|
Committee of the Whole; SPECIAL Meeting - Jan 21, 2008
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 12:59 AM (4,519 Views)
|
|
yrraH NS
|
Jan 22 2008, 01:19 PM
Post #61
|
- Posts:
- 272
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- September 19, 2007
|
Even though there is a clueless BOE and beat up shacks in the community, I still find a great deal of pride with where I live. I'd hoped to move to Livonia someday, but I'll suffice with staying on the edge.
|
|
|
| |
|
Vanna White
|
Jan 22 2008, 01:28 PM
Post #62
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 1,125
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- May 10, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 10:10 AM
- Vanna White
- Jan 21 2008, 11:04 PM
Some relevant court decisions:
Ridenour v Dearborn Board of Education, 111 Mich App 798 (1981) The evaluation of the performance of school administrators is not an action that is exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
Detroit News v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296 (1990), lv den Burden of establishing that a meeting of a public body is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is on the public body.
Relevant Attorney General Opinions:
A public body may not meet in closed session to consider an evaluation of its officers and employees. Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979.
A board of education of a school district may not conduct the public business of evaluation of the performance of the superintendent at private meetings of two or more committees of the board, each composed of less than a quorum of the members of the board and including the president of the board to provide continuity in the evaluation deliberations, from which the members of the public are excluded. Attorney General Opinion No. 6091, p. 711, August 18, 1982.
MCLA 15.268 states that the employee may request a closed hearing for the consideration of a periodic personnel evaluation. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. The final evaluation is available to all while the process can be held in closed session. As to RU Kidding. Steve-o lives in my neighborhood. I drive by his house just about everyday on my way to work after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop. One of the many differences between him and I is that he is an elected official and I am not.
The taxpaying public ought to know what the goals and objectives are. While it may be part of the process of a perfomance evaluation, I would argue that he does not have the right for a closed session unless his performance is actually being evaluated at that session. I don't think that is the case, since he is certainly not due at this time. Regardless, I would hope that they are giving him specific and measureable goals and deliverables.
For the past few years, I have not seen our BOE actually set any goals for the district or the superintendent, which is disconcerning in and of itself. They just seem to go along with whatever is presented by administration.
|
|
|
| |
|
mmmmkay?
|
Jan 22 2008, 02:46 PM
Post #63
|
- Posts:
- 452
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #173
- Joined:
- May 23, 2007
|
- Vanna White
- Jan 22 2008, 12:28 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 10:10 AM
- Vanna White
- Jan 21 2008, 11:04 PM
Some relevant court decisions:
Ridenour v Dearborn Board of Education, 111 Mich App 798 (1981) The evaluation of the performance of school administrators is not an action that is exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
Detroit News v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296 (1990), lv den Burden of establishing that a meeting of a public body is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is on the public body.
Relevant Attorney General Opinions:
A public body may not meet in closed session to consider an evaluation of its officers and employees. Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979.
A board of education of a school district may not conduct the public business of evaluation of the performance of the superintendent at private meetings of two or more committees of the board, each composed of less than a quorum of the members of the board and including the president of the board to provide continuity in the evaluation deliberations, from which the members of the public are excluded. Attorney General Opinion No. 6091, p. 711, August 18, 1982.
MCLA 15.268 states that the employee may request a closed hearing for the consideration of a periodic personnel evaluation. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. The final evaluation is available to all while the process can be held in closed session. As to RU Kidding. Steve-o lives in my neighborhood. I drive by his house just about everyday on my way to work after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop. One of the many differences between him and I is that he is an elected official and I am not.
The taxpaying public ought to know what the goals and objectives are. While it may be part of the process of a perfomance evaluation, I would argue that he does not have the right for a closed session unless his performance is actually being evaluated at that session. I don't think that is the case, since he is certainly not due at this time. Regardless, I would hope that they are giving him specific and measureable goals and deliverables. For the past few years, I have not seen our BOE actually set any goals for the district or the superintendent, which is disconcerning in and of itself. They just seem to go along with whatever is presented by administration.
Even if goals and objectives are set, what is the BOE going to do if they are not met? Continue to give the Super and his staff huge raises like they have for years and years while declining enriollment and revenue has taken money from the classroom?
mmmmkay?
|
|
|
| |
|
Renee Chesney
|
Jan 22 2008, 02:52 PM
Post #64
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 682
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #216
- Joined:
- August 17, 2007
|
- mmmmkay?
- Jan 22 2008, 01:46 PM
- Vanna White
- Jan 22 2008, 12:28 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 10:10 AM
- Vanna White
- Jan 21 2008, 11:04 PM
Some relevant court decisions:
Ridenour v Dearborn Board of Education, 111 Mich App 798 (1981) The evaluation of the performance of school administrators is not an action that is exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
Detroit News v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296 (1990), lv den Burden of establishing that a meeting of a public body is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is on the public body.
Relevant Attorney General Opinions:
A public body may not meet in closed session to consider an evaluation of its officers and employees. Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979.
A board of education of a school district may not conduct the public business of evaluation of the performance of the superintendent at private meetings of two or more committees of the board, each composed of less than a quorum of the members of the board and including the president of the board to provide continuity in the evaluation deliberations, from which the members of the public are excluded. Attorney General Opinion No. 6091, p. 711, August 18, 1982.
MCLA 15.268 states that the employee may request a closed hearing for the consideration of a periodic personnel evaluation. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. The final evaluation is available to all while the process can be held in closed session. As to RU Kidding. Steve-o lives in my neighborhood. I drive by his house just about everyday on my way to work after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop. One of the many differences between him and I is that he is an elected official and I am not.
The taxpaying public ought to know what the goals and objectives are. While it may be part of the process of a perfomance evaluation, I would argue that he does not have the right for a closed session unless his performance is actually being evaluated at that session. I don't think that is the case, since he is certainly not due at this time. Regardless, I would hope that they are giving him specific and measureable goals and deliverables. For the past few years, I have not seen our BOE actually set any goals for the district or the superintendent, which is disconcerning in and of itself. They just seem to go along with whatever is presented by administration.
Even if goals and objectives are set, what is the BOE going to do if they are not met? Continue to give the Super and his staff huge raises like they have for years and years while declining enriollment and revenue has taken money from the classroom? mmmmkay?
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
|
|
|
| |
|
BoaterDan
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #65
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 536
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #60
- Joined:
- May 15, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
Interesting. I thought the "step" part is unique to the teachers themselves, and the administration is not part of the teachers union, or any union for that matter.
Is it standard for CO administrators to receive guaranteed step increases a la the teachers' contracts?
That would seem kind of a bizarre situation where the person presumably playing the antagonist in the contract negotiations stands to personally benefit directly from giving in to the other side.
|
|
|
| |
|
yrraH NS
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:05 PM
Post #66
|
- Posts:
- 272
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- September 19, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
The one thing sorely missing is accountability - they get their raises REGARDLESS of their performance.
|
|
|
| |
|
Nikki
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:05 PM
Post #67
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 1,105
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- May 10, 2007
|
- BoaterDan
- Jan 22 2008, 02:02 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
Interesting. I thought the "step" part is unique to the teachers themselves, and the administration is not part of the teachers union, or any union for that matter. Is it standard for CO administrators to receive guaranteed step increases a la the teachers' contracts? That would seem kind of a bizarre situation where the person presumably playing the antagonist in the contract negotiations stands to personally benefit directly from giving in to the other side.
Thanks for pointing that out, BD. Seems like a definite conflict of interest to me. I believe the administrators do have a union (LEADS). Not sure if that includes the CO though.
|
|
|
| |
|
Renee Chesney
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:15 PM
Post #68
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 682
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #216
- Joined:
- August 17, 2007
|
- Nikki
- Jan 22 2008, 02:05 PM
- BoaterDan
- Jan 22 2008, 02:02 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
Interesting. I thought the "step" part is unique to the teachers themselves, and the administration is not part of the teachers union, or any union for that matter. Is it standard for CO administrators to receive guaranteed step increases a la the teachers' contracts? That would seem kind of a bizarre situation where the person presumably playing the antagonist in the contract negotiations stands to personally benefit directly from giving in to the other side.
Thanks for pointing that out, BD. Seems like a definite conflict of interest to me. I believe the administrators do have a union.
I believe there are 7 union contracts as it pertains to employees of LPS. They basically all get the same raises, step and longevity percentages. If the teachers get a 2% raise then the administrators, the custodial staff, the parapros the secretaries, and central office get the same.
|
|
|
| |
|
BoaterDan
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:31 PM
Post #69
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 536
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #60
- Joined:
- May 15, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 02:15 PM
I believe there are 7 union contracts as it pertains to employees of LPS. They basically all get the same raises, step and longevity percentages. If the teachers get a 2% raise then the administrators, the custodial staff, the parapros the secretaries, and central office get the same.
That's about what I've heard before.
I'm just sort of thinking out loud here, but in a business environment wouldn't the CEO have incentives to reduce payroll costs, such that his income could actually go in a rather different direction from the staff beneath him?
It would seem the superintendent finds himself in an odd situation where he's expected to negotate the contracts on behalf of the district, but those negotations are in part against himself! How can that work?
|
|
|
| |
|
livoniarocks
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:37 PM
Post #70
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 565
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #237
- Joined:
- September 19, 2007
|
- yrraH NS
- Jan 22 2008, 11:22 AM
- livoniarocks
- Jan 22 2008, 11:11 AM
Didn't your mother ever teach you what assuming makes?
A beat up looking house with a broken window?
No clue what that means.
|
|
|
| |
|
Renee Chesney
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:56 PM
Post #71
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 682
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #216
- Joined:
- August 17, 2007
|
- BoaterDan
- Jan 22 2008, 02:31 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 02:15 PM
I believe there are 7 union contracts as it pertains to employees of LPS. They basically all get the same raises, step and longevity percentages. If the teachers get a 2% raise then the administrators, the custodial staff, the parapros the secretaries, and central office get the same.
That's about what I've heard before. I'm just sort of thinking out loud here, but in a business environment wouldn't the CEO have incentives to reduce payroll costs, such that his income could actually go in a rather different direction from the staff beneath him? It would seem the superintendent finds himself in an odd situation where he's expected to negotate the contracts on behalf of the district, but those negotations are in part against himself! How can that work?
You are on the right track with your business environment thinking, but we are dealing with a unit of government and not with a typical business environment. The Board is actually the one who sets the guidelines for contrat negotiations. I don't even think the Dr. does most of the negotiations. But yeah he will get a pretty good idea of what he will get by what happens with the other union negotiations. Retirement benefits aren't even a part of the negotiation process as they are set by the State of Michigan.
|
|
|
| |
|
Whatever
|
Jan 22 2008, 04:06 PM
Post #72
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 647
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #206
- Joined:
- June 4, 2007
|
- Quote:
-
The Board is actually the one who sets the guidelines for contrat negotiations.
Does anyone actually believe that? :lol: Maybe that does fall under their responsibilities as board members, but we all know who really sets the guidelines.
|
|
|
| |
|
yrraH NS
|
Jan 22 2008, 04:09 PM
Post #73
|
- Posts:
- 272
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- September 19, 2007
|
- Whatever
- Jan 22 2008, 03:06 PM
- Quote:
-
The Board is actually the one who sets the guidelines for contrat negotiations.
Does anyone actually believe that? :lol: Maybe that does fall under their responsibilities as board members, but we all know who really sets the guidelines.
That's like saying General Motors sets the guidelines for contract negotiations. :rolleyes:
|
|
|
| |
|
Nikki
|
Jan 22 2008, 04:28 PM
Post #74
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 1,105
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- May 10, 2007
|
The unions and LPS administration are like one big happy family eating at the same table. The BOE is supposed to be the neutral party, but we know they are not.
|
|
|
| |
|
mmmmkay?
|
Jan 22 2008, 05:33 PM
Post #75
|
- Posts:
- 452
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #173
- Joined:
- May 23, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 02:56 PM
I don't even think the Dr. does most of the negotiations.
That might be a good thing at this time since he is proposing to outsource union jobs to save his own behind right now.
mmmmkay?
|
|
|
| |
|
LPS Reformer
|
Jan 22 2008, 09:22 PM
Post #76
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
- Posts:
- 4,687
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- May 8, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 21 2008, 10:06 PM
- yrraH NS
- Jan 21 2008, 10:01 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 21 2008, 09:59 PM
- Sourapples
- Jan 21 2008, 09:44 PM
- LPS Reformer
- Jan 22 2008, 02:44 AM
By the way, here is an interesting aside. Good ol Mr. Lessard stayed in the closed meeting, just long enough for the roll to be taken. 5 minutes later, he was in his car, leaving the parking lot. Anyone want to lay odds he still gets his $50 for the second meeting?
If you are there for roll call you get your cash. That 50 bucks becomes real important to a man who leaves his bedridden wife at home every day and night so he can schmooze with the union employees in the warehouse during the day and dine with ISD and MASB people at night on the public dime.
He makes quite the pair with Steve-O who looks for every free hand out he can get. I do find it interesting that the man doesn't have nor has he had for quite some time a full time job and still can't finish a house he started building two years ago. Love looking at a dumpster sitting in his front yard for two years. If that doesn't speak volumes about the man I don't know what does. Could care less about what the neighbors think as long as it works for him.
In your opinion. :ph43r:
Yep it is and it is the most important one to me.
Now that's a shocker.
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
|
| |
|
LPS Reformer
|
Jan 22 2008, 09:25 PM
Post #77
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
- Posts:
- 4,687
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- May 8, 2007
|
- Melanie Ricketts
- Jan 21 2008, 10:29 PM
- Major Card Player
- Jan 21 2008, 10:24 PM
Geez Melanie, how would you keep track of yourself????
MCP, In case you hadn't noticed I am trying not to respond to you since all you want to do is engage in picking apart me and anything that I have to say. So, save yourself some time and don't bother addressing me. This will be the last time I respond to you. There are any number of people on here who have more than one screen name.
Which is against forum rules. Do you use more than one name Melanie?
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
|
| |
|
LPS Reformer
|
Jan 22 2008, 09:30 PM
Post #78
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
- Posts:
- 4,687
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- May 8, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
- mmmmkay?
- Jan 22 2008, 01:46 PM
- Vanna White
- Jan 22 2008, 12:28 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 10:10 AM
- Vanna White
- Jan 21 2008, 11:04 PM
Some relevant court decisions:
Ridenour v Dearborn Board of Education, 111 Mich App 798 (1981) The evaluation of the performance of school administrators is not an action that is exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
Detroit News v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296 (1990), lv den Burden of establishing that a meeting of a public body is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is on the public body.
Relevant Attorney General Opinions:
A public body may not meet in closed session to consider an evaluation of its officers and employees. Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979.
A board of education of a school district may not conduct the public business of evaluation of the performance of the superintendent at private meetings of two or more committees of the board, each composed of less than a quorum of the members of the board and including the president of the board to provide continuity in the evaluation deliberations, from which the members of the public are excluded. Attorney General Opinion No. 6091, p. 711, August 18, 1982.
MCLA 15.268 states that the employee may request a closed hearing for the consideration of a periodic personnel evaluation. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. The final evaluation is available to all while the process can be held in closed session. As to RU Kidding. Steve-o lives in my neighborhood. I drive by his house just about everyday on my way to work after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop. One of the many differences between him and I is that he is an elected official and I am not.
The taxpaying public ought to know what the goals and objectives are. While it may be part of the process of a perfomance evaluation, I would argue that he does not have the right for a closed session unless his performance is actually being evaluated at that session. I don't think that is the case, since he is certainly not due at this time. Regardless, I would hope that they are giving him specific and measureable goals and deliverables. For the past few years, I have not seen our BOE actually set any goals for the district or the superintendent, which is disconcerning in and of itself. They just seem to go along with whatever is presented by administration.
Even if goals and objectives are set, what is the BOE going to do if they are not met? Continue to give the Super and his staff huge raises like they have for years and years while declining enriollment and revenue has taken money from the classroom? mmmmkay?
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
And why is that? Are they entitled to raises just for showing up?
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
|
| |
|
Renee Chesney
|
Jan 22 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #79
|
Veteran
- Posts:
- 682
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #216
- Joined:
- August 17, 2007
|
- LPS Reformer
- Jan 22 2008, 08:30 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
- mmmmkay?
- Jan 22 2008, 01:46 PM
- Vanna White
- Jan 22 2008, 12:28 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 10:10 AM
- Vanna White
- Jan 21 2008, 11:04 PM
Some relevant court decisions:
Ridenour v Dearborn Board of Education, 111 Mich App 798 (1981) The evaluation of the performance of school administrators is not an action that is exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
Detroit News v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296 (1990), lv den Burden of establishing that a meeting of a public body is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is on the public body.
Relevant Attorney General Opinions:
A public body may not meet in closed session to consider an evaluation of its officers and employees. Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979.
A board of education of a school district may not conduct the public business of evaluation of the performance of the superintendent at private meetings of two or more committees of the board, each composed of less than a quorum of the members of the board and including the president of the board to provide continuity in the evaluation deliberations, from which the members of the public are excluded. Attorney General Opinion No. 6091, p. 711, August 18, 1982.
MCLA 15.268 states that the employee may request a closed hearing for the consideration of a periodic personnel evaluation. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. The final evaluation is available to all while the process can be held in closed session. As to RU Kidding. Steve-o lives in my neighborhood. I drive by his house just about everyday on my way to work after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop. One of the many differences between him and I is that he is an elected official and I am not.
The taxpaying public ought to know what the goals and objectives are. While it may be part of the process of a perfomance evaluation, I would argue that he does not have the right for a closed session unless his performance is actually being evaluated at that session. I don't think that is the case, since he is certainly not due at this time. Regardless, I would hope that they are giving him specific and measureable goals and deliverables. For the past few years, I have not seen our BOE actually set any goals for the district or the superintendent, which is disconcerning in and of itself. They just seem to go along with whatever is presented by administration.
Even if goals and objectives are set, what is the BOE going to do if they are not met? Continue to give the Super and his staff huge raises like they have for years and years while declining enriollment and revenue has taken money from the classroom? mmmmkay?
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
And why is that? Are they entitled to raises just for showing up?
Precedence.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sourapples
|
Jan 22 2008, 11:47 PM
Post #80
|
- Posts:
- 337
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #227
- Joined:
- September 11, 2007
|
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 23 2008, 02:52 AM
- LPS Reformer
- Jan 22 2008, 08:30 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 01:52 PM
- mmmmkay?
- Jan 22 2008, 01:46 PM
- Vanna White
- Jan 22 2008, 12:28 PM
- Renee Chesney
- Jan 22 2008, 10:10 AM
- Vanna White
- Jan 21 2008, 11:04 PM
Some relevant court decisions:
Ridenour v Dearborn Board of Education, 111 Mich App 798 (1981) The evaluation of the performance of school administrators is not an action that is exempt from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
Detroit News v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296 (1990), lv den Burden of establishing that a meeting of a public body is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is on the public body.
Relevant Attorney General Opinions:
A public body may not meet in closed session to consider an evaluation of its officers and employees. Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979.
A board of education of a school district may not conduct the public business of evaluation of the performance of the superintendent at private meetings of two or more committees of the board, each composed of less than a quorum of the members of the board and including the president of the board to provide continuity in the evaluation deliberations, from which the members of the public are excluded. Attorney General Opinion No. 6091, p. 711, August 18, 1982.
MCLA 15.268 states that the employee may request a closed hearing for the consideration of a periodic personnel evaluation. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. The final evaluation is available to all while the process can be held in closed session. As to RU Kidding. Steve-o lives in my neighborhood. I drive by his house just about everyday on my way to work after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop. One of the many differences between him and I is that he is an elected official and I am not.
The taxpaying public ought to know what the goals and objectives are. While it may be part of the process of a perfomance evaluation, I would argue that he does not have the right for a closed session unless his performance is actually being evaluated at that session. I don't think that is the case, since he is certainly not due at this time. Regardless, I would hope that they are giving him specific and measureable goals and deliverables. For the past few years, I have not seen our BOE actually set any goals for the district or the superintendent, which is disconcerning in and of itself. They just seem to go along with whatever is presented by administration.
Even if goals and objectives are set, what is the BOE going to do if they are not met? Continue to give the Super and his staff huge raises like they have for years and years while declining enriollment and revenue has taken money from the classroom? mmmmkay?
They get the same percentages (unless they have had a job classification change) that the other union employees receive including steps and longevity.
And why is that? Are they entitled to raises just for showing up?
Precedence.
Precedence over children...how nice!
|
|
|
| |