Student assignment policy and budget issues are expected to dominate today's Wake County school board committee discussions.
At this morning's policy committee meeting, board members will discuss changes to the student assignment policy now that the community-based assignment resolution was passed. They'll also discuss creating a formal policy for the public comment period at board meetings.
A lot of attention will also be on budget cuts that will be discussed at this afternoon's finance committee meeting.
The finance committee will first discuss the 2010-11 school bell schedules. In particular, committee members will look at alternate options for coming up with $748,000 to pay for hiring 25 new bus drivers.
The new drivers would allow Wake to put schools back on their 2000-09 schedules where most elementary schools were in from 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. If the money isn't found, then most elementary schools will operate from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. this fall.
Next, staff will present plans for addressing the expected $20 million cut in state funding for this fall. Staff has warned that schools will have to bear some of this 3-percent state cut.
Will the new cuts lead to layoffs, larger class sizes or some other unpleasant options for this fall?
As usual, both committee meetings are open to the public. You just won't be able to speak during the meetings.
Comments
Limiting BoE public comment to Wake Co. residents
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 22:18 — dgraffWhy not put "non-Wake co" residents at the bottom of the list?
Recently I've watched several BoE meetings and was surprised at the number of non-residents that spoke during public comment.
Shouldn't it be restricted to voters/taxpayers or at the very least, give them preference or more time?
Speaking at meetings
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 22:14 — dgraffI have alot of experience speaking to the school board...more with the previous than the current :>
As I understand it, the 2min change was not to censure people, but to allow more people the opportunity to speak.
A few years ago, I was signed up to speak at a meeting in Leesville after having spoken at a meeting in Apex (community engagement, I think). I was called the day of the meeting by WCPSS "staff" and told I was not allowed to address the board at more than one CE meeting, even though there was no "written rule".
I showed up anyway to speak and was denied, despite the fact that there was an hour of time left in the meeting and everyone that had signed up had the chance.
At that same meeting a woman was escorted out by security for exceeding her 3 min. and refusing to stop speaking. Unlike some people..(NAACP vice president) ..she actually complied with security.
As far as they "ticket thing" being about restrictions, the lack of notice was frustrating for alot of people and I can understand that if they took time from their jobs, made child care arrangements, etc.
Having said that, I attended one of those board meetings with shouting, chanting and a very vocal crowd. The hallway was too crowded to walk in and I saw 2 people nearly break into a fight over the issue.
It was about making the meeting safe for the attendees as well as the board.
Hopefully their new POLICY
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 09:02 — carson79Hopefully their new POLICY will include letting ALL NODES have the same public comment period - 160 families in SE Raleigh had no chance to speak out bc Tedesco said they would be reassigned under his zone anyway (wait I thought it wasn't developed yet??) - that sure smells a lot like making changes based on new policy - but wait the policy is not in place yet is it?
Nothing these people have done has made any sense except that they sure seem to be making the Private school crowd happy!
Uh-Oh
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 08:23 — magnetParent"They'll also discuss creating a formal policy for the public comment period at board meetings."
Considering their history, this does not sound good.
a history of allowing any
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 08:32 — Duhhuh666a history of allowing any one who wants to speak the fredom to do so? is that the history you speak of.
No, the history of keeping
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 08:39 — magnetParentNo, the history of keeping close to their agenda and not really wanting to listen to the public if they don't agree with them. That one. The history of adding extra restrictions on public participation at the last minute. Allowing people to speak and actually listening to them are two different things. I will learn to trust them when the give me a reason to. No sooner.
The previous board allowed
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 10:41 — askmisterbrownThe previous board allowed three minutes for each speaker. This board has shortened that to two minutes. On the other hand, this board has several times extended the public comment period beyond thirty minutes, so that citizens did not have to wait until the end of the meeting to speak. On the OTHER other hand, certain board members appear to be looking at their phones and texting through much of the comment period. And the new ticket requirement makes it nearly impossible for working people to attend the meeting. And there is no reason not to hold the Committee of the Whole in the big room, so that citizens can attend.
Matthew, I agree that the
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 11:26 — jenmanMatthew,
I agree that the way the tickets were handed out the first time made it nearly impossible for a working person to attend. I didn't go to the last meeting, but wasn't it reported that the room was half empty and that only about half the tickets were given out? I expect attendance to be down now that they passed the resolution. Frankly, after the way that the first 'vote on the resolution' meeting went I was worried how the second one would go. I don't think that the ticket situation was handled in the best way at the next meeting but I'm glad that they did *something*.
Shortening the speaking time to 2 minutes is a toss up. Sure, people want to be able to speak longer but more people get to speak. I think that Ron has done a good job of accommodating as many speakers as he can. It doesn't matter what he does--somebody will think its unfair.
Finally, the conference room is a much better place for the COW than the big room IMO. Its just much more conducive to the kind of work that is done there. I agree with whoever just said that they like the video, but wish there was better audio. Also, after seeing the crowd's behavior during the regular meeting I have no doubt that the COW meetings would be full of cheering, clapping, booing, shouting and other general disruptions. Actually, if the COW was held in the main board room the people in attendance would probably hear even less because of all the noise. It would be nice if there was a larger room that could accommodate the set up of the room now.
...
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 14:04 — SideburnsNot getting a ticket did not mean you could not attend. It merely meant you didn't get a cushy seat to sit in.
That's true, I forgot about
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 14:29 — jenmanThat's true, I forgot about that. Except they did close the doors so people in the hallway couldn't hear what was going on. I think that was new but I'm not sure. But either way, anybody could sign up to speak whether they had a ticket for a seat in the main room or they were standing outside in the hallway.
So..
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 10:47 — Bob_SconceIIRC, members (and not just the current board majority) have preferred to hold CoW meetings in the conference room because it's more conducive to the type of work they're doing there. It's really only been an issue for a couple of meetings.
I suggest that your concern for being able to attend might be better solved by streaming the meetings on the 'net. That would also allow people to watch after-the-fact. There is no public comment period at CoW meetings, so I see no appreciable benefit to being there in person v. remotely.
I like the CoW being online,
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 10:58 — danofncI like the CoW being online, I just wish they'd improve the audio.