Elected Trustees: Leonard (1996), Ferris (1999), Orcherton (1999), Loring-Kuhanga (2011), McNally (2011), Nohr (2011), Paynter (2014), Watters (2014), Whiteaker (2014)
P. 1 Board meeting / general info
P. 2. DPAC Constitution (more interesting than it sounds – each school PAC has its own but they apparently aren’t posted)
Voting Day Local Elections October 20, 2018. New rules and info here. I plan to stand for election again for Trustee in SD61 Greater Victoria. SD61 is in the midst of many changes and will need progressive vision, and continued commitment and close attention to to clear, understandable and accountable process at the Board table.
Lined Paper is my personal record of and commentary on SD61 Board and Standing Committee meetings. ( Official, approved minutes are on the SD61 website, one month after the meeting. ) Motions may be shortened but retain essential info.
SD61 Greater Victoria School District includes students in Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Victoria, View Royal, parts of Saanich and the Highlands, and the Traditional Territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.
District Strategic Plan here.
Sticky post: Motions and Trustee Voting Records January 2012 – March 2018.Motions may be shortened but retain essential information. Facebook: Diane McNally SD61 Greater Victoria School Trustee
Board Meeting May 28/18
Present: Ferris, McNally, Nohr, Paynter, Watters, Whiteaker
Regrets: Leonard, Orcherton
A.3 Business Arising From the Minutes: That the Board endorse the priority areas of focus identified by the Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee and task that committee with developing action plans on each item to be brought back to a future Education Policy and directions meeting. / Carried, with amendment, unanimous
- McNally: Amendment: Add to #2 “Children in Care”, “Youth in Youth Agreements”. The young people have wound up in Ministry care, and are to a great extent on their own, often in substandard living accommodation, surrounded by adults. This is a stressful and very difficult situation for youth to be in, and youth did not get to this point without prior major stressors. We have seen some poor outcomes, even death. / Amendment carried. Unanimous.
Board agreement to add “Mental Health Literacy and Wellness as #4.
Background: January 29/18 Board meeting: McNally: That the Board direct the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Education urging development of a strategy for ending public funding of all private schools by September 2021. / Watters: Motion to refer to Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee./ Carried. Unanimous. Abstain: Leonard
In Committee meeting, private school funding wound up off the list, with primary focus of the committee directed to Items #2 and #3. VSB Trustee Carrie Bercic brought a private school funding motion to the VSB Board table: Carried!
“The Vancouver School Board wants the province to defund “elite” private schools. The Minister of Education says he won’t budge on the matter. On Monday evening, the VSB voted in favour of school board trustee Carrie Bercic’s motion to take a stand against the government’s funding of private schools and ask it to redirect that money to the public system.”
MEMO [P 20 agenda]
From: Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee
To: Education Policy and Directions Committee
Date: April 9, 2018
RE: Priority Areas for Advocacy
The Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee (“the Committee”) was established by the Board for the purpose of developing advocacy action plans to support public education initiatives. The Committee has met three times since it was established. The Committee’s work has focused on identifying what is effective advocacy and determining priorities for advocacy.
Priority Areas for Advocacy:
The Committee has identified three priority areas for advocacy
1. Private School Funding
At the January 29, 2018 meeting of the Board, the following motion was passed:
That the motion “That the Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater
Victoria) direct the chair to write a letter to the Minister of Education urging
development of a strategy for ending public funding of all private schools by
September 2021” be referred to the Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee. Given this direction from the Board, and further discussions of the Committee, ending
private school funding has been identified as a priority for advocacy. Specifically, the
committee has decided to focus on advocating for the government to cease funding
Group 2 Independent Schools (“elite” schools).
2. Children in Care
A recent report from the Representative for Children and Youth, Room for Improvement: Toward Better Education Outcomes for Children in Care, outlines the need to improve educational experiences and outcomes for children in care and provides a baseline for advocacy.
3. Child Care and Early Learning
The Committee believes that School Boards should be informing the Ministry on
preferred approaches to school district involvement in providing child care and early
learning, rather than waiting for government to inform us of their decisions. At this time the Committee is reviewing the Superintendent’s Childcare and Early Learning
Discussion Paper in order to determine the best course for advocacy.
The Advocacy Committee would like direction from the Board on the above priorities, so that action plans may be developed to support each priority area.
That the Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) endorse the
priority areas of focus identified by the Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee, and task that
committee with developing action plans on each item to be brought back to a future
Education Policy and Directions Committee.
A.4 Student Achievement presentation: None
A.5 District Presentations: None
A.6 Community Presentations
a) Angie Hentze, Strawberry Vale Preschool: rental rates
b) Kim Guiry, Strawberry Vale Preschool: rental rates
B.1 Vancouver Island School Trustees Association letter to Minister of Education and Responses: Payroll tax
B.2 Letter to Minister of Education and Response re Employer Health Tax
C. Trustee Reports
C.1 Chair’s Report: None
C.2 Trustees’ Reports
a) Watters (P 28)
b) Whiteaker (verbal; on video)
c) McNally: Late for agenda deadline; hard copy to every Trustee and senior administration [report here] .
D. Board Committee Reports
D.1 Joint Education Policy & Directions / Operations Policy and Planning Committees : Ed Policy:
a. Minutes May 7/18 info only (will be approved at next Ed Policy meeting). Lined Paper record of the meeting and debate here.
b. Recommended motions [Carried at Ed Policy meeting]
i.Board explore French Immersion opportunities at Craigflower Elementary and Shoreline Middle School. / Carried. Unanimous.
ii. Board support Inclusion For Learning Strategy [$875,700 of local capital to implement – P32 agenda]. / Carried. Unanimous.
iii. Board prepare and conduct exit interview with current retiring Superintendent and with the assistance of Deputy Superintendent, develop a policy on exit interviews for senior administrative staff. / Carried. Unanimous.
- McNally: “The Board” is supposed to construct this interview instrument. Who on the Board?
- Loring-Kuhanga: Loring-Kuhanga and Ferris.
D.2 Operations Planning and Policy Committee
a. Minutes. May 14/18 information only [will be approved at next Operations meeting] Lined Paper record of the meeting and debate here.
b. Recommended motions: [Carried at Operations Standing Committee]
i. Board direct Superintendence to provide detailed report to June Operations Policy and Planning Committee for two options on Vic High that preserve the current building: 1. seismic upgrade with internal improvements (Seismic Plus) 2. seismic upgrade with Neighbourhood Learning Centre (Seismic Plus with Capacity). / Carried. Unanimous.
ii. Board approve revised Policy 1421 Naming School sites and accept revised Regulation 1421. [Debate on video] / Carried. For: Ferris, Loring-Kuhanga, McNally, Watters, Whiteaker Against: Nohr, Paynter
iii.Board approve new Policy 1422 Recognition of Significant Contributions to the District and accept regulation 1422. / Carried. For: Ferris, Loring-Kuhanga, McNally, Watters, Whiteaker Against: Nohr, Paynter
iv.Board approve Policy 110 Equity and accept Regulation 110. / Carried. Unanimous.
v. Board approve spending $875,700 from Local Capital to implement Inclusion for Learning Strategy. / Carried. Unanimous.
vi.Board send the “An Independent Audit of Executive Expenses at SD61” report to the Audit Committee for further review. / Carried. Unanimous
D.3 Audit Committee Report
i. Board approve Audit Planning Report for 2017-18 as presented by KPMG to the Audit Committee. / Carried. Unanimous.
ii. Board accept March 2018 Quarterly Financial Report a presented to the Audit Committee./ Carried. Unanimous.
E. District Leadership Team Reports:
a) Superintendent’s monthly report accepted.
b) “Do You Want To Be A School Trustee” informaitn session (Pp 88-90) : Proposed for June but moved to August.
c) Trustee Questions:
- Ferris: Any review of travel restrictions? Bring to to Board at some point.
- Superintendent: Not the US as a destination is the first choice for trips. One did have to travel through the US. Any group wanting to do a school trip to the US, contact the Superintendent.
- Nohr: Re Strawberry Vale, possible to review the chronology at some point?
- Superintendent: Yes, on a future agenda. It’s a bit different from the email submissions.
E.2 Secretary-Treasurer’s Report: Secretary-Treasurer Walsh thanks Facilities Director Loveridge for his work, as Mr. Loveridge is leaving SD61 at the end of June.
a. Monthly Report: Accepted
b. i. Board approve cost recovery budget $1 200,000 for 2020 Francophone Games : accommodation for 1,200 athletes at 3 schools for 6 nights $123,529 / facility usage $33,335 (50% discount over regular rates) / District Operations and staff support $43,135.36 / and that full payment be provided to SD61 no later than May 31 2020. / Carried. Unanimous
ii. Board direct Superintendent to prepare a Joint Use Agreement between SD61 and Jeux Francophonie Canadienne for approval by the Chairperson of the Board and the Superintendent. / Carried. Unanimous.
- Whiteaker: Costs projected to 202 values? And 50% discount appears to go against rental agreement = regular users subsidizing this.
- Loveridge: No, 2018 dollar values.
- Secretary-Treasurer: Any users get a discount for multiple days.
F.Question Period : Loring-Kuhanga: Several questions submitted from individuals affiliated with Strawberry Vale Preschool:
1. In several emails we’ve received, the District assures us that the LRSH is set aside for early education. This implies that you are committed to a partnership with our preschool. For clarification, are you committed to an ongoing partnership with Strawberry Vale Preschool Society, or would be willing to displace us for a for-profit program able to pay the proposed model of license fees? /Andrea Curry
Member of the Strawberry Vale Co-op Preschool Community
District Response: The District has an extremely high demand for pre-K-12 programming, particularly given our recent capacity issues. Many non-profits operate under the District’s model. As part of our consultation process with respect to childcare rates we heard a number of concerns that the District was creating inequity across the District as a result of varied rates. We are committed to working with Strawberry Vale Preschool as indicated by our offer to them. In the event that Strawberry Vale Preschool did not sign a license agreement, the District will create a Request for Interest (RFI) for other pre-K program providers to ensure the District’s commitment to its use for that purpose. We have a number of individuals interested in space in the District.
2. Our proposed rent increase claims to be based on cost recovery. What have we cost the SD since 1994? /Christine Kerr
District Response: We have used a standard model for the cost recovery model for all of our daycare and out of school care spaces. In this case the costing of the facility used was $200K which is likely a bit low for some spaces and a bit high for others, but on the whole balances out. Below see the costs calculations used for all daycare and out of school care operations across the District starting in July 2018.
- Exclusive use-Portable (860 sq.ft/80m2) $200,000
- Capital Cost of Infrastructure with 20 years of Life $8,000 =$200,000/25
- Monthly Charges:
Capital Contribution $ 667=$ 8,000 / 12
Ongoing Repair and Maintenance $ 167=$ 2000/12
Utility Rental Expense (Flat Rate Contribution) $220 $ 10.00 /Day
Custodial Support $298
Admin Support (Mgt/Rentals/Utility/Grounds etc) $ 75
Total Monthly Cost $ 1427
3. What are the SD’s capital and operating costs for the Strawberry Vale Little Red School House?
District Response: Current operating expenses include the provision of water and sewer to the facility and capital costs include any major items that the Pre-School has not been in a position to address such as the $18K spent in 2002 for a new roof and gutters on the facility. Current capital costs are not available, as to date, the verbal agreement has been that the Strawberry Vale Pre-School pays for this work as an offset for a very low license fee.
4. If the co-operative preschool can no longer afford to rent the space? Who will use it? Keeping in mind that when the building was saved by the community and sold to the SD for $1, the SD committed to permanently use it as a preschool. / Maddy Dams
District Response: The School District has committed to this space being used for pre-K purposes. Other daycare and Pre-K services providers will be asked to express their interest in using this space moving forward if the Strawberry Vale Pre-School cannot afford or chooses not to renew their License Agreement with the District as has been the case in the past.
5. The District of Saanich donated the building and the land it sits on to the SD in 1994. The SD made commitments to Saanich, the Ministry of Education and to the Preschool in 1994, that the building would be “dedicated to preschool use permanently”, and to “guarantee autonomous use as our preschool facility.” Why are these commitments not being honoured? / Stephanie Jacobs
District Response: The District intends to have the site continue as a site for early learning. Further, we have offered a longer term licence to Strawberry Vale Preschool. Strawberry Vale Preschool was not, however, guaranteed its use nor was there an expectation that they would not be responsible for paying for the ongoing operating and capital expenses for the facility, which is owned by the School District. As the District has previously noted, if our mandate expands to include early learning we could foresee our own use for those purposes.
6. This new agreement takes away our ability to apply for grants to cover maintenance of our building. Also, the SD will have to pay full price for materials that we have traditionally received at a discount, and pay for labour costs that thus far have been donated by parents and professionals. How is this a prudent fiscal decision, as taking on the maintenance of our building will cost us and the school district significantly more than it has historically? / tlc massage
District Response: The District has, in a number of occasions, neglected sites that were not being used for active k-12 education (Bank Street, Burnside, portables for childcare) etc. We are shifting that practice. This year, 2/3 of all rental increased are going directly to a capital fund to support pre-K facilities with the remaining to increase operational support. Given that Strawberry Vale has been largely off of our radar besides the previous experience in re-roofing the facility the District is not fully aware of the condition. Given this is a District asset we cannot continue to function in that manner. In addition, Strawberry Vale Pre-School has been making all of the major maintenance and capital repair decision for this facility with little or no District involvement. We have no idea if the right decisions are being made and that the capital requirements are being addressed in a timely manner versus the Pre-School’s specific programming needs. This has also led to issues on other District Facilities and this should not continue.
7. The proposed agreement includes a new clause that specifies that we cannot fill any spots with out-of-catchment kids before Sept 15th. Why has this been added, especially considering that the schools are not held to this strict standard? / Angie Hentze
District Response: The District built a model license provided to all users. In Strawberry Vale’s case we have confirmed with them that the provision that allows the District to reoccupy the space would not apply to provide k-12 programming but only in the event that our mandate is expanded to included early learning. In the case of the catchment issue, we have heard concerns about the catchment priority for these spaces. We have reviewed our requirements and will be reissuing our proposed licence with an earlier date by which catchment students get priority (currently it is set as September). It will change to 01 March 2018. The purpose of this catchment provision is to provide opportunities for individuals in the neighborhood to get access to their neighborhood amenities first.
8. At the operations meeting on March 5th, after our presentation, a trustee asked staff for clarification on why we weren’t on the long term facility plan and how they planned to address our maintenance needs. The question was deferred to Facilities, who mentioned that SVP had not yet been inspected because traditionally we have maintained our own building. To our knowledge, this question has not yet been answered. Given that two months ago, Ross Walkers office reported a year-long delay in addressing high priority issues within the SD facilities; What assurances can you give us with the proposed new model in the license agreement that deferred maintenance won’t disrupt our operations? Keeping in mind that we are required to adhere to BC Childcare Licensing regulations. A year wait list for service is not an option. / Gail Atkins
District Response: Individual users will still be required to complete minor maintenance as required under the terms of their License Agreement. The split of who is responsible for what aspects of the maintenance/repair cycle was attached to the License Agreement sent to Strawberry Vale Pre-School. Generally, however, all non K-12 assets will be placed on our capital maintenance and repair program from windows, to boilers, to roofs, to exterior painting they will be actively included. There have not been licensing issues associated with District maintenance in the past. The District response to all Service Request across the District is well within the standards set of 10 working days. The information about a one year delay in addressing repair issues that was attributed to Mr. Walker is not correct.
G. Public Disclosure of In Camera Items: None
H. New Business / Notices of Motion
H.1 New Business
a) McNally: That the Board eliminate specific municipal committee assignments and that trustees inform the Board as to which committees related to municipal assignment that they will attend and report on, as of September 2018./ Referred to June Operations Planning and Policy meeting.
- McNally: At present Trustees are assigned to municipalities as liaison but are assigned as well to committees of other municipalities. This is confusing for Trustees and the municipalities. For example, Orcherton, Whiteaker and McNally are assigned to 3 different Saanich municipal committees , while Leonard and Paynter are the reps to the Muncipality. This motion would align all municipal liaison activity for individual trustee representative. The Committee assignments were made before the Board made municipal assignments. This motion would put alignment inplace for incoming Trustees who tke office in January 2019, after the October 20 election. [I was assigned in 2012 when elected to a City of Victoria parks committee that had not met for years, but was still an ongoing appointment! Hence my June 2015 motions that Trustees report on Committee they are assigned to. External Committee appointments were reviewed and some were dropped.]
- Whiteaker: There are lot of committees as part of municipalities. Role could expand to undoable. [That’s why the trustee would choose which committees to attend.]
- Watters: Support this. What’s the value in automatic assignments?
- Whiteaekr? What if 2 or 3 Trustees want to attend the same committee? [Imo, go ahead. The trustee assigned to the municipality will report. Can’t imagine this ever being a problem.]
- Loring Kuhanga: Table this to the next Board meeting.
- McNally: Clarify this now and make it easy for new Trustees after the election.
- Watters: Table [Refer] to June Operations Policy and Planning. / Carried.
b) Watters: Board direct the Chair to appoint a Trustee to participate on the Esquimalt High School Community Track and Sport Field Upgrades Working Group and to provide regular updates to the Board. / Carried. Unanimous.
- Nohr: This is a new process.
- Secretary-Treasurer: See if there is community support and is workable. Staff of SD61 and Esquimalt municipal staff woudl get invovled if any agreement was to be made.
c) Watters: Board direct Chair to write a letter in support of Victoria Sexual Assault Centre: Project Respect: Preventing Dating Violence by SHIFTing Culture funding application to the Public Health Agency of Canada. / Carried. Unanimous.
d) McNally: That the Board of Education SD61 recommend to the Ministry of Education and the BCSTA that the Ministry of Education and BCSTA, in alignment with the Co-governance Memorandum of Understanding, cooperatively develop a steering committee comprised of education partners including FNESC, to design the consultation process referred to in Motion L46 (SD37 Delta)“Review ofFunding Formula Document” , process to include concerns expressed in BCSTA AGM motions L45 (SD71 Comox Valley) and L46 (SD57 Prince George) , “Funding Formula and K-12 enrolment Audits” and “Education Funding Model”. / Carried. For: McNally, Loring-Kuhanga, Nohr, Paynter, Watters Against: Ferris, Whiteaker
- McNally: During the B.C. Education Funding Model Review Regional meetings, Districts were only asked what they liked about the current funding formula and what they would like to see changed. No other details were provided about what the Ministry was considering. The Funding Model Review Panel is expected to provide recommendations to the Minister of Education by July 31, 2018. From there it is expected that the Minister of Education will consider the recommendations and then direct Ministry staff to develop a new funding model. There have been no specifics on the proposed new formula being offered to Boards of Education or education sector stakeholders prior to assumed approval by the Minister of Education on July 22. In addition, it It would appear that those most directly impacted, our students, staff and families will have no opportunity to review and understand these proposed changes to the model, or to provide input before the Minister approves the new formula. Boards of Education must advocate for clear process that is informed by adequate depth and scope and that provides genuine opportunities for meaningful participation to all stakeholders at all levels, to whom we are accountable. We must be able to completely understand all aspects of what is being contemplated and have significant opportunities to provide input and to make amendments prior to implementation. No preliminary design of or consideration of a new funding model should be undertaken before 2020, as per carried BCSTA AGM Motion L46. The appropriate time for such a major change to the education funding model, along with consideration of significant associated changes, needs to be taken to address the issues and factors that have been expressed to the Panel. Extending the timeline for complete provision of much more complete information and consultation would allow time to ensure meaningful participation by all involved. With Trustee elections taking place in October 2018, the possibility for a turnover of up to 40% of trustees exists. It would be unwise on the art of the Ministry to implement a new funding model at the same time as new trustees are orienting to their governance responsibilities.2019 will include bargaining for teachers and support staff, and although it is expected that any collectively bargained wages and improvements to benefits would be fully funded, it would be prudent to delay implementation of a new funding model while over 76% of a school district’s operating and special purpose expenses are subject to collective bargaining. The importance of providing an appropriate time-line for consultation and the development of any changes to the funding model and implementation of changes is critical.
- Whiteaker: What is it that we want? Don’t understand this.
- Ferris: This motion is incomprehensible.
- McNally: We want a steering committee to design a review process. “Complex” and “incomprehensible” are not the same. I handed out the relevant backgrounders – the BCSTA letter to Chris Trumpy, Chair of the Funding Panel, and the three related motions that carried at the BCSTA AGM. The BCTA response prompted by the three motions is on the website. Because our Superintendent is on the Funding Review panel I asked for his assistance in drafting this motion. It was perfectly comprehensible to him. [Incomprehensibilty rating = 2/7 trustees present = .29]
H.2 Notices of Motion: None
I. Adjournment: 9:15 pm