TOWN OF ROCKY HILL
BOARD OF EDUCATION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2008
Members Present: William MacDonald (Chairman)
Nadine Bell
Raffaella Calciano-Coler
Charles McMonigle
Frank Morse
Rene (Skip) Rivard
Catherine Vargas
Jennifer Viggiano
Charles Wisnioski
A meeting of the Board of Education was held on Thursday,
February 7, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
Chairman MacDonald told the Board members there were a lot of minutes to approve and if no one objected he would like to have all of them approved at the same time unless there were any errors, omissions or corrections that anyone wanted to talk about. Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato referred to this evening’s agenda and she said where it stated January 7, 2008 Finance Committee that it should state January 7, 2008 Facility Committee instead.
Moved by Nadine Bell, seconded by Rene
Rivard to accept the minutes, as
amended, of the December 6, 2007 Board of Education meeting, the December 10, 2007 Facility Committee meeting,
the December 11, 2007 Finance Committee meeting, the December 17, 2007 Special
Board meeting, the December 19, 2007 Special Board meeting, the January 7, 2008
Facility Committee meeting, the January 10, 2008 Curriculum Committee meeting,
the January 10, 2008 BOE Budget Workshop, and the January 15, 2008 BOE Budget
Workshop.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION CARRIED
Chairman MacDonald said he had several minor changes to the minutes and he passed these changes to Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato who said that the minutes will be corrected.
CORRESPONDENCE
Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said she had
several correspondences that she wanted to bring to the Board’s attention this
evening. She had a letter from the State
of
Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said the fifth
graders at
Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said a letter was
also received by Principal Watson and his Staff from the New England League of
Middle Schools (NELMS).
Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said Donna Wadstrup sent a thank you note to the Board of Education for the gift she was given for her years of service.
Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said Assistant Principal Colonghi sent a thank you note to the Board of Education who acknowledged the recent passing of his father.
Mr. Charles Wisnioski said he received a letter from Bill Casparinski who asked that his correspondence and attachments be provided to the remaining Board members.
AUDIENCE
PARTICIPATION
RHTA Liaison Committee – No report was given.
Student
Representatives
Stevens
School/Moser School:
Tori Mazzarella and Nicole Cecchini reported on the recent events at Stevens School/Moser School:
The Moser Giving Tree was very successful during the holiday season and the Moser School Staff will be collecting non-perishable food items for the Rocky Hill food pantry.
Every student who brings in a non-perishable food item will have a heart with their name on it placed on the Moser Giving Tree.
Kindergarteners will be celebrating the 100th day of school on February 13, 2008. The students have been learning to make groups of ten and to count by tens to one hundred. The students will be making 100th day glasses, badges and musical instruments that contain one hundred objects as part of the celebration.
First graders took an up close look at a tornado during a program that was presented by High Touch, High Tech. This program was an exciting one and it supplemented their science unit on weather.
Second graders have been working on volume, mass and subtraction concepts in math and science. Many of the second graders have been participating in the home reading program (Readers are Leaders). They have been learning about the life of Martin Luther
King Jr.
Third graders are making good progress towards goals set by Dr. Rosenburg with regards to reading 2,500 books by June in order to win a pizza party. At the last count they have read over 500 books.
In physical education the students are participating in a community service fundraiser to raise money for the American Heart Association. A Jump Rope for Heart fundraiser will take place on February 14, 2008.
Fifth graders will
be holding a pasta supper and silent auction on February 15, 2008 in order to
raise funds for Nature’s Classroom. This
will be held at
The PTO sponsored toy bingo will be held on March 8, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Bobby Raus and Natalie Fulco reported on the recent events
at
At the end of January there was a successful blood drive to support one of the students who had a bone marrow transplant. Fifty-one pints of blood were collected which will benefit one hundred and fifty-three people. The PTO, Mrs. Laing, Mrs. Wisnioski, the Student Council, and the Mustang Club were all thanked for running the drive and the parents were also thanked for baking for this event.
The third and fourth grade instrumental concert will be held
at
The first and second graders were introduced to various instruments by the Hartford Symphony. The PTO Enrichment Committee was thanked for funding this program.
The fifth grade gym show will be held on February 12, 2008. There will be daytime as well as evening performances. The students have been working hard and they thanked Mr. Dubos and Mrs. O’Keefe for organizing the gym show.
A coat drive was run by the Student Council and one hundred
and forty-six coats were collected.
These coats will be given to the
Third graders will be focusing on the issue of conflict which will be taught by the school’s social worker who teaches lessons on character education. Students will be engaging in role playing activities to find out how to resolve and de-escalate conflict.
Two fifth graders were honored this past week at the Aqua Turf for the Arts Festival.
Congratulations were given to Natalie Fulco and Vishnu Gottiparthy for being selected for this prestigious award.
Clayton Parrotta reported on the recent events at
All students were treated on January 17, 2008 to exciting assembly programs while teachers were collaborating. The eight graders met Mark Dixon, Channel 3’s Meterologist who spoke about the science and technology of forecasting weather.
The seventh graders were entertained by Artie Dixon a jazz
musician from Young Audiences of Connecticut.
The sixth graders met Dr. David Monti from
The
The halls at
Volleyball has started and there are over ninety girls and sixty boys who are involved with the varsity and the junior varsity volleyball teams.
Sixth graders will be taking a field trip to CPTV’s Family Science Expo on April 25, 2008. This expo will feature live science oriented entertainment on stage, dramatic presentations and interactive exhibits.
The Math Council Club had their Chapter competition on
February 2, 2008 at the
Clayton Parrotta said this was his first year at
Chairman MacDonald told the Board members that
Rocky
Jon McKenna and Sarah Beaudoin reported on the recent events
at
With the exams over, the students are looking forward to the second semester.
The summer reading program is being reviewed for adjustments by a committee formed of students, parents, teachers and administrators.
This has been a good season for the winter sports and the basketball team is still competing. Both the girls’ and boys’ teams have had a winning season. Wrestling is coming to an end along with boys’ swimming and the hockey team and these sports have had a successful season. The Northwest Conference for track was a success and Rocky Hill finished with a top placement.
The Drama Club will be performing Godspell soon.
The Habitat for Humanity trip to
An assembly will take place on February 28, 2008 and February 29, 2008 for all high school and middle schools students.
The Community Service Club has marked their half year with over two hundred community service hours in Rocky Hill and the Greater Hartford area.
Other clubs are engaged in putting together a pep rally and Spirit Week.
CAPT week will be coming soon and this will be administered in the beginning of March for freshmen and sophomores.
Prom season is around the corner for juniors and seniors and the Prom Committees have been very busy preparing.
The trip to
Meeting Open to
Public
Chairman MacDonald asked if there was any one from the public who wished to speak at this time. Mr. Ed Chiucarello, 40 Riverview Road, R.H. passed a letter out to the Board members and he told them to feel free to answer the questions this evening or he told them that they could respond back to him. He read the letter aloud and in full.
Chairman MacDonald thanked Mr. Ed Chiucarello for his letter and he told him that many, if not all, of the Board members share his concerns. Chairman MacDonald said they will be working with Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato and they will get back to Mr. Ed Chiucarello with regards to his questions. Chairman MacDonald said it has been a policy for this Board to try to have full disclosure, and get as much information as it can out there. He explained that they are somewhat limited by resources with regards to posting things on the website, etc. Chairman MacDonald said that he and Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato have had this conversation many times and he thought they will continue to have it and they will make sure that they move forward. Chairman MacDonald told Mr. Ed Chiucarello that he heard him and he was with him and he said they will do their best to accommodate TABS.
Mr. Peter Parrotta,
1. Consent
Calendar
Moved by Charles McMonigle, seconded by
Jennifer Viggiano, to accept the
consent calendar for February 7, 2008.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION CARRIED
COMMITTEE REPORTS
2. Personnel and
Negotiations
No report was given.
3. Policy
No report was given.
4. Finance
Chairman MacDonald said that Mr. Rivard would report on recent meetings. Mr. Rivard said for the record that his name was spelled wrong on this evening’s agenda. He said that he asked Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato to give the evolution of how the budget is developed before it comes to the Board because he thought this was important as the budget and the finance of the school district is discussed. Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said the budget process was a fairly long and complex one that begins in September. In September the superintendent comes forward to the Board of Education requesting that the Board of Education adopts the budget charge and this commences the budget process. This document that is brought to the Board in September provides direction to the superintendent in developing the budget along with the superintendent relying on the district goals, guidelines and Board policies. After this, a meeting is held with the administrators, directors and assistant superintendents to distribute the budget forms. The forms request information for new staff, space need, new courses, etc. After these forms are distributed the building principals meet with their individual staffs and they discuss and determine the budget requests for the individual schools for the next year. While this is going on, the Assistant Superintendent, the Director of Finance and Operations and the Director of Special Education and Pupil Services prepare their budget requests which are based on their program responsibilities. All of this takes place in September and the beginning of October. By October 15th, the principals and directors submit their budget requests to the superintendent of schools. From October 15th through the end of November, there are individual meetings with the building principals and directors that are held to discuss their budget requests with the superintendent and central office staff. There are ongoing discussions with regards to additional data being asked
for, and they have to defend why they want the items that they are requesting in the budget. The superintendent then makes the final decision on the budget requests and a budget is prepared. In December, there are final preparations made on the budget and it is brought forward to the Board of Education in January. Four budget workshops are held with the Board of Education and the administration. Usually by the end of January the budget is adopted by the Board of Education for transmission to the Town Manager and the Town Council.
Mr. Rivard personally thanked all of the administrators, faculty and Staff for their diligence in trying to provide what is best for the children in Rocky Hill. As he went through his third budget process, he told Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato that he understood the amount of work and the amount of time that is spent in developing the budget. Mr. Rivard said the budget is then presented to the Board and the Board members take it and review what they think they can get by with as far as what is best for the children. The budget then goes to the town and the town makes the final decision as to what it can afford for the kids. It is known that everybody has the best interests of Rocky Hill children in mind.
Mr. Rivard said Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato’s budget was reduced as follows: the elementary Vice Principal position was reduced by $95,000; the Moser School secretary’s position was reduced by $20,580; the Technology Assistant’s position was reduced by $28,400; the technology lease purchase was reduced by $25,000; the Special Education tuition was reduced by $30,000; the Board of Education professional development was reduced by $1,500; the portable classroom furniture equipment was reduced by $5,900; the artist/writer in residence was reduced by $2,000; the administrative professional development was reduced by $4,000; the high school science equipment was reduced by $232; the ESOL tutor salary was increased by $6,612 and the athletic trainer contract was increased by $6,000. The total budget reduction is $200,000 of Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato’s original request of a $2,404,653 increase and this results in a revised budget submission total of $27,981,880. This is a net increase of $2,204,653 or an 8.55% increase. The Board of Education’s recommended budget will be submitted to the Town Manager on or before February 15, 2008.
Chairman MacDonald extended his compliments to the administration and to every Board member who worked many hours and many nights to get to the budget that is being submitted. He thought it was important to note that as Mr. Rivard went through several of the figures, in rough estimates over 93% of the budget is made up of salaries, benefits, Special Education tuition and transportation. Chairman MacDonald said there are not a lot of extras in the budget. He referred to the increase and he said over 80% of this is fixed or State mandated (i.e. healthcare increases, lease payment, contractual salary increases, etc.). He said although there is a large percentage increase when the amount is looked at, the amount that is left to discretion that everybody spent quite a bit of time on is a very small part of the budget.
5. Curriculum
Mr. Wisnioski said a Curriculum Committee meeting had been held on January 10, 2008.
A number of items had been discussed at that meeting
including a budget review in preparation of the budget process that Mr. Rivard
just went through. A discussion had
taken place at that meeting with regards to a curriculum showcase that
Assistant Superintendent Boutilier will be putting together. A discussion had also taken place with
regards to future Curriculum Committee meeting agenda items. One item that had been discussed was distance
learning and in December 2007 the State of
6. Professional
Development
No report was given.
7. Facilities
Mr. Wisnioski said two recent Facilities Committee meetings
had been held. One was held on December
10, 2007 and at this meeting there had been a discussion about the Stevens
School PTO request to upgrade the playscape equipment. The other meeting was held on January 7, 2008
at which time the upgrading of the playscape equipment at
option was and he said it is posted on the website of
TABS. This option would present a new
K-5 school at the
8. Technology
No report was given.
9. Transportation/Accommodations
No report was given.
10. Liaison
No report was given.
OLD BUSINESS
11. CMT Action
Plans
Assistant Superintendent Boutilier mentioned how in August
2007 the results of last year’s
disappointment with some of those results. In September 2007, the administrators came back to the Board with their action plan to address some of those deficiencies and to make sure the students were getting the skills that they needed. The status of those action plans was shared this evening and Assistant Superintendent Boutilier highlighted three of the activities that she thought had the greatest potential of having an impact. Over the past year, district wide assessments have been developed for kindergarten through Grade 5 in language arts (reading and writing) and mathematics. She explained when these assessments are given throughout the year. Assessments will be administered on February 11, 2008 and February 12, 2008 in reading comprehension and on February 27, 2008 through February 29, 2008 in math. There was one set of data with regards to September and January results and the DRP (Degrees of Reading Power) that was administered in September and in January in first through fifth grade. In every grade level that this test was administered there were gains from September to January. Assistant Superintendent Boutilier said the benchmark assessments that have been developed will align with the standards and the Connecticut Mastery Test and these will be administered later in the year which will give another piece of data that can be looked at.
Assistant Superintendent Boutilier explained about the data teams that are in all of the buildings and she said this was the second initiative that she was sharing with everybody and this was also a new initiative this year. She explained what the data teams do. The data will help to see what changes need to be made in instruction.
Assistant Superintendent Boutilier said the third initiative
just began last week and this is the
Assistant Superintendent Boutilier told the Board members about the numerous other initiatives that are outlined in the packets that were given to them. She told the Board members that the principals had samples of some of the work that is being done by the classroom teachers if they wished to see this. She said last year’s results were a wakeup call and a number of initiatives have been put in place so there will be the impact that is wanted and this will make everyone certain that the students are receiving the skills that they need.
Chairman MacDonald referred to Stevens/Moser Schools and he said there are five items listed that are shown as being incomplete. He asked what that meant. Assistant Superintendent Boutilier said it was her understanding with regards to these particular items that they hadn’t taken place yet (i.e. Literary Expo is planning on being offered later in the year).
Chairman MacDonald asked Assistant Superintendent Boutilier
why the action steps are different between
12. Mr. Robert
Lindberg, Vice President, Lindberg & Ripple
Mr. Lindberg thanked the Board for having him this evening. He said that he was asked to provide a brief presentation about the planning cycle for the benefit portion of the budget. Subsequent to this there was a request received for additional information and he said this was provided in an addendum. He told the Board that he would speak briefly to the outline that was provided initially, then he would speak briefly with regards to the additional information that was received this evening and after that he would address any questions that the Board has this evening or to follow-up on. He explained that this is an important part of the budget and this process seems to start earlier every year and go longer every year. Typically the cycle for the renewal with the incumbent cycle runs from November through March. He explained that in his office an underwriting assessment is provided in November and early December as to what they think the renewal will look like come the following July. They tend to be somewhat conservative in their initial assumptions. An update is provided to the Board with regards to what the numbers are thought to look like. An actual renewal projection from the carriers is received in late February or during the first week in March. He said this cycle has been consistent over the past three or four years. He spoke about how proposals are solicited from vendors. Any vendor that would look to this program needs to be able to replicate the existing plan designs as negotiated with the various unions. He explained about the competitive review process. He mentioned that network is also important in terms of the ability of the medical vendor to provide access to the doctors the people are used to using.
Mr. Lindberg went over the historical perspective for the
program. He said looking back over the
last four, five or six years the average change in the premium cost to the
Board of Education has averaged 4% to 6%.
In perspective to the market, he said the Board has done well. He went over what was thought to be reflected
because of this (i.e. multiple plan offers being offered to the participants). A big piece of what the benefit plan costs is
what is negotiated into the plan design and he went over what key parts of this
are. He thought it was important from
the Board’s perspective that members are aware of what is going on in the
environment outside of just the efforts on behalf of Rocky Hill. A large number of things are happening in the
State as it relates to the public sector employers and he went into more detail
about this. He said there is a very
dynamic environment not withstanding the election cycle and the federal
discussion. The near term impact will
come more from State initiatives out of
Mr. Lindberg told the Board members that he gave a very brief overview to them of the premiums and the net results for the plan over the last six years and this was in addition to the data that he had included with the outline. He said provided with the addendum there was a report package that is provided to the Board each year upon the conclusion of the plan year with the current insurance company. He told the Board members that there are two pages of this evening’s addendum that include a five year running history. He told the Board members to be aware that with the number of people covered under this program results every year are going to be somewhat variable. He explained more and he said on the cumulative basis this program has run in the black and it has done well. The Board has been able to access some of these funds that otherwise would have resided with the insurance company. He went over the second page of tonight’s addendum and explained in detail what that stated. He explained how expenses are tracked. He said this was the overview that he wanted to provide in terms of the cycle that is gone through and
some of the key information from past years.
Mr. Lindberg said there had been a question about the funding arrangement and he addressed that at this point. He explained that the program is referred to as a participating insured contract which means that each year the insurance company reconciles the results. The insurance company identifies how many premium dollars have been paid to them, how many claims dollars have been paid out, how much will be held for retention and if the balance is a positive number then it is available to the Board. If the number is negative then it is a deficit and it is carried forward in the future years. The positive years have outbalanced the negative years. The Board has retained to itself an accumulated balance and that is a positive effect. He then explained about the other type of insured premium program that is available which is called fully insured. With this program, the premium is paid to the insurance company and at the end of the year they may do a reconciliation but if it is a positive or negative number the insurance company absorbs it. He explained the reasons why the participating insured contract has been looked to over the years. The funding arrangement is part of the review discussion that takes place each year when the competitive market survey is done. He mentioned that sometimes a vendor selection dictates what is available from a funding vehicle perspective. He said Lindberg & Ripple thought over the past eight to ten years that the participating insured contract has been a favorable result for the Board and this is something to keep in mind when options are looked at for July 2008 going into 2009.
Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg if he could give the Board members an update on the current experience. Mr. Lindberg said unfortunately the year-to-date claims experience is not running as well as they would like it to. For the year-to-date basis which would be six months through December because the January claims haven’t been seen yet, the loss ratio is running about 5% above break even. Right now the premium is not covering the claims plus the expenses. There has been a combination of large claims and to date there are 13 participants with a total of $1,300,000 in claims which represents 45% of the claims paid on a year-to-date basis. Lindberg & Ripple think there will be
some easing of this during the second half of the year and he explained some more about this. He said a projection had been done in November which was updated in January and now they are waiting for the carrier to come out with its projection in order to see where this will play. They are optimistic that some of the changes that are effective in the program now and some of the additional efforts being made on the disease management side will tap into mitigating the large claims but these claims are still there.
He said the fact that this is only 5% over given the claim history there is with the large claims that this is actually an indication the rest of the utilization is positive and favorable.
Ms. Calciano-Coler referred to the participating contract versus the non-participating contract and she asked if there was an actual dollar amount in premium difference that one contract usually would cost over the other. Mr. Lindberg said it would depend on
the vendors’ pricing. He explained that the last two times the competitive review cycle was done the non-participating contracts were as expensive as the premium being required for the participating contracts and he said there really was no differential in the market. Cigna is the current carrier. He explained that it would normally be expected that the premium target for a participating contract would be 3% or 4% higher than a comparable non-participating contract and he gave more detail about this. He said they would expect on a straight up basis that there would be a 3% differential in a participating contract versus a non-participating one.
Mr. Wisnioski asked how many years the Rocky Hill Board of
Education has been underwritten by Cigna.
Mr. Lindberg said the Board has been underwritten by Cigna before
Lindberg & Ripple started working with the Board and they have been working
with the Board for twelve or thirteen years now so he guessed that it could be
fifteen to twenty years. Mr. Wisnioski
asked how this impacts the mood of the underwriter. Mr. Lindberg said the underwriter would be
very concerned that they would lose someone if they weren’t aggressive in their
underwriting position. He explained that
no one likes to give up a long term client and he said that Cigna is continuing
to try to establish its position as a vendor of choice in the public sector
market in
percentage they are working with is 14%. He told the Board members that they have to remember from the information available on the worksheet that that is just one portion
of the overall program and there is a separate piece of the plan which is the stop loss and that is not reflected on the worksheet. He said that stop loss claims are dealt with separately. Mr. Wisnioski asked Mr. Lindberg to explain what the stop loss is, what the premium component is in the projected $4,200,000 and if there is a separate policy that the Board has, how much it is and what the maximum is that is paid under this. Mr. Lindberg said the individual stop loss limit is set at $125,000. He explained more about this. The rate renewal part with Cigna includes the experience rated piece and the charge for the stop loss. These two components are added together to create the total premium rate that is used for the monthly billing, for premium contribution percentages, etc. He went into more detail. He explained that there is one stop loss policy that is in the total package premium that is paid to Cigna. He explained that the worksheet the Board members have addresses the question of what the settlement balances have been and he said that he could provide another worksheet which includes the EPB (experienced protection benefit) premiums. Mr. Wisnioski said that he would like that.
Chairman MacDonald asked what the premium is on the stop loss. Mr. Lindberg said the targeted premium was approximately $260,000 last year. He explained some more. Chairman MacDonald asked if the attachment point could be moved down. Mr. Lindberg said there is some flexibility downward as well as upward and he gave more detail.
Mr. Wisnioski said it had been mentioned that a market study was not done last year and he asked if one was going to be done this year. Mr. Lindberg said they are in the process of doing one. The request is out and they are waiting for the responses. Mr. Lindberg said they will have a comparison for the Board probably the first week of March.
Chairman MacDonald referred to the commissions’ amount and he asked Mr. Lindberg if this was the commissions to his firm. Mr. Lindberg said that was correct. Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg if he worked on a commission basis with the town and not on a fixed fee. Mr. Lindberg said currently they are on a commission basis but they could work on a fixed fee. He said this is just for the Rocky Hill Board of Education and they don’t have any direct relationship with the town. The town has its own broker. The commission amount is a negotiated amount and it can be modified. He said they could be paid independently if the Board preferred and they could work on a consulting basis and be paid a straight fee. Chairman MacDonald told Mr. Lindberg that for other towns’ Boards he knew that he worked more on a fixed fee. Mr. Lindberg said it was approximately 25% on a straight fee basis and approximately 75% on a broker basis. They are licensed as an insurance consultant. Chairman MacDonald asked if the rest of the expenses are carrier expenses and Mr. Lindberg said they are. Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg if they received any contingent commissions from Cigna in the past. Mr. Lindberg said in May 2007 they received their first bonus payment from Cigna in twenty something years. It was for $5,000 and $1,000 of this was attributable to
Rocky Hill. He said they didn’t know where this came from, they didn’t know the reason they were eligible and he is not sure if they will be eligible again. Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg when a fully participating plan like Rocky Hill’s is looked at how it would be compared to what he is seeing in other Boards in this State and he asked if Rocky Hill’s plan is typical or if it is atypical. Mr. Lindberg asked Chairman MacDonald if he was talking about funding arrangements and Chairman MacDonald said he was. Mr. Lindberg said it is not typical because the predominant player in the public sector is Anthem and they don’t have a participating contract. He explained more. He explained that the comparable sized groups with Cigna are all in participating contracts. The majority of public employers with Anthem today are fully insured because of the difficulty in maintaining reserve balances. Chairman MacDonald asked how a premium holiday occurred and he asked Mr. Lindberg if that was his recommendation. Mr. Lindberg said the premium holiday is a function of having money available in the premium stabilization fund with the insurance company. He explained more about this. He said basically a premium holiday states that the Board redirects fund balance to pay a period of time for the current year premium and at that time the participants get a comparable holiday because they have contributed to the premium that created the surplus. Chairman MacDonald asked if it was typical sharing this with the participants and Mr. Lindberg said it was.
Chairman MacDonald said he was surprised to see this type of
plan set up for Rocky Hill given what the market is in
Chairman MacDonald asked if it was possible to sit down with the bargaining units prior to July to get a determination from them and he asked Mr. Lindberg if the Board is not contingent on the contract date. Mr. Lindberg said no. Chairman MacDonald asked if the language within the contracts themselves don’t preclude the Board from going outside of Cigna. Mr. Lindberg said not at all and he said it is always balancing what the minor variations might be against what the proposed financial value is to the Board as well as to the participants.
Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg if there has been discussion in the past with regards to looking at combining the town’s side and the Board’s side like many towns do.
Mr. Lindberg said there has been discussion several times in the past and when this was looked at either the town wasn’t interested or it wasn’t in the Board’s best interest but he said that this was something that could be looked at easily each year. It partially comes down to the funding arrangement discussion and he said the town is currently in a different vehicle with Anthem but it wouldn’t be a prohibitive problem.
Mr. McMonigle said the contracts speak specifically to the Cigna program now and he asked if carriers were to be changed if the bargaining units can either approve or disapprove the carrier change. Finance Director Turansky thought that there was a comparison as to whether it was a true “apples to apples” comparison. Mr. McMonigle confirmed that plan changes would have to be negotiated and the bargaining units approval would be needed on a carrier change. Finance Director Turansky said they would want to look at the networks as well too. Chairman MacDonald said he read the administration’s contract and it was silent with regards to Cigna. Mr. Lindberg said that was the most recent one and references are being removed as they go along.
Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg what he thought the next steps should be for this Board. Chairman MacDonald told Mr. Lindberg that he understands where the Board is coming from with regards to the 14% increase in healthcare where everyone else is significantly lower and he said there is a funding mechanism that he would say is atypical. Chairman MacDonald asked Mr. Lindberg what he would recommend as a broker or agent if he was to look at this from a different perspective. Mr. Lindberg said the funding mechanism is atypical. He would like to think that they bring their objectivity professional to the process. Chairman MacDonald said he could also even make an argument to pay Mr. Lindberg in excess of what the commission arrangement is on a fixed fee basis if at the end of the day the Board is getting a different service. Chairman MacDonald told Mr. Lindberg that he didn’t know what his menu of services are for a commission client versus a non-commission client. Mr. Lindberg explained what scope of services they work on. He explained that the funding vehicle that this Board has is atypical because of the vendor choice that they have but he thought this has been positive and not negative. He explained that they have no particular allegiance to any vendor and they want the best vendor for each client. The public sector historically has gravitated to Blue Cross/Blue Shield for a variety of reasons. He went over the steps that they have recommended and will continue to recommend to the Board as it prepares for collective bargaining. With regards to the 14%, he said the Board’s claims’ experience reflects this requirement and it has been unusual with regards to what has happened during the last six to ten months but they are going to wait to see if anyone out in the market will have a different interpretation of what this looks like. He explained that the review should be continued every other year at a minimum and he suggested even having this done every year because of the environment. A challenge there is when people go out three, four or five years in a row is that they burn out the market. There are now five carriers who could come to the table and provide what this Board needs if they so choose. He told the Board that he was optimistic that if the value can’t actually be changed they are going to be assured that they have an appropriate package.
Mr. Charles McMonigle suggested that maybe Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato could set up a meeting between Mr. Lindberg and P & N representatives from the bargaining units to see if issues for the next year of the contract, and even for the existing contracts could be discussed.
Mr. Charles Wisnioski referred to the premium that was listed across the paperwork that Mr. Lindberg gave and he asked if that included the employee contribution as well. Mr. Lindberg said it did. Mr. Charles Wisnioski asked if the employee’s portion will also share in the same rise when this goes up 14%. Mr. Lindberg explained that assuming the percent that they are required to contribute is not also changing then it would go up proportionately at 14%. Mr. Charles McMonigle told the Board members that even though the plan is going up 14% in total that the net in total to the Board is north of 10%
because some of the bargaining units have increasing premium shares as new years of the contract are gone into.
Chairman MacDonald thanked Mr. Lindberg.
Moved by Catherine Vargas, seconded by
Jennifer Viggiano, to break for
five minutes at 8:29 p.m.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION
CARRIED
Chairman MacDonald called the meeting back to order at 8:36 p.m.
13. State
Performance Plan for Special Education
Dr. Riggs told the Board members that she was going to be giving a powerpoint presentation and they had copies of this presentation in their packets. She explained at the back of these copies was the listing of twenty indicators that she would be referring to
during her presentation. She explained that this State performance plan is new and these are new requirements as part of the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA legislation. This plan was developed to bring IDEA in closer alignment with NCLB. By law each State must report their progress and performance to OSEP (Office of Special Education programs) every year. The progress is submitted based on the twenty indicators (compliance, monitoring and performance). Compliance indicators are things like testing within the timeframe guidelines. A performance indicator would be inclusion data. Each district receives an annual performance report based on the SPP. District data is compared against the State target and then the district receives a rating: needs assistance, needs intervention, meets requirements or needs substantial intervention. Enforcement actions can be triggered by the determination. One of the first interventions is the State informs the district of technical assistance. If a district doesn’t avail itself of the technical assistance down the road or if the data doesn’t improve towards target then funds could be withheld from the IDEA funds.
There are two parts to the district report: 20 SPP indicators under IDEA and the PJ goals
under the PJ court ordered settlement decree.
The 2005-2006 school year was the first year that districts submitted
data for the APR report. Dr. Riggs
explained what five indicators were used to determine if a district needed
improvement, needed intervention, or met requirements. Each year more indicators are added until all
twenty indicators will appear in the sixth year of the data collection. In order to meet requirements, the district’s
data had to either meet or exceed a State target or it had to be in substantial
compliance (95% to 99% performance) and for the compliance indicators the
district had to be either at 100% or 0% depending on what was the best. She explained that for the PJ determinations
these were based only on students with intellectual disabilities and she explained
some more about this.
On the State Performance Plan status for 2005 to 2006, Rocky Hill was rated as needing improvement. This was based on Indicator #11 (evaluation timelines). Initial evaluations must be completed within 45 school days or 60 calendar days depending on what comes first. Dr. Riggs said there were a couple of instances where the initial evaluations were not completed within the appropriate timelines. Last school year, this was brought into alignment so Rocky Hill is 100% in compliance with this. For the PJ data, Rocky Hill was rated as needing improvement in this also. There were eight students enrolled in the district who were intellectually disabled. The average time with non-disabled peers for these students was 50.3% and the State is looking for 80%.
Dr. Riggs referred to Indicator #13 (secondary transition goals and services). She explained that every student who is sixteen years and older must have a transition goal and plan that is included in their IEP. Rocky Hill was 100% in compliance with this. She expected that on the annual performance report based on last year’s data that for this part of the report Rocky Hill should be in a meets standards mode.
With regards to the PJ data, Dr. Riggs said there were eleven students with intellectual disabilities who were enrolled in the district for the 2006-2007 school year. The average time they spent with non-disabled peers was 60.65%. With regards to the regular classroom placement where 80% of their time was spent in general education, there were three of the eleven students who did this compared to one student out of eight in the 2005-2006 school year. Because of this, the State Department of Education is monitoring Rocky Hill and this is based on the PJ data from 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. There are thirteen other rural and suburban districts which are also being monitored. She explained that the State consultant who was assigned to Rocky Hill met this week with the faculty at all three elementary schools. This consultant will meet next with the middle school faculty. On December 7, 2007 Dr. Riggs said she had a preliminary meeting with this consultant and she gave him her LRE (Least Restricted Environment) plan for how she is projecting the time with non-disabled peers will be improved for all students who have disabilities. She said classroom walkthroughs will be conducted with her, this consultant, and some of the staff in order to access the meaningful inclusion of the students. She
went to a three day training workshop (Step by Step for Inclusive School) with a team from Stevens School and some of the things they learned at this workshop are working on being implemented. She has hired an inclusion consultant who is approved by the PJ Expert Advisory Panel to work with the schools.
Another Indicator #15b. (significant dis-proportionality) has been added this year.
Dr. Riggs thought that Rocky Hill will be in compliance with this indicator but it will be something that will always be watched. Indicator #20 (timely and accurate data) has also been added. She was worried about this because she said data must be submitted and she explained some more about this with regards to what this data is. She explained that the exiter’s report was late by one or two days. There has been a lot of difficulty this year reconciling PSIS (general education student data), and CDAC student data because there were as many as three hundred errors in a batch and it takes time to go through the errors. She hopes that this doesn’t put Rocky Hill back into the needs improvement status. She then went over the PJ data from one month ago and she said the time that was spent with non-disabled students by the students with intellectual disabilities was 73.6% and she thought that since that time this is probably 75% or 76%. She said regular class placement is eight out of twelve students. The consultant told her that if Rocky Hill had this data to submit one year ago then it wouldn’t be under focus monitoring now. Dr. Riggs said this was okay though because it wasn’t a bad thing to have the State Department of Education working side by side with her in the schools. She thought it would help Rocky Hill move more quickly to affect the change that is needed. She then went over the challenges for Rocky Hill. Presently there are two hundred and ninety students in Special Education. She mentioned how it was a challenge to stay on top of the data all of the time. Each time data is taken it is just a snapshot of that point and time. She told the Board members that she wanted to bring their attention to the fact that Special Education is a subgroup for CMT and CAPT performance. The staff has been amazing this year and it is working very hard to keep Rocky Hill in the meets standards category as is the central office. She said that she will have another report next month and at that time she will let them know about the letter that Rocky Hill will get from the State indicating the status. There will be another report given in the fall.
Mr. McMonigle asked Dr. Riggs if over 10% of the students in Rocky Hill are getting some type of Special Education service. Dr. Riggs said this was correct. Mr.
McMonigle referred to the 80% for the PJ data with regards to these students spending time with their peers and he asked Dr. Riggs if 80% is a good number to be shooting for. Dr. Riggs thought it was a good number and she said it was an average number. Mr. McMonigle asked what the State’s recourse would be if Rocky Hill continues to be late with the data or if it continues to be under 80%. Dr. Riggs said the feds will withhold cash. She explained with regards to the State that it would notify the district about technical assistance which the district must pay for because there is no State funding for this assistance. The State would then ask the district to develop a corrective action plan and she said she already did this. With the PJ data, the federal government can order the State and the State can withhold up to 15% of the IDEA funds. She said Rocky Hill will
not fall in this category. Chairman MacDonald asked Dr. Riggs if Rocky Hill was to have better results year after year but if these results were still below the 80% if that would trigger a different evaluation of Rocky Hill. Dr. Riggs said if this was to happen that sooner or later Rocky Hill would go into the needs intervention standard. Chairman MacDonald asked if the 80% is not met if this would trigger something below and Dr. Riggs said it wouldn’t with PJ because Rocky Hill is moving in the right direction. Chairman MacDonald asked Dr. Riggs if there were any tools or resources that she didn’t have that the Board could provide. He was scared about Rocky Hill being at the level that it is at and he was scared about the potential withholding of funds. He asked Dr. Riggs what was missing as far as resources or tools. Dr. Riggs said when she submitted her budget she asked for additional staff because she couldn’t think of any other way to successfully and meaningfully increase the inclusion unless there were enough teachers to support the students in their general education classrooms. She said that she wasn’t an advocate of simply taking students with significant disabilities and putting them in a general education classroom and saying they were included now. She explained that there needs to be meaningful inclusion where everybody benefits. Professional development also will have to be done with general education teachers and Special Education teachers.
14. Auditor’s
Report
Finance Director Turansky said the audit of the town’s
finances was completed recently. This
audit is commissioned by the Town Council and it is an audit of the entire town
and there is no specific audit directed at the Board. He went over four documents that had been
given to the Board members. He read
aloud a portion of a sentence from the auditor’s opinion letter. The auditor had given a clean opinion
regarding the finances for the town. He
said general comments were made but none of the comments he considered to be specific
to the Board or major in terms of anything the Board needs to address in the
near future. He referred the Board to a
listing of grants that it did receive from the federal government which totaled
$606,187. The
$395,597 to the Board and the majority of this was Special Education cluster grants (IDEA grants). The major program that the auditors concentrated on in the federal audit were the Special Education cluster grants. The type of auditor’s report that was issued was unqualified and in that report it was indicated that there were no material weaknesses identified, there were no significant deficiencies identified and there was no non-compliance material to financial statements with regards to internal control over financial reporting. There were no material weaknesses or no significant deficiencies identified with regards to internal controls over the major program. The auditee was qualified as a low risk auditee and there were no reportable instances of non-compliance. On internal control, there were no significant deficiencies. There were no findings or question of cost to be reported for the federal awards. He said there were no problems with financial reporting with regards to the Board’s grants and the same was true of the State grants. This was a clean report. Chairman MacDonald congratulated Finance Director Turansky and he said this was a clean and unqualified opinion. He told Finance Director Turansky
that it was a good report and in respect this was the work he did in making sure the books and records were straight. Chairman MacDonald told Finance Director Turansky that he appreciated his hard work.
15. NCLB Reports
Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato told the Board members that they had a series of reports the State Department of Education issued in compliance with the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act. A target has been set by the Federal legislation that by 2014 100% of all of the students in the United States will have achieved proficiency at a designated level in the areas of reading, mathematics, and writing in Grade 3 through Grade 8 (CMT test) and in Grade 10 (CAPT test). She said the report comes out each year and it states whether or not sufficient progress has been made and this is known as the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). The Board members had the report that was for the 2006-2007 school year. On the CMT for mathematics, the target point was 74% of the students who would be performing at proficiency or above and on the CAPT for mathematics the target point was 69% of the students who would be performing at proficiency or above. On the CMT for reading, the target point was 68% and on the CAPT for reading the target point was 72%. For the 2006-2007 school year there was a reading requirement where 70% of the students needed to be at basic performance level in writing and a graduation rate of 70% or greater for a high school requirement had to be tied in. For the NCLB, any school that had forty or more students classified in certain subgroups then the scores of these particular groups must be desegregated for the purposes of determining AYP. She explained what safe harbor meant. Rocky Hill met AYP in all of the schools for the 2006-2007 school year. Last year with regards to the report that had come to the Board with regards to Grades 3 through 8, the former superintendent had indicated that possibly there would be three situations where subgroups when analyzed would have not met AYP. She explained what these three situations were but she said that none of those groups were identified as not meeting AYP. She referred to another section of the document that was with regards to the definition of highly qualified teachers or not highly qualified teachers. The section showed that for the district Rocky Hill is not at 100% but Rocky Hill had 2.7% of the teachers showing as being not highly qualified. She explained why this was the case. She publicly stated that all of the teachers that Rocky Hill has are highly qualified to teach in the Rocky Hill school district.
Mr. Rivard asked Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato what the State Department of Education considered to be economically disadvantaged. Interim Superintendent Parmelee-Blancato said this would refer to students who either receive free or reduced lunch.
16. Executive
Session
Moved by Catherine Vargas, seconded by Frank Morse, to go into
Executive
Session at 9:09 p.m. to discuss the employment/performance of
administrative personnel.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION
CARRIED
Moved by Frank Morse, seconded by Catherine Vargas, to come out of
Executive Session at 10:27 p.m.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Catherine Vargas, seconded by Rene Rivard, to adjourn the meet
at 10:28 p.m.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION
CARRIED
Respectfully submitted,
Jo-Anne Booth
Recording Secretary
Accepted by: ________________________ Date:___________________________