Thank you.
Bringing folks back together.
We are at the portion of the meeting where Rick loses his script.
But I believe it's we just go straight into action items and the first action item.
Action item number one approval of 2018 19 district smart goals.
This came before executive committee on May 17th was moved forward for consideration.
Approval of this item would approve four smart goals for the district in the 2018 19 school year multi-tiered systems of supports MTSS eliminating opportunity gaps EOG Seattle ready and engagement collaboration.
Can I have the motion please.
I move that the Seattle School Board approve the 2018 19 district SMART goals and accompanying rubrics as attached to the board action report.
I second the motion.
Do we have any questions or comments from directors.
Director Mack.
Yeah I have three things I wanted to comment slash question on.
One is the the clarification in this rubric compared to this current year's rubric where it states that at the top of each of the basic proficient and distinguish that all the elements are including basic.
If proficient terribly confusing but basic is the baseline.
So in one example that's 90 schools and then to be proficient it would include 56 schools on top of that and then to be distinguished it would include an additional 49. schools and so I appreciate that clarification that to step up to proficient or distinguish actually matches the numbers because it was a little bit confusing in this year's as we were working through that for the superintendent evaluation.
So I appreciate that.
I'm still concerned around the MTSS metrics not actually measuring the number of students that are being served.
MTSS the whole goal is to make sure that we ensure we are serving all students appropriately and none of the metrics here actually measure.
how many more students were serving through this process.
And we had a conversation about this a couple of times and it didn't end up in this document.
I don't know if it can end up in this document but I I do have a concern around that I feel like it's not adequately measuring the goal if we're not actually measuring how many more students are served through MTSS.
And.
My last comment and thought was on the high schools one where it says all high schools and because we have what 10 comprehensive high schools soon to be 11 and then five options slash service slash other schools.
I'm wondering if that does mean all schools are we talking all comprehensive schools.
So that is a question mark for that third one.
Are you looking for staff to provide clarification on that.
If it's possible yes please.
Would that be possible Dr. Perkins to provide a quick.
Is there enough clarity on the question?
There is.
Kayla Perkins, Director of College and Career Readiness.
So it does mean all.
Meaning that if you look at strand one, that's about professional development.
We're providing professional development dollars and support for all of the high schools, the ALE high schools, the the options as well as the comprehensives.
Clearly in different strands there will be different impact but the strand 2 which around the schedule that won't affect the ALE schools so much because they already have an alternative schedule strand 3 around the CTE plan.
There's more going on the comprehensives but there's still our CTE programs in our other schools and finally strand 4 around counseling and Naviance that's being provided to all.
So overall we definitely are referring to all high schools.
Director Geary.
My only comment is that we have repeated the MTSS and the EOG goals as well as the engagement.
And so at what point.
I want to be mindful that when we're back in this process next year we are able to have a discussion at what point.
And I believe Director Burke has brought this up as well.
At what point is it so embedded that we can actually say the train is left the station and moving under you know full steam and we now can shift because we've created the structures necessary around the work that's being done there.
And so while I'm super you know proud of the work that we are doing and will continue to do I am mindful that I think in a preview that circling back around to special education again next time is going to be something I'm going to be interested in but not at the sacrifice of the work that we've been doing but rather going deeper than in a new place.
So just a little bit of direction.
here on the eve of these goals and knowing that they are separate.
But how will we do that.
What will that conversation look like.
Should I or another director bring up some other thing.
So thank you everybody for your work.
Looking around just a quick wrap up.
We've had a I believe one maybe two work sessions on this to develop the goals and some directors had the opportunity to work individually with staff to help refine them.
This this year has been I think each year we've been getting better and better at defining our goals in terms of specificity.
One of the areas this year was a very explicit conversation around multi-year goals recognizing that a lot of the work can't be done in a year.
And we were the board asked staff to provide clarity on what what looked like a multi-year goal versus a single year goal.
So sort of speaking to what Director Geary had asked about the request would be perhaps in our quarterly goal updates would be to help us understand if we think a goal is going to sunset in the current year or have those conversations basically four times a year so that there's clarity across the board and across the staff as to how progress is going.
The other point Director Mack brought up We are approving these goals I believe slightly earlier than we did previously or there's there is some question about whether we should wait until Superintendent Juneau is here to be able to jointly work on the goals with her.
But we wanted them approved so staff could could actualize them could could actually be doing the work over the summer.
So I think there is there is an understanding that once the new superintendent is in place You know we want her to understand to believe in them as well.
And so I think that would be a conversation to have whether it's just clarity in what the goal means to you and to her and to the rest of the board or some other interpretation.
Just to clarify what you just said.
Are you saying that there is opportunity to potentially revise these further even though we're adopting them tonight.
We do not have a process set up to revise and readopt.
But I'm kind of looking over at Aaron that when these were developed there were some conversations around how to engage the new superintendent in these goals and the overlap of these goals and the superintendent evaluation.
And so there's there's still some ongoing conversations that need to happen.
Maybe you could.
Align us all on that.
I certainly can can share what I thought was the understanding and obviously these are your processes so they are up for clarification as you would like.
So Erin Bennett executive director of government relations and strategic initiatives.
My understanding is that there was an intentional shift this year from them being superintendent goals to being district SMART goals.
And yes the timeline did shift and not in the sense of when they were adopted because we we did look at them in June of the previous year.
but that recognizing with the new superintendent coming on the decision was made by the board to go ahead and adopt district goals rather than them being superintendent smart goal evaluation goals.
And then my understanding was my understanding was rather than a.
review and sort of readoption process was that there would be additional conversations with superintendent the new superintendent around what elements if any or other goals might live within her superintendent evaluation document.
But that these would be the district goals so that staff could get keep either keep going with the work or begin the work and launch it at the beginning of the new school year.
Thank you.
Does that clarify your question that there is not a process in place now.
But but if the board decided there should be one.
Can I add one more thing to that though.
Please.
So I would imagine that my colleagues would be a little concerned if there were going to be a.
substantial amendments to the goals given that they would be using the foundation of what is adopted today to actually launch the work and that if there are actually quarterly updates on the goals changing them midstream or even early in the stream would be difficult to meet at the end of the year.
So just wanted to put that out there.
For that clarification.
OK.
Other questions comments.
Anybody else real quick.
Director Mack you want to wrap it up.
Yeah I just.
It may seem late in the game to say this after the process that we've gone through but given in particular a couple of my concerns around the metrics being used not necessarily matching what I think the goals are and our new superintendent coming on.
I think that it would be more appropriate to actually have her input.
and have that conversation prior.
I think I'm alone on that and I'm not going to make a motion but I'm just letting you know that that's how I feel.
Thank you.
Ms Shek roll call.
Director Pinkham aye Director Patu aye Director Mack no Director Geary aye Director DeWolf aye Director Burke aye This motion has passed with a vote of 5 to 1.
Next item up BEX IV approval of budget increase and award construction contract P 5 0 9 6 to Hensel Phelps construction for the Queen Anne Elementary school classroom and gymnasium addition project.
This came before Ops.
For approval.
Approval of this item would approve a one time fund transfer in the amount of two million nine hundred thousand dollars from the BEX IV program contingency to the project budget and authorize the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of thirteen million two hundred and eighty three thousand dollars for Queen Anne Elementary school classroom and gymnasium addition project.
Motion please.
I move that the school board approve the transfer of $2,900,000 from the BEX IV program contingency to the Queen Anne elementary school classroom and gymnasium project budget.
In addition I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract P5096.
with Hensel Phelps construction for the Queen Anne elementary school classroom and gymnasium addition project in the amount of $13,283,000 including alternates 2 4 and 5 plus Washington State sales tax with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.
Pinkham I second the motion.
Any questions or comments from directors.
Director Mack.
Yes I I'm not sure Mr. Best if you heard.
Thank you for bringing the picture.
That was one thing we had asked so that we could visually see what these dollars are being spent on.
In public testimony there was a statement made that the SDAT had been given direct.
direct statements that they could only had funding for eight classrooms and that this thing was added on later.
So I'm wanting to understand a little bit about did the SDAT actually.
Contribute to the decision or when was the decision made to add on these additional.
This project was reviewed with the SDAT team director Mack and I'm going to be clear that the BEX IV capital levy included the eight classroom addition and a new gymnasium at Queen Anne Elementary School.
The current gymnasium is in a double wide portable at that school.
in conversations with the SDAT team and with the building principal the administration area on this site plan of Queen Anne Elementary School.
The administration area is located in this classroom that I'm going to point out in just one second.
this classroom here on the north end of the school.
It has no visibility whatsoever to anything that's occurring on the site.
It looks north towards Boston Street.
That was a concern that was expressed by three different principals that have been at Queen Anne Elementary School that they had a lack of supervision.
of what they call the treehouse the 1905 existing wood structure and who was coming to Queen Anne Elementary School as accessing that site.
No visibility whatsoever.
There's also a new parking area that we are constructing as part of this project at the very south end of the site.
I'm going to point to it here.
And so as part of the classroom addition what we are doing is we're adding seven classrooms here and capturing the eighth classroom as the old administration area.
So you can see we've got the seven classroom addition.
Eighth classroom is the old administration area and we relocated admins so they had greater visibility of who is who is actually accessing the site administration for the school has indicated that they will lock these three doors.
forcing folks then to come in to the admin the new admin area that we are constructing.
We had thought and worked with our cost estimators on this project since.
in design development that the project was slightly over budget.
We value engineered the project to be back within budget.
We're within 2 percent.
So not knowing what the bid climate would be at the time we gave the go ahead because we believed we were within 2 percent.
We did two construction estimates during construction documents period.
Our cost estimator did make us aware that the bid market was very volatile and essentially.
And we are experiencing the bid volatility in the current bid market with this project.
I would note that the increase is primarily for construction costs 2 million.
Four hundred sixty six thousand dollars is for added construction costs.
Then you have Washington state sales tax on that for two hundred and forty nine thousand and sixty six dollars.
And then there would be an added construction contingency plus Washington state sales tax.
So that's roughly the breakdown of that budget request.
Thank you Mr. Best for being so complete on that.
So to clarify the decision for the change was made in the with the mission of student safety in mind so that the administration building had a better had a better.
Better site supervision and this this this creates a more secure building for students.
Correct.
Thank you.
And better visibility of the the 1905 treehouse which is landmarked.
Thank you.
Director Geary.
Based on another comment that was made is that your understanding that if even if we weren't to approve this with these dollars be available to be put towards any of our staffing issues that were raised today.
No these are capital fund dollars.
They are not general fund dollars.
These are for construction contracts.
Thank you very much.
Director Pinkham.
So you're saying that when the relocating the administrative office that was shared with the SDAT and they located it seemed like the public testimony was that it wasn't shared and it was added on as additional cost.
Do we know what the additional cost impact that is on the whole project by now moving the administration?
I don't know what the additional cost impact is for just moving administration the additional cost impact for the entire project.
Director Pinkham is two point nine million dollars.
We are.
In filling the existing covered play area as well.
The portion that you see in blue is going to be a portion that will be added on to the existing commons.
The portion that you see in orange is a maker space that they're creating at Queen Anne Elementary School.
So the makerspace was it.
I thought they were saying it was eight classrooms and a gymnasium.
Now they're saying there's a makerspace and commons.
Eight classrooms.
You have expanded commons administration and then the gymnasium.
Yeah because going back to public comment they're saying that they approved eight classrooms and a gymnasium for a certain budget.
Now we're saying there is a commons area makerspace and a new administration building.
So I think that's what their concern was.
Oh these added things coming after.
This design was done with staff input from Queen Anne Elementary School working directly with our architects and our project manager and our senior project manager.
I think that the concern that I'm hearing telegraphed is that we try to be very diligent about doing a broad based school design advisory team process to get a lot of stakeholder views.
And now we have something that's different.
I'm hearing a lot of things about it that make it sound like it's a better thing.
But it might have been done decoupled from the original SDAT process or do I misunderstand.
No you'd misunderstand.
This was what was worked with worked and developed with the SDAT team.
OK.
Thank you.
Director Mack.
I'd also like to make the comment that when we're building onto old buildings like this we're talking about our educational specs and what's appropriate in our current learning environment.
Providing for enough common space for lunch and recess and those sorts of things and these these decisions to make the common areas larger and and the administration etc.
They're in service to providing appropriate spaces for all students in the building.
And so I really appreciate the effort to bring them up to more current educational specifications.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Shek roll call.
Director Patu aye Director Mack aye Director Geary aye Director DeWolf aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye this motion is passed unanimously.
Next item up number three amendment number one to superintendent's employment agreement.
This came before exec on June 14th and was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.
Approval of this item would amend the superintendent's employment agreement with Denise Juneau dated April 25th 2018 to correct two Scrivener's errors in the agreement.
Note this item is for both introduction and action.
I guess we need a motion first.
Thank you.
I move that the school board amend the superintendent's employment agreement by approving and ratifying superintendent's employment agreement amendment number one as attached to this board action report.
Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.
I second the motion.
What can you tell us about this.
Good evening, John Cerqui, Deputy General Counsel.
So what you have before you is the Board Action Report, and it corrects two errors that were in Denise Juneau's employment contract that we entered into on April 25th.
The first corrects her tax sheltered annuity payment.
It was budgeted and intended in the original bar that it would be made on June 2019 and there was an error going with school calendar years that that payment would not start until June 2020. That was a mistake.
We also inadvertently put 2060 hours in the contract versus 2080 we want to match vacation cash out to other non reps and we're on a 20 80 schedule not 20 60. Previously the superintendent was paid out at a higher rate.
So now the superintendent will be paid out with the rate that all non reps are paid.
So we have an attached agreement that we wanted signed immediately since Denise was doing some per diem work for the district.
So that is attached.
So we're asking that you ratify the amendment as amendment number one tonight.
comments seeing none Ms Shek the roll call.
Director DeWolf yes Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye this motion is passed unanimously.
Number four.
Bex 4 and BTA 4 award of construction contract P 5 1 0 0 bid number B 0 5 8 7 0 to Helles Construction Incorporated for the Cleveland High School athletic field improvements project.
This came before Ops on June 7th and was moved forward for.
Mack.
Approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of three million four hundred and seventy eight thousand including base bid plus alternate number one for the Cleveland High School athletic field improvements project.
Note this item is also for introduction and action.
So yes we.
Do you want me to move?
Sorry.
Hold on.
And please.
Sorry.
OK.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract P5 1 0 0 to Hellas Construction Incorporated for the Cleveland high school athletic field improvements project in the amount of three million four hundred and seventy eight thousand including base bid plus alternate number one plus Washington State sales tax with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.
I second the motion.
Now would be great.
Thank you.
Best director of capital projects and planning.
So we bid this project on June 20th and our operations committee was on June 6th.
This project came in within budget will not have to have a budget increase.
The low bidder is Hellas construction.
The difference between the low bid and the second bidder was one hundred and thirty two thousand eight hundred ninety eight dollars or approximately 3.5 percent.
We are asking for or approval tonight along with introductions so that we can give the contractor a expedited notice to proceed so they can begin this work.
Our hope is to have the field completed by the end of September so that Cleveland High School can utilize the field late fall.
So this is a project that we have been working on with Parks and Recreation and I will note that the infill material as is Cork that was proposed for this project.
Are there any questions or comments from directors.
Director Mack.
The next item after this item is also related to this project and a bit of clarification.
This field is actually two thirds owned by the city of Seattle.
So we have we have the next item is about the agreement that we have with them.
Correct this field is owned two thirds by the city of Seattle one third by Seattle Public Schools.
The field is located on the west side of Cleveland High School.
It is the north third that Seattle Public Schools own and the south two thirds that Seattle City of Seattle through their parks and recreation department owns.
And they have been as I stated earlier involved in the design process to make sure that we're meeting their standards as well.
And are they paying for 50 percent of the project.
Is that correct.
Correct.
They are paying for 50 percent of the project and that is outlined the amount that they are willing to pay in the bar.
They will pay 50 percent of the project up to two million one hundred twenty five thousand dollars.
Should we exceed that they will allow to go.
They will commit only another one hundred thousand dollars to the project.
They're hoping that we can implement this project for $4,250,000.
Any other questions or comments?
You mentioned the justification for this being intro action.
I think that we have had our board has had several public statements where we're trying to not do that.
But we're recognizing that we're bumping up against the summer break.
Can you can you just.
Restate for for the record if if we were to not approve at this meeting, but the subsequent approval How much would it delay the start of this project?
Well, we're hoping we require your approval prior to having any conversations with the contractor and we're hoping to initiate those conversations so that we issue them and notice to proceed earlier than what is currently articulated in the contract document work.
Director Burke so that we can have the field ready to go by the end of September.
This is a project that has had a fair amount of public scrutiny.
So.
I guess I just want to understand that should we follow our normal process of intro and then action a subsequent meeting.
Would that be putting the project at a higher risk of not being completed in time for the fall and still having it be.
It would.
Thank you.
The roll call.
Director DeWolf.
Yes.
Director Mack.
Yes.
Director Pinkham.
Aye Director Patu.
aye Director Geary aye Director Burke aye.
This motion has passed unanimously.
We're off to a brisk clip now.
Item number five BEX IV BTA IV approval of the Cleveland Field interlocal cooperative agreement between the Seattle School District and the cities of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation.
This came before Ops on June 7th and was moved forward for consideration.
Approval of this item would approve the Cleveland field team interlocal cooperative agreement between Seattle School District SPS and the city of Seattle City acting through its Department of Parks and Recreation SPR to detail the funding design construction operation and maintenance of a synthetic turf field at Cleveland High School in the total amount of four million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Note this item is for introduction and action as well.
The motion please.
I move that the school board authorized the superintendent to execute the Cleveland field interlocal cooperative agreement between SPS and the city as attached to this board's action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take necessary action to implement the agreement.
Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.
I second the motion.
Questions or comments?
I Flip Herndon associate superintendent of operations and facilities.
I want to provide a little bit of clarity on this particular item as was commented before from Director Mack and established that Seattle Public Schools owns one third of this field.
Seattle Parks owns two thirds of this field and yet we are paying an equal portion 50 50 portion of this project.
So that came down.
We had we started to have a discussion that in operations about so who schedules this field since it's a jointly owned field.
So if we were to look at the joint use agreement typically what happens is Seattle Public Schools schedules their fields primarily up until 645. Seattle Parks schedules their fields with deference to Seattle Public Schools until 545. So there's about an hour's difference of time.
of dedicated student use to make sure that we're there.
That's a challenge for a lot of our high schools because with the later dismissal time it has really pinched a lot of the teams in the amount of time they have on Seattle parks fields.
So having sport teams be able to practice and participate on Seattle public school team fields obviously gives them an advantage of having more time.
In this particular case we had a conversation with Seattle Parks and because we're paying 50 percent of the cost of this project we agreed to figure out a 50 50 ability to schedule a field.
We looked at a couple of timing issues and they just seemed a little bit wonky to begin with.
It was just a little odd and I don't think it was in our best interest.
So we decided to go with a split of the calendar year so the way that our agreement works out is that in the fall season The field will be scheduled as a Seattle public schools field which means we will have the primary ability to schedule up until 645. In the winter, which doesn't get a lot of use admittedly, parks will have the ability to schedule that field.
In the spring it's again a Seattle public schools field which means we will have the ability to schedule until a little bit later.
And then in the summer it will be scheduled as a Seattle parks field.
So that's the agreement we came to which basically if you take the four different sporting season Seattle Public Schools gets two seasons Seattle Parks and Rec gets two seasons.
This is an advantage for Seattle Public Schools because our teams are really need that field in the fall and the spring.
There are practices during the summer but really it's the fall and the spring that's really important for us.
So this was our agreement for a year and then we also will be looking at the joint use agreement anyway that expires at the end of August 2019. So we'll have to figure out what that looks like going forward but hopefully this sets the precedent that hey we just invested 50 percent into this field.
So we want to be able to try and keep this as a 50 50 split.
But that's the agreement for this year until we look at the joint use agreement which expires next August not this August.
And just a quick sort of protocol.
Is this the one that requires some amended language.
Yes.
And would you like to address that now.
Yes.
Director Mack.
Yes I if I if I could make the motion to amend the language so that language was not actually put it what what's written into the agreement is different.
It doesn't include that it says SPR will continue to schedule the play field facilities.
And the suggested amendment that was just brought to me states SPR SPS will jointly share scheduling the turf play fields proportionate to their respective capital investments.
And I'm wondering and I'd love to have Noel's perspective on this I'm wondering if we should actually be more specific.
to the agreement that has been reached that Seattle Public Schools will schedule the field in fall and spring and SPR will schedule the fields in winter and summer.
As the agreement has been stated it is a 50 50 split but.
Good evening, Noel Treat, General Counsel.
I think, I mean, you could set the contract out that way, but in my view, I think the 50-50 language does give us adequate protection to get the time we want, and it also provides some flexibilities for the parties to decide exactly how that's going to work through the joint use agreement process.
I guess the thing the other the other thing is a timing problem which is the language that I think was presented to you this evening has been negotiated with the city essentially.
And if we're going to go back and change that language we'd not want to say it maybe by season but we'd want to have more precise dates and things so there'd be some things to work through.
If I were going to write contract language to match calendar dates versus just setting out the basic parameters which is we each get we get equal time and we'll work together through the joint use process.
to establish those fixed schedules each year at least until that joint use agreement is renegotiated next year.
The language actually doesn't say 50 50 it says jointly joint joint.
Yeah.
Yes.
So jointly doesn't mean necessarily 50 50. And it says proportionate well it sort of does proportionate to the respective capital investment.
So your sense is that this language actually will safeguard the agreement that has taken place in terms of.
Yes I mean it's still going to require the parties to keep working together as we do currently under the joint use agreement but I think this is sufficient to protect us in terms of having proportionate share of the of the field time.
Director Geary did you have a question or do you do you want to go to the.
We're not actually under a motion yet.
I have a question about this.
So is there anything that prevents the city from making what it would argue to be further capital investment thereby rearranging that percentage without our prior approval.
I mean fields are things you can sink a lot of money into for a lot of different reasons.
And what in this contract would prevent them from doing that and then coming back and.
showing us that they have a greater proportion.
Yeah that's a good question.
But the way I interpret this language is that this is referring to capital investments made only pursuant to this interlocal agreement not I wouldn't read that as being capital investments at large.
Not clear.
It isn't it isn't clear and I think that's a good question.
I'm glad we're having this conversation here at the dais publicly.
The language says respective to their respective capital investments which is.
Past tense.
In my mind but maybe not so.
I agree with the interpretation and I would hope that that's how this would be interpreted in the future if we were to adopt this language if it's been negotiated with the city already if the process by which we have to go back to renegotiate it will delay the adoption of this.
I'm inclined to offer an emotion a motion to adopt the language that was.
Agreed to between the city and Seattle Public Schools.
Could you put that into a formal motion.
Yes.
Tell me if I'm not doing it correctly but certainly I move that the following sentence be added to paragraph 2 point B point 11.
Actually if you may I've got some language that might be a little bit more precise.
If I could bring that up to you.
Thank you.
I move to amend the agreement attached to the BAR to replace the last sentence of section 2.11 on page 3 with the following sentence SPR slash SPS will jointly share scheduling the turf playfield proportionate to their respective capital investments.
Is there a second.
Respect to their past as which is.
My interpretation is that as Noel stated is that.
Just to be clinical we have a motion.
Yes.
Is there a second.
Well I just want.
She she included the term past.
I just want to make sure that that was in the motion.
No I didn't.
She did not.
I thought I heard Pat.
OK.
I second the motion.
OK we have a motion and a second.
Is there any discussion on the amended amendment.
The vote on the amendment.
Director Pinkham aye Director Patu aye Director Mack aye Director Geary aye Director DeWolf aye Director Burke aye this amendment is passed unanimously.
And then can we go to the vote on the motion as amendment as amended.
Director Pinkham aye Director Patu aye Director Mack aye Director Geary aye Director DeWolf aye Director Burke aye this motion as amended has passed unanimously.
OK last item on action items and I'm going to ask people to be really excited when they vote on this one please.
Number six authorization for lawsuit settlement.
This came before executive committee on June 14th.
Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to take all necessary actions.
To resolve the lawsuit brought by plaintiff King County Superior Court case number 17 dash 2 dash 1 9 3 5 0 dash 0 against the district which would include payment of district settlement funds in the amount of 450 thousand dollars in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit and waiver and release of all claims.
This item is for introduction and action.
The motion please.
Move I move that the Seattle school board authorized the superintendent to take all necessary actions to resolve the lawsuit brought by plaintiff King County Superior Court case number 17 2 1 9 3 5 0 0 against the district which would include payment of district settlement funds in the amount of four hundred and fifty thousand in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit and a waiver and release of all claims.
Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.
I second the motion.
What would you like to tell us about this?
Good evening John Cerqui Deputy General Counsel.
So as explained in reading the motion we are asking authorization to settle a lawsuit.
It's scheduled to go to trial middle of July.
That's why we're asking for it to be acted on and approved tonight.
We want to get the lawsuit resolved.
This is an individual perpetrator who is a former teacher at Broadview Thompson.
We've brought several prior settlement resolutions in the late 2000s 2000 and.
TAN 11 I believe to the board's approval for authorization.
So this is another individual victim who's come forward and this will be monetary compensation to her for the injuries allegedly sustained.
I do want to be clear that the total settlement is six hundred and seventy five thousand.
We pushed aggressively to get contribution from an insurance carrier for acts that may have happened at a camp.
So they are contributing two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars for the settlement.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Are there any questions or comments from directors.
Director Patu.
Just for verification.
Did you say two hundred fifty thousand dollars from the insurance.
Two hundred.
Two hundred and twenty five thousand.
Why such a small fee.
The insurance carrier disputes that they have coverage for sexual molestation.
So they're willing to contribute some but not all.
And they're only responsible for events that happened at the camp.
And there were events that happened on school property so there would be no coverage for stuff that happened on the school property.
Thank you.
I will just comment that issues like this are absolutely sobering and it just reminds us how critical our our oversight and diligence is in making sure that we are good stewards of our students and their environments and it's humbling.
Director Geary.
And I think it's also a reminder for all of us that part of the education of our children is how to respond when they are when people attempt to victimize them and to be sure to do what they can to exert their own power over the situation as best they can.
And I hope that we are constantly being vigilant in teaching them.
about their right to assert themselves over their person.
Thank you.
Ms Shek the roll call.
Director DeWolf.
That was me.
Oh yes.
I couldn't see I couldn't hear.
Sorry.
Director Geary.
Yes.
Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye.
This motion has passed unanimously.
This brings us to our introduction items of which we have 22. We are going to be working diligently to get through them at a brisk pace.
So be warned that if conversations seem like they're getting a little verbose I will ask folks to take them offline and find a place to put them.
Before we start I see Director DeWolf over there with.
Yeah I forgot to mention at the beginning I have to leave at 830. So I apologize.
So thank you for letting us know.
Well we have an aspirational goal.
First item number one setting the 2018 19 economic stabilization account.
Committee chair Audit and Finance June 11th.
This came to Audit and Finance on June 11th for approval.
And I recognize staff to address this.
Linda Sebring budget director.
So what you're seeing in front of you is a formalized vote for the economic stable setting the economic stabilization budget for the 18 19 school year.
This formalizes the consensual discussions that the board had.
at a work session on February 28th to increase the economic stabilization fund by two million dollars.
So this brings the total economic stabilization fund to twenty four point six million dollars or three point two seven percent of the 16 17 total expenditures.
Burke.
Thank you very much.
Are there questions or comments on this item.
Director Mack.
No.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Item number two resolution 2017 slash 18 dash 18 fixing and adopting the 2018 19 budget came before Audit and Finance June 11th moved forward for.
For consideration.
I will hand it over to JoLynn Berge for her presentation.
We have a PowerPoint on the 7 the 18 19 budget.
I'm just going to get the clicker.
All right we'll go through this quickly.
These numbers are numbers that you have seen.
Can you just click.
I don't think it got loaded right.
OK.
So the presentation is in your packets.
Or we will make copies and go to later in the agenda.
Quick quick question what were you asking Director Mack.
I was just going to make a quick request if we could go ahead and move it to later on the agenda when we can pull those that presentation up to the screen so that the public can actually see the presentation.
Process check.
Do we need a formal motion to move this on the agenda or can we be friendly about it.
As an introduction item I think you can be friendly about it.
Just let us know when this is ready.
So we'll move on to item number three.
Amend and rename policy number 20 90 program evaluation and assessment to district educational research and evaluation.
This came before the curriculum instruction committee on June 12th with a recommendation for approval.
Michael Tolley.
Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning.
As was just stated this board action is to amend school board policy 20 90 which is currently titled program evaluation and assessment.
with a recommendation for renaming it district educational research and evaluation.
The policy is also accompanied with a superintendent procedure.
The amended policy reflects our approach to conducting research and evaluation that supports evidence based decision making about our educational programs services and initiatives.
Specifically the policy stipulates that we will provide the school board with an annual plan for research and evaluation projects conducted by district staff or contractor services.
We will also provide an annual report to the school board of key findings from their studies.
This board action also removes from the policy any reference to assessments that would be that are currently in board policy 2090 due to the fact that we have a new board policy 2080 that was developed this past school year that covers all student assessments.
The development of this amended policy was led by our director of research and evaluations Eric Anderson and staff member Jessica Beaver.
We as you know held meetings sessions with each of the board members to gather your feedback and input into this policy and we want to thank you for your time and your helpful suggestions.
In response to that we actually developed a superintendent procedure that accompanies this policy.
It goes into more detail about the process and the timeline for developing the annual plan, as well as the criteria for prioritizing which research and evaluation projects we would move forward on.
The research and evaluation department as you may see there is also attached documents to the bar that is a summary of some of the best practices for evaluation that was collected from districts across the country.
So at this time I would just thank the thank you for your consideration of this this board action.
Are there any questions or comments from directors?
Director Mack.
My first question is whether or not the WSSDA model policy was actually referenced in rewriting this policy.
WSSDA has a bunch of model policies that are kind of relevant and have been vetted through lots of.
So I was wondering whether or not that was actually incorporated into this and my second question was what was the conversation at C&I because this is a really dramatic change of this policy.
This is a pretty full rewrite.
To specifically to the WSSDA policy I will have to take that back to the research and evaluation team to determine if I my sense is that they did a pretty thorough review.
If there was a WSSDA policy to be considered it was incorporated in here but I will have to verify that.
But as you can see they did do a pretty extensive review of policies from districts across the country to inform the development of this one as well as the superintendent procedure that accompanies it.
But to your specific question I'm going to have to gather that information bring it back before action or provide at least provide you that information before action.
I'll do my best to speak to the committee conversation around it because it came through committee several times initially as a policy document and then with the request that it be supplemented with a procedure because of exactly what you described the level of rewrite the policy itself is quite quite concise and compact but there's a lot of content around the procedure and what it means and the definitions within it.
I think that The conversation really...
centered around how are we systematizing our evaluation of what we're doing.
And so I guess I'm going to ask all of my colleagues as we're looking at our different lenses our race and equity lens our community engagement lens whatever these different toolkits are we think of this policy as our program programmatic and evaluation lens.
This is this is the methodology by which.
We should be looking at new things that we spin up and we should be looking at things that are existing that we want to refine or modify.
The research evaluation department has been really thoughtful in looking at different levels you know for implementation for student impact.
And I think that we've we regularly tell ourselves we're good at saying yes but not so good at saying no.
And this is a tool that's supposed to help us be a lot more objective at saying yes to the right things and helping us scale back the things that need to scale back.
Speaking to the new language the one piece that I'm curious about I don't know that it's specific enough that it it's stating that there should be a plan but it doesn't say an annual plan.
It doesn't it actually is stricken out.
So the time frame for what plan and when that plan is provided and that the challenge around that is you know how do we decide which things we're going to be studying and how.
And so.
The language that does not specify when that plan is or what it contains.
seems to be a little bit of a gap in how this is rewritten.
That's one thought right now.
That information is more detailed in the procedure and allows for that.
The procedure allows for a little bit more flexibility around that.
But it does specify that the plan would be we would begin the process of developing the annual plan in the spring and through the summer with a final decision in terms of what would be prioritized in terms of the research in the fall late fall.
I'm not going to belabor this too much longer so we can move on to other things but I feel that it's actually important that the be specified in policy not just the procedure.
I from a from how we structure our policy documents and superintendent procedure things like timelines and like if it's an annual plan or not it does need to be clear.
So that's my input now and I'm wondering if that might be able to shift between now and action.
And we can have those conversations.
Maybe that would be a conversation you could take offline with the committee chair and.
folks associated with this policy.
I'd be interested to have that at a deeper level.
Thank you.
Next item up.
I am for waiving the requirement for 2018 board goals found within policy number 18 10 annual goals and objectives.
This came before executive committee on June 14th was moved forward for approval.
Director Geary would you speak to this?
I would happily speak to this.
I think we as an executive committee determined that rather than moving forward to try to create goals that I don't we didn't think that everybody would be able to put a full focus on for a number of reasons.
We have two new board members.
It has been we've taken a lot of time to discuss and work around some very fluctuating budgetary considerations.
And then of course we engaged in an extensive superintendent search and that ultimately rather than Putting together something at this point that may not have been fully formed.
We determined that it would be in the best interest of the board to perhaps wait until the fall when we can do a more thorough job have a superintendent that has been installed and we all have a chance to touch base with.
And so for that reason we determined that it was better to waive the formulation this year in favor of creating annual goals this fall that we could all focus on.
Thank you very much.
Are there any questions from other directors on this.
OK.
So this brings us to item number five city of Seattle families and education levy and Seattle Public Schools personal service contracts for Seattle Parks and Recreation city year Seattle University tutors of Seattle schools communities in schools and Seneca families of agencies came before Audit and Finance June 11th for approval.
What can you tell us about this?
Good evening directors Michael Stone director of grants.
As on June 6 you approved the funding next year for family and education's levy out at many of our schools.
In conjunction with that many of them have chosen to work with local community organizations to help support the work that happens through family and education levy.
And that are the five contracts that I'm bringing forward to you tonight.
City Year which is an integral part of many of our feeder pattern schools for Denny Mercer and Aki and of course University Tutors which has been an integral part of especially at our high schools of closing the on the ninth graders on track for graduation and that works especially at Ingraham High School.
Communities in the schools providing case management to help increase attendance at these schools and Seneca family agencies which is working in conjunction with our family support workers our counselors to help provide teachers with a professional development for reentry of students so they're not losing instructional time.
Burke Questions or comments from my colleagues.
Director Mack you want to start us off.
I just want to add that there was a great discussion at A&F around these contracts and what they do and so forth and that the addition of a summary at the end of each community partner and which schools they're in and so forth and kind of having that summary all in one place was provided so I appreciate that.
You're welcome.
I just want to acknowledge as well that this work you know this is this is essentially a financial bundling of a variety of different partners CBO's that are doing great work in our schools and in some ways it you know it streamlines our process here.
But it I don't want to say diminishes but it it sort of hides what each of them are doing as contributions and how each of them are aligning their work.
So I appreciate bringing that up in these how they're itemized out.
And I guess I'd be interested if there's.
more ways that we can put that sort of front load that and we talk about wanting our CBO's to be goals aligned.
And if we were doing something like this and we had you know seven great ones and one not so great.
How do we identify the one not so great as maybe we shouldn't be bundling that one with because they need to work on alignment.
Is that something that your team is doing or that you'd be looking to the board to provide
So feedback on it would be great feedback.
Thank you to do in the future.
Right now we're only doing those that we know will go over two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
So there are other contracts with other providers that aren't breaking that threshold.
So we're not bringing.
I don't have that information for you but they have a master contract all to also and maybe at several buildings but not breaking the threshold.
Thank you.
Any President Harris.
Thank you.
And my apologies for being late.
I've been in a mediation all day in my other job taking care of victims with respect to a summary and even those contracts that don't break two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
I suspect in your office and on your computer you have a spreadsheet that has these listed out.
I grants accounting does they do all that work.
I don't but I can get that.
If we could give that information as an FYI so that we can put that into context.
Following up from Director Burke's point much appreciate for action.
Thank you.
Clarification question.
Is that something to add to this or something to add to like a Friday memo because that would not be part of this financial impact within this bar.
So I just want to understand both the request and how we're going to act on it.
Appreciate the clarity but I don't want to muddy up this bar.
Friday memo would work for me.
Thank you.
OK.
Director DeWolf.
Not to belabor but I just wanted to share some appreciation I asked a question during our committee meeting and just want to share that here on the record that we do provide equity trainings for these CBOs.
So just thank you for providing that clarification and I'm really glad to hear that we're providing that additional support for our partners to make sure that we're really consistent around our equity goals.
Thank you.