you.” Edmonson argued that he would have made the program even longer if he could.

Nelson commented that Clemente’s summer program sounded somewhat punitive compared to other programs which were portrayed more positively. Nelson also questioned the exclusion of any enrichment activities in the program.

Edmondson acknowledged Nelson’s perception as correct, and said that Clemente reflected the real world, where actions have consequences. “We want our kids to graduate with their peers on time,” Edmondson argued. “If we let them slip by, they will not graduate … If they don’t graduate, where are they going to go?”

Regarding enrichment, Edmondson and Malcolm spoke about the change in the summer program since Edmondson took over as principal. Before Edmondson took over, Malcom said, the summer program included a weekly field trip. Yes, she said, students got to go places they had not been able to go before, but now, she said, students can tell you what their GPA is.

Edmondson added, “When you know your students, you know what they need.” He said his decision to cut enrichment activities out of the summer program to focus solely on academics was based on student needs.

Summer School Programming: Board Response

Dickinson-Kelley thanked the board for its support of summer programming. Multiple board members noted that they appreciated the consistent format which organized each of the program’s presentations, and the concise review of so many unique programs. A few board members also noted that they appreciated the program staff’s focus on being cost-effective.

Stead commended the focus on student achievement and elements of personalized learning included in the programs. She noted that she’d love to see the programs evaluated for effectiveness so that resources can be assigned to aspects of the programming that are most helpful. She also asked if the programs are constrained by capacity, and suggested that the district should plan to increase student enrollment in summer programs if possible.

Nelson noted that since the summer school budget straddles two fiscal years, the board’s planning and performance both need to be aware of the program’s future needs so that proper funding can be assured. He also asked how absenteeism during the regular school year affects student achievement, and suggested that he might lead the performance committee to look into that.

Thomas said the summer school presentation whet his appetite for hearing more about the new lab school initiative between AAPS and UM. He suggested that the year-round schooling coordinated by the lab school would de-stigmatize summer programming, and is “based on the well-supported premise that students benefit from more continuous learning.”

Dickinson-Kelley asserted that school leaders would love to talk about how to improve attendance. She also noted that an update on the lab school’s development would be coming to the board in December.

Patalan reiterated the importance of supporting parents as well as students. “Support for parents helps them for the rest of their lives,” she argued. She also suggested that “it’s important to breathe outside the classroom walls,” and noted her appreciation for the outdoor time, and field trips mentioned as part of some programs. Lastly, she stated that she liked that program staff shared possible improvements that could be made to their programs in the future. “I can give you my suggestions,” she said, “but I’m not living and breathing it.”

Mexicotte expressed some concern that the special education ESY program focused on maintenance rather than improvement over the summer months. The maintenance model, she argued, “needs to be shown the door when we think about our values in this district.” She suggested lengthening the ESY program to seven weeks.

Dickinson-Kelley validated Mexicotte’s concerns, and suggested that the summer programming has been moving in the direction of more co-teaching.

Mexicotte also suggested that a thorough evaluation of summer programming would be appropriate, as the district begins to include a measurement of “student growth” in its evaluation of teachers.

Consent Agenda

A brief consent agenda consisting of gift offers and minutes approvals was approved.

Items from the Board

Andy Thomas noted that it was rewarding to see 28 teachers recently receive grants from the AAPS Education Foundation.

Christine Stead noted an innovative fundraiser at Wines Elementary called the runathon, which incorporates health and exercise in a fun way for kids and their families, and complimented Amy Pachera for its creation.

Glenn Nelson reported that the AAPS education foundation had a nice harvest dinner celebration full of people from the community who came out to support public education. He also praised the Neutral Zone as a partner with AAPS “to give students good experiences, and … make the community better.”

Irene Patalan announced that she had met a federal Head Start evaluator who had just come from the AAPS preschool, and was universally excited about the program.

Susan Baskett, who sits on the local Healthy Schools committee, reported on the great work happening at Scarlett and Stone schools regarding school-based health clinics. The clinics, she said, provide eye testing, and mobile dentistry. They also partner with Lenscrafters to get vouchers for contacts and glasses. Scarlett has a walking club, helmet use program, and asthma prevention program, she said, while Stone is providing workshops on depression, and a youth smoke-out. Baskett pointed out that the use of school-based clinics leads to higher attendance.

She also thanked the Rising Scholars program for the work they do in the district, and reminded everyone about the local NAACP Annual Freedom Fund dinner on Nov. 6.

Deb Mexicotte noted that there will a reception to recognize the AAPS Education Foundation donors at 6:30 p.m. before the board meeting on Nov. 17.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead. Absent was trustee Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Robert Allen, interim superintendent of AAPS.

Next special regular meeting: Nov 3., 2010, 5:30 p.m., at the Balas Administration building, 2555 S. State St.