DATE:June 21, 2004PRESENT:Jill Camnitz, Chair

DATE:June 21, 2004PRESENT:Jill Camnitz, Chair

Mike Barnette

Mary Grace Bright

Don Carson

A. Michael Dixon

Betsy Leech

TIME:7:30 P.M.Barbara Owens

Sidney Scott

Dick Tolmie

Delano Wilson

ABSENT:Walter Gaskins

PLACE:Pitt County Office Building Ralph Love, Sr.

Ms. Jill Camnitz, Chair, called to order the Pitt County Board of Education in regular session and welcomed everyone present. Mr. Don Carson led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Deborah Long, Public Information Officer, introduced the recognitions for the evening. She offered for recognition the accomplishments of the J. H. Rose High School Baseball Team, which had won the State 4-A Title for the second year in a row on June 13th, 2004. With this title, she said, the number of State Baseball Championships at J. H. Rose now stands at five. Recognition Certificates were presented to the team members who were present and to Coach Ronald Vincent by Vice-Chair, Michael Dixon.

The Chair offered an opportunity for adjustments to the agenda. Upon motion by Mr. Michael Dixon and second by Ms. Mary Grace Bright, the Board voted to approve the agenda as presented.

An opportunity for Public Expression was provided; however, there were no requests to address the Board.

The Consent Agenda was offered for consideration. Upon motion by Mr. Michael Dixon and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board unanimously voted to move the Personnel Report to Closed Session. Upon motion by Mr. Dick Tolmie and second by Mr. Delano Wilson, the Board unanimously voted to move the Budget Amendments off the Consent Agenda and to the Finance Committee Report. Upon motion by Mr. Michael Dixon and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board unanimously voted to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items as presented. The remaining items included the Interim Budget Resolution and School Fees.

Mr. Michael Dixon offered the report from the Policy Committee. He noted that numerous policies were being presented for Second Reading and approval. Those included the following:

Student policies: (From Educational Programs and Services Committee)

Policy JCDB (10.207) – Student Substance Abuse Policy
Procedure JCDB-P (10.207-P) – Student Substance Abuse Procedure
Policy JDB (10.302) – Detention Center
Procedure JDB (10.302-P) – Detention Center
Policy JG – Social Welfare (DELETE – obsolete)
Policy JGCA (10.603) – Student Physical Exams
Policy JGCB (10.604) – Immunizations
Policy JGCC (10.605) – Communicable Diseases
Procedure JGCC (10.605) – Communicable Diseases
Policy JGE – Social Services (DELETE – obsolete)
Policy JHG (10.705) – Cheerleaders, Flags, etc.
Policy JN (10.803) – Awards and Scholarships
Policy JO (10.901) – Political Candidates in the School

General School Administration: (From Educational Programs and Services Committee):
Policy 3.402 (NEW) – Internet Protection
Procedure 3.402-P (NEW) – Internet Protection
Exhibit 3.402-E (NEW) – Internet Protection

General School Administration: (From Facilities Committee)

Community Schools and Recreation (from Facilities Committee)
Policy KG (11.101) – Community Schools
Policy KGA (11.102) – Community Use of Facilities
Procedure KGA-P (11.102-P) – Community Use of Facilities

Upon motion by Mr. Michael Dixon and second by Ms. Mary Grace Bright, the Board unanimously approved the policies as presented.

Mr. Don Carson provided a report from the Facilities Committee and its meeting of June 16, 2004. He reported that the first recommendation for consideration was in regard to the Athletic Equity Bids on facilities at Ayden-Grifton, Farmville Central, and North Pitt High Schools. He advised that just as other bids were coming in, these bids came in over budget by an amount of $171,000. He stated that the committee was recommending that the Board proceed with these projects in a two-part phase, and that if necessary, the amount over would be taken out down the road. Mr. Carson placed this recommendation in the form of a motion, and the motion received a second by Mr. Delano Wilson.

In discussion, a request was made for a description of what was in the Athletic Equity Project and what was remaining. Mr. Jimmy Hite responded to the question saying that at Farmville Central, the project was a facility similar to the field house with group restrooms accessed from the outside to serve the baseball and football areas. He stated that it would have inside facilities for strength training and an additional multi-use space for exercise, physical education, and in-door batting. At the North Pitt and Ayden-Grifton High Schools, Mr. Hite said, the facility was a gymnasium, that was about 60% of the size of a regular gymnasium, set up for basketball and volleyball courts. In addition to that space at those two sites, he said, the building was extended to provide a shelled-in space for future completion for strength-training areas. Within that shell, he added, there was additional space for group restrooms for outside access for use by the baseball and football facilities, as well as space for a small office and for a small sports medicine room. He stated that at Farmville Central, the facility was smaller, but that those spaces were completed there. He advised that these were the projects identified by representatives of each school, and were tailored to fit, as best as was possible, the budget that was provided. Mr. Carson added that all three facilities would be utilized as classrooms also. At North Pitt, he said, the facility would additionally be used for wrestling and would provide an area for the cheerleaders to be able to practice indoors.

One Board member expressed her continued concern with all projects coming in over budget with the precedent set and the potential for these overages to be taken away in the future from technology and other academic projects. She stated that she understood some Board members felt strongly about these athletic projects, but that she felt strongly, too, about the need for adequate science labs and technology and felt that it was important for these projects to be brought in within the budget allotted and not taken away down the road from something else.

Another Board member stated that with the projects bid so far, he believed the Board was approximately $3 million over projections and that it was going to have to find a way to cut back. He stated that what that boiled down to right now was that with the remaining projects after those on the table this evening, that the $3 million would have to come out of the Chicod addition/replacement or the Wintergreen upgrade to a PK-8, because if all of everything else was taken away, including the remaining science labs, it would not add up to the $3 million needed.

Another Board member stated that the Board had struggled with this in a previous time and that the Commissioners had struggled with it, as well. He said the discussion really went back to the High School Plan that was approved. He said that when he originally proposed Athletic Equity, this was not exactly what he was talking about. He said the Facilities Committee had changed a great deal of the concept from strictly athletics to a dual-use purpose wherein these additional multi-purpose spaces could be used as classrooms. He suggested that if these funds were not spent now for this purpose, it would be unlikely that the Board would get funding for it again. He clarified that right now, the Board was approximately $2 million over budget with another million based on the estimate for the new PK-8 school. However, he reiterated that athletic equity had been a long-standing problem in this school system and one that needed to be addressed now.

In response, one Board member noted that there were some amenities provided in these projects that were not available in the larger high schools. She said that she understood the issues and the problems inherent with the need for indoor practice facilities but that she felt the more urgent need was in assuring adequate classroom space throughout the county.

On a call for the question, seven Board members voted in favor of the motion and two voted in opposition. Voting in opposition were Ms. Betsy Leech and Mr. Dick Tolmie.

Mr. Carson then presented the bids for the PreK-8 school. He stated that again in this situation, the bids came in significantly over budget, but he added that given the way everything was configured, there was no where to make cuts. He stated that the Facilities Committee was recommending approval, and he placed the recommendation in the form of a motion. The motion received a second from Mr. Mike Barnette.

In response to a question as to whether funding for any of this school could come from the Child Nutrition budget, Mr. Beaulieu stated that while the Board did have that authority, it had already taken $526,000 out of last year’s Child Nutrition fund balance to help fund a portion of the total needed in the first phase of the Long Range Educational Plan.

In response to another question as to what a preferred alternate bid was, Mr. Jimmy Hite stated that there are items that are held in stock for repair and maintenance by any school system, such as a type of door closure that has an arm and the system would stock the arm and closures. Another example, he stated, would be keys such as master keys and grand masters and great grand masters that would have to fit all the schools. He said those would represent just two items for which maintenance would request a price be acquired for a specific product. He added that the process did not preclude any hardware distributor from bidding on these jobs and that there are plenty of items of hardware on which they could bid. He said that typically it is just the lock sets and closures that are preferred, not the other hardware, and that there are several people in this area that can sell the same locksets. On the mechanical side, he said, there is a particular kind of chiller preferred because it gives good service and a particular kind of damper because we stock those parts. He indicated that State law allows the district the opportunity to designate preferred manufacturers. He assured Board members that efforts were made to allow equivalent products in these schools because it was not the intent to preclude any individual or company.

In follow-up, a question was asked if it was like only buying Chevrolets, given that only Chevrolet parts would work in Chevrolet vehicles, and thereby allowing Chevrolet dealers the opportunity to raise their prices knowing that we would have to purchase from them. He asked if in looking at locks and doors, if we had compared to know if the price was competitive or if we were getting railroaded.

Mr. Hite responded that it was true that others would not generally bid for those products because they would know that this was the standard we use.

When asked if we had backed ourselves into a corner, Mr. Hite responded that he did not think so because the school district still had the right to choose. He stated that his big issue was not with hardware, but rather with mechanical controls. He said that when you have a system-wide energy management system, you typically get higher prices from companies that are your providers. He said he wanted to put in a preferred alternate, not because that was necessarily what was needed, but to see what the extra charge may be. In the PK-8 school, he said, it was a charge of an additional $40,000. For the PK-8 school, he stated, a preferred alternate was not listed for hardware. Mr. Hite advised that he is aware that the Board is sensitive to local vendors, and that he knows that the hardware folks are sensitive to this issue also.

Another example questioned was a listing for Square D electrical equipment, where pricing as an alternate was requested, but was not chosen. Mr. Hite indicated that before they would decide to recommend an alternate, they would find out what they were going to get otherwise and if it would work, and with this school, he said, they found they were going to get Cutler Hammond and with Cutler Hammond, it would work okay.

Upon voting, the motion to approve the bids on the PreK-8 school on Mills Road was unanimously approved.

Mr. Don Carson offered an additional recommendation from the Facilities Committee that a request to provide access to the County of Pitt for a Stormwater Wetland Project adjacent to Pactolus Elementary School be approved. He placed the recommendation in the form of a motion that was seconded by Mr. Michael Dixon and unanimously approved by the Board.

In response to a question, Mr. Aaron Beaulieu advised that the school system would not be providing maintenance for the County as the property was not actually on the Pactolus Elementary School property, but rather the school district would be allowing access across the Pactolus property and that the access would be gated. He said the gate would be locked when not being used and that it would be a joint venture with the school benefiting in having the ability for classrooms studies of the wetland project. In response to an additional question, he stated that should there be damages caused by the County, the County would be responsible for repairs.

Ms. Barbara Owens, Chair of the Educational Programs and Services Committee, advised that there were three items included on the report from the EPS Committee and that they were (1) a report on the State’s Healthy Active Children’s Policy and Pitt County Schools’ Action Plan for implementing this policy, (2) an update on the preparations for implementation of Block Scheduling, and (3) a recommendation of Alternate School Assignments Under No Child Left Behind Legislative Requirements.

Dr. Mary Williamson introduced the report on the State’s Healthy Active Children’s Policy and Ms. Alice Keene, Director of Pitt County Community Schools and Recreation Department introduced Dr. David White, Chair of the Pitt County Schools’ Health Advisory Council. Ms. Keene stated that the staff of Pitt County Schools’ was very interested in the Healthy Active Children’s Policy even when it was a proposal and that our group was able to give input to the State Board of Education in the development of the policy. Ms. Keene advised that because of the concern with children’s general inactivity, that many efforts were already underway in Pitt County to support physical activities and healthy eating for children, and that with the passage of this policy, those efforts had become more structured. She said that their work had been supported by both the medical community and the Pitt County Health Advisory Council, which had been in place for fifteen years and led by Dr. David White. She noted that Dr. White was also the person who helped to write the guidelines for the State in its effort to create Health Advisory councils as a component of this policy.

Dr. White stated that he felt Pitt County was out in front in many important areas and that he was proud of what was being done here to improve students’ health and academic achievement. He explained that the Healthy Active Children Policy was passed in January of 2003 with no funding and affecting PreK-8 children specifically. The Advisory Council’s charge, he said, was to work with Pitt County Schools staff to determine how best to meet the mandates of the policy and implement it over the course of three years. He explained that in Pitt County the Advisory Council, as mandated by the policy, was already in place and comprised of individuals representing the eight areas in the Coordinated School Health Program, and he discussed who those members were. He reviewed the components of the Pitt County Schools’ Action Plan and explained that the role of the Health Advisory Council was to monitor and evaluate the policies and programs in Pitt County Schools to ensure that the Action Plan and its implementation was resulting in compliance with the State Board of Education’s Policy and therefore, resulting in healthier children. He closed his part of the presentation by saying that he had enjoyed working with Pitt County Schools’ staff and that he believed that healthier children were better students and would perform better academically.

Ms. Alice Keene reviewed some of the interventions in place in Pitt County Schools. Having met and discussed needs with physical education teachers, Ms. Keene reported that there was a desire to integrate physical activity into classroom activities and into the Standard Course of Study and that by combining collaborative resources, the district had been able to purchase the “Take Ten Program” to respond to this need. She also discussed the “Growing Up Fit Program” for students in grades four and five and explained that this program encourages students and their families to move more and be more active.