In addition to condemning the right-to-work law and urging the state legislature to pass SB 95 and SB 96 – bills that would repeal the law – LaBarre’s resolution also “directs the county administrator and the director of human resources to engage in expedited negotiations, as requested by the unions, with the goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a letter of understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.”

This is the same approach recently authorized by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board at its Jan. 17, 2013 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA OK's Labor, Agency Fee Accords"]

LaBarre, who took office in early January, had previously indicated his interest in bringing forward a resolution opposing the right-to-work law. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he led a meeting on Jan. 3 with a lengthy discussion of that issue. [Chronicle coverage: "County Board Weighs Right-to-Work Response"]

The controversial right-to-work law was passed late last year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The law, which takes effect in March, will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are Democrats, including LaBarre.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Dan Smith attempted to ascertain the cost to the county of entering into these new union agreements, if they are challenged in court. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said he didn’t want to speculate about possible costs. He indicated that costs could vary widely, depending on how a case plays out in court and whether it is appealed.

Smith characterized the language in the resolution as “over the top” and said it contained offensive rhetoric. He told commissioners that he had crafted two alternative versions of the resolution – one that eliminated the offensive rhetoric [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #1], and another that removed language that was extraneous to county policy [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #2]. However, he did not formally offer the resolutions for consideration.

Before the vote, LaBarre defended his own resolution, saying it was important to show support for the workforce and that some form of action is warranted in this situation.

The board later entered into a nearly three-hour closed session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiation strategy. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

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

At right: Diane Heidt, Washtenaw County’s human resources and labor relations director, talks with Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union. (Photos by the writer.)

The briefing was delivered by Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. She told the board that they’d be discussing specific negotiation strategies at their March 3 working session – those talks will be held in a closed session, however. Heidt’s presentation last Thursday was meant to set the stage for commissioners, and to answer any general questions they had as the county prepares to negotiate with its 17 bargaining units.

Leaders of two unions attended Thursday’s working session, though they did not address the board during the meeting: Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union, which represents 621 workers within its five units; and Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, with 56 members.

The county faces a two-year, $20.9 million deficit for its 2012 and 2013 budget years. In a “State of the County” report given to the board earlier this year, county administrator Verna McDaniel targeted $8.5 million in cuts to employee compensation and benefits as part of their strategy for tackling the projected shortfall.

Washtenaw County Labor Overview

Heidt began by giving some context regarding the laws that govern collective bargaining. Congress passed the first federal labor relations act in 1935, to protect interstate commerce from being disrupted by labor disputes or work stoppages, Heidt said. The same goals drove Michigan’s state laws that regulate labor unions for public sector employees, she said.

The specific state laws that govern collective bargaining are:

• Labor Relations and Mediation Act (Act 176 of 1939): Grants full collective bargaining rights to private sector employees. It also provides for settling representation disputes, the hearing of unfair labor practice charges, and the mediation of contract disputes and grievances. Act 176 set up the three-person Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to administer these provisions, and to oversee the public bargaining laws.
• Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) (Act 336 of 1947): Provides for the recognition of an exclusive bargaining agent for public employees in appropriate units, and prohibits certain acts as unfair labor practices. It also prohibits strikes in the public sector. However, state employees are specifically excluded from PERA.
• Compulsory Arbitration of Labor Disputes in Police and Fire Departments (Act 312 of 1969): Provides for the compulsory arbitration of labor contract disputes between public safety employees of police and fire departments who are otherwise covered by PERA. While the MERC administers Act 312, the arbitration is carried out by private neutral arbitrators according to a MERC-sponsored selection process. Following a hearing before the arbitrator of all issues in dispute, the neutral arbitrator must make a decision, giving attention to a list of established criteria. The arbitrator is required to settle economic issues by selecting the last offer of either party which best meets the established criteria.

Heidt then explained that state law requires public entities to include certain mandatory topics as part of its collective bargaining contract negotiations. They include: (1) wages – hourly rates, shift premiums, vacation pay, time spent on union business, and fringe benefits; (2) hours – actual time worked, time spent on breaks, and overtime; and (3) working conditions – promotions, seniority, layoffs, shift preferences. “Those are the overarching areas,” she said.

Two of the county’s 17 bargaining units are covered by Act 312: The Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), with 251 members; and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM), with 32 members. The other 15 units are covered by a process known as “bargaining in good faith,” Heidt said – arriving at an agreement through a give-and-take process of proposals. If no agreement is reached, there’s a process that provides for mediation, fact-finding and ultimate resolution.

One of the most crucial parts of a labor agreement lays out the grievance process, Heidt said – “that’s the piece that helps us resolve labor disputes.” It shouldn’t be viewed as a negative, she said. Contracts are relatively short documents – 50 pages or so, with about 75 articles – and there’s no way they can address every issue that might arise during the three- to five-year period of the contracts. That’s why having a clear grievance process is important, she said.

The state, through MERC, provides guidelines that govern where particular positions fit within the bargaining units. For example, you wouldn’t have nurses and sheriff’s deputies in the same bargaining unit – their roles are too dissimilar.

Labor Overview: Bargaining Units, Non-Union Employees

Heidt then outlined the 17 different bargaining units that represent the county’s 1,044 union employees. She noted that by law, employees and their supervisors can’t be part of the same bargaining unit.

• AFSCME Local 2733 (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees): 621 total members. There are five bargaining units within Local 2733: (1) Unit A (340 members) includes all general county professional employees who have a four-year college degree or higher, excluding supervisors; (2) Unit B (176 members) includes general county employees whose job requires less than a four-year degree, excluding supervisors; (3) Unit C (53 members) includes all employees of the 22nd District Court and Friend of the Court program, excluding supervisors; (4) the Family Division/Juvenile Center (29 members) includes all employees of the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Family Division/Juvenile Center, excluding supervisors; and (5) Juvenile Detention (23 members) includes all employees of the county juvenile detention facility, excluding supervisors.
• AFSCME Local 3052: 56 members. Includes two units: (1) for general supervisors, excluding executive and administrative employees, and (2) supervisors at the Family Division/Juvenile Center, excluding executive and administrative employees.
• Michigan Nurses Association: 14 total members. Includes two units: (1) Unit I (12 members) for public health nurses; and (2) Unit II (2 members) for public health nurse supervisors.
• TPOAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan): 33 total members. Includes two units: 1) Unit I (24 members) includes all senior deputy district court clerks, deputy district court clerks and probation secretaries at the 14-A District Court; and 2) Unit II (9 members) includes supervisors and probation officers at the 14-A District Court, excluding magistrates and the deputy court administrator. Heidt explained that until last year, these employees had been represented by the Teamsters, but they had voted to de-certify and become certified as part of the TPOAM union instead.
• Assistant Prosecutors Association: 24 members. There are two bargaining units covering assistant prosecuting attorneys, excluding the chief assistant PA and the deputy chief assistant PA.
• Public Defenders Association: 13 members. There are two bargaining units covering assistant public defenders, excluding the chief assistant public defender.
• Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM): 251 members. Includes all general staff of the sheriff’s office, including deputies, corrections officers, communication dispatchers and support staff.
• Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM): 32 members. Includes all supervisory staff of the sheriff’s office, including sergeants and lieutenants.

Heidt also gave a headcount for the county’s 270 non-union employees: (1) 26 elected officials; (2) 20 department heads – 18 in county units, and 2 in the trial court; (3) 181 professionals/managers – 146 in county units, and 35 in the court; (4) 34 support staff – 22 in county units, 12 in the court; and (5) nine non-union sheriff’s office employees – Heidt noted that these employees get wages and benefits matching the COAM union.

Negotiated union salary adjustments have generally been offered to non-union workers as well, Heidt said. Unlike union workers, non-union employees do not get automatic “step” increases, however, nor do they receive extra pay based on the length of time they’ve served, she said. Pay-for-performance increases for non-union employees have been on hold since 2009, she noted.

Labor Overview: Economic and Non-Economic Contract Provisions

Heidt reviewed elements of current union contracts that will be mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

New hires are brought in at the first or second “steps” of their salary grade. With the administrator’s approval, someone can be hired at up to the midpoint of the job’s salary grade – beyond that midpoint, an offer requires board approval. On an employee’s anniversary date – typically the date of their hire – they get an automatic increase to the next step in the salary grade. Across-the-board increases for union employees are part of the contract negotiations. [.pdf of 2011 salary table for Washtenaw County]

When a union member’s job is reclassified, they’re eligible for one step increase at the new salary grade – that typically represents a 4% increase, Heidt said. For promotions, two step increases are granted at the new salary grade – generally equivalent to an 8% increase.

Longevity pay is also given to union workers, based on their length of service. These increases are distributed in different ways, Heidt said – some get the longevity pay once a year, other employees get the increases spread out as part of their regular paychecks. As part of the 2009 contract negotiations, different longevity pay scales were adopted for new hires.

Heidt then described the various retirement plans for county workers, noting that the board will hold a working session on this topic in May, with a greater level of detail. There are three plans:

• Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS): A defined benefit plan with 1,001 members, 24 deferred members, and 727 retirees or beneficiaries.
• Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS): A defined benefit plan only for employees of the sheriff’s office, with 286 members, 17 deferred vested members, and 10 retirees/beneficiaries.
• Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA): A 501(c)9 trust established to pre‐fund retiree health care benefits.

Employees also receive s “healthy” package of fringe benefits, Heidt said. Those benefits include Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance and dental insurance, life insurance, long-term disability, overtime and paid leave, among other benefits. She noted that as part of the 2009 contract concessions, most of the unions agreed to take eight unpaid “banked” leave days, which amounted to about a 3.1% cut.

They’ll also be negotiating a raft of non-economic provisions, Heidt said. Those include the grievance procedure, working hours, leaves of absence without pay, transfers, promotions, seniority, layoffs and “bumping,” progressive discipline and discharge, performance evaluations, and management rights.

Labor Overview: Next Steps

Heidt said the unions and administration use a method called interest-based bargaining (IBB), which AFSCME requested in 2002. It’s been very successful, she said, and involves trying to find options that benefit both sides. The process includes a discussion about why the positions that you’re taking are important – it’s not just making offers and counter-offers, she said, and the approach has dramatically enhanced labor/management relations.

On the administration side, the negotiating team will consist of Heidt; finance director Kelly Belknap; Donna Sabourin, executive director of the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) department; Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation; Lisa Greco, director of the county Children’s Services department; Dan Dwyer, Washtenaw County Trial Court administrator; and Judah Garber, representing the Trial Court’s Family Division.

The negotiating team will be backed up by a “base” team, Heidt said, which has some overlapping members. That group includes: Heidt; Belknap; Dwyer; budget manager Jennifer Watson; county administrator Verna McDaniel; deputy county administrator Bill Reynolds; Joanna Bidlack of the administrator’s office; Patrick Barrie, executive director of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization; county commissioner Rolland Sizemore, Jr.; Greg Dill of the sheriff’s office; and water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin.

Heidt said that she and Watson will be looking at financial projections.  At the March 3 closed session they’ll be asking the board for some parameters to use in negotiations. The closed session will also be the time to talk about their general labor relations strategy, she said.

On March 21 and 23, members of the negotiating teams and the budget planning team will go through training sessions for interest-based bargaining. Heidt extended an invitation to commissioners to participate as well. Training will be provided by federal mediators at no charge to the county, she said. Expedited negotiations will be conducted in March and April, with the goal of reaching agreement by July 1.

It’s important to set their goals and resolve these negotiations early, Heidt said, especially in light of uncertainties at the state and federal levels. Employees are very unsettled, she noted. “The sooner we can identify our future, the better off we’ll all be.”

Labor Overview: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, observed that the process is always trepidatious, because it concerns people’s livelihoods. It’s important to know how the board should participate, he said. Part of their role is to set goals and direction – they’ll start that process in the closed session they’ll hold to talk about the labor negotiations, he said. Smith also noted that he didn’t believe the county had sufficient back-and-forth during concession talks with the POAM and COAM. [Those two unions, which represent employees of the sheriff's office, did not give concessions during the 2009 budget cycle, but earlier this year agreed to concessions that are expected to save a total of $5.6 million over a four-year period.]

How can they ensure that there’s effective dialogue? Smith asked. Heidt responded that the negotiating team is part of the process, along with the budget planning team. She said she’d be open to suggestions about how best to update the board regarding negotiations. The worst thing that could happen, she said, is if she signed a tentative agreement with the unions, brought it to the board for approval and discovered that it wasn’t what the board wanted. The board should know what’s coming, and that it fits within the goals and budget projections they’ve established.

At left: Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, talks with county commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11).

Smith joked that his general inclination is to give Caryette Fenner anything she wants. (Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union, attended the working session in the audience.) He asked Heidt to describe what the role of individual commissioners should be during this process. Are there any guiding principles they should follow?

Heidt said it’s important to remember that there’s a negotiating team that represents the board. Hopefully, commissioners are comfortable with that group, she said – if not, she needs to know. The different bargaining units are also represented by members who’ve been elected to do the negotiations. While it’s important to listen to concerns from employees, she said, it’s also important that commissioners not make promises – they need to consider what impact that might have on negotiations. Communication is crucial, but should be in the form of listening, then bringing any concerns to the negotiating team members, she said.

The pre-negotiation process includes information-sharing, Smith said. In the past, commissioners have heard from employees that they weren’t happy with the information they received – employees didn’t have faith that it was accurate and complete. Was there a process to ensure that this year, everyone’s on the same page?

Heidt said the administration is providing a range of information to the unions, including a survey of salaries and benefits in other communities that she’d just distributed earlier that day. The comparatives looked at the city of Ann Arbor and several other counties, including Ingham – where Michigan State University is located – as well as Oakland, Kalamazoo and Jackson counties, among others. [Excel spreadsheet of salary/benefits community comparatives]

A fringe benefits workgroup had met, looking at the costs associated with various benefits. That information was useful, Heidt said. The county’s budget and finance staff are also collecting information, including budget projections. In general, they’ll be giving unions whatever information union leaders request, Heidt said. That’s an aspect of interest-based bargaining, she noted – to be open, and ensure that they’re all “singing from the same hymnal.”

Smith said he’s impressed by both management and union leaders, who are committed to arriving at an outcome that’s best for the county, working as part of the same team. He said that earlier in the day, county administrator Verna McDaniel had characterized it this way: They’re all on the same plane. Smith joked that he hopes the plane doesn’t drop from the sky. Camaraderie was an important part of the previous budget discussions, he said, and he stressed his commitment to a process that’s as open, fair and inclusive as possible. “This will be as tough as it ever is, if not tougher,” he said, adding that he’s looking forward to the conversations.

Wes Prater asked several clarification questions. He noted that Heidt had indicated there are 1,287 employees in the pension system – he thought there were about 100 more employees than that. She replied that the number had been updated on Jan. 1. Employees who work less than full time aren’t included, she said.

Prater said he was also trying to figure out the number of supervisors compared to non-supervisory positions. He wanted to look at the organization’s “span of control” – the number of non-supervisors per supervisor. He thought the standard was 7 to 1, and he wondered what the county’s ratio was. McDaniel said the standard was more like 4 to 1. Heidt said she’ll gather that information.

Alicia Ping asked whether the comparative data that they’d collected on salaries and benefits had included non-union employees. Heidt said that this initial information looks at across-the-board salaries and benefits. As a part of the negotiation process, they’ll also be collecting comparables on specific positions, she said.

Responding to a question from Yousef Rabhi, Heidt clarified that there are 17 bargaining units, but that some of them work together for parts of the negotiation. There are five AFSCME units, for example – they usually work together for the broader issues, then split off talks separately for issues that concern just their specific unit.

Rabhi also asked for clarification about how the banked leave days work. Heidt explained that the majority of unions have banked leave, while non-union employees have furlough days. The main difference is that banked leave doesn’t affect retirement or longevity calculations, whereas furlough days do have an impact on retirement. She said they borrowed the plan from one that’s used by the state of Michigan, which was brought forward by the county unions several years ago.

Present: Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge , Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith.

Absent: Barbara Levin Bergman, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts, taking copious notes during last Wednesday's school board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The AAPS board of education voted to consider a resolution to consolidate transportation services at its final meeting on June 23, if a competitive bid is not received by the bus drivers’ union before then. Also, after months of discussion, the board passed the 2010-11 budget and accompanying millage to support it.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, the board approved a new AP Biology textbook, passed a resolution in support of using the state’s School Aid Fund only to fund K-12 schools, and debated the renewal of a contract to outsource the district’s food service. And, for more than half of its six-hour meeting, the board engaged in non-voting business, receiving updates from Skyline High School staff, the USA Hockey team housed at Pioneer High, and the Intergroup/Social Change Agents, a high school program designed to encourage dialogue on social identities.

Countywide Transportation Consolidation Plan

AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts introduced Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent of operations, and Brian Marcel, assistant superintendent of business services for the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), saying they were available to answer any questions about the transportation consolidation plan proposed at the board’s June 4 meeting. Allen pointed out that the entire plan is on the board’s website, and said they would begin by asking Marcel to review the plan.

Transportation: Consolidation Background and Savings Goals

Marcel gave some history, saying that in February of 2007, the superintendents, chief financial officers, and members of the school boards from every district in the county met to explore a variety of possible countywide consolidations. At that time, Marcel said, transportation was identified as a possible service to consolidate, with the original intention to privatize consolidated transportation services countywide.

After additional consideration, Marcel continued, the direction of the group changed to wanting to keep employees public, but reap savings as if services were privately run. Consultants were brought in to help create a plan that would yield savings of 18-25%, by focusing on standardizing as much as possible within transportation services across the county. Marcel noted that special education bus routes would change for the upcoming fall, and that general education routes would stay relatively the same for the first year of the program.

Board secretary Glenn Nelson asked what savings would be created by the consolidation plan as it’s been crafted. Allen answered that the AAPS had hoped for $1.5 million in savings, but this plan achieves only $1.3 million the first year. Allen then pointed out that savings could increase in future years, once AAPS routes are made more efficient.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked if the WISD anticipated making a profit by administering the consolidated transportation services. Marcel said no, that the program’s finances would be separate from the rest of the WISD. He explained that no profit is expected, but if there were additional savings for some reason, an oversight group could choose either to make a capital investment in the program or provide a rebate to participating districts.

Transportation: Hourly Wages and Salaries

In response to questions raised at the consolidation plan’s first briefing on June 4, Allen had prepared two spreadsheets for Wednesday’s meeting – one sheet broke down bus drivers and monitors by rate of pay and years of service; the other compared the proposed salaries of the consolidation’s central administrators with the WISD recommended salary ranges for those positions.

From the proposed salary spreadsheet, Baskett noted that bus driver supervisor/trainers are slated to make a higher wage under consolidation. She confirmed with Allen that the supervisor/trainers are currently making from $40,000 to $50,000 annually, but that the consolidation’s administrative design team proposes to pay them $49,150. The WISD recommended salary range would bump them up even higher, paying them from $66,203 to $77,857.

From the hourly wage grid, both Baskett and trustee Andy Thomas noted that the 48 drivers making $18.09 per hour at the top of the current pay scale would experience quite a dip in income – down to $16 per hour for general education routes, or down to $16.50 for special education routes. Lightfoot also pointed out the much higher cost of health care for the drivers under consolidation, and stated, “I’m troubled by a few aspects of this plan … We’re asking the lowest wage earners to adjust to the new reality, but not the managers – that’s problematic.”

When Baskett questioned the size of the supervisors’ raises, Marcel reiterated two points he had made at the last meeting – that anyone in WISD supervising 50 employees needs to be paid at that highest compensation range, and that all positions were “benchmarked” to the market. Lightfoot questioned the benchmarks, pointing out that AAPS currently pays the supervisor/monitors much lower than their proposed salaries under the WISD plan. But Marcel said that perhaps AAPS supervisor/trainers have different job descriptions than those positions would have under the WISD plan. Lightfoot countered, “It seems like you’re going with the highest ‘benchmark’ for the upper managers, but the lowest ‘benchmark’ for the drivers.”

Thomas concurred, pointing out that the wage reduction drivers at the top of the pay scale would be asked to take is a 9-12% decrease, not including the increased health care costs. Thomas said he was very troubled by the fact that one group of people were set to take a significant pay cut while others were getting pay raises. He asked how much AAPS drivers are currently paid compared to market benchmarks.

Marcel said that to compare fairly, one has to consider total compensation, since not all districts offer health insurance to drivers. With that in mind, he said, AAPS drivers are not at the top but currently in the top third of the pay range of drivers throughout the county. In terms of the administrators, Marcel again argued that there would have to be some level of salary equity among managers within WISD “so everyone will be happy when we are all one organization.”

Transportation: Hiring and Seniority

Marcel explained that the hiring timeline, also part of Allen’s packet provided to the board, was constructed to hire the program’s administrators first, so they could then be part of hiring those who would report to them. He reiterated that employment records and drug screening would be part of the hiring criteria, but again asserted, “I want to hire bus drivers who are already familiar with the students and with the schools.”

Lightfoot asked about the difference between “seniority” and “experience,” again following up on part of the conversation from the last meeting. Marcel acknowledged that the two words both mean the number of years of accumulated time. However, the reason the WISD team chose to include “experience” as a hiring criteria rather than “seniority” is because of how seniority is used in decision-making. For example, Marcel said, seniority might be applied to allow drivers to select their own routes, whereas under the consolidation plan, the WISD would make all routing decisions.

Process for Approving the Consolidation

Board president Deb Mexicotte asked Marcel which other districts had agreed to participate in the consolidation at this point. Marcel answered that Lincoln, Willow Run, and Ypsilanti are planning to participate in the consolidation of general education routes.  All of the WISD districts except for Chelsea – this includes the three above, plus AAPS, Dexter, Manchester, Milan, Saline, and Whitmore Lake – have agreed to fully consolidate special education routing.  Chelsea, he said, is not interested consolidating either general education or special education services, but is willing to pick up students on its routes that pass through the other districts.

Baskett asked what the board’s options were, and whether an actual resolution would be coming soon. Mexicotte confirmed that if that evening’s resolution passed, it would indicate that the board intends to receive a contract from the WISD for consideration by June 18. “Moving forward tonight,” she clarified, “does not bind us to that contract at this time.” She stated that the board has an obligation to look at any bid received from a bargaining unit side by side with the WISD contract in an open way.

Thomas requested removing the countywide transportation consolidation from the consent agenda, so that it could be further discussed before a vote. Standing independently, the resolution was then moved by vice president Irene Patalan and seconded by treasurer Christine Stead, and discussion continued.

Transportation: Public Commentary on Consolidation

AAPS bus driver Chai Montgomery called the countywide transportation plan “unsound.” He pointed out that the AAPS director of transportation earns $160,000 per year, but that School Bus Fleet magazine says a manager should make around $50,000. There are ways to save, Montgomery said, but it has to start with managerial overhead, and then operational changes can be sought. First, “cut the waste from the top,” he urged.

Another AAPS driver, Richard Miller, argued that consolidating transportation services will cause increasing driver turnover. Honoring seniority, he said, would be an ethical way to rehire, and long-employed drivers are safest. He pointed out that his own salary would go from $18.09 to $16 an hour under consolidation, and urged trustees to vote with their consciences.

Transportation: Rationale for Approving the Consolidation

Baskett asked Allen what, beyond savings, were the differences between privatizing transportation services, consolidating them, and the status quo.

Allen reiterated that if the services are privatized, employees would lose their pensions, and that “many folks get into public education because of the retirement benefits.” He also pointed out that with consolidation, unlike with privatization, the participating districts retain some control over the system. Allen pointed out that the ISD takes its direction from its districts’ superintendents whereas to direct a private company to do something, “it’s usually ‘back to the table’” to renegotiate the terms of the contract. In terms of longevity, Allen said, consolidation is the best model.  Citing economies of scale when purchasing fuel and parts, he also argued, “When you consolidate ten districts, you don’t need ten directors.” Finally, Allen said that the status quo was not sustainable – “there’s no way to cut $20 million without touching employees.”

Nelson said he recognized the legitimacy of different views, but he believed that voting against this plan would lead to increased cuts in instruction and larger class sizes. He announced his intention to support the plan, arguing that there is a basic efficiency to be gained by consolidating, and that the board needs to be focused on its mission to educate children and young people, rather than considering what the cuts mean to adults. Finally, Nelson asserted that savings from this plan will increase after the first year, and that “it will be good for our students over time.”

Lightfoot countered part of Nelson’s view, saying, “I see it as a ‘both/and’ not an ‘either/or’ situation … We have an obligation both to our students and to our employees.” She later said that she, too, would be supporting the plan, with her stated misgivings – “There are changes that can and should be made to the pay structure,” she said. “I hope WISD will take our comments into account … I implore them to do it.” Lastly, Lightfoot pointed out that the state may be requiring districts to consolidate transportation services in the future, and that AAPS may end up ahead of the curve.

Stead identified the board’s current position as a “contraction stage,” and argued that AAPS needs to position itself for longer-term efficiency in light of education’s structural funding deficit. Calling the consolidation plan “the better option on the list of terrible options,” Stead also reminded the board that during the failed countywide schools millage campaign last fall, much of the feedback received from voters called for exploring new approaches to cost-saving, including consolidation. She pointed out, “It would be difficult to go back and ask for support in the future without having taken that feedback into account.”

Thomas thanked Marcel and Allen for their hard work, and said he does see the potential for tremendous benefit to the district in this plan. In considering the consolidation, he said, he keeps coming back to this year’s $20 million deficit, and a potential $15 million deficit for 2010-11. Though he said he has “serious misgivings” about this plan, he said he would support it, and that on the whole, consolidation is the way to go.

Baskett described the consolidation decision as a “tough call.” Privatization is not in anyone’s best interest, she said, and the district can’t stay with the status quo. That leaves the last two options, as she put it – working with the bargaining unit (the union representing bus drivers), while moving forward with the WISD resolution. She encouraged WISD to lower management salaries, and closed with, “I want to stress to the bargaining unit – we’re running out of time.”

Patalan stated, “We are very careful … My job is to keep my eyes on students.” She said she believed that consolidation would be shown to be more efficient, and appreciated that under the plan, drivers would be able to keep their pensions. Lastly, Patalan said, the “efficiency and ecology” of consolidating cannot be overlooked, and that she would support the plan.

Mexicotte asked for a roll call vote, and the trustees each formalized their support. Mexicotte closed by saying the board would expect to receive a contract for review by June 18, to be acted on at the next board meeting on June 23.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to receive and consider a contract from the WISD to consolidate transportation services with surrounding districts.

2010-11 Budget and Millage Rates Set

Allen took to the podium to field any last questions or comments from the board regarding the district’s 2010-11 budget and accompanying millage resolution. There was little discussion, as the budget had been presented to the board at various stages of development throughout the spring.

Thomas asked about the impact of lower Schools of Choice enrollment than had been budgeted. A memo from Roberts to the board states that 94 students have accepted enrollment – 47 in kindergarten, 27 in 1st grade and 20 in 6th grade. His memo also says that the district is requesting that the state allow a second Schools of Choice application window in August, but that the request might not be approved.

Allen confirmed that if the district is not able to increase Schools of Choice enrollment, it could adversely affect the budget by up to $500,000. He also pointed out that the Options Magnet enrollment is expected to meet its target.

Nelson noted that the millage associated with the 2010-11 budget will be a significant tax rate reduction. In 2000, he said, homeowners in the AAPS district were levied 12.8 mills, including the WISD special education millage. In 2005, the same homeowners were levied 12.7 mills, and in 2010, homeowners will be levied at 11.5 mills.  Nelson summarized by saying, “If we … say we want to pay fewer taxes, we are saying we want to support schools less than those who came before us.”

Nelson then apologized in advance for going off-topic, and proceeded to ask Allen how the new stormwater retention project just completed at Pioneer High School had fared during the storm the previous weekend.

Allen noted that Nelson was referencing the Allen Creek Watershed Project, and said that whether it made a difference depends entirely on where people live. Those who live closer to Pioneer might have noticed a decrease in flooding near them. Noting that he is not a watershed expert, Allen described the project as “collecting the first inch of rainwater, and regulating how it flows back into the system.”

[In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Janis Bobrin, the county's water resources commissioner, wrote that the project is designed to help with some quantity management for smaller storms, but is focused on improving the quality of the stormwater flowing from Allen Creek into the Huron River.]

Outcome: The 2010-11 budget was approved as part of the consent agenda described below.

Revised AP Biology Textbook Adopted

It was after midnight when the board opened discussion on the possible adoption of a revised textbook for the district’s AP Biology classes. Pioneer AP Biology teacher Dolores Kingston was still at the meeting – she wanted to be there for the final approval. When the board noticed her, they thanked her for her good work on this issue. Kingston replied, “I’ve been working since November on this – I’m going right to the end!”

Outcome: The consent agenda, containing the 2010-11 budget, the millage resolution, the textbook adoption, and minutes approvals, was moved by Stead, seconded by Patalan, and unanimously approved by trustees Nelson, Mexicotte, Lightfoot, Patalan, Thomas, Stead and Baskett.

Additional Action Items

The board considered two direct action items at this meeting – a resolution to support continued, dedicated funding of the School Aid Fund, and a resolution to hold an executive session to conduct the annual evaluation of AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts.

Resolution to Support the Michigan School Aid Fund

Nelson introduced a resolution, saying it was meant to “put on record” that the board supports the School Aid Fund as it is currently used by the state, which is solely for funding pre-K through 12th grade. Referencing suggestions currently being made by the governor and members of the state legislature to do otherwise, Nelson argued that it was important for the board to state unequivocally that it opposes transferring money out of the School Aid Fund into the general fund, and that it opposes adding other functions to the School Aid Fund. The governor has suggested, for example, that since the School Aid Fund currently has a surplus, perhaps it could be used to add funding to community colleges.

Thomas concurred, saying that this is an example of “not only counting your chickens before they’re hatched. Even after they’re hatched, there are a lot of chicken hawks … out there.”

Baskett and Patalan thanked Nelson for taking the lead on writing the resolution.

Nelson suggested that the signed resolution should be distributed to local elected officials and Gov. Jennifer Granholm. He also encouraged citizens to contact their legislators, and demand that they use the School Aid fund for K-12 education.

Outcome: The motion to support the School Aid Fund was moved by Nelson, seconded by Lightfoot, and unanimously approved by trustees Nelson, Mexicotte, Lightfoot, Patalan, Thomas, Stead and Baskett.

Superintendent Evaluation

Patalan moved to hold an executive session for the purpose of evaluating Roberts at 5:30 p.m. before the next regular meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. on June 23. It was seconded, and approved unanimously.

Outcome: The motion to hold an executive session was unanimously approved by trustees Nelson, Mexicotte, Lightfoot, Patalan, Thomas, Stead and Baskett.

Public Commentary

Several speakers shared thoughts with the board during public commentary. In addition to the responses to possible countywide transportation consolidation reported above, the board heard concerns about privatizing child care, the Thurston driveway project, and needed education reform.

Public Commentary – AAPS Child Care Privatization

Before the meeting, AAPS child care staff members were demonstrating outside the downtown library, where the meeting was held. When approached by The Chronicle, they said they had heard that their jobs were being privatized. Three people spoke to the board with concerns about the possible privatization of the district’s before-and-after-school child care program.

Demonstrators against possible privatization of the AAPS child care program. District official say they are not contemplating the privatization of child care.

Kent Olsen asserted that privatizing the school-aged child care program (SAC) would lead to inconsistency in staffing. He contended that the director of community education and recreation, Sara Aeschbach, had turned in a budget that she knew was not balanced, and questioned how such a budget could be used to cut staff. Olsen contended that the privatization of SAC had been kept quiet by the board possibly because it wanted to prevent a loss of trust on the part of AAPS parents who use the program. Olsen said SAC staff wants to work with the community and the board to address their budget, and thanked the trustees for their time and “serious consideration” of his concerns.

Connie Devine, a child care supervisor, then spoke, saying that she opposed the privatization of child care. She argued that the child care staff has been greatly overlooked, and that they have been given no opportunity to negotiate.

Finally, a Dicken Elementary School parent spoke. She said that, as a working parent, she chose AAPS in part because of KCare’s reputation as high-quality child care, and expressed concern that the quality would suffer if the service was privatized.

After the meeting, The Chronicle spoke with Roberts and Mexicotte about these public comments. They confirmed that, though there had been some consideration of privatizing child care services, there are no plans to do so at this time. Mexicotte added that such a move would have to be a part of the budget discussion, which it was not.

Public Commentary – Thurston Driveway Project

Kathy Griswold spoke again regarding her concerns about the paving project to be completed this summer at Thurston Elementary School. Saying that the Transportation Safety Committee had met the day before, she requested that the board “issue a change order” to fix a significant vehicle-pedestrian conflict. This design was a compromise, she said. It is better, but not good, Griswold continued, and “we cannot compromise on student safety.” Lastly, Griswold argued, the design is ugly, too expensive, and will have a negative impact on future sinking fund campaigns.

In response to Griswold’s attempts to revise the paving project, on Friday, June 11, Thurston’s principal Patricia Manley issued a statement via email on behalf of the Thurston community stating that she believed that the design they had was the one they wanted. Manley included a .pdf attachment with a memorandum from Brad Mellor, who chairs the transportation safety committee. [The email exchanges between Griswold and school officials last week provide additional background on the Thurston driveway project.]

Public Commentary – Advice from Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge frequently speaks at public commentary of other Ann Arbor public bodies, such as the city council, the county board of commissioners and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board. At Wednesday’s AAPS meeting, he introduced himself as “Thomas Partridge, AAPS resident, father, grandfather, and advocate for the most vulnerable.” He said he supported the consolidation of transportation services, but urged the board to “keep as many jobs as possible.”

Partridge then went on to other topics, suggesting that AAPS transfer money and attention away from competitive sports and toward music. He stated that he supports increased funding for education, and is an opponent of the “tea-baggers.”Partridge asserted, “Freedom does not come from cutting out opportunity,” and argued that “we need true reform.”

First Briefing Items

The board heard three items at first briefing, meaning they were introduced, and will be placed on the agenda for a second briefing and vote at the next regular meeting on June 23. The board considered renewing its food service contract, as well as its membership in the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA). Trustees also discussed the degree to which pilot programs in the district need to be monitored by the board, as reflected by board policy.

Food Service Contract Renewal

Allen presented a resolution asking the board to approve another year of food service provided by Chartwells School Dining Services. He explained that the board approved a five-year contract with yearly renewal requirements in 2009, and this is the first of the four annual renewal requests.

Both Lightfoot and Baskett asked about the feedback on Chartwells’ services received from parents and students, as well as the process for incorporating that feedback. Allen noted the existence of a districtwide committee on nutrition, but allowed, “I still think the [parent] survey needs some work.” The chief complaint he received about the food, he said, was the menu repetitiveness, which repeats on a 30-day cycle. Student feedback, Allen said, comes chiefly by tracking the number of meals purchased.

Baskett noted that national concern about childhood obesity is growing, and Lightfoot questioned food quality, noting that she has heard complaints regarding an overabundance of carbs, or starches. She also stated that, for parents, “There is no mechanism by which they can make actual change.”

Allen countered that many of AAPS menu choices exceed government requirements set by the USDA, and pointed out that AAPS menus include whole wheat options, and an increased presence of fruits and vegetables. The constraints on further improving the menu are cost-related, he said. Allen continued, “If we want to provide filet mignon, [Chartwells] will do it, but they will charge us.” Lightfoot suggested that savings earned by outsourcing food service could be redirected back into the program to increase the quality of the food, and Allen said that could be considered.

Baskett asked how programmatic changes, such as price increases, would be communicated to parents. Allen noted that no price increases are planned for next year, and added that all families with students in the lunch program receive a letter regarding the program over the summer.

Allen also noted that Chartwells’ annual evaluation by AAPS will take place in July. Thomas questioned whether the review would be financial or regarding customer satisfaction. Allen answered that it will be both – finances will be reviewed, but also complaints or concerns brought by AAPS.

Baskett asked how well the Chartwells food service program had done at increasing the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch, which had been one of the goals in hiring the company. Allen replied that the numbers of applications for free and reduced lunch has been rising steadily for the last two years, and that he would be able to bring back those statistics to the board after the July review.

Mexicotte suggested that it would be helpful if the renewal process could be tied to the evaluation process by having AAPS be proactive in surveying, rather than waiting for the end-of-the-year report from Chartwells. She requested that Allen look at using surveys to assess customer satisfaction with the food service program on a regular basis.

MHSAA Membership Renewal

Roberts introduced the MHSAA membership renewal resolution, which would commit AAPS to comply with all MHSAA regulations in exchange for being allowed to participate in post-season play. He noted that this renewal is required annually by Aug. 1, that there was nothing new to the resolution that the board has not approved in previous years, and that there was no cost associated with the membership.

Stead noted that it was exciting to see Skyline High School listed as a member school.

Pilot Projects and Other Policy Considerations

The board was asked to temporarily reauthorize four board policies – two reviewed by the performance committee (4300 & 7220), and two reviewed by the planning committee (3760 & 6120) – with no changes until the end of the calendar year. Committee chairs Baskett and Patalan stated in memos to the board that the extensions would allow “further administrative/committee review” of the policies.

Policy 4300 covers employee evaluation, and Baskett suggested that it would be important to see what happens with the federal Race to the Top legislation – which may cause changes to the evaluation system – before recommitting to the policy.

Policy 7220 covers parent and booster organizations. Baskett reported that the booster clubs operate differently at each school, and that no consensus has yet been reached among school staff regarding the policy, so the performance committee would like more time to work on it.

Policy 3760 covers transportation, which Patalan pointed out is in flux; therefore, her committee requested the extension to craft the policy in light of what happens with possible consolidation of services.

Policy 6120 requires board approval of all “pilot projects” in the district, and annual board evaluation of such projects for their first three years. Patalan said her committee had “done a lot of talking” about the policy, but that they were not ready to recommend a revision.

Mexicotte added some history to the board’s ongoing debate about the pilot project policy, beginning, “A million years ago, I wrote this policy to ensure that new ideas would have some level of accountability.” When it was originally drafted, she said, there were many programs with unclear effectiveness. Now, she said, the board is better apprised of new programs and how they align with the district’s curriculum, thanks to the current administration’s commitment to providing information. In addition, she said, fewer new initiatives have been labeled “pilot projects” in order to avoid the added oversight accompanying that designation. Mexicotte concluded, “I am okay with us undoing the need for this oversight … If the committee thinks it’s obsolete, I’m okay with it.”

Nelson pointed out that there are many new board members who may have new ideas, and that this topic has “a lot of nuances.” He argued that it deserves the “low-stakes” brainstorming that occurs in committees, and suggested that both the performance and planning committees review the policy in the fall.

Thomas added, “I don’t think the need for this policy has gone away.” In a reference to the disbanding of a lunch program at Dicken Elementary School aimed at raising the test scores of African American students, Thomas argued, “The district recently experienced the effects of a ‘pilot project’ that did not go well.” He suggested focusing on better adherence to the policy as written.

Roberts resisted, saying that for the board to monitor every program at every school would be too time-consuming. He asked what the policy would label a “pilot project.”

Lightfoot agreed with Thomas, saying that the policy is fitting, and that she is still astounded at the number of programs in the district. “I understand how time-consuming it would be to lay that all out, but we need that,” she said. “There is room to improve on getting a handle on all the programs going on at all the schools … The program at Dicken is an example of exactly what we need to be aware of.”

Mexicotte jumped in, “Just for the record, I think this is a beautifully written policy.”

Baskett – who had also aided in the original drafting of the policy – concurred, smiling, “I, for one, don’t want to change a word.” More seriously, she said she would, however, like better adherence to the policy, and pointed out that a participant at the recent achievement gap meeting at Mitchell Elementary asked for an inventory of district initiatives on that topic, but that she and Lightfoot, who were chairing that meeting, “didn’t know where the master list was.”

Association Reports

The board invites the Youth Senate, the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA) to offer regular reports at its meetings. At this meeting, the board heard reports from the Youth Senate, the AAPAC, and the PTOC.

Youth Senate

Youth senators suggested aligning the Pioneer High School bus schedule with its media center hours, so that students who arrive early on the bus can consistently use the media center before school. They also expressed concern about the new math graduation requirements, and the Skyline High School final exam schedule, which does not include a half day off for studying like the schedules at Pioneer, Huron, and Community high schools do.

Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee Report

Ann Telfer reported for the AAPAC. She stated some concerns regarding the high turnover of speech pathologists at Huron High as an example of “ancillary services” that she argued could use more oversight at the central and building levels. Teacher consultants, she said, should be able to report any gap in service delivery directly to parents.

Telfer also noted a trend in AAPS, in which graduating seniors from the special education program cannot pass the COMPASS test at Washtenaw Community College, which is used to determine academic placement. The AAPAC would like to be invited to discuss the “false sense of academic achievement” given to AAPS students with IEP or 504 plans, as well as how the personal curriculum option could be used for these students. The AAPAC is also looking forward to being part of the hiring process for a new director of student intervention and support services, Telfer said, and gave the retiring Larry Simpson best wishes.

PTO Council Report

Bill Ebright reported for the PTOC, saying that they filled their officer slate for 2010-11, and that the PTOC advocacy has begun a postcard campaign to keep pressure on the state legislature to ensure adequate school funding.

Special Presentations

In addition to the Skyline High School update, which The Chronicle intends to report on side-by-side with the other high school updates coming later this month, the board heard two special presentations about programs that operate in the district: USA Hockey, and the Intergroup/Social Change Agents. Both were given solely for the board’s information, and required no action.

USA Hockey

Pioneer High athletic director Lorin Cartwright introduced the USA Hockey National Team Development Program (NTDP), which is housed at the school. The NTDP is a program to develop national hockey players under the age of 18. Roberts explained that these 44 players come mostly from outside of AAPS, and make a two-year commitment to the program. They enroll at Pioneer, and have earned an average GPA of 3.25, while performing local community service projects in addition to training as world-class athletes. Over 98% of the players leave the program with a college commitment.

Nelson and Patalan thanked the students for their hard work, and for inspiring AAPS students to do community service by their example. Cartwright summarized, “These are outstanding young men in an outstanding program housed in AAPS.”

Intergroup/Social Change Agents

Naomi Warren, a research assistant at the University of Michigan’s Program on Intergroup Relations, introduced the Intergroup/Social Change Agents (Intergroup) program to the board as “a program to help students learn how to talk across difference.” It has been a part of AAPS for eight years, she said. Warren thanked the board for its support.

A recent Huron High School graduate described how the program had taught her to listen from her heart, and to dialogue rather than debate when it came to issues of social identity. Another student said a joint workshop with students from Huron and Stone schools helped them to break down stereotypes held by the students at those schools regarding each other. And a third student asserted that Intergroup had taught him how to understand others’ points of view.

Mikel Brown, who co-facilitates Intergroup along with Warren, explained that the program helps kids to understand and manage conflict. “You can be a bunch of pieces of a puzzle in one box and make no sense at all,” Brown said, “or, you can figure out how you’re supposed to fit together with other people.”

Stead thanked the three students who spoke, affirming that the ability to listen really is a life skill.

Nelson said he appreciated the work of Intergroup, adding that it’s a good reminder of what’s important beyond the academic core.

Baskett asked how the program is funded, and how students can get involved.

Warren explained that funding was piecemeal – AAPS pays a portion as a stipend to a school liaison, and the program is partly supported by Dr. Michael Spencer at the UM School of Social Work and outside grants. Currently, Brown added, the program takes place at Huron and Stone schools, and meets after school. He said it’s been a challenge to make the program more mainstream, but that he wants it to move forward and have more impact, noting that prevention is a cost-effective means of preventing more harmful conflict in the future.

Lightfoot thanked the Intergroup presenters for coming, and asked that they “stay in touch with us. We too are in conflict, so we can be in conflict together.”

Awards and Accolades

The board typically recognizes a variety of organizations and individuals at each meeting for a range of different awards and achievements.

Kiwanis Club Scholarships

Ann Mattson, president of the Kiwanis Club of Ann Arbor, made a special presentation to the board to report on its scholarship program. This year, Mattson said, Kiwanis awarded 29 $1,000 scholarships to AAPS students, funded primarily by the thrift sale it runs on Saturdays. Mattson also mentioned that six students from AAPS middle schools were given scholarships to attend music camp this summer.

Mexicotte thanked Mattson and Kiwanis for their support of AAPS students.

Superintendent’s Report

Roberts issued congratulations to all 2010 graduates. He also thanked the 450 parent volunteers who made the elementary Science Olympiad possible, and noted many awards earned by AAPS students and staff, including Atulya Shetty, a Clague Middle School 8th grader who will represent the U.S. in the World Youth Chess Championship.

Items from the Board

Lightfoot mentioned that she and Thomas had attended another board member training by the Michigan Association of School Boards that was “fabulous.” She also mentioned visiting Thurston Elementary,  how excited they are about getting their new driveway, and how retiring Lakewood principal Rick O’Neill will be a real loss to the district. Lastly, Lightfoot thanked participants of a recent meeting held at Mitchell Elementary to discuss the achievement gap, saying that many have asked for that dialogue to continue. She also reported that many board members have expressed a willingness to formalize work on the achievement gap.

Baskett reported that she has visited three of the five middle school planning centers, and suggested, “We need to put some consistency around these.” When asked by The Chronicle after the meeting what her purpose was in visiting the planning centers when they are being eliminated in place of the new “positive behavioral support” initiative beginning next year, Baskett responded that she is interested in collecting baseline impressions of the centers before the transition.

Agenda Planning

Neither the performance nor planning committee made reports at this meeting, other than to invite the public to their final meetings of the year. The performance committee met on June 10, and the planning committee will meet on Wednesday, June 16 at 6:30 p.m. in the superintendent’s conference room at the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State St. After the meeting, Lightfoot said the planning committee will consider how the board should move forward in supporting work on closing the achievement gap among students of different races.

Nelson announced that he and Patalan, the only two board members not up for re-election in November, would be holding an information session for prospective board members on Wednesday, June 30 at 5:30 p.m. at the Balas Administration Building.

Mexicotte announced that the board would meet for a full-day retreat on Friday, July 23.

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

Next regular meeting (and the last one of the 2009-10 school year): June 23, 2010, 7 p.m., at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Glenn Nelson addresses his fellow AAPS board members during last Wednesday's meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Also mentioned was the possibility that layoff notices could be issued – and, in fact, about 190 teachers have received letters stating that they might receive such notices. If approved by the board at its meeting on Wednesday, notices could go out later this week.

The board also swore in its newest member, Christine Stead, as treasurer, replacing long-time board member Randy Friedman, who resigned earlier this month. His resignation adds a fifth seat to the election slate this fall.

Updates were given to the budget plan, and a bid for summer construction projects at Pioneer High School was given a first briefing by the board. That marked the final phase of the comprehensive capital improvements program approved by the community with the passage of the bond and sinking fund millages in 2004.

Peer mentoring was applauded as part of middle school programming, and a personal curriculum option and additional facilities projects were also discussed at first briefing.

AAPS Recommendation: Privatize Custodial, Maintenance Services

Bids to privatize AAPS custodial and maintenance services were brought as a first briefing item by executive director of physical properties Randy Trent. If approved, the bids would award a $5.3 million contract to GCA Service Group for the district’s custodial services, and a $1.3 million contract to Great Lakes Environmental Services (GLES) for the district’s maintenance services. Overall, this would save the district $2.4 million next school year, with additional savings accumulating, as four remaining supervisory positions are phased out by the 2012-13 school year. Details of the bids were included in a memo to superintendent Todd Roberts provided in the board’s information packet, and additional details were added during Wednesday’s meeting.

Privatization: Description of Custodial Bid

The district currently employs 139 custodial workers and six custodial supervisors. Custodians work 260 days a year, and are allowed paid time off ranging from 4-10 weeks per year. Current wages are broken into two tiers – the higher wage range is $14.26 to $18.11 per hour, and the lower wage range is $9.85 to $10.97 per hour. A Blue Preferred PPO family health insurance plan is offered to all custodial services staff for $560 per year, and custodians are part of the state retirement system.

Under the GCA bid, custodians would work only 240 days a year, and receive no paid time off. Higher-paid workers would receive $12.12 an hour, and lower-paid workers’ wages would remain the same. An HMO family health insurance plan would be offered to all custodians for $1,000 per year, and they would no longer accrue a retirement pension through the state system.

GCA would also plan to hire two of the six AAPS custodial supervisors, if they meet certain requirements. If the transition to privatization is successful, AAPS would eliminate two more of the supervisory positions in 2011-12, and the last two in 2012-13.

Privatization: Description of Maintenance Bid

The district currently employs 25 maintenance workers and one maintenance supervisor. Maintenance workers currently work 260 days per year, and higher-paid workers average seven weeks of paid time off per year. Wages for maintenance workers range from $16.35 to $21.90 per hour. They receive the same health insurance benefit as custodians, a PPO plan with coverage for their entire family for $560 per year, and accrue retirement savings through the state pension system.

Under the GLES bid, maintenance workers would become part of a different local labor union. They would work nine-hour days for four days a week, totaling 1,800 hours over the year. All employees would make $17 per hour, and would have no paid time off. GLES would offer a similar health care package as GCA, for which an HMO family health insurance plan would cost each worker $1,000 per year. Workers would also stop accruing retirement savings in the state retirement system.

If the bid to privatize maintenance services is approved, GLES would also plan to hire the AAPS maintenance supervisor, as long as that person meets certain conditions of hiring.

Privatization: Board Questions and Discussion on Bid Package

Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, argued that the combination of hiring GCA for custodial services and GLES for maintenance services would be the best option for the district. He explained the reasoning behind his recommendation, touting GCA’s extensive experience in over 1,400 schools across the country, and mentioning the “outstanding” reference GLES received from the University of Michigan. Trent said that GLES had responded to the custodial services RFP (request for proposals) as well, but that he believed GCA’s use of newer technology, as well as the positive local history GLES had in environmental services,  meant that the two companies could best meet the district’s needs as recommended: GCA for custodial work, and GLES for maintenance.

Simone Lightfoot questioned the scope of work outlined by the contracts, asking, “What costs will we incur when we need them to do work that was not in the RFP? … They’re only going to do what we’ve ‘RFPd’ them to do.” Trent assured the board that both companies will do whatever needs to be done during standard work hours, and that they have an overtime rate for any coverage needed outside the work day. He gave the example that both companies have new ideas they would bring to the district to increase efficiency, and that those procedures were not delineated in the RFP.

Glenn Nelson asked Trent if he was correct in interpreting that the bid has built-in increases in savings over time, as AAPS would eliminate the remaining four custodial supervisory positions over three years. Susan Baskett asked about the rationale of retaining these four supervisors at all: “Would we really still need six – four of ours and two of theirs?” Conversely, Lightfoot questioned, “What might we face as a backlash of ‘brain drain?’”

Trent explained that the four custodial supervisors remaining on the AAPS payroll, as well as the two who would move to GCA, would all be necessary during the transition to privatization in order to “train the new folks.” Nelson added that temporarily retaining the supervisors was “a form of insurance,” and that removing them all from the AAPS payroll on day one “would make [AAPS] very vulnerable if this didn’t work out for some reason.”

Deb Mexicotte asked for clarification on the effects to retirement earnings. Lightfoot and Baskett asked clarifying questions regarding the wages and benefits that would be offered to workers if they were hired by the contractors. They pointed  out that workers would be asked to pay almost double in health insurance costs, while receiving significantly lower wages, no paid time off, and no state retirement pension.

Trent countered that with each company, the benefits are automatically offered, and not tied to hours worked. He also mentioned that the workers would not lose the state retirement savings they had already accrued, but that their “years of service” – a multiplier in the formula for calculating a worker’s pension – would be frozen (meaning they could not accrue any additional savings). Trent also said that he believed GCA would likely offer a 403b retirement savings plan, with some employer matching of employee contributions.

Christine Stead pointed out that conversations with labor unions are still ongoing, and she and Mexicotte both asked for clarification on the timing involved in outsourcing versus reaching a negotiated settlement with current AAPS custodial and maintenance staff.

Trent answered that an April 28 deadline has been set for negotiations to conclude, and that if an agreement with the union has not been reached by then, the district would hope to move forward with outsourcing. Approval of these bids would then be slated for second briefing and a definitive vote at the April 28 board meeting. In part, Trent explained, the April 28 date was set to ensure a smooth transition if privatization does occur, so that the companies have sufficient time to interview and hire a full staff to be able to begin work on July 1.

Baskett asked whether all AAPS employees would be able to transfer directly to the new companies if they chose to do so. Trent clarified that AAPS workers would need to interview, but that they would be hired as long as they passed a drug test (which the district does not currently require of all employees), and as long as they had maintained a good attendance record during their tenure in the district.

Lightfoot expressed concern that not enough staff would transfer to meet the district’s needs, given that the wages and benefits that would be offered are “not attractive.” Trent assured the board that choosing which direction to move by April 28 would allow the companies to fill their staffs “even if they have to hire all new workers.” He also mentioned that the district would cooperate with each company to get all employees trained, and that each contractor has a training plan ready to go.

Baskett asked Trent why GLES was chosen over Aramark, when Aramark came in with a lower bid. Trent explained that Aramark’s bid was misleading and incomplete, since it did not include payment for substitute costs while the other bids did. Baskett also questioned, “Is there any relationship between a member of your staff and the president of GLES?” Trent said no, and denied that there were any conflicts of interest in the decision-making process he and his staff had used.

Outcome: Both Roberts and Trent stressed that this bid would only be acted on if negotiations with the local custodial and maintenance workers union could not reach a settlement before the April 28 board meeting.

Privatization: Public Commentary

Two speakers offered opposition to privatization at Wednesday’s meeting during public commentary.

Percy Brown, president of the Ann Arbor Education Association of Paraeducators (AAEA/P), argued that the district’s overall mission was to improve student achievement, and that this could not be done without paraeducators. He added that paraeducators are “ambassadors” and that they are assuming increasingly greater responsibility as teachers’ focus is being pulled toward standardized testing.

Chai Montgomery, an AAPS bus driver, also argued that privatization was a “misguided” solution to the district’s financial problems. He mentioned that there are other ways to cut costs, and that the threat of privatization is ongoing. Montgomery asserted, “We have to change the status quo and make education freer … I don’t like privatization – I don’t think it’s fair.”

Friedman’s Resignation

Directly after public commentary, board president Deb Mexicotte announced that the board had accepted the resignation of long-time board member Randy Friedman. Saying she would speak later to his service, Mexicotte said simply that Friedman had resigned, and gave no further details.

Stead Installed as Board Treasurer

Without missing a beat after announcing Friedman’s resignation, Mexicotte facilitated the selection and swearing-in of Christine Stead as a board officer. Stead had nominated herself to be considered for the board treasurer position that Friedman had held.

Outcome: Stead’s appointment to the treasurer position was unanimously approved by a roll call vote of all board members present, and she was installed by board secretary Amy Osinski.

Five of Seven Board Seats to Be Open in November’s Election

Friedman’s departure from the board marks the third change in the makeup of the board this school year – Simone Lightfoot and Christine Stead were chosen to replace resigning board members in December and March, respectively. Lightfoot and Stead will join whoever replaces Friedman in running for re-election this November, along with Mexicotte and Baskett, whose terms expire at the end of the calendar year.

Later in the meeting as part of his report for the PTO Council, Andy Thomas said he believed having five of the seven board of education seats open at once was unprecedented, and mentioned that the PTOC would be inviting all those running for board positions to attend a candidate forum in the fall.

The AAPS has posted information on its website on how to apply for the seat vacated by Friedman. During agenda planning at the close of Wednesday’s meeting, Mexicotte announced that candidate interviews will take place on Thursday, May 6 at 6:30 p.m. at the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State St. Candidate presentations and selection will take place at the regular May 12 board meeting.

The Budget Plan: A Second Briefing

Based on board response to the budget plan as presented in March, superintendent Todd Roberts reviewed the proposal as a second briefing item, highlighting the few updates made to the original budget proposal. [Previous Chronicle coverage: AAPS Budget Would Cut Positions, Add Fees]

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Roberts essentially repeated the presentation he had made at the community meetings held the two previous evenings, pointing out the few changes made since the board last met. The very newest change – the elimination of middle school planning centers – had not been mentioned at the budget meetings.

Roberts’ revised presentation also included more details on the impact of the proposed cuts on students, highlighting the increases in class sizes, and elementary-level split classes that would be necessary, depending on how negotiations with the teachers’ union conclude. Roberts has placed the bulk of a remaining $4.4 million shortfall not addressed by “part one” of his proposed budget on the shoulders of the teachers to absorb. “Part two” could include layoffs of teachers, with an impact on class sizes, depending on how negotiations unfold.

Both Roberts and teachers’ union president Brit Satchwell, who attended the April 12 community budget meeting, have reported that negotiations are proceeding amicably, but that some number of teachers will likely need to be “pink-slipped” in case layoffs turn out to be necessary. AAPS is required to issue layoff notices to any teacher who might not be returning the following year by 60 days before the end of the current school year.

Late last week, about 190 teachers were notified that they are on a list to receive layoff notices. The board meets on Wednesday, April 21, and will vote on whether to issue those notices – if approved, the notices will likely be sent out later this week. Speaking to The Chronicle on Monday, AAPS spokewoman Liz Margolis said the hope is that the majority of those notices, if not all, will ultimately be rescinded.

The budget amendments made since the last board meeting are as follows, along with any additional cost savings brought by each:

• In middle school programming, the middle school planning centers were replaced with a positive behavioral support model, eliminating an additional 1.6 teaching positions, and saving an additional $10,000;
• In elementary programming, more detail was given on the nine planned staff reductions – they would be 4.6 media specialists, 2 computer lab teachers, and 2.4 music or physical education teachers; and
• In district instructional support, summer school would be funded through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding instead of charging tuition.

As he stepped through the budget again, Roberts highlighted schools of choice, and cooperative agreements with other districts and the county as possible sources of new revenue and savings. He also stressed how much uncertainty there still was in many directions. At the state level, retirement reform and health care legislation could still add mandates that would have a large impact on the district, such as requiring outsourcing or consolidation. Roberts noted that 51 teachers have currently applied to retire this year, but that the number could be significantly impacted depending on what happens to the pending legislation.

At the local level, Roberts said, given that it is anticipated that the districts will incur another $265 per-pupil cut, “we’ve had to go ahead and plan for the worst-case scenario.”

Budget Plan: Educational Impact

Roberts highlighted the impact that the two parts of the budget would have on class sizes and the number of split classes. Here’s how the numbers compare.

Currently, elementary class sizes average 24 at the K-2 level, and 26 at the 3-5 level. Part one of the budget plan keeps those numbers the same, but adding part two as well would bump them up to 26 and 28, respectively. Also, at the elementary level, there are currently three split classes, that is, classes with more than one grade level represented. If part one of the budget is approved, the number of split classes will rise to eight, and if part two is also necessary, the number could reach 13.

At the middle school level, current class sizes average 26. They would increase to 28 with part one, and to 30 if parts one and two of the budget are necessary.

High school level class sizes would sustain the most dramatic increase if this budget passes. Core high school classes currently average 28 students in all grades. With part one of the budget, ninth grade class sizes stay the same, but tenth through twelfth grade class sizes would rise to an average of 31. If part two of the plan is also enacted, all high school class sizes would move from an average of 28 to an average of 33.

Budget Plan: Contract Lengths

Stead pointed out how the biggest difference in impact has to do with whether or not part two of the budget plan will need to be enacted, which would eliminate an additional 36 teaching positions. She argued that the district would hardly be able to measure the effect of the increased class sizes and split classes for years, and that she hoped the teachers’ union and administration were able to achieve a 4% across-the-board reduction of teachers’ salaries. Stead then asked Roberts about the duration of the contract under negotiation.

Roberts clarified that the $4.5 million in savings brought by part two of the budget plan includes all employee groups, and that in these “uncertain times … it’s unlikely that either party would want to commit to more than a two-year contract.”

Budget Plan: Planning Centers Out – Behavior Model In

Lightfoot mentioned that she was pleased to see the middle school planning centers being recommended for elimination, which had been suggested at the last board meeting. She asked whether or not community assistants had been considered for use in the middle schools, as had also been mentioned earlier.

Roberts confirmed that using community assistants had been part of the conversation, but that nothing has been decided yet. He pointed out that some money was left in the budget in order to effectively implement a positive behavior support (PBS) model in the middle schools, which may need to include hiring some staff, such as community assistants or “someone like that.” Roberts said a plan would be coming back to the board once developed.

Mexicotte expressed her pleasure at the administration’s response to the concerns stated at the last meeting: “Positive behavior support is fabulous – thank you so much! Moving toward a PBS model is absolutely where we should be headed. It’s a distributed model – everyone is responsible.”

Budget Plan: Musical Instrument Fee

Mexicotte repeated her concern from the last meeting regarding musical instrument rental fees: “I’m still not sure we can charge for musical instruments without violating board policy.” Roberts then countered that it depends how AAPS board policy is interpreted, and that “we would have to look at our own board policy closely.” Roberts also mentioned that some other nearby districts do charge such a fee.

Nelson pointed out that state law says, “if it’s part of the curriculum, as we are proud to say our fifth grade instrument program is, than I don’t think we can charge.” But Nelson was quick to add that he is not a lawyer, and that this policy should be reviewed by the district’s legal counsel.

Mexicotte referenced a court case involving a graphing calculator as the impetus for “why this came up,” and pointed out that the board has a policy on equity as well as materials that would be implicated. She asked Baskett to lead the performance committee in reviewing these policies along with administration, to see if “there is a change or adjustment we need to make to the budget.”

Nelson agreed that it warrants a closer look, and thanked Mexicotte for the “heads up.”

Budget Plan: Board Concerns

Stead and Mexicotte made brief comments concerning the impact they feared this budget could have on students. Stead stated, “We’re almost underestimating the possible impact this could have. We’re constantly being asked to do more with less.” Mexicotte added, “These are uncertain times. The numbers are still surprising, even though we’ve seen them a lot. There is no doubt these changes will impact students, staff, and the community.”

But the most detailed concerns came from the longest-serving board member, Glenn Nelson, who worried if the administration was doing such a good job at figuring out what to cut, it would lead the community to think “we’re coming through [this] relatively unscathed.” He gave three examples of why he was “very concerned with what’s happening to education in this community.”

First, he pointed out that the best-case scenario still raises class size by 8% in middle school, and by 15% more if part two becomes necessary. “These are real impacts on the climate in the middle school,” Nelson asserted, “that may or may not show up in the MEAP.”

Secondly, he argued that split classes were not good for individualizing education, which is a goal in the district. Finally, Nelson cited concerns with requiring payment to participate in athletics, saying, “I know we’ll implement it the best way we can, but there will be some people who don’t apply, and we’re going to lose a few kids.”

Nelson closed with a plea for taking greater responsibility for education at the local level, while working for change at the state level, and claimed that education is at a “dangerous fork in the road” between lower quality and higher quality.

Budget Plan: Budget Approval Process

Mexicotte requested that the budget plan be removed from the consent agenda, saying that the board should only be suggesting to the administration whether or not they are “on track” for what may come next, “such as layoffs, TAs [tentative agreements with labor unions], or consolidation agreements.” She pointed out that there will be a public hearing on the budget on May 26, and that the board does not have to officially approve it until June 30.

Nelson said that his understanding, too, was that the board was to approve a guideline that night – not line items, but an overall plan. He asked Roberts, “Do you have any concerns if we remove this from the consent agenda? Do you feel you are lacking in any authority to move forward?”

Roberts answered that any items for which he would need specific approval he would bring back to the board individually, and confirmed that discretionary items in the budget were not “set in stone.” He also argued that the staffing process has to move forward, including making transfers – both voluntary and involuntary.

Mexicotte then wrapped up by saying that the board was now in the final “influence and suggestion stage” of developing this budget, and Nelson and Stead explicitly stated their support for this framework.

Mexicotte added, “You have my support, but I am dismayed.”

Outcome: Even though this was a second briefing item, there was not a formal vote. The board signaled its approval that AAPS administrators continue to move in the direction outlined by the budget plan as presented.

Peer Mentoring

Numerous references were made during the meeting to a peer mentoring program at Forsythe Middle School in which cognitively-impaired, physically-impaired, and/or hearing-impaired students are mentored by general education students in an adapted physical education class developed and taught by Kelli Bert. The peer mentoring program was started in 2004-05, and had been considered for reduction by Forsythe’s principal. But in response to a notable outcry of support for the program, it has been reinstated and will continue next year.

Two public commentary speakers – one parent and one student – spoke on behalf of the program. The parent noted that her son, who is hearing-impaired, had been helped tremendously by the program, which she also credits with stimulating age-appropriate social interactions, promoting self-esteem, and increasing empathy for and tolerance of special education students. She applauded the decision to continue supporting the program.

The student who spoke is currently a junior at Pioneer, and had been a peer mentor in the program during his seventh grade year. Calling it an experience he’d never forget, this student asserted that all the peer mentors he knew from that class have gone on to participate in social service projects, and that the program helps able-bodied students to overcome stereotypes.

Barb Byers, vice chair of the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), used her association report to express gratitude that Forsythe’s peer mentoring program had been preserved, and added that a similar program had been started at Clague this year. She credited Clague’s program with bringing special needs students into the school community, and argued that relationships developed during peer mentoring can be “life-changing for all involved.” Byers also advocated for including peer mentoring in a systematic and effective program to dealing with middle school bullying, including the bullying of special needs students.

Other First Briefing Items

In addition to the custodial/maintenance privatization bid, the board considered a number of other items at “first briefing,” at which no action is taken. Action is usually taken at “second briefing,” or the second time the board reviews an item.

Personal Curriculum

Superintendent Todd Roberts introduced the personal curriculum (PC) being presented to the board at this meeting as being a necessary option for AAPS to offer to be in accordance with state law. A personal curriculum allows students to deviate from state graduation requirements, known as the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) if they meet certain parameters.

Joyce Hunter, administrator of middle/high schools and career and technology education, then came to the speaker’s podium. She explained that a personal curriculum can be requested on an individual basis by parents/guardians, school personnel, students over age 18, or emancipated minors. It leads to a regular high school diploma if successfully fulfilled. Hunter then reviewed the following allowable modifications to the MMC:

• After completing at least 1.5 mathematics credits, students can request to exchange one credit of Algebra II for .5 credit of Algebra II;
• After completing two social studies credits, including civics, students can request to exchange one credit of social studies for an additional language arts, math, science, or world language credit; and
• Students can request to exchange either or both of the required credits in physical education & health, and visual, performing, and applied arts for additional credits in language arts, math, science, or world language.

The parts of the MMC that cannot be modified, except for special education students or students who transfer to AAPS after attending two years of high school somewhere else, Hunter explained, are as follows. All students are required to complete:

• Four credits in English/language arts;
• Three credits in science, including biology and either chemistry or physics;
• At least 3.5 mathematics credits (four without a PC);
• At least two credits in social studies (three without a PC), including .5 credit in civics;
• An online learning experience, as incorporated into one or more required credits; and
• Two credits in world languages (beginning with the class of 2016).

One modification the district allows, which does not require a personal curriculum, is to spread algebra II over two years instead of the usual one year. This allows students to earn two math credits for Algebra II.

In addition, Hunter explained that the district is moving toward allowing students to take more advanced classes in high school by meeting some of the MMC requirements in middle school. Students who are ready can already take Algebra II in eighth grade, and Hunter is proposing that the district allow the same for world languages.

Hunter noted that Lisa Bares, the district’s world language coordinator, is  working on standardizing and creating common assessments for the first high-school level of each of the world languages offered by the AAPS – Spanish, French, German, Latin, and Mandarin Chinese. This standardization would allow AAPS to begin offering high-school level language classes to eighth graders as early as next fall.

Roberts added that next year’s sixth graders will be the first class to have to meet the MMC world languages requirements. So the district would like those students coming into middle school next year to have the option to build toward taking their first high-school level language class during eighth grade.

Glenn Nelson commented that it was “a credit to our system that we continue to look for ways to enrich the curriculum.” Simone Lightfoot added that, while she appreciated the increased curricular rigor, she was concerned about the social implications of having “smarter but less socially acclimated students.” As a parent, she said, she is trying to balance her child’s need to meet these requirements with helping her child to succeed in other aspects of life. “Good job to you, and more work for me,” she quipped.

Deb Mexicotte asked for clarification on whether or not having a personal curriculum would prevent a student from going on to play collegiate sports. She also questioned whether students with 504s – such as students with long-term illnesses – would be allowed to modify their MMC requirements like students with individualized education plans (IEPs) can. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires federally-funded schools to create a written plan to meet the needs of students who require extra accommodations, but who do not qualify for a special education IEP.

On both counts, Hunter said she would need to double-check, and that she would follow-up with the board. She did mention that the district “has been in close contact with the NCAA for a few weeks.”

Hunter also reviewed the state guidelines for school boards in developing a personal curriculum, and gave examples of how the district had met these guidelines. One of the elements of the district’s PC option that requires school board approval is how the content expectations within subject areas are met by specific classes. Hunter mentioned that a committee is working on identifying classes in career and technical education that the district could allow to meet certain MMC requirements. Roberts also mentioned that detail about the PC process will be included in the Student Services Guide, and emphasized that AAPS “need[s] to allow this to happen, based on state law.”

Pioneer Summer Construction: A Bond Comes to Fruition

Randy Trent then returned to the podium to present a set of bids for summer construction projects at Pioneer High School. Removing the portable classrooms and creating a student courtyard area are significant parts of this final project in the district’s five-year capital improvement program. In 2004, Ann Arbor voters approved two millages to fund a $255 million initiative to improve the facilities at every school, as well as build a preschool and a third high school. The money received by AAPS from these millages has been able to be used for capital improvements only. This is in contrast to the countywide millage which failed last November, which would have provided additional funding for operating expenses.

A view to the southwest of Pioneer High School temporary trailers. (Image courtesy of AAPS.)

Trent showed a current picture of the area Pioneer is currently using for its portable classrooms, and then contrasted it with a drawing of the renovated space. Trent referenced a memo included in the board packet and pointed out parts of the drawing as he outlined the project, which includes, “the removal of portable classrooms, the creation of a student courtyard area, tunnel improvements, including waterproofing, piping, and lighting replacement, creation of a culinary arts classroom space and renovation to create business and SISS spaces.”

Granger Construction would be coordinating the work, Trent explained, with bids going to nine separate companies responsible for different aspects of the project. In total, the project will cost $1.7 million. Trent indicated that Granger  recommends the following contractors (bid amounts in parentheses):

• Merlyn Contractors for site demolition & earthwork ($270,000);
• McCarthy Construction for site concrete and asphalt ($315,804);
• Mid-Michigan Turf Care for landscaping and irrigation ($71,900);
• Baker Construction for masonry ($58,950);
• Beal Inc. for general trades ($407,060);
• DRV Contractors for tunnel waterproofing ($38,335);
• Shock Brothers Floorcovering for resilient flooring ($22,000);
• Mills Mechanical for mechanical work ($370,000); and
• Huron Valley Electric for electrical work ($158,400).

Susan Baskett asked about the timing of the project, and Trent answered that the roadway would be done this summer, and that by next spring once the sod has been able to take root, students would be able to “play Frisbee or read” in their new courtyard.

Lightfoot asked if any of the contractors were recognized as “historically-underutilized businesses,” which could refer to being minority or woman-owned. Trent answered by enumerating the geographical coverage area of each contractor. Documents included in the bid don’t indicate any contractor as having “HUB” status, though Baker, Beal, DRV, Mills, Mid-Michigan, and McCarthy as listed as being “small businesses.”

Nelson stated, “It is exciting to see this come to fruition for those of us who put the bond together … It really is ‘last but certainly not least.’” Acknowledging that the portable classrooms did have their charm for some people, Nelson concluded, however, that the renovations would make Pioneer “much more attractive.” Nelson also thanked Trent for his orderly reports and leadership.

Trent insisted that the bond work had been a team effort, saying that “everyone from the superintendent to the teachers in the rooms” had participated to get the program this far. Trent suggested coordinating a photo shoot in the fall to showcase the bond’s improvements and, “to reminisce on all our work.”

Roofing Supplier Bid & DTE Energy Easement

Trent then went on to present the first briefing of a bid to approve MWA/ Firestone as the singular roofing vendor for roofing work to be done this summer at Pioneer, Huron, Forsythe, Slauson, Mitchell, Clague, and Northside schools. He explained that the 2010 sinking fund will pay for necessary roof repairs this summer, and mentioned that most roofs in the district have a 15- to 20-year lifespan. In a memo to the board, Trent explained that he would now be soliciting bids from installers, but that only contractors certified by MWA as qualified installers would be allowed to bid on the work.

The final first briefing facilities item discussed at this meeting was the approval of an easement to DTE Energy on the southeast corner of Seventh & Stadium, part of Pioneer’s property. Trent explained that the easement would be used by DTE Energy to service an existing power pole, and mentioned that it had been reviewed by legal counsel.

The only question asked by the board on these items was by Deb Mexicotte, who asked about the longevity of the easement, if approved. Trent answered that it would be permanent.

Policy Updates

Baskett listed a series of policy updates which had been reviewed by the board’s performance committee, which she chairs. Other than recommending policy #5720, Healthy Foods and Beverages, for deletion, the committee made no other changes to those policies they had reviewed. The policies will be coming back to the board for a second briefing and vote at the April 28 meeting. Baskett explained that the food policy was no longer necessary, as it is superseded by policy #5700, Local Wellness.

In response to questions she had received regarding policy #4700, Enrollment of Non-Resident Children of Employees, Baskett clarified that state law would not allow AAPS to retain students of non-resident employees if those employees’ positions were outsourced.

Stead asked how many students this would affect, and Mexicotte asked whether students could stay if their parents’ positions were outsourced to the county as part of a multi-district consolidation, which is being considered for transportation. No one at the meeting was able to answer either question with certainty.

Baskett said she had heard from the bargaining units that as many as 80 students would have to leave the district. Jane Landefeld, director of student accounting, came to the podium, and reported that the district as a whole currently has 130 non-resident students, but not all of them are children of non-resident employees; some are in AAPS for other reasons, such as receiving certain special education services. Landefeld said that she thought there were only seven students who were non-resident children of custodians, but she did not know how many non-resident children of bus drivers attended AAPS. Baksett repeated that she had heard it was 80 all together.

Nelson asserted, “I do think we want to know what that number is exactly by our next meeting.” Landefeld answered that she would go back and check, and Roberts assured the board that that number would be in the board packet.

Association Reports

In addition to the AAPAC report described above, the board received reports from the Youth Senate, and the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC).

The Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA), and the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG) did not report at this meeting.

PTO Council Report

Andy Thomas reported for the PTOC, introducing it as having a “traditional mission,” to help local PTOs and serve as a liaison with AAPS administration. Thomas urged parents to get involved in local and state-level lobbying efforts, including a “massive letter-writing campaign,” and posted information about how citizens could contact their legislators about stabilizing school funding. He also mentioned that the PTOC will be holding officer training for local PTO officers in late April.

Youth Senate Report

The Youth Senate report was two-fold, and at first offered a bit of levity. The report blamed the district’s automated “phone home” system for causing “familial strife,” and suggested that the system call students’ homes only if they are habitually absent, rather than to notify parents of every unexcused tardy or absence. The suggestion elicited chuckles from many board members, administrators, and community members present.

The report then continued in a more serious tone, pointing out the significant difference in class failure rates among upperclassmen at Pioneer compared to Huron, and requesting administrative assistance in reviewing and interpreting the data they were given. The Youth Senate’s speaker described the motivation for looking at failure rates as wanting to make the best use of its Achievement Solutions Teams (AST), which offer academic peer support, and have shown to be successful in reducing failing grades.

Board Committee Reports

The board has two standing committees, through which many items on the board’s agenda get a first look – performance and planning. Each board member except for the president is assigned to one or the other – Baskett, and Nelson sit on the performance committee, and Irene Patalan, Stead, and Lightfoot sit on the planning committee. All performance and planning committee meetings are open to the public.

Performance Committee Activities

Baskett reported her committee to have focused on reviewing a “slew” of policies at its most recent meeting, as well as having been introduced to the personal curriculum presented by Hunter as a first briefing item at this meeting, as described above.

Planning Committee Activities

Stead reported for Patalan, who was not in attendance. She noted that the planning committee had also reviewed the personal curriculum brought by Hunter, as well as the series of items regarding facilities brought as first briefings to this meeting by Trent. Stead mentioned that Lightfoot had questioned Trent about process and due diligence at the committee meeting, and that the meeting had been attended by some students and community members as well.

Also in reference to previous planning committee discussions, Lightfoot announced later in the meeting that the district would be holding a “college and career-ready” review on April 29, at which AAPS will present achievement gap data to the public, and lead the analysis of such data.

Second Briefing Items Approved on Consent Agenda

With the budget plan removed, the consent agenda contained the second quarter financial report, 15 policy updates, and four sets of minutes. Aside from a reading of the list of policy titles by Stead, there were no questions or discussion on any of these items.

Outcome: Approved. Nelson, Mexicotte, Lightfoot, Baskett, and Stead voted yes.

Awards and Accolades

Tributes to Randy Friedman

Glenn Nelson started a string of tributes to Randy Friedman, saying he was missing the former board member of nine years, who stepped down from the board on April 12. Nelson commented that Friedman had played a very important role in helping the board to transition “between two different regimes,” putting the bond together, hiring Todd Roberts, and supporting the enhancement millage. On a personal note, he said, “Our relationship really evolved … He taught me a lot … I did not always agree, but I always learned from him. I, for one, am going to miss him very much.”

Christine Stead also thanked Friedman for his years of service, and reassured the public that “While we’ve had a lot of change, this board works well together.” She added that the longer-term trustees have devoted many hours to supporting her and trustee Simone Lightfoot, the board’s two newest members, and said she hoped more strong candidates would come forward.

Deb Mexicotte added her thank-you to Friedman for his years of service, and added some historical perspective: “My first interaction with [Friedman] was trying to get on to this board when he did … Randy never brought it up.” She reminisced that there were times she and Friedman were “responsible for keeping each other in our seats, [but that] he was very gracious when his voice was not the one that carried the day.” Mexicotte noted that when she had asked Friedman if he had wanted to say good bye, he declined, saying he had said what he’d needed to say. Still, she said, “I hope he hears these things.”

Lightfoot contributed her first impression of Friedman, “I understood very quickly the power that he wielded,” and that she thought Friedman had the “kind of personality where you never felt he was listening to you” but that’s because he could “split his brain.” She added, “I loved his smile. I loved that he could say he was wrong. I will miss the opportunity to know him better.”

Celebration of Excellence Awards

Two celebration of excellence awards were presented at Wednesday’s meeting. Molly Crankshaw, a veteran third grade teacher at Burns Park, was nominated for an Excellence in Customer Service award by a parent of two children she has taught. The nomination noted that children blossom as individuals under Crankshaw’s care, and provided many examples of how she excels in her role. Also honored was Robert Kokoszka, a special education teacher at Huron, who was lauded for always having faith in students, even when they don’t have faith in themselves.

Superintendent’s Report

Todd Roberts listed multiple high school, middle school, and elementary level awards and achievements, including those of staff, students, and schools as a whole. He thanked the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for hosting student artwork, and University of Michigan Health System for partnering with AAPS around education about depression. Lastly, Roberts thanked all those who attended the recent budget meetings.

Deb Mexicotte suggested moving the superintendent’s report to earlier in the meeting. Susan Baskett and Christine Stead agreed, with Stead arguing that any one item from the report would be amazing, and that every single meeting there are many amazing items to share.

After confirming with Roberts, who consented, “I’ll do it anywhere,” Mexicotte said she would move the superintendent’s report higher up on the agenda, likely right after public commentary.

Items from the board

Glenn Nelson echoed Roberts’ mention of Youth Art Month in downtown Ann Arbor as “really wonderful.” He also praised AAPS parent booster club volunteers, as well as the AAPS Educational Foundation, for their fundraising efforts.

The meeting was adjourned by president Deb Mexicotte.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, secretary Glenn Nelson, newly-installed treasurer Christine Stead, trustee Susan Baskett, and trustee Simone Lightfoot.

Absent: Vice president Irene Patalan.

Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, superintendent of AAPS.

Next regular meeting: April 21, 2010, 7 p.m., at the Downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room.

Outside the Jan. 20 school board meeting, one of four demonstrators against privatization of certain school services. (Photo by the writer.)

On one hand, it was an evening of accolades and celebrations.  The board heard recommendations to pay tribute to the work of two longtime AAPS staff members by naming facilities in their honor, community participation in budget planning was lauded, and the students from this year’s Hikone Exchange Program reported on their trip to Ann Arbor’s sister city of Hikone, Japan.

At the same time, concerns about possible privatization of custodial, maintenance, and transportation services dominated the meeting’s public commentary. And when the same presentation that was made to recent public budget forums was repeated for the board, looming school budget cuts again came to the fore. Requests for proposals (RFPs) for outsourcing that are a part of those cuts were also briefly discussed.

Possible Privatization: Custodial, Maintenance, Transportation Services

Among the possible cost-saving measures presented at the recent public budget forums are moves to privatize certain services: custodial, maintenance, and transportation.

Background on Privatization at AAPS

Privatization is not new to the AAPS. The district has outsourced some services completely: substitute teachers, food service, asbestos removal, concrete repair, roofing, and security. Many other services have been provided by blending AAPS employees with private contractors, such as custodial services (substitutes are privatized), electrical work, painting, and carpentry. Since Proposal A passed in 1994, effectively causing school districts across Michigan to operate under increasing financial pressure year after year, outsourcing within other units of AAPS has been increasingly considered.

Changes to custodial/maintenance and transportation contracts over the past few years have included limiting vacation scheduling, changing health insurance coverage, and reducing available sick leave. Union members who spoke at the Jan. 20 board meeting attributed these changes to the threat of outsourcing, which they said has caused their membership to approve a gradual weakening of their benefits and their pay. Many speakers during public commentary referred to concessions that have already been made over the years, with one asking “We’re the only group with a designated vacation, and a lifetime wage – isn’t that enough?”

Another fear reflected in the public commentary was that of retaining employment but losing pension benefits. It is not uncommon for privatized vendors to “re-hire” the same workers for the same jobs with less pay and fewer benefits.

For example, when Chartwells was hired to take over food service in the district, many local employees were hired. But because these workers are no longer in the state employee retirement system, it has led to complaints about their compensation – as one community member put it at a recent AAPS budget forum, tbey are paid “like McDonald’s workers.”

Public Commentary on Privatization

A few dozen members of the local custodial/maintenance and transportation unions were present and showed enthusiastic support for their six members who made statements during the public commentary section of the meeting. Some union members also picketed outside the meeting, carrying signs reading “More will be lost – not just the cost”; “Stop privatizing. It’s dangerous. Think of our kids”; “The Safety of our children comes first” and “Help AAPS staff keep our schools safe – stop privatization.”

The safety issue was echoed in the public commentary given by Darryl Wilson of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1182, representing custodians and maintenance workers. He cited a case in which an outsourced custodian who was bothering a student was found to have two felonies on record, and reminded the board that all current custodians have been fully background-checked by the state.  Relying on a private company to have properly arranged for background checks for all employees is risky, he argued, and opens up the risk of convicted felons being granted access to students in schools or on buses.

Another speaker, a bus driver, argued that offering lower salaries and fewer benefits would lead to higher turnover, and that beyond the issue of safety, the loss of familiar adult faces on the buses would diminish the quality of students’ educational experience as a whole. Karen Kozacki-Snell, a representative of the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education, echoed that sentiment at the beginning of her report later in the meeting. As the parent of a special education student, she said, she especially appreciated the consistency of her child’s bus driver.

A bus driver with 16 years of service to the district put it this way during public commentary: “A lot of us are divorced or single … The majority of us wanted the pension.” She also suggested that the number of employees, and their families, who would need to move out of the district if they were let go, could have a substantial effect on district enrollment numbers. Another bus driver with three years of service added, “One of the attractive things about this job for me, at my age, is the health insurance at 10 years of vesting.”

A member of the Teamsters Local 214, representing bus drivers and monitors, argued that privatization did not reduce costs with food service, and that it would not with transportation, either. He referred to a study by Roland Zullo, of the University of Michigan’s Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, which claims that privatization  “… indicate[s] no substantive decrease in the cost of student lunches and a modest increase in the cost of breakfasts with private food management.”

Many speakers mentioned that no one else could do their jobs any better than they do, and that no hired company will hold the interests of the district paramount. As one put it: “The company will say what you want to hear. They will pretend to work for the Ann Arbor Public Schools, but their priority will always be to make a profit.”

Another speaker said the fact that the district is not intending to sell the bus fleet implies that it might want to change its mind about transportation staffing in the future. He spoke of the “synergy” among custodians and other school staff, claiming that privatizing would “break the egg.” He warned board members that “you won’t be able to put the so-called ‘genie’ back in the bottle if you don’t like it.”

Budget Presentation and Update

Superintendent Todd Roberts and deputy superintendent for operations Robert Allen repeated the same presentation they had given at each of the four community budget forums earlier this month. They stated the purpose as two-fold: so that the board could ask any questions it had, and so that any community member who had not been able to attend a forum could watch the presentation on CTN as the BOE meeting was replayed this week. [Chronicle coverage of the Jan. 7 budget forum: "Ann Arbor Schools Seek Input on Budget"]

Roberts stressed that the suggested cuts were “not a plan” at this point, and that the plan will develop over the next month and a half. He said he appreciated the many thoughtful conversations and suggestions that have been offered by the 600 people who attended the four community forums, and the 200 who have completed an online survey. He mentioned two ideas from the community that could be incorporated: making need-based scholarships available for sports participation if it is decided to make sports “pay-to-play”; and charging a fee for participation in non-athletic activities as well.

Roberts urged any community member who had not yet given input to please do so. Board president Deb Mexicotte later also encouraged anyone who could not attend a meeting to complete the online survey. She reiterated that the board had received 200 online surveys, but “would love 2,000!” She also invited the public to attend a newly-scheduled board study session on Feb. 17, at which community feedback will be analyzed.

The final budget plan is scheduled to come to the board for first review at its meeting on March 24, and for final approval on April 14. Roberts explained that AAPS is not legally required to adopt its final 2010-2011 budget until June. But, should the district choose to proceed with increasing the number of AAPS students through the Schools of Choice program, a plan would need to be finalized by April in order to ensure adequate staffing of those schools.

Many board members offered encouraging remarks to the community regarding the work at hand.

Glenn Nelson mentioned that he joined the board in 2002, and that the current 2010-11 budget contains the smallest foundational allowance from the state that he’s ever seen. But he said he “feels good about” how the superintendent, BOE members, teachers’ union, and parents are working together “as a team.” He also thanked everyone who came to the budget forums, and described the discussions he heard there as “among caring people who want students to have an excellent education.” In thinking of the lessons learned from Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson said public education needs to be funded at a level consistent with its importance: “An excellent education is an important civil right.”

Simone Lightfoot thanked the public in general for the warm welcome she has received since joining the board, saying, “I have something on my calendar every day.” She recently had the opportunity to visit Mitchell Elementary’s after-school program, as well as Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, and said she was greatly impressed on both visits despite some preconceived notions. Lightfoot said though there is a lot of work to do, she looks forward to Ann Arbor being at the front of change at the state level.

Irene Patalan thanked the community for attending the forums, and said that seeing the hundreds of concerned people there has been a “profound learning experience,” and made her proud of her community. While describing the district’s strategic plan as the “guiding light” that drives her, she advised: “Change can be scary. We are changing; we have no choice … I’m choosing to look at this as an opportunity to do even better than we do now … I do believe in us.”

Requests for Proposals Issued

During the presentation, board member Adam Hollier asked how much of a difference privatization would make in total expenditures, and was told that his question could not be answered until the privatization bids were received and analyzed by the district.

Two requests for proposals (RFPs) have been issued by AAPS – one for privatizing transportation services, and one for privatizing custodial and maintenance services. They are due on Feb. 12, 2010. The full RFPs are available for viewing on the board of education website, as part of the Jan. 20, 2010 board information packet.

State Education Funding and Legislative Update

Roberts mentioned that while talking to the community has been very helpful, the district will also continue conversations with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and Michigan legislators to address not only cost containment, but also the inadequate funding of the School Aid Fund.

In addition, a special briefing was added as an action agenda item for Wednesday’s meeting regarding signing a service consolidation plan (SCP) agreement with the MDE. This agreement would have to be signed by Feb. 1, and could lead to the receipt of an additional $1.7 million in flexible state funding from Part 31A of the School Aid Act if the district qualifies.

In return for receiving the additional funding, the district would agree to consider consolidating business or instructional services with other districts or the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD).

Roberts explained that there is some question of whether or not APPS qualifies for this funding. Currently, it looks like the district is not actually eligible based on phone conversations Roberts has had with MDE representatives; however, if this is the case, it is unclear why AAPS was included in a list of districts invited to submit SCPs. Due to this uncertainty, as well as the “flurry of legislation flying” at the state level, Roberts said he would like to have an agreement to develop an SCP on file with the MDE by the Feb. 1 deadline in case the requirements are modified to the degree that AAPS qualifies.

He explained that signing an SCP agreement does not commit the district to do anything it is not considering anyway, and that consolidation of services with other districts is already under consideration.

Mexicotte agreed, saying that this agreement would serve as a “placeholder” in case it is determined that AAPS is eligible for 31A funding.

Hollier asked about the threshold for funding: If the last cut had gone through, would AAPS  have been low enough to qualify? Roberts answered no, and explained that currently, the threshold for qualifying for 31A funding is a foundation allowance of $8,489 or less, which would mean AAPS does not qualify, but that upcoming legislation could change the threshold, thereby making AAPS eligible. [The AAPS currently receives $9,325 in per-pupil funding from the state.]

Hollier suggested that, should the board vote to sign an SCP agreement, Roberts should include a letter along with it, suggesting the legislative changes that would be necessary to cause AAPS to be eligible for the funding.

The board then approved on roll call vote, with all six trustees in attendance voting yes, the addition of the signing of an SCP Agreement with the MDE to the consent agenda, which was then approved along with other items.

Roberts also included an update on other proposed state legislation as part of his superintendent’s report. He emphasized that these bills are all focused on cost containment, reminded everyone that they might not pass, and described them as ideas “from the folks in Lansing helping us.” They include:

• A bill that would allow “hold harmless” districts, including Ann Arbor, to use their sinking funds like bond money;
• A bill that would make all public employees pay 20% of their health care premiums;
• A bill that would cap the non-instructional part of district budgets at 28%, and require competitive bids for all K-12 non-instructional services; and
• A bill that would reduce the pay of all public servants by 5%, frozen for three years.

First Briefing Items: Parking, Computers, and Facilities Naming

The board considered a number of items at “first briefing” – the board sees items twice, at a first and a second briefing.

UM Football Parking

Deputy superintendent Robert Allen recommended that the bid for managing the parking of vehicles at Pioneer High School during University of Michigan football games for the 2010-11 season be awarded to Great Lakes Environmental Services.

Since 1950, the district has been mandated to provide parking at Pioneer during UM football events, as part of a land purchase agreement with UM. If approved, this would allow Great Lakes Environmental Services to keep 11.9% of the revenue brought in from parking fees, and pass on the rest to the district. Board member Irene Patalan suggested that raising the cost of parking per car would not deter fans, and could be encouraged as a way to increase revenue. Allen confirmed that the gross revenue from football parking would increase by $1 million if the cost of parking was raised from $30 to $35 per car.

Computer Replacement

Joyce Hunter, the administrator for middle/high schools and career and technical education for the district, presented a recommendation to use $35,093 of this year’s Perkins Grant funding to replace the computers in the Business Education Computer Lab at Huron High School. Trustee Susan Baskett asked questions that clarified a number of issues: the total cost of the quote from Dell; that computers would be purchased, not leased; and that the life cycle of computers in AAPS buildings is 7-8 years. Hunter clarified that the Perkins Grant affords just enough money to do one lab each year. Trustee Deb Mexicotte commented that 7 or 8 years is a long time in the life of a computer.

Naming of Facilities

Liz Margolis, director of communications for AAPS, introduced two requests to name facilities in honor of AAPS staff. It was recommended to co-name the Pioneer High School track after the boy’s cross-country and track coach Don Sleeman, and to name the Tappan Middle School gym after former physical education teacher and coach Rob Lillie. Superindentent Todd Roberts commented that both recommendations meet all criteria and board policy.

A former student reported that Don Sleeman was recently named national track and field coach of the year, and inspired his athletes to do better in all aspects of their lives. A parent who spoke in support of Sleeman asserted, “That guy – he’s like a pirate! He is heroic to me, and to all the boys. He’s 70! I want that man to drive by the field, and see his name there.” [Sleeman was recently honored with a mayoral proclamation at the Dec. 7, 2009 Ann Arbor city council meeting.]

Trustee Susan Baskett clarified that the official name of the track would be “Westfield-Sleeman” track, as it would be named not only for Don Sleeman, but also for Bryan Westfield, a change that the board approved last year. Baskett asked about the process from this point forward, and Margolis confirmed that, if approved, the booster clubs would be authorized to raise money for a sign, and that it would take about six months to complete.

Trustee Glenn Nelson stated that it was a “pleasure to honor these people. These are fun times – these are joyful times. I’m just glad we’re doing this.”

Deb Mexicotte, president of the board, reminded her colleagues of the comment someone made last spring about how having two great people to consider naming the track after was a great problem to have, and she expressed pride that “our community solved it.”

Rick Weiler, assistant principal of Tappan Middle School, spoke on behalf of Rob Lillie, saying Lillie was his mentor and a “most gracious gentleman.” He said, “I’d be considered a success if I could fill just one of his shoes.”  Trustee Simone Lightfoot and Margolis also expressed support for Lillie, having had him as a teacher themselves or known him as a district parent. Mexicotte and Nelson also made statements of support.

Weiler explained that Lillie is currently out of town and unaware of this effort, so he will be duly surprised if the recommendation is approved. Margolis requested that if it is approved, that Lillie could be recognized by the board at a future meeting, since he would not be here at the time of approval. Nelson said Lillie would be a joy to honor.

Hikone Student Presentation

At the beginning of the meeting, the 16th group of students to participate in the Hikone Exchange Program gave a presentation. Usually students only go to Japan every other year, but this last trip was a special additional trip because it was the 40th anniversary of the Ann Arbor-Hikone sister city partnership.

Each speaking briefly, the 11 students (one was too sick to attend) described their experiences with everything from the program’s selection and fundraising processes, and the language and cultural preparation they did, to adjusting to their host families and schools, and some of the specific sites they visited in Japan.

Trustee Glenn Nelson asked the students to describe a piece of Japanese culture that they wished was a part of our culture here. Students mentioned the greater accountability of students to their own learning, the fact that people wear masks when they’re sick to prevent the spread of germs, and how the giant photo booths at the mall were interactive: “You could draw on it!”

Trustee Susan Baskett asked Larry Dishman, the program’s coordinator, about the ratio of applications to students accepted to the Hikone program. Dishman acknowledged that there are more applicants than can participate, saying a few years ago he took 18 students, but that was too big. Twelve students is a good number, he said, but “we could go up to 14.”

Trustee Deb Mexicotte thanked the students for their presentation and said how much the board looks forward to hearing from them after each program year.

Trustee Irene Patalan mentioned that thinking of the trip put a smile on her face, and that she was really proud of all the students.

Additional Accolades

During the opening of his superintendent’s report, Todd Roberts reported that the Preschool and Family Center has just won accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, an arduous process, and a fitting tribute to the work of its former principal, the late Connie Toigo.

Also achieving awards were Huron and Pioneer high schools, who each received silver rankings from US News and World Report, and Community High School, which received a bronze. Roberts added that the awards are based on a wide range of performance indicators.

Roberts enumerated a number of other awards to individual teachers in the district, and mentioned that all 131 buses passed the Michigan State Police inspection.

The meeting was closed after the conclusion of the executive session, which had been recessed in order to begin the public BOE meeting at 7 p.m.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Irene Patalan, secretary Glenn Nelson, trustee Susan Baskett, trustee Adam Hollier, and trustee Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Dr. Todd Roberts, superintendent of AAPS.

Absent: Treasurer Randy Friedman.

Next Regular Meeting: February 3, 2010, 7 p.m., at the Downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room [confirm date].

Guenzel will formally submit his recommendations to commissioners at their board meeting next Wednesday, Sept. 16. This is the second phase of cuts. Earlier this year, commissioners approved the elimination of 26 jobs and almost $14 million in expense reductions.

In a memo to the Board of Commissioners posted Friday on the county website, Guenzel made clear that there will be additional, difficult decisions to make – and more jobs could be on the line. He described ongoing labor discussions as cooperative, but said that if no deals are struck by Oct. 16, he’ll need to make additional cuts in other areas. More than 80% of the county’s 1,350 employees are represented by 17 different bargaining units, which have contracts in place through at least 2010.

Further ahead, the county is projecting deficits of $27.5 million over two years in 2012-13, with revenues from property taxes continuing to fall and a huge question of whether the state will re-institute a revenue-sharing commitment in 2013. By 2013, general fund revenues are expected to drop to $90 million, compared to $99 million projected for 2010.

We provide a detailed look at the budget recommendations after the break.

Raising Revenue

Previously, Guenzel had proposed levying 0.017 mills under legislation known as Act 88, to be used for economic development purposes. The county is permitted to do this without voter approval because Act 88 legislation predates the Headlee Amendment, which put limits on a local government’s ability to raise taxes. Guenzel’s original proposal would have raised $256,000 to be allocated to Ann Arbor SPARK and its Ypsilanti business incubator, SPARK East. Those groups had received a general fund commitment from the county for $200,000 and $50,000 respectively – if the Act 88 revenue can be used instead, that would free up general fund dollars.

In his latest recommendation, Guenzel has more than doubled the proposed millage to 0.04 mills, which would raise $603,000. (The millage would levy $4 for every $100,000 of a property’s taxable value.) The funds would be allocated to these groups:

• Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000)
• SPARK East ($50,000)
• Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000)
• 4H activities ($60,000)
• Horticulture ($27,000)
• Agricultural Innovation ($15,000)
• Food System Economic Partnership ($15,000)
• Heritage Tourism ($50,000)
• Director of Economic Development and Energy ($87,000)

Jennifer Fike, executive director of the Food System Economic Partnership, had spoken at the board’s August meeting and urged commissioners to consider using Act 88 funds to support agricultural economic development. She did not, however, advocate a higher tax.

The director of economic development and energy would a new position to be filled by Tony VanDerworp, the county’s current director of strategic planning. The strategic planning department is being eliminated,  but a new department of economic development & energy is being created in its place. There are seven jobs in strategic planning, including two that are vacant. The new department will employ four people, including VanDerworp, for a net decrease of three jobs.

Expense Reductions

In addition to restructuring its strategic planning department, the county administration has identified specific cuts in several areas.

Mental Health Services

Non-mandated services in the Community Support and Treatment Services department (CSTS) will take a big hit under the proposed budget recommendations, with cuts of 6.75 jobs and $2.4 million in expenses. This is in addition to $3 million in cuts that the department already made during the first phase of budget reductions earlier this year. But job losses potentially could be even more severe. CSTS has a contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization – a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan – to provide vocational training to developmentally disabled residents. If WCHO decides to award that contract to a different agency, CSTS would face the loss of 66.5 additional jobs. [See previous Chronicle coverage of proposed budgets for CSTS and the county's public health budgets, which were discussed at the Sept. 2 board of commissioners meeting.]

Levels of Service for Mandated Programs

The county has proposed eliminating three jobs and $1.7 million in expense reductions from departments responsible for mandated services. The prosecuting attorney’s office, led by Brian Mackie, will lose one position, while two positions will be eliminated from the clerk/register of deeds, led by Larry Kestenbaum. Mackie and Kestenbaum were among the five elected officials who sent a letter to commissioners on Thursday urging them not to make further cuts in mandated services. In addition, the letter  proposed putting a millage to fund human services on the November 2010 ballot.  The letter was also signed by sheriff Jerry Clayton, treasurer Catherine McClary and Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner.

But the main expense reductions in this category come from the Washtenaw County Trial Court, which has agreed to cut $1.2 million from its budget over the next two years. More job losses might occur there, depending on how the court reorganizes to deal with that cut in expenses. The trial court includes juvenile court, probate court, the Friend of the Court program, community corrections, civil/criminal divisions and a range of other functions.

Support Services and Administration

Six positions are recommended to be cut from the county’s support staff, which includes human resources, finance, information technology and facilities. The cuts – which will come primarily through positions that are already vacant, plus planned retirements – are expected to save $750,000. Additionally, one job in administration – the assistant to county administrator for public safety and  justice – will be cut to save $118,000.

Building Inspection

Two positions in the building inspection program– a mechanical inspector and a customer service specialist – are slated for elimination, with a targeted $285,000 in cost reductions. At one point the county considered eliminating the entire program, because a sharp decline in new construction has reduced demand for those services. Instead, Guenzel is recommending keeping the program, increasing fees, and partnering with the county’s weatherization program – which recently received significant federal stimulus funding. Long-term, the county will also pursue a possible regional partnership with the city of Ann Arbor and other local governments.

Funding for Nonprofits

The county’s support for local nonprofits was an area that generated considerable public angst over the past few months, with advocates for various groups lobbying commissioners to retain funding. Guenzel’s budget recommendation calls for most funding for these groups to be cut 20% in 2010 and another 20% in 2011. Many of the nonprofits that were previously funded directly by the county – in the category of human services and children’s well-being – will now be required to apply for funding through a competitive bid process, administered by the Office of Community Development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department. The pool of county funding for that group will be cut from $1.26 million this year to $1.01 million in 2010 and $762,250 in 2011.

Other nonprofits have funds specifically earmarked for their organization, but will also see funding cuts. Support for Safe House Center, for example, will be reduced from $120,000 this year to $72,000 in 2011. Shelter Association funding will drop from $200,000 in 2009 to $120,000 in 2011.

Overall, funding for outside agencies and special initiatives will be cut from a total of $3.64 million this year to $2.5 million in 2011.

Expense Reductions With No Job Cuts

Several areas will see funding cuts, but won’t lose staff. Those include $167,000 from Head Start’s budget, a decrease of $137,000 to the Michigan State University Extension program, and a $160,000 cut in funding to the public health department.

Many Unknowns Remain

One major unknown relates to funding for corrections, which is part of the sheriff’s department. A jail expansion currently under construction will require additional staffing, but it’s unclear to what degree. Guenzel said that discussions are ongoing with sheriff Jerry Clayton – that piece of the budget will be presented to commissioners later in the year. The overall sheriff’s department accounts for 35% of the county’s general fund budget – earlier in the year, Clayton identified $1.5 million in budget reductions.

Other significant uncertainties include the level of concessions that might be accepted by unions representing county workers. State funding levels are also unclear, as the Michigan legislature struggles to deal with its own $2.7 billion budget shortfall for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2009.

Commissioners will be working with county administration to finalize the budget over the next two months. A public hearing devoted to the issue is tentatively set for Thursday, Oct. 22, with the board expected to adopt the budget at its Nov. 18 meeting.

The option of increasing future revenues is like trying to change the tire on an 18-wheeler that is still moving – downhill. It isn’t going to happen. Hoping to get voter approval to increase the county millage rate by 1 mill (back to the maximum 5.5 mills authorized in 1964, but which has been gradually rolled back thanks to the 1978 Headlee Amendment) likely cannot be achieved, given the current economic climate.

At any rate, millage reapportionment makes sense only if you could consolidate many of the functions of county and township government. But consolidation would put loveable Ebby Betts, the township treasurer for 40 years, out of a job. (Yes, Ebby is a hypothetical creature, but nearly every township has one.) Consolidation makes good business sense, which is why it will not happen. Year after year, proposed state legislation to modify township government dies in committee. Township dues paid to the self-serving Michigan Township Association to lobby the legislature protect these 200-year-old antiquated fiefdoms. Besides, everybody feels comfortable with Ebby.

With most of the county income coming from declining property taxes and dwindling state revenues, the commissioners need not spend much more time on the revenue side of the budget. The other revenue sources – fees, investment income (which in the tank), etc. – don’t amount to a mouse pelt big enough to nail on the wall.

The Ann Arbor Chronicle has provided exhaustive reporting on the county’s budget crisis. The reporting is so extensive that it numbs the mind with endless alternatives. Trying to sell a few buildings that likely have no buyers, or expecting interest rates to zoom up so the CDs will yield 3% instead of 2% isn’t going to beat off the alligator closest to the boat. Cutting expenses is the only viable option.

Now about the boat. Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending upon your perspective – the county commissioners and the staff are bunked up in steerage, one deck above the engine room and next to the pounding of the bilge pumps. How did they get there?

The gist of it is this. The county’s annual budget is about $105 million – not even a rounding error for AIG, the Wall Street scoundrels primarily responsible for this global economic meltdown. About 80% of the county budget is for wages and benefits. Of the 1,350 county employees, about 1,000 are unionized.

The union leadership is on the poop deck of this boat and will be giving directions to their helmsman on the bridge. The outside hull on this ship has a $30 million hole in it – that’s the projected deficit. Which course will they decide to take? Accept contract concessions for 2010 or gut the crew? Will the union leadership agree to reasonable wage and benefit adjustments so their members can continue to provide Washtenaw County with services that are desperately needed in this economic storm? Or will they decide that seniority is “all about us leader guys” and throw their younger shipmates over the side?

Their decision will determine what actions the county is forced to take. Personnel cuts will likely eliminate critical services needed by people who are already shortchanged emotionally and economically by this recession.

Once the course is set, there is no turning back.

[Editor's note: County administrator Bob Guenzel is expected to make budget recommendations to the county board of commissioners at their Sept. 16, 2009 meeting. He has said that the extent of cuts to services and jobs will depend in large part on whether unions representing county workers agree to negotiated wage and benefit cuts.]

About the writer: Del Dunbar, a CPA and partner with Dunbar & Martel, has lived in Ann Arbor since the 1960s.

Hardest hit in this latest round could be mental health services – one option is to cut that part of the general fund budget by $2.4 million and eliminate 91 jobs.

At a July 29 briefing for commissioners, Guenzel stressed that the options he’ll present next week aren’t his final recommendations. No decisions have been made, he said. The extent of the cuts, which commissioners will vote on as part of the overall budget, ultimately will depend on the outcome of ongoing negotiations with union leaders.

The county is talking with most of the 17 bargaining units that represent about 1,000 of the county’s 1,350 workers, asking for concessions – even though union contracts are set through at least 2010. Guenzel plans to update commissioners on the progress of union talks at a closed executive session during their Aug. 5 board meeting. The closed session for union contract negotiations is an exception allowed under the Open Meetings Act.

This is the second phase of budget cuts. Phase 1, approved by the board in July, included $13.69 million in cuts and a reduction of 26 jobs, about half of them already vacant. Guenzel’s final 2010-2011 budget recommendations are expected to go before the board at its Sept. 16 meeting.

After the jump, we’ll provide details for the budget options being considered next week.

But First, Some Budget Background

County officials have been talking about the budget crisis for months. In September 2008, when The Chronicle launched and first began covering the board of commissioners, a dire budget projection was already on the horizon. At the board’s Sept. 17, 2008 meeting, Guenzel told commissioners, “I’ve been through a lot of these cycles and I’ve never seen one this bad.”

In February, Guenzel and his staff laid out revenue projections and described how different revenue sources – including sharply declining property taxes – could affect the budget. In April, commissioners held a retreat dedicated to identifying budget priorities. Later that month, the county’s tax equalization report gave officials a clearer sense of how tax revenues would be affected by the economic downturn. Officials have also held a series of public forums, trying to engage residents on the topic of the budget crisis.

The projected deficit has grown another $4 million from original estimates made early this year, which showed a $26 million shortfall. There are several reasons for the higher projected deficit, Guenzel said. Revenue  from the register of deeds office is now anticipated to be $1 million less than originally forecast, due to a significant decrease in the volume of real estate transactions. The revised deficit also accounts for a higher number of successful property tax appeals – $1 million, compared to $500,000 originally forecast. Increases in projected pension and health care costs account for the remaining amount.

Guenzel said that even if commissioners approved the maximum number of Phase 2 cuts, they’ll still need to find another $4 million to balance the budget for 2010 and 2011. (The county handles its budget in two-year cycles.) The rest might come from union concessions, departmental reductions in personnel and other expenses, and budget cuts expected from the Trial Court, which haven’t been determined yet, Guenzel said.

Jobs on the Line

Of the potential 181 positions affected by the budget cuts being considered, the bulk of those come in three areas: Mental health services, Head Start and juvenile detention. In his report, Guenzel gives the maximum number of jobs that could be cut and the maximum amount of savings, but notes that cuts could be lower than the maximum indicated. The options he presents are categorized as either high or medium priority – a designation that factors in the feasibility of the cuts, dollar amounts, public policy issues and whether the services are mandated or discretionary.

Mental Health: Cuts to mental health services – including up to 91 jobs – have been given a high priority. If fully enacted, those cuts would eliminate funding for the Community Support and Treatment Services department (CSTS) and the county’s Project Outreach Team, which serves the homeless, mentally ill and people with mental illness who are in the justice system.

This is an area where the county currently goes beyond its state-mandated service level. Guenzel said that those mandated levels could be met by services offered through the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a collaboration between the county and the University of Michigan. Of the 91 jobs at risk, 66.5 work under a contract that the WCHO has with CSTS to provide vocational and skill-building services. If the county eliminates funding for CSTS, the WCHO could provide those services through another agency.

The outreach team that deals with the justice system – called JPORT – has strong support from local judges and law enforcement officials, Guenzel said. Some of these advocates will likely come to speak to commissioners on Wednesday.

Head Start: The county manages this federal program for children of low-income families – running the Ypsilanti site and delegating responsibility for four other sites to other local entities. Eliminating support completely would affect 35 county employees for a maximum savings of $765,880. If the county relinquishes local management of the program, another local entity could bid for that federal contract and continue the program, Guenzel said.

One factor in weighing cuts to this program: The county owes money on a Head Start building paid for in part by federal funds. If county support is eliminated for Head Start, they might have to repay the $1.95 million that the feds kicked in. Head Start cuts are designated a medium priority.

Juvenile Detention: Also a medium priority is eliminating the juvenile detention program, with a maximum 24 jobs at risk and $919,464 in savings. This is not a mandated program, so the county could choose to send the youth in juvenile detention to facilities outside the county. That’s a solution that would cost the county money, but it would be less than the cost of operating their own facility.

Other Potential Cuts

There are several other areas considered a high priority among the options being considered:

Building Inspection: This is a non-mandated program, and given current economic conditions – with little construction activity taking place – the demand for these services has decreased. About five jobs would be affected, at most, for a savings of up to $239,547. Other options include raising fees and working to find a more regional approach to handling these services.

MSU Extension: Another non-mandated program, the extension is jointly funded by the county, Michigan State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It provides a range of support to local farmers, several educational programs related to food, nutrition, youth and families, and some mortgage foreclosure prevention services. According to the county, every $1 in general fund support brings in $1.89 in funding from outside sources, such as the state or federal government – totaling $1.6 million in 2009. The cuts would affect a total of three county jobs. The county also pays a portion of the salary and benefits for 12.4 MSU employees. In total, the cuts would save up to $424,220. It’s not clear whether MSU would continue the program locally without county support, Guenzel said.

Public/Environmental Health: The state requires a minimum level for county public health and environmental health services – it’s referred to as a “maintenance of effort.” County funding goes beyond that level, Guenzel said, and one option is to cut back to the minimum, for savings of up to $586,000 and a maximum of 12 jobs.

Office of Strategic Planning: Among the options being considered is eliminating this department completely. Led by Tony VanDerworp, the department has already taken budget hits in previous years, Guenzel said. Closing it would save roughly $1.1 million and eliminate seven jobs (two of which are currently vacant). The strategic planning staff supports the Ann Arbor Region Success initiative, the Eastern Leaders Group and the Detroit Aerotropolis, which Washtenaw County recently joined. A less radical option would be to downsize the department, focusing resources on economic development.

Support Services: A maximum of six job cuts and $750,000 in savings could result from major restructuring of the county’s support services. Those areas include information technology, finance, budget, human resources and facilities.

VEBA Debt: Additional savings might be sought from restructuring the county’s Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA) debt, which funds the medical plan for 700 county retirees. One option could be to issue bonds for up to 75% of the county’s projected unfunded liability, assuming that changes in state law would allow the county to take such action. An advantage to this would be cost savings – a yet-to-be-determined amount – with no impact on jobs.

In addition to the high-priority options described above, the following areas have been given a “medium” priority when considered as potential budget cuts:

Funding for local nonprofits: Eliminating all county funding for non-county human services agencies, except for funding that is mandated, would save $1.69 million from the general fund budget. No county jobs would be affected. However, considerations include whether the nonprofits that rely on this funding would survive if all their county support is cut. A less drastic option would be to cut funding 20%, saving $338,542.

Other medium-priority potential cuts include eliminating the professional development program, which would save $205,586 and cut one job. A raft of changes to retiree health benefits – such as increasing drug co-pays to $10 for generics and $40 for brand-name drugs – could save up to $1.9 million and would not affect county jobs.

Special initiatives that might be cut include funds for the Eastern County initiative (up to $100,000), a housing contingency program (up to $160,000), and supportive housing (up to $200,000).

Also on the table – but with no numbers attached yet for savings or jobs – is related to a new jail expansion that’s under construction. Options include not opening the new space, or opening it while closing part of the old jail.

Potential New Revenue

On the revenue side, the county board is considering a new tax to raise $256,000 for economic development. That amount currently is earmarked from the general fund for Ann Arbor SPARK and its Ypsilanti office, SPARK East. By levying .017 mills – or $1.70 per year for every $100,000 in a property’s taxable value – the county would free up those general fund dollars for other purposes. The tax wouldn’t require voter approval because its enabling legislation (Act 88) predates the state’s Headlee Amendment.

A public hearing on the proposed tax will be held during the board’s Aug. 5 meeting. The board meeting immediately follows the board’s Ways & Means Committee meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St.

Four public comment periods are available during the evening, before and after both the Ways & Means Committee and the regular board meeting. Three minutes are alloted for each speaker.