— by Margie Doyle —
Members of the community spoke of the need and benefits of an adequate classroom to accommodate the growing School Strings Music Program, at the regular Orcas Island School District (OISD) board meeting on Thursday, Aug. 25.
Before nearly a dozen people made their comments, School Business Manager Keith Whitaker announced that the month-end report of July indicated a fund balance of $844,000, which is 9 percent of the budget, and was higher than expected.
Whitaker explained, “Taxes receivable from the county is a big factor in the “extra” dollars we’ve gotten this year,” The amount received is 6 percent more than was forecast.
Superintendent Eric Webb noted many upcoming events associated with the beginning of the school year such as new staff orientation on Aug. 29, a welcome back day for teachers on Aug. 31, and the Back to School kickoff on Sept. 6.
Webb announced that the district has been able to hire back all the teachers who had received notices of non-renewal last spring, and that there will be four new staff members. He introduced the OISD principals: Becky Bell OASIS Principal and Special Education Director, Lorena Stankevich, Elementary Principal, Kyle Freeman, Middle/High School Principal.
Webb described the Phase III bond meetings of Aug. 15 and 16, saying, “It’s the first chance we’ve had to really introduce Phase III and look at what the district has identified as needs and walk through the buildings.”
Two additional Phase III meeting events have been proposed, for Sept. 13, when a general overview of the bond proposal will be given; and for Sept. 21, when there will be small group, in-depth conversations and written feedback. Both meetings will be in the evening, with provisions for childcare.
Whitaker had prepared some additional bond financial information which was distributed to the board members for their input. Board Member Janet Brownell noted that their had been consensus among the groups that met on Aug. 15 and 16, “that they would like to see an $11M bond. We’re looking for feedback at this point.”
Board president Tony Ghazel said, “We’re looking at this to wrap things up; we’re not at that point yet.”
The meeting was then opened for Public Comment, which was dominated by feedback regarding the need for a Music Room.
Jan Ehrlichman said, “As a community we’re all very proud of the quality of the students’ music program and appreciate the time and attention the board has given to the music program. The String Music Program can’t maintain or increase growth in its present classroom.” She then described the dimensions and elements of an adequate music classroom.
Miriam Ziegler, a retired scientist, who attended the public bond meetings earlier this month, said, “The School has made a point of doing things right as we move forward.” She said that the two alternatives suggested for a music room (the ELL modular building behind the District Office building, and the stage of the Old Gym), weren’t adequate or appropriate for a music classroom.
Catherine Pederson, Music Advocacy Group (MAG) president,and founder and director emeritus of the Orcas Choral Society said, that while she appreciates the consideration of two alternatives to the present classroom (which come at a proposed remodeling cost of $680,000), “both possibilities prove inferior to the present space. Whatever we do, we want to be right the first time. The construction of a new music classroom is the way to do this.”
Mary Poletti said she was speaking “As just a person who remembers sitting in the audience when the first strings concert came. Regardless of how painful it was to listen to, and then last year you heard the Senior concert at Orcas Center, the determination of the students to build this program, you could not help but weep.
“I would say these musicians and teachers are not asking you to build a field of dreams because the programs are already here: the students, the teachers, the parents, the support is already here.”
Tom Baldwin, also a retired scientist, thanked the board and administration “for what you do for the island and our kids. The bottom line is, we really do need to have this classroom that’s built for the strings.” He described his youth in San Antonio where he played in the public school music program, and his education earning a BS in Chemistry and a Ph.D in Zoology, and then spent 40 years teaching and doing scientific research.
He continued, “Why is it that I want to make this point so strongly? What other kind of training do we have for kids of that age that teaches the difference between good and excellent?
“They realize that they do something as a group that they cannot do as individuals; they learn to listen, to use all their mental faculties at the utmost level.
“And I’m amazed in my career at how many scientists are musicians.”
Jim Shaffer-Bauck asked if there was a plan for future construction of a music room if it wasn’t handled in the proposed bond. Ghazel answered that, while the district considers the bond, “we’re not prepared to answer that right now.”
Paula Treneer, an institutional investment and finance manager, cautioned the board about making decisions based on today’s low level of interest rates. She suggested the board, “consider the opportunity costs of not having the flexibility to raise money in the future. Every district has a credit rating potential; the more money you tap today, the less you have to tap for future needs.”
Victoria Parker commended the board for its shepherding of the district through difficult times, and noted that the music program had grown steadily during that time. She asked if the “$650,000 earmarked for remodeling the two alternatives could be earmarked toward a new music room if you do not go ahead with the two alternatives?
“If there was strong enough feeling on your and the communities part, would you want to [dedicate] that money towards a new room?”
Ghazel compared the proposition to the money that had been held back for years from the bond that was created to build a new CTE facility. “At the end of the day, the community tells us,” Ghazel said.
Chris Sutton said the purpose of the bond proposal is to first “identify all the needs, to the extras like track and a music building, and find the balance of what the community is willing to pay for.”
Ghazel told the gathering, “We really appreciate what you’re saying to us; we see the benefits of the program, so I think we will try our best to make sure that we have something that is approved.
“If $1.4 million is the price of that building, then we need all the help we can get. If we can’t get the votes for it, we can’t do it.”
Following the bond discussion, the board considered a revision to its gift policy, prompted by questions raised at the June board meeting regarding Viking Booster Club donations. Janet Brownell cautioned about the statement in the policy that “The board will not authorize gifts that are inappropriate that obligate the district in the future.”
Scott Lancaster said that it would help if the administration clarified the language before brining it back for the board’s consideration.
Cathy Ferran advised the board to remember that the policy being discussed is a discretionary policy.
Please note that the discussion regarding the Orcas Island Booster Club donations to the school had absolutely NO impact on obligating the school to any future gifts or expenses. Donations form the Orcas Island Booster Club provided necessary equipment that was required to properly provide for the Athletic programs of the district.
Justin — that whole paragraph you reference needs clarification. First of all, we did not talk about the Boosters at this meeting. Margie added that sentence.
The next sentence almost reads as if I said: “The board will not authorize gifts that are inappropriate that obligate the district in the future.” In fact, it is the new policy that says that. I had concerns vis-a-vis donations such as the donation toward the track. The track will obligate the district in the future. I want to make sure our policy is not in conflict with our actions when gratefully accepting any gift. Sorry again that it seemed as if this was a discussion about the Boosters. It wasn’t.
Thank you Janet for your clarification. I just wanted to make sure that the public knew that the Boosters did not make a gift that required any additional funds. We have made pledges of funds in the past to augment funds for scheduled projects. It would be irresponsible for us to further burden the programs which we already work very hard to support at the most basic level.
Go Vikings!
And to provide clarification from the editor/reporter: The paragraph in question reads (Caps added for clarification):
“Following the bond discussion, the board considered a revision to its gift policy, prompted by questions raised at the June board meeting regarding Viking Booster Club donations.”
The TEXT of the revised policy was considered by the board at the meeting. The REVISION TO THE TEXT WAS PROMPTED BY THE JUNE MEETING — A link was provided to previous reporting of the June meeting, which says:
“Justin Paulsen presented a written accounting of Viking Booster Club funding: $16,504 for the 2015-16 year. While the board members expressed their appreciation for the Booster Club’s efforts to obtain funding and equipment, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD NEEDS TO ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR THE DISTRICT and clarify whether the funds are given to the district, or material goods are give to the district for school use.
“We have the same liability for every program, and so we need to have this discussion for policy clarity,” said Principal Kyle Freeman.
“Paulsen cautioned that, “Many of these donations are in response to an email over the weekend, and getting goods donated right away to the kids. If you create a policy that is cumbersome, it will go away.”
“The board requested that Superintendent Eric Webb draft a written policy by September. OISD Director Janet Brownell agreed to work with Supt. Webb on the policy.”
Perhaps this link should have been made in bold, which I have now done.
Margie Doyle
I will apologize way before hand on my unfounded comment, when I read.. Something like Phase lll for the upcoming asking of funding for more spending at the school for upgrades.
I know I’m out of the loop, by choice, with many other busy activities.
But I want to be clear on what I think I do, or did understand, when we went to the community for the third try for financial aid for our school, I don’t recall the phased philosophy. I do recall a causal discussion of, do this right and it will enable for future asking in the future.
I am assuming the future is here?
This is in no way negative, just jumping on board very late, my bad. I’m very pleased with the schools progress it’s made thus far towards its and our community’s future, in fact, that’s my point; that they are in harmony with each other.