September 21/15 Operations Policy and Planning: Meeting: The Record Off The Record: When Is a Physical Asset Not a Physical Asset?


Operations Policy and  Planning Meeting
September 21, 2015

09-21-15 Reg OPPs Packup 1













09-21-15 Reg OPPs Packup 2

09-21-15 Reg OPPs Packup 3
Territory Acknowledgement900
Chair: Leonard
Absent: Ferris, Orcherton
Student Representative for September: Jonah Van Driesum, Oak Bay High School

Full agenda with attachments here.

OPPS Standing Committee membership for quorum: Leonard, McNally, Paynter, Whitaker (Loring-Kuhanga a member ex officio; not counted for quorum).

1. Approval of Agenda: Adopted
2. Approval of the Minutes:
a) OPPS June 8/ 15 : Approved. Lined Paper report here.
3. Business Arising From Minutes: None.
4. Presentations: None

5. Superintendent’s Report :
A. Introduction of Student Representative : Jonah Van Driesum

[ June 2015 OPPS agenda showed  “5. Finance and Legal Affairs”.  Although, unlike Ed Policy, there is a standard agenda format for OPPS enshrined in Bylaw 9360.2, it is disregarded. Apparently all  those Bylaws just get in the way of “Board traditions”.  OPPS  June 8/15: McNally: That the Board adhere to the agenda format set out in the Board Bylaw 9360.2 Meetings of the Standing Committees for both of the Standing Committees of the Board (Education Policy Development Committee and Operations Planning and Policy Committee). / Sent to District Leadership Team for review and action.]

6. Finance and Legal Affairs [June 2015 agenda was  Public Disclosure of In Camera Items. ]

A. Esquimalt Secondary BEP Capital Amendment Bylaw No. 126182: Secretary-Treasurer:  (for information; will come to the Board meeting for approval): pp 8-9 agenda packup; in reference to Ministry-provided money to renovate exterior walls to deal with failure of building envelope.
B. Regulation 1332.41 Playing Fields – Vehicles : Director of Facilities: Regulation updated by senior administration to include reference to bicycles. Updated Regulation pp 10-11 agenda packup. [ Regulation development and changes are the purview of senior administration, not of Trustees in SD61.  See Policy 1164 Decision Making Authority – last reviewed in 1992 – and Policy 2105 District Leadership Team.]
C. Oak Bay High School: Naming of Theatre:  Dave Thomson, Principal, Oak Bay High School

That the Board of Education SD61 approve the naming of the new theatre at Oak Bay High School “The Dave Dunnet Community Theatre”.  [Originally, the motion did not have “Community” included, but the municipality of Oak Bay has contributed significant money to this project, and this addition recognizes that. ( June 15: ii) That the Board approve naming the new theatre at Oak Bay High School “The Dave Dunnet Theatre”. Referred to September OPPS for more information and discussion.)] / Carried. Unanimous.

D. Oak Bay High School: Engraved Brick Fundraising Initiative: Tom Smith, Director, SD61 Facilities ( Backgrounder pp 16, 17 agenda packup)

That the Board endorse the Oak Bay High School and Bays United Football Club  engraved brick paver fundraising initiative. / Tabled to November.

  • Watters: Pavers would have “Bays United” on them?
  • Director of Facilities: Yes.
  • Whiteaker: We would be administering their fundraising effort to help them raise the rest of the money they have pledged to us?
  • Director of Facilities: This is one of the avenues they hope to use to raise the money.
  • McNally: $400,000 pledged from Bays. $200,00 so far. How much more expensive will the bricks be than a concrete sidewalk?
  • Director of Facilities: Pavers $5000 more than concrete.
  • Paynter: Any precedent for this?
  • Secretary-Treasurer: No.
  • Leonard: This looks like an outside organization using the Oak Bay High School name to do fundraising.
  • Loring-Kuhanga: Concerned with Bays using the school name for fundraising to payoff a debt owed to  the School District.
  • McNally: This motion is moot, as a result of motions brought out of the February 16 Board in camera meeting . One might think a Chair would therefore rule this motion out of order, but that is the purview of the Chair. [Didn’t happen; discussion of “pay for  pavers” continued.]

Board Meeting Feb 16/15, report out of In Camera Vote: F. Public Disclosure of In Camera Items: [Two motions brought out of the OPPS in camera meeting February 10; moved down from OPPS recommended motions on this agenda.]
i. That the board support the naming of physical assets in recognition of financial contributions from individuals and families . The opportunity for naming recognition must comply with the Province of BC Naming Privileges Policy. / (As amended below) Defeated. / For: Ferris, Leonard, Whiteaker      Against: Loring-Kuhanga, McNally, Nohr, Orcherton, Paynter, Watters
ii. That the Board support the naming of physical assets in recognition of financial contributions from business / corporations (commercial benefactors). The opportunity for naming recognition must comply with the province of BC Naming Privileges Policy. / Defeated. For: Ferris, Leonard, Whiteaker     Against: Loring-Kuhanga, McNally, Nohr, Orcherton, Paynter, Watters

  • Paynter: Why the convoluted flow-through? Recalling a Boulevard article on Oak Bay High School that stated there is $1.7 million left outstanding. [September 2015 Boulevard, p 42.]  I recall asking if the field has been covered financially and was told yes.
  • Principal, Oak Bay:  The Oak Bay PAC has  a subgroup that has agreed to track the fundraising.
  • Secretary-Treasurer: Cost of turf and lighting is covered by capital funding.
  • Whiteaker: The problem could be the wording, in reference to Policy 3451, Donations to Schools.  Motion to amend: That charitable  donations be received by Oak Bay High School.
  • Principal, Oak Bay: That won’t help Bays with the $200,000.
  • Whiteaker: Have better understanding now. This is not a Bays fundraising or an Oak Bay fundraiser – it’s a way to support the facilities at Oak Bay High School if for example two interested parties want to put, for example, a scoreboard in.
  • Nohr: Bays United is such an important organization for our youth and for community involvement.This is such a small thing – a brick – for recognition. Why is it $150 though? Seems like a lot. So these are only moving forward as money is coming in?
  • Principal, Oak Bay: Still trying to complete the funding so we can get the things our community said they wanted. Still working on funding the sports facilities – fitness studio, turf, soccer field, gym.
  • Nohr: What is someone wanted to put “Oak Bay” on the brick? What would happen to the money then?
  • Principal, Oak Bay: We want to make sure of the ongoing success of the facility over time, and re building in the pieces that we need, including unanticipated costs in the future . Not creating a nest egg to do more in the future, but to have an avenue to do that.
  • Bays United rep: Bays United has fundraised to assist the community, for example the track at Vic High. [“Most of their donations have come from alumni, fundraisers, and $100,000 contribution from Bays United Football Club. “Bays will meet its obligation to the District if the pavers initiative does not go ahead. Not labelled in any way that would be obvious. Haven’t worked out the mechanism for how the funds would be received.
  • Principal, Oak Bay High: Oak Bay offered to partner with Bays United when it became apparent that they didn’t have the capacity to fundraise.
  • McNally: There is a principle at stake here. It does not matter if the item is large or small. Any “physical asset” is made up of parts. A chair in a theatre is made up of parts. This sidewalk is potentially made up of parts, the pavers.We are taking about a physical asset, the walkway, so again, one might  think this motion is out or order. SD61 has a d Donations Policy referred to by Whiteaker. Anyone is invited to make anonymous and altruistic donations to SD61, to a school or to the District as a whole. SD61 has in past  years transgress its own policy by allowing naming and plaques in schools but that does not mean we need to keep going in a wrong direction, against our own Policy.
  • Leoanrd: McNally says in the past the Board erred. I don’t believe that.
  • Student Representative: Don’t block small donations; larger donations should have some restrictions but these small ones can build a sense of community. Urge the Board to revisit the motion referred to by McNally.
  • Loring-Kuhanga: This fundraising was to help pay the balance of the $200,000 owed. If it were for the school cold support it. But the District entered into an agreement with Bays United for $400,000 and now is being asked to help fundraise for that money. As well, McNally referred to a past motion that addresses this.
  • Whiteaker: Motion to table this motion to October OPPS. / Carried. For: Leonard, Loring-Kuhanga, Nohr, Paynter, Waters Abstain: McNally (on the motion to table )

7.Public Disclosure of In Camera Items [June 2015 agenda was New Business] : None.

8. New Business [June 15 was Notice of Motions]

Paynter PAC motionDefeated. For: Nohr, Paynter   Against: Leonard, Loring-Kuhanga, McNally, Whiteaker, Watters

  • [Summary of longer than 5 minutes  rationale] Paynter: VCPAC has not succeeded n engaging all school PACs.A significant number of schools don’t benfit from VCPAC.
  • Leonard: Tremendous workload on staff to start up another ad hoc committee.
  • McNally: Do you have draft Terms of Reference for this committee ?
  • Whiteaker: Many problems with this. It’s the responsibility of the District to ensure we are getting the parent input we desire. Board’s responsibility to support the organization to become stronger, and this motion doesn’t do that. Where is the problem? We have agreed to follow the School Act [it’s mandatory] which says PACs have the right to advise the Board, and if they want to , they will. This is an attack on VCPAC autonomy and against the direction of building partnerships.
  • John Bird, VCPAC Vice President : Reference to Bill 11has impacts on PACs and DPACs. There is a PAC Congress every year (Nov 19 / 2015). PAC Chairs ca come to VCPAC meetings, VCPAC does outreach to PACs, and certainly schools know these things are going on.Hard to knw why this motion is trying to recreate what VCPAC and PACs are doing. Are there any other motions planned for groups that you think aren’t reaching their membership? DPAC has advocated for a way to get DPAC emails out to parents using the District email system.Paynter says Board represents all parents. Board represents the public. The best way to undermine parent leaders is to start this process. A lot has been  said about representation. Those that have the interest get involved.Some of our surveys have reached 2500 people – any statistician will tell you that’s reliable. [About 20,000 students in SD61 so given for the sake of this, 2 parent families, 10,000 parents = 25% of parents reached. ] How many people are coming to yur meetings?

[The term “reliability” is frequently used in research contexts, so what does it actually mean? In everyday use, the word “reliable” means dependable, consistent or unfailing , but for research purposes we need a more unambiguous definition. We have to be specific about what it means to have a dependable measure or observation. One reason that a word like “dependable” is not a precise enough description, is that it can be confused too easily with validity. Validity is the consideration of whether a particular research method or technique actually measures what you want it to measure, whereas reliability refers to how accurately a technique actually measures the phenomenon you are investigating. So, reliability means repeatability or consistency. A measure is regarded as reliable if it would give us the same result on repeated use, assuming what you are measuring doesn’t change as you measure it, or between measurements. “]

  • Nohr: It’s tie for a conversation but how we can help. Parents are the public and I have a right to speak to any parent and hear their concerns. Hundreds of parents had no idea the “discrimination” policy was taken to the Ministry by VCPAC , or about the VCPAC position o the shortened week. Lots of parents had no idea. Many paent active in PACs had no idea about the Classroom Resource Fund.  We as a Board could be making better connections with parents. I support this motion.
  • Leonard: No one cares to come to Board meetings unless schools are going to be closed.
  • VCPAC President Audrey Smith: We are engaging with pants. We did a survey re the shortened week on Wednesdays . If parents didn’t know it’s because they didn’t do the survey or didn’t come the VCPAC meeting. We are always enhancing the VCPAC website and do outreach to PACs. If you want to talk to parents go through the DPAC and PACs.We can get in touch with parents.  VCPAC is one of the highest functioning  DPCACs in BC; others look to this DPAC for inspiration. This motion is insulting.
  • Watters: Can’t impose partnership.A lot of this isn’t our business . VCPAC is responsible to the VCPAC membership which is parents. [VCPAC members are defined in the Constitution as schools with one vote per school.] Need more conversation.

paynter standing committees


/ Carried as amended.

  • Watters: Amendment: Strike last sentence – it’s on the list of things we need to do. / Carried (after discussion below)
  • Superintendent: Area that’s missing is addressing Policy. Need a working group, possibly a couple of Trustees and the Superintendent, to review a list of all Policies.
  • Whiteaker: Motion to table [refer] to January meeting./ Defeated.
  • Loring-Kuhanga: Advocated for this for years. Would like to get stated to get Secretary-Treasurer’s input before she retires.
  • McNally: All Policy discussion has wound up at Operations Policy and Planning standing committee because  of a misplaced comma. It is not “Operations, Policy, and Planning”. It is Operations Policy and Planning. As in “Eats Shoots and Leaves”.
  • Leonard: Used to have a dedicated person to review Policy before $8 million in cuts.
  • McNally: Superintendent indicated he and two Trustees could get on with this. I’m interested.
  • Paynter: Look at ways to more efficiently  package membership, timing and schedules.

C. Nohr: That the Board send a letter to the Minister of Education expressing our concerns about the lack of consultation with the BCSTA and School Boards across the province leading up to the passage of Bill 11.

  • After a long preamble, Nohr withdrew the motion. But a motion is the property of the meeting once it is on an agenda. The majority did not vote to allow withdrawal, but did support a motion to “table indefinitely”.

D. McNally: That the Board develop role descriptions and expectations for the Trustees currently assigned to the Contract Negotiations positions. (ASA: Loring-Kuhanga / CUPE 382 Waters / CUPE 947: Paynter / Exempt staff: McNally / GVTA: Nohr, Witheaker / PVP: Loring-Kuhanga, Nohr)

  • Withdrawn with approval vote of the Board, on the understanding that assigned positions will be reviewed before January 2016  assignments  by the Chair, and that these will not be assigned again as major aspects of contract negotiations are no longer done  by BC School Boards, but at the provincial level.

E. McNally: That the Board approve that any public report from senior administration to Trustees include a written summary provided in advance as part of the agenda (Standing Committee and Board) packup. / Motion to refer to November OPPS carried.

  • McNally: The information reported is public information and there should be a record of it on the SD61 website. Provision in advance allows Trustees to consider  the information and prepare questions if there are any,  rather than trying to  analyze the information  and develop questions on the fly during the initial presentative of the report.
  • Whiteaker: Don’t agree with information in advance.Can be addressed by handouts at the meeting.
  • Superintendent: Senior leadership typically does prepare memos and background materials.

9.  General Announcements : None.
10. Adjournment: 9:40 pm


About Diane McNally