Home District Info Schools Governing Board

September 19, 2000

A Special Meeting of the Governing Board of the Scottsdale Unified School District, #48, Maricopa County, was called to order at 6:10 PM, at the Scottsdale School District Education Center Board Room, 3811 North 44^th Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

Board Members in attendance were Michael Girand, Clerk; Thomas C. Carey; and Kristy Ryan. Sandra Zapien-Ferrero arrived at 6:12 PM; and Barbara A. Newby arrived at 6:20 PM. Superintendent Barbara F. Erwin; and Compliance Attorney Jack LaSota were also present. A quorum was present.

Mr. Carey moved to convene in Executive Session for:

A. Discussion/consultation with Board Attorneys to consider legal advice concerning an arbitration opinion involving Grievant Barbara Burley, pursuant to A.R.S.§38-431.03(A)(3).

Mrs. Ryan seconded the motion.

The motion was approved with a vote of 4 — 0. President Zapien-Ferrero arrived just before the vote. Mrs. Newby had not yet arrived at the meeting (she arrived later, at 6:20 PM).

At 7:10 PM, Mr. Girand moved to reconvene the Special Meeting. Mrs. Ryan seconded the motion.

The motion was approved with a vote of 5 — 0.

The Board discussed the evaluation given to Grievant Burley. Responding to the questions raised were attorney Jane Reddin, who represented the Administration at the Arbitration Hearing, and attorney Susan Sendrow, who represented Ms. Burley.

Mr. Carey moved to accept the advisory award of the Arbitrator on all four points. Mrs. Newby seconded the motion for discussion purposes.

Discussion ensued regarding the Arbitrator’s award and the evaluation given to Grievant Burley. The Board found portions of the Arbitrator’s award to be "troubling."

Mrs. Newby moved to amend Mr. Carey’s motion to read, "that we not grant the Arbitrator’s advisory award or conclusion, but that instead the evaluation stays in place as rated by the principal and that a cash amount of 50% of what the earning would have been had the "I" not been placed there, be awarded to the teacher."

The amendment died for lack of a second.

A vote was then taken on Mr. Carey’s original motion. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye by Mr. Carey and 4 nays.

Mrs. Ryan thanked Mrs. Newby for trying to find something that was more acceptable.

Mrs. Ryan moved to reject the Arbitrator’s finding, number I., that the "I" will remain in the evaluation, and that, number II, that the Board will give a $1,500 one-time stipend to the Grievant, acknowledging that the Board had concerns about some part of the process.

Mrs. Newby seconded the motion.

Discussion ensued on the specifics of this case.

Mr. Girand moved to table this item.

There was no second to the motion to table the item. The motion fails for lack of a second.

A vote was then taken on Mrs. Ryan’s motion. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye by Mrs. Ryan and 4 nays.

Mr. Girand moved to reject the Arbitrator’s recommendation and let the decision of the principal stand. Mrs. Ryan seconded the motion.

The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays (Mr. Carey and Mrs. Zapien-Ferrero Mrs. Newby voted nay).

At 8:05, President Zapien-Ferrero recessed the Special Meeting for the Regular Governing Board Meeting.

At 10:25 PM, President Zapien-Ferrero reconvened the Special Meeting.

Mrs. Newby moved to reconvene in Executive Session for

1. Discussion/consultation with Board Attorneys to consider the Board’s position and instruct its attorneys regarding that position on pending litigation involving distribution/posting of promotional materials, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4).
2. Discussion/consultation with Board Attorneys to consider the Board’s position, and instruct its attorneys regarding that position on existing litigation involving Dr. Betty Pepper, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4).
3. Discussion/consultation with Board Attorneys to consider the Board’s position, and instruct its attorneys regarding that position on litigation involving Carlos Lastufka, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4).
4. Discussion/consultation with Board Attorneys to consider the Board’s position and instruct its attorneys regarding that position on contemplation of litigation concerning Teacher Grievances in regard to Lunch Duty, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4).