ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 APROVED, SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 The Board of Education met in regular session on the above date at 10:00 a.m. The meeting took place at the Dr. Carol S. Parham Administration Building, 2644 Riva Road, Annapolis, Maryland. Members present were Messrs. Carey, Wayson, Leahy, McNelly, Peterson, Rudolph, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Ferguson. Mr. Carey opened the meeting with the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board met in Executive Session on August 4, 2004 to discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials; to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter; to consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation; to conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider matters that relate to the negotiations; and to conduct or discuss an investigative proceeding on actual or possible criminal conduct, as authorized by Sections 10-508(a) (1), (7), (8), (9), and (12) of the Open Meetings Act. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Peterson made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2004. Mr. Wayson seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted (8-0) to approve the minutes of August 4, 2004. ESTABLISH AGENDA ORDER: Ms. Johnson made a motion to add item 4.10 to the agenda to add policy 700.02 for revision of error. Mr. Wayson seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to add item 4.10 to the agenda. CRASC REPORT: Ms. Caitlin Robinson, CRASC 2nd Vice-President presented. She informed the Board that CRASC still awaits the appointment of an advisor for the current school year. The next Executive Board meeting will be on Wednesday, September 8 at Arlington Echo. At that meeting CRASC will lay the groundwork for their activities for the year. Meet the Board Night is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, October 21. Mr. Peterson is dismayed that CRASC has not been assigned an advisor. This is an important function of the school district and he would hope that by the next meeting someone would be assigned to the position. PTA REPORT: Debbie Ritchie, President of the Anne Arundel County Council of PTAs thanked Dr. Smith for inviting PTA to be part of his First Day of School visits. Ms. Ritchie is concerned about the issue of parent/family involvement. It is time for the school system to develop more programs to enhance involvement. She provided the Board with a copy of a purposed Parent Involvement Resolution for their review and asked the Board to develop a similar resolution for adoption prior to the October 6, 2004 Board meeting. The first Parent Leadership Conference will be held October 16. Ms. Ritchie also addressed the PTA’s concerns regarding the budget in relation to the fund balance, funding of programs and salary increases. CAC REPORT: Sam Georgiou, Countywide CAC Chair thanked the Board for providing them with support services necessary to make their efforts meaningful and beneficial to all students, and he named Ms. Teresa Tudor as the new Volunteer Coordinator and Community Liaison. September 23rd is Meet the Board Night and he looks forward to the members’ participation. Mr. Georgiou discussed the upcoming leadership training September 1, 2004 Page 1 of 17

session scheduled for October 16, at which time Dr. Harvey Perkins will present information about the benefits of parent involvement. Hen then expressed his concerns to the Board regarding budget issues, and the recent funding veto by County Executive Janet Owens and the support for that veto by the County Council. He presented a written statement by the Countywide CAC insisting upon the following: “All initiatives which were originally intended to be implemented through this vetoed legislation are funded and enacted as previously determined by the Board of Education.” PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Mary Alice Gehrdes, Annapolis Middle School PTSO president spoke to the Board about the IB Program and the requirement that students have three years of foreign language. She is concerned about the availability of foreign language classes to middle school students. Mr. Carey thanked Dr. Smith and all staff for a very successful opening of schools yesterday. ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL APPOINTMENTS: Dr. Smith made the following recommendations requiring Board approval: Dawn Lucarelli, From Principal, Maryland City Elementary School To Director of Elementary Schools Deneen Houghton, From AP, Southgate Elementary School To Principal Maryland City ES Barbara Zelley, From Resource Teacher, To Acting Coordinator for Gifted/Talented/Advanced K-12 Brenda Care, From Reading Teacher, Marley ES To AP, Southgate Elementary School Dr. Smith then informed the Board of a reassignment that does not require Board approval: Kathleen Panagopulos, From AP, Jacobsville ES To AP Glendale ES Level V Steven Baran, From AP Windsor Farm ES To AP Jacobsville ES. Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Peterson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted (8-0) to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. PERSONNEL: Dr. Smith recommends that the teachers listed be appointed, separated from service or granted leaves of absence. Mr. Wayson made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Ms. Johnson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation.. RATIFICATION OF NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH SECRETARIES/ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY (SAAAAC): On June 30, 2004, the Negotiated Agreement between the Secretaries and Assistants Association (SAAAAC) of Anne Arundel County and the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County expired. The negotiating teams have reached a Tentative Agreement, subject to ratification by SAAAAC and the Board. A representative of SAAAAC expressed to the Board the organization’s disappointment over the pending proposal to award the PPN contract to United Healthcare and advised the Board that SAAAAC does not concern with the change. The Superintendent recommends ratification of the changes to the current Agreement. September 1, 2004 Page 2 of 17

Mr. Peterson thanked the SAAAAC membership for their dedicated work and for being the backbone of the system. Mr. Leahy made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Wayson seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted (8-0) to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS: Ms. Lynn Whittington, Director of Curriculum and Chair of the Graduation Requirement Committee, introduced several members of the committee, Mr. Calendar, Joy Donlon and Sam Georgiou. She informed the Board that a committee was formed to review graduation requirements. A recommendation of 26 credits was proposed. She reviewed with the Board a list of committee members, proposed recommended graduation requirements and student survey. A panel of representatives from the committee presented to the Board a brief review of the process, a review of graduation requirement recommendations, and the results of the student survey. Ms. Whittington also gave a brief overview of programs impacted by the high school graduation requirements. Ms. Ferguson noted that there are three guidance counselors on the committee, and she would like to know if there is a way the committee has gone about setting up some type of counseling to check the status of a student’s credits such as a monitoring system. Ms. Whittington said that the committee works closely with counseling and that is a very important component. Dr. Smith said that credit checks is a critical component and there is still work to be done. Students and parents need to be notified in writing of where they stand. Once this gets established, the system will be revamped and staff will probably bring to the Board a policy to back that up. Mr. Wayson noted that Carroll County is having difficulty with the scheduling of their freshman seminar and it would be helpful if the committee checked with officials there to determine what the difficulties were so that they can be avoided in Anne Arundel County. He would also like to see the additional P.E. credit to focus on general health education. Rick Wiles, Coordinator of Health, Physical Education, and Dance addressed the Board regarding positive changes made in the curriculum to promote lifelong wellness. Mr. Rudolph noted that the credit requirement for P.E. is based on a four period day. What would happen if the system went back to a 7 period day? Dr. Smith said that would have to be looked at. Mr. Rudolph noted that not all students can get high school credits for Algebra and Geometry taken in middle school. What is being done to teach math to students who are on the other end of the spectrum? Joy Donlon, Acting Coordinator of Mathematics informed the Board that such courses are being looked at such as Statistics that is not advanced placement and a Revised Application of Mathematics which would focus on business and consumer mathematics. Mr. Peterson would like to look at national standards in relation to Anne Arundel County. He would also like to see some data on what the impact would be if the P.E. credit requirement was risen to 1.5 and reduce the academic electives to 7.0. Regarding Freshman Seminar he believes it is important that students have a blue September 1, 2004 Page 3 of 17

print and he recommended that everyone read Message From Garcia, by Charles Garcia that lays out a blueprint on how success can be achieved. Ms. Ferguson encouraged the Board to review the course selection book, which provides all information on courses offered, and their credit value. She also asked if Explorations of Geometry is a credited course for math, to which Ms. Donlon responded, an elective credit. Ms. Ferguson would also like to know what the curriculum would be for Freshman Seminar. Ms. Whittington said that the committee is in the process of developing that with the help of a consultant. Some topics that have been discussed are research, critical thinking time management and writing for the SAT. Mr. Rudolph is concerned about these requirements disallowing the opportunity to graduate in three years. Mr. Calendar said that part of state law is that student must take 4 credits after their junior year, however a student may take his or her senior year at a college or university. That is part of state law now. Public Participation: Ms. Terra Snyder spoke to the Board about physical education requirements. Ms. Debbie Ritchie encouraged the Board to look at the finance portion of the curriculum so that students can become proficient at basic math skills so that they can function in an adult world. Mr. Sam Georgiou, CAC, said that the freshman finance options were well received at the recent CAC meeting. Mr. Rudolph would like the graduation requirements to go out to the parents now for comment. He is not prepared to take a vote on this next meeting. Dr. Smith expects a vote will need to be taken by the first meeting in October. Mr. Wayson said that before the Board votes on this matter he would like to see several different scenarios of students acquiring their credits from Freshman to Senior year. AWARD OF CONTRACT: PREFERRED PROVIDER ORGANIZATION HEALTH CARE PLAN: Mr. Carey noted that this is not an award of contract but instead an update of the preferred provider organization health care plan. Dr. Dennis Hirsch, Director of Budget and Finance presented. He told the Board that there was a team of staff that met with representatives of all employee and retiree groups after the last meeting to discuss the procurement process, the specific information about the administrative services organization, and the proposal for implementing such a change. He provided the Board with a background on the consideration of changing health care plans. Mr. Rudolph addressed the matter of saving money in relation to spending more money. He would like a comparison of the benefits provided by United Healthcare vs. Carefirst with a specific doctor. Dr. Hirsch said that the consultant determined that the cost would be similar and staff could take a closer look. Mr. McNelly said that the Board needs to deal with this no later than the next meeting on September 15, 2004. The employees need to know what company will provide them health insurance. He believes that this is more than a matter of saving money. It is the most important benefit that AACPS offers its employees. Just by the September 1, 2004 Page 4 of 17

mere presence of representatives of the system’s bargaining unit representatives at this meeting, tells him that this is an extremely important decision that should not be taken lightly. Mr. Peterson asked that his comments be for the record and that his questions are directed to the Superintendent. Mr. Superintendent, so that there is no misunderstanding, during this period of time, are our employees fully covered and will they be able to see the exact same physicians that they are seeing right now, and as the program goes on as the Board deliberates. No one is being pulled off the rolls…..no one is dying without any help here…basically everything is in place. That is number one. Number two, for the record, what impact, if any, will moving this out have in terms of the administration of the health care program? In other words, when does the crunch come for you as the CEO of this system? Dr. Smith agreed that there should be more direction by the next Board meeting in two weeks. The current contract expires at the end of the calendar year. We will need to have determination on how to proceed so that we can deal with appropriate enrollment and coverage for employees effective January 1. Mr. Carey said that the Board has to make a decision one way or another how it is going to handle this issue and the Board will do so. Mr. Peterson said that was his point entirely. He said the Board needs to deal with the facts, and the facts are that everybody is covered and the Board will probably make a decision at the next Board meeting. Public Participation Charles Jansky, President of the Association of Educational Leader spoke in favor of the current health care that is provided through the negotiated agreement of AEL. He requested a continued contract with CareFirst. Richard Kovelant, Executive Director and legal counsel and of the Association Educational Leaders spoke in favor of maintaining the contract with CareFirst as per the negotiated agreement. Leaving the employee groups out of the process unacceptable. He suggested the next two-week period of time before the next Board meeting would be well spent with TAAAC, AEL, AFSCME and SAAAC in trying to reach a negotiated resolution of this matter. Ms. Sheila Finlayson, President of the Teachers Association said that the negotiated agreement with the Board and TAAAC is explicit. The change will be allowable with TAAAC concurrence. TAAAC has not concurred and will not concur under current circumstances. Ms. Finlayson then detailed the reasons why TAAAC will not concur. She requested a guarantee that no member of TAAAC will be harmed by the change in network. If a change in network will show savings those savings should be returned to the employees’ compensation package, which requires negotiations. TAAAC is not opposed to re-opening the agreement to attempt to come to some solution on this matter. POLICY 2.04/BF – POLICY SETTING POLICY: Laurie Pritchard, Director of Legal Services and Tyson Bennett, Board Counsel presented to the Board. As background, the Board will be converting all of its policies to the NSBA classification system and will be revising all of its policies, beginning with this one. A revised policy 204/BF was brought before the Board on August 4, 2004. Mr. Bennett reviewed with the Board the following changes: Section C. Position, 1. Definition add words “and Federal” and “regulations.” Therefore that section of the policy will read: “Definition: Policy is defined as principles adopted by the Board of Education to guide the development and implementation of educational programs and/or for management of the school system. (State and Federal laws, by laws of the State Board of Education, and federal{guidelines} regulations are, in effect, mandated policies.)” September 1, 2004 Page 5 of 17

The other substantive change Mr. Bennett reviewed is under Policy Development Process, letter g add language so that the section of the policy would read: “The Board will take action on the recommended policy at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting after the Board meeting at which the recommended policy has been presented {as an information item} for discussion {purposes}. {Provisions f and g may be waived without notice if a quorum of the Board is present and five or more members of the Board vote to waive the provisions.} The time lines for introduction, discussion and action may be waived (1) by unanimous vote of all Board members at any regular or special meeting or (2) by an affirmative vote of five or more members at any regular or special meeting following no less than 30 days of public notice. Ms. Johnson noted that the committee has asked Board counsel to changes the “wills” and “shalls” because in legal terms that is very important. She has two other amendments to propose which involve basically cleaning up language. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to reword section C2a) to read as follows: “A three member committee of the Board of Education, including a Chair, will be designated by the Board president, at the first Board meeting in July.” Ms. Johnson’s amendment also included section Section C2c) to read as follows: “At the direction of the Board of Education, the Superintendent and staff will involve, as appropriate, students, parents and members of the community at large in its review of or revisions to a policy item.” Mr. Rudolph would like discussion on who makes up the committee as opposed to simply stating that it is by appointment by the President of the Board. Mr. Carey asked Board Counsel how the By-Laws address this matter. Mr. Bennett said that generally speaking the president appoints subcommittees of the Board. Presidents have been known not to do this in a vacuum. They always discuss it among the members of the Board and ask for volunteers. Mr. Peterson noted that this process give the President the ability to solicit volunteers among the Board members. Ms. Johnson noted that the thirty-day discussion period has passed, it has followed every rule included, and the Board is within this policy should they adopt it. There has been an introduction meeting, a discussion meeting and an action meeting. Ms. Johnson made a motion that the Board amend the revision that was before the Board on August 4 as shown in bold changes and as discussed in paragraphs C2a and C2c. Mr. Peterson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to adopt Ms. Johnson’s amendment to the revised policy on policy setting as presented. Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation to adopt the revised Policy 204/BF: Policy setting as amended. Mr. Leahy seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation with amendment. The motion carries. POLICY REVISION: MINORITY AND SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM POLICY: The Superintendent noted that this is being presented as an information/action item and that he recommends approval today if the Board so pleases. Dr. Dennis Hirsch introduced several members of the committee that worked on the development of the policy. Also on the committee were Board members, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Wayson. Dr. September 1, 2004 Page 6 of 17

Hirsch introduced the revised policy and spoke to the matter of involvement of other groups. This item was discussed at length by the committee and has been addressed by item E4 “Appointing a private sector committee represented by Anne Arundel County majority, minority and small business firms from the county for the purpose of advising the MBE Liaison, and developing community involvement in the program.” Once those individuals are appointed, they will provide the “nuts and bolts” of what will become the regulation. Mr. McNelly asked what the salary range would be of the Liaison person appointed to the position. Mr. Nourse said it could be someone already on staff and if so, it would not cost any additional funds. An outside contractual agency will run the Minority and Small Business Program in terms of data gathering and ensuring all laws and regulations are being followed. That will be a funding component that will require further Board action. Mr. McNelly asked what procurement process would be used to which Mr. Nourse responded, an RFP and he reviewed with the Board the steps involved in the RFP process. Ms. Johnson noted that it has not yet been 30 days that this policy has been out for public comment. Therefore, the only way the Board could approve this policy would be to suspend the rules of the policy on policymaking that was just passed by the Board. Otherwise this would be voted on as an action item on September 15. Mr. Carey noted that there are still unanswered questions and Mr. McNelly would like additional information on the fiscal impact this policy would impose. Mr. Peterson said that the private sector advisory group that was appointed should participate in the process of shaping the RFP. Mr. Wayson agreed that this is what was decided on during the committee meetings. Mr. McNelly is still concerned about what it will cost for the liaison position. Mr. Nourse said he could come back to the Board on September 15 with more specific information. Mr. Carey said the item will be brought back for action at the September 15 meeting. FY 2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND CAPITAL BUDGET: Greg Nourse and Bill Wise, Assistant Superintendents provided the Board with a brief overview of the FY 2006 Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Program. He noted that the Board has a workshop on the issue on September 8 at which time questions can be answered. He also noted that the State has changed its schedule in terms of when the information is due, from October 15 to October 7. The Board date for approval is October 6. He asked that if the Board has any questions or suggestions, they be posed prior to the October 6 Board meeting. Mr. Rudolph asked an for extensive presentation at the workshop of the Realignment of Special Centers and Schools line item which will cost $500,000. He also asked for information on the Tracey’s Elementary School issue. HARMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE: Bill Wise, Assistant Superintendent, presented to the Board details of the design development phase of the Harman Elementary School project. The design refines the size and character of the project with regard to architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems, materials, and other project components and focuses on the design of each internal space. Information was also provided on the schedule, overview, cost estimate, drawings and budget.

September 1, 2004 Page 7 of 17

Mr. David Strang of Grimm and Parker Architects gave a detailed presentation to the Board by powerpoint. Mr. Rudolph asked about the state rated capacity to which Mr. Strang answered 675 students. Discussion followed on the similarities between the Harman project and the Seven Oaks project. Ms. Johnson asked if Harman will have all day Kindergarten, to which Mr. Moran, Capital Projects, responded in the positive. Discussion followed on the presence of Pre-K at the school as well. Mr. Rudolph made a motion to move the item from information to action. Mr. McNelly seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to move the item from information to action. The Superintendent recommended approval of the design documents for Harman Elementary School. Mr. McNelly made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Ms. Johnson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. POLICY 700.02 FOR REVISION OF ERROR: The Superintendent noted that this is to simply correct of typographical error in the policy. Specifically, in item 8A, the last sentence, strike the word “will” and insert the word “may.” Mr. Rudolph made a motion to amend policy 700.02 by correcting a minor typographical error so that it is in line with the Student Handbook. Mr. Wayson seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson said that according to the policy on policymaking that was just passed by the Board, it requires a 30-day comment period for the revision of a policy. Because policy 700.02 requires a minor revision she made a motion to suspend the rules set forth in policy 204 so that the minor correction could be made in policy 700.02 without having to adhere to a 30-day period. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. On a motion duly made a seconded the Board voted (8-0) to approve a suspension of the rules set forth in policy 204. The original motion to amend policy 700.02 is on the floor and properly seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted (8-0) to amend policy 700.02. The motion carries. Mr. Wayson made a motion to move into closed session to discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials, any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals, to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter, to consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation, and to conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider matters that relate to the negotiations, as authorized by Section 10-508(a) (1), (7), (8), and (9) of the Open Meetings Act. Ms. Johnson seconded.

September 1, 2004 Page 8 of 17

AWARD OF CONTRACTS: Gregory Nourse, Assistant Superintendent reviewed with the Board contracts for review. Questions were raised by the Board on Contract #5, Architectural & Professional Engineering Services requirements contract and Contract #6, Health Room Modifications at Southern High School. Deborah Groat, Purchasing Supervisor answered questions by the Board. Ms. Johnson asked about the difference between the PC Labor Room Modifications at Glendale and Davidsonville Elementary Schools. Mr. Nourse will get back to Ms. Johnson. Mr. Peterson said that an upcoming new policy on procurement would hopefully clear up any “grey” areas in the procurement process. He also questions about minority participation. Mr. McNelly is concerned that the contract #5 is limiting the bidding process and involves a lot of money and it is not coming to the Board for approval. It is a review item. He would like to have in front of him the process, the technical scores and how the companies were chosen. Mr. McNelly said that he and Mr. Rudolph have some serious concerns about this particular contract. Perhaps it should be an award of contract as opposed to a review item. A lengthy discussion ensued on the procurement process and the possibility of altering it in the future. The Superintendent advised the Board that staff will obtain all the information on the matter. Staff will look at the history, provide the Board with pertinent documents, including previous lists that have been approved and how they differ. He will provide the Board with background on how these companies were identified, the benefit of short-listing, what it means for staff and purchasing. The main question is whether to proceed with the process of rotation. This matter needs to be deliberated because it could mean a huge difference in the way the system operates, both in facilities and in purchasing. CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT: Dr. William Wise, Assistant Superintendent, presented to the Board the Facilities Planning and Construction Division review of the administration of major projects with a value of $182,428,000. In addition the Maintenance Division continues to administer maintenance and building systemic projects with a value of $13,878,000. The status of each of these projects is set forth in the Construction Status Report. Dr. Wise informed the Board that all relocatables are in place and operational. In addition, a Subdivision Review was provided to the Board. Mr. Rudolph addressed the matter of walls and partitions and the eight schools that still need walls. Mr. Nourse answered his questions in detail. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOJOURNER-DOUGLASS COLLEGE (SDC): Dr. Smith noted that in the Memorandum of Understanding the assignment of any program to the SDC campus requires a public hearing and approval by the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County. It is his intent that a consistent process be established for the assignment of students to a building other than a school building of Anne Arundel County Public Schools. Mr. Peterson said that he does not like to see kids become “political footballs.” The problem he has with the public hearing is, when does this stop in terms of student assignment? Students are assigned in the school system all the time without public hearing. There should be more thought given to public hearings in relation September 1, 2004 Page 9 of 17

to things that are routinely done in any school system for sound educational reasons. The Board does not want to set a precedent on this. Mr. Wayson clarified that any assignment of students to such a program would be students of Anne Arundel County Public Schools and that language should be stated in the memorandum. Mr. McNelly said that this MOU is unique in that it names the Anne Arundel County Board of Education in the deed of the property, not the Anne Arundel County Public School system. He suggested bringing this item to action. He would like to see the Superintendent and the President of the Board of Education sign off on the MOU. His motion would only have to do specifically with AACPS and Sojourner-Douglass. It is not setting a precedent. Mr. Rudolph would want the Board of Regents to sign it as well. Ms. Shilling, Assistant Superintendent, said that staff will revise the signature blocks to reflect that and make Mr. Wayson’s change about clarifying that “students” be clarified as “students of Anne Arundel County.” Mr. Wayson asked about policy for MOUs, authorizing the Superintendent to sign them, to which Ms. Shilling responded that there is no policy but she explained the process. Currently staff members can sign Memorandums of Understanding. Mr. McNelly made a motion to authorize the Superintendent of Schools to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with Sojourner-Douglass College with the changes agreed to by the Board. Mr. Rudolph made a motion to remove the statement from the Description and Goals section and from the Administrative Responsibilities section which states: “The assignment of any program to the SDC campus requires a public hearing…” Mr. Peterson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted (3-5), Messrs Rudolph, Peterson and Carey in favor, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Ferguson, Messrs. Wayson, Leahy and McNelly opposed to Mr. Rudolph’s amendment. The motion fails. Mr. McNelly restated his motion that the Board approve this specific Memorandum of Understanding with no precedents being set. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to approve the motion. The motion carries. REVIEW OF UNIT V AND UNIT VI SALARY SCALES: Mr. Wayson provided the history of the issue. During the budget process, contracts with unions had not been completed. In the budget passed by the County Council and signed by the County Executive, the Board included a 3% COLA or equivalent. During negotiations each bargaining unit had different issues. The Board gave all units the 3% COLA except AEL which received a 2% COLA and step readjustment. Steps would now be 1-35 inclusive and the Board heard the SAAAAC contract approved today. Unit V and Unit VI, at the conclusion of the negotiations with AEL, the Board decided to treat these two units the same as AEL. The Board asked staff what the cost differential would be with a 2% COLA and a step adjustment VS. a 3% COLA. The answer was, with utilizing a 2% COLA and the step adjustments, the Board would save $60,000. The Board voted to adopt the 2% COLA and step adjustments. The Board asked for more details and specific costs. The answer came back that an error in the estimation had occurred. The 2% COLA and the step readjustment would not in fact save $60,000, but cost an additional $150,000. The Board asked for a detailed cost analysis and possible plans to fix this problem because that would put the salaries over budget. The Board set the issue on the agenda for today’s meeting and September 1, 2004 Page 10 of 17

has worked the past month for a possible solution. The County Council decided to urge the County Executive last week to veto the Board’s supplemental budget request and these COLAs are not part of that request. The Board made a decision based on the information it had at the time, but the true figures came to light and the Board is taking actions to resolve the problem. Ms. Johnson hopes that the Board can continue its working relationship with the County Council and the County Executive and proceed into the next budget cycle with improved cooperation. Ms. Johnson made a motion that the Board remove the steps and longevity increases that were in the current agreement for Unit V and Unit VI employees and replace it with a 3% COLA for all employees in Unit V and Unit VI. She received detailed figures from staff, which have shown that if the Board removes the step increases from Unit V and Unit VI, that would net a savings of $378,605. If the Board added an additional 1% COLA to these two units, that besides AEL previously did not receive a 3% COLA where all others did, the Board still has in the budget a $17,300 savings in that category. Mr. McNelly seconded the motion. Mr. Peterson is disappointed in the way the Board was handled by the County Executive and County Council, but not surprised. The Board left items unfunded and then had to go to find money to fund them to the Superintendent’s credit. He is disappointed that the County Council and County Executive did not come to the Board to work out a resolution that would have been the honorable thing to do. He was not aware that there had been a miscalculation in terms of salaries and asked the Superintendent for an explanation. The Superintendent said that budget figures are always an estimate. To be within a range is good and the best information was provided to the Board at the time. Whether it is county government, the community college or AACPS, when you multiply the employees against the salary structure it depends on who is employed at that point in time, taking into consideration years of experience and so forth. There is a degree of swing. Mr. Peterson asked about the total salary package in terms of the miscalculation that the public is enraged about. Ms. Shilling, Assistant Superintendent, said that for those two units the figure is about $158,000 out of $660M. Salaries are $12M. Mr. Peterson said that what the Board should be talking about is student achievement and student performance but instead the issue has come down to the entity that controls the Board’s destiny decided to hold the Board’s “feet to the fire.” Mr. Peterson spoke to the idea of an elected school board which would have it’s own budget authority. Mr. Rudolph asked the total cost of the additional steps for Unit V and Unit VI. Mr. Nourse said that Unit V totaled $287,000 and Unit VI totaled $135,385. Mr. Rudolph said that in the future the Board should receive more information before making decisions. Mr. Leahy’s concern goes to who actually runs and controls the system? For the County Council to pull the rug out from under the Board of Education and in effect take control of a function that is a Board function raises significant serious questions. What Mr. Leahy did not do that first week of July when he was appointed to the Board was bother to stand up and ask the question, “who is talking to whom about this?” He wrongly made the assumption that people would find the proof and would bear it out. He has a challenge and he hopes that Members of the Board, the County Council and County Executive join him. His assumption of all the people he has mentioned is one of grace. God forbid that the Board assumes that the people they are working with are of evil intent or are trying to pull the wool over the public’s eye. It has to stop, right now. Mr. Leahy’s suggestion is that if there is ever a question of this sort, there are other channels and he expects them to be used, but before September 1, 2004 Page 11 of 17

anyone impugns his integrity again, he expects them to call him and he will do the same if he has a question about what they are doing. Mr. McNelly said he did not ask enough detailed questions on how the process is going to work. The people who were caught in the middle deserve an apology. The motion that is on the floor is a good out for now. He also thinks that the Board needs to go back and look at the steps and see how they are applied. He therefore offered an amendment that the Board look at steps and seniority policy in the upcoming budget cycle. Mr. Leahy seconded the motion. Ms. Ferguson said that the issue must be dealt with especially because it continuously comes back each cycle. From a county perspective, a teacher, and a student perspective, there is more talk than there is action. Ms. Ferguson would like to see business be taken care of and followed through. Dr. Smith said that the school system has a laser point focus on academic achievement, effective business operations and effective procedures and an aggressive effort to move the district ahead. He praised the Unit V and Unit VI employees for their diligence and dedication for keeping costs down in construction and for helping to bring about dramatic academic achievement. These individuals have given their lives to their profession and dedication to the service of the community. He recommended additional steps to Unit V and Unit VI for good reasons. It is to the county’s best interest to retain the kind of talent that exists in the school system today. He knows that this has been a difficult issue for the Board to wrestle with, and he takes responsibility for not being clearly alert enough as to information that should have been provided to the Board, if the Board believes that decisions were made in the absence of information. He regrets that and procedures will be set in place to assure that this type of information is provided to the Board in excruciating detail in the future. He values the work of all those involved and is committed to them as employees and individuals. Mr. Carey repeated Mr. McNelly’s motion that has been properly seconded, that the Board look at future salary step increases for Unit V and Unit VI as part of the next budget cycle On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (2-6), Messrs. McNelly and Leahy in favor, all others opposed, to approve the motion. The motion does not carry. Mr. Carey repeated Ms. Johnson’s motion that the Board eliminate steps 30, 32 and 35 from Unit V and steps 32 and 35 from Unit VI from the current agreement and replace it with a 3% COLA for all Unit V and Unit VI employees. On a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted (7-0), Mr. Peterson abstains, to approve Ms. Johnson’s motion. The motion carries. Mr. Rudolph asked about the next step to re-approach the County to get the $3.4M. He believes they are open to the $2.9M request immediately. Dr. Smith said that staff has to re-run the numbers and get the two letters ready for Board signature. Mr. Nourse said that the Board needs to request legislation from the County Executive to be sent to the County Council to approve $3.5M or whatever is worked through to restore the funding. Ms. Johnson echoed Dr. Smith’s applause for the staff in this building and out in the county that do incredible work. She is proud to be part of this county and supports Dr. Smith’s rallying cry to raise the bar in Anne Arundel County.

September 1, 2004 Page 12 of 17

Mr. Peterson wants communication with the County Council so that the Board is certain that Mr. Middlebrooks and Ms. Owens will fulfill this request. COMPREHENSIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN: Annually the Maryland State Department of Education requires each school system in the state to submit a Comprehensive Maintenance Plan to assure the state that schools are being adequately maintained both in the present as well as in the future. The plan concentrates on the changes that have occurred since the last plan and it details the Maintenance Five Year Plan. Mr. Ed Almes, Maintenance Supervisor provided the Board and overview of the plan. Mr. Peterson motioned to move the item from information. Ms. Johnson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to move the item from information to action. The Superintendent recommends approval of the FY 2005 Comprehensive Maintenance Plan. Ms. Johnson motioned to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Wayson seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (8-0) to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. AWARD OF CONTRACT: URBAN LEARNING & LEADERSHIP CENTER: Dr. Smith noted that this involves a potential contract for the Board’s consideration whose principal is an individual who he knows and who used to be an employee of his in Newport News, Virginia. Dr. Smith has had an association with him in the past but does not currently, or since he left Newport News. For that reason, Dr. Smith does not have a recommendation one way or another regarding this proposed contract. Dr. Smith then introduced Ms. Andrea Zamora, Director of Staff Development, who informed the Board of the services that the Urban Learning & Leadership Center would provide. The Center would provide consulting services and professional development to school improvement teams, teachers, school based and central office administrators on an as requested, when requested basis. The Center is the preferred consultant due to their expertise and as a nationally recognized non-profit organization will use their expertise to develop and customize the sessions to the public need. The contract authorizes up to $250,000 to be expended, with approximately $152,300 paid for out of grant funding. Local funds will not exceed $100,000. As a result of broad interest from individual school administrators, the Director of Staff Development has negotiated fixed fees. Mr. McNelly handed out to his fellow Board members copies of Policy 405.06, 405.07 and 408.03. He noted that this is a sole source contract and asked that his remarks be for the record. While we are talking about grants – Title II and Title V grant funds, I would like to remind everybody that that money does not fall out of the sky. It is taxpayers’ hard-earned funds. It is not Monopoly money; it is real money and it comes from my taxes and your taxes. We all pay money for that. I appreciate the Superintendent’s disclosure with reference to his relationship with Dr. Perkins. He asked the Superintendent if he knows one of the other principals, Thelma Spencer. Dr. Smith said that he knows Thelma Spencer and he also knows John Hodge who is part of the organization. Mr. McNelly asked if Thelma Spencer and Dr. Perkins worked with Dr. Smith, to which Dr. Smith replied that Perkins was “his Nancy Mann” and and Thelma Spencer was his guidance person. John Hodge was a classroom teacher who moved into AVID. Mr. McNelly said that he appreciates Dr. Smith’s disclosure and the fact that you are not making a recommendation in reference to this. I only wish that the disclosure, at least from my prospective, had come from the very beginning when we got the agenda item, because it does tend to, at least for the public, put a little bit of a different perspective on a sole source procurement. We talked earlier about procurement and September 1, 2004 Page 13 of 17

everybody in this school system who knows me, knows how I am passionate about procurement. When I first came to the Anne Arundel County Public School system the procurement process, prior to Debbie Groat coming was less than desirable. There were a whole lot of holes that needed to be plugged up. Not only actual holes that needed to be plugged up to make the process better, but perceived issues with vendors that were working with the Anne Arundel County school system. For lack of a better descriptive word, it was referred to by several vendors as a “good ‘ol boy system.” We have come a long way. Sole source and the policies that we have for sole source procurement, and the reason they are so specific and limiting to the system – or anybody in power – the Board of Education – the purchasing officer – the Superintendent of Schools – is to guard against any actual or perceived abuse against the integrity of your procurement system. And that is why you’ve got a different policy in place for sole source procurement. Yes, everybody in this room wants the best for our kids. But because we are dealing with public funds – hard-earned taxpayer money, we’ve got to be careful on how we utilize that procurement system. So from my perspective – when I looked at it – the first thing that I want paid particular attention to this procurement is that is was sole source. And then I went through the letter and there were a couple of things in the second part of the letter, such as “preferred vendor” and that was used a couple of times. In the last part of the second page, Ms. Zamora, you talk about the rates quoted to you by other consultants between $2,500 and $5,000 per day. What we need in sole source procurement is more documentation than what is here. Not picking up a phone and saying, “you know, what do you guys charge and what do you charge?” There are not enough specifics. Mr. Rudolph and I are both concerned about procurement so he asked the question about the local funds and documentation. The other problem that I have with the documentation is that when we are talking about Dr. Perkins and Dr. Spencer and so forth, nowhere did it say that they had worked previously with the Newport News school system – cause the minute it said “Newport News” it would have said to me, “maybe I need to pick up the phone and call the Superintendent and ask the question.” And I know that Dr. Perkins has to be proud of his many years of service with the Newport News school system. He came in September of ’84 and left in July of 2003. Thelma Spencer has to be proud too – she came in September ‘80 and left in December 2000. I have a problem with the firm. Some of the contracts that we put out have a requirement that you have to be in business for five years, is that not correct? Ms. Groat said that some of them do and the reason for that requirement is to assessing longevity, some fiscal responsibility; if it is warranty work. Those are just some examples of why you would do that. Mr. McNelly said doesn’t it also make it easier for us to go back and check references on how well they have done in previous schools and so forth? Ms. Groat said that would not be criteria for setting the limit. Mr. McNelly said, do you get into background checks, to which Ms. Groat responded that you have a requirement for references, which is separate from the amount of time they have been in business. Mr. McNelly said doesn’t it make it easier if they have been around for a while for us to check on their past performance, to which Ms. Groat responded that she does not see the two as the same. Mr. McNelly said that the five year requirement was not included in the contract. Ms. Groat confirmed. Mr. McNelly said that the company was incorporated in February 2000. Ms. Groat said that this was not a request for bid or proposal process. I was a little surprised when I heard a couple of the people I respect tremendously – and I really listened to what you said about their presentation – but I was surprised that last week, in August, this gentleman and his firm was performing a service within our public school system and we haven’t approved the contract yet. I said that to a Board member about 4 days ago – I’ll bet – and the response was “no way.” I guess I’ve just been around too long. I heard the PTA and the CAC looking forward to the presentation of a contract that we have not approved yet. This is sole source and that’s why it is really important that we get it right. And it is not only real important that we get it right but that we get it right because of the disclosure that has been made by the Superintendent. And I thank him for his professional disclosure. You need to know that Dr. Smith. I really September 1, 2004 Page 14 of 17

appreciate it. Do I wish it had happened earlier? Yup. That goes out to the public. If we look at the three policies that apply to this – 405.06 1D says, “All requirements of like items, singly or combined, of $15,000 or more – the use of the public bidding procedure is required.” And then in II, “In emergency cases where, in the opinion the Superintendent or Purchasing Officer, the length of time of the bidding cycle would adversely affect the educational process and bidding may result in a price increase, it is permissible to procure items under an open contract based on a previous bid if the new, required items are identical to the items on the current contract and if the supplier agrees to honor the current contract prices.” We don’t have an open contract with this firm. III. “Competition on all items may be impractical or impossible. The Purchasing Office may for cause choose the option to negotiate procurements with suppliers. These negotiations will be recorded and a copy kept with the purchase order, with justification as to the reason for soliciting competition. This policy shall in no way be used to circumvent the public bid procedure for requirements that are expected to exceed $15,000.” The last sentence is really important to me. Mr. McNelly reinterated his belief that the matter does not meet the criteria for a sole source contract. It is not an emergency and it has not been shown that no other company can do the job. Mr. McNelly sees this as a violation of policy and for that reason will vote against it. Ms. Zamora noted that the Urban Center did not seek out Anne Arundel County Public Schools. She found them, and she had no idea that there was a relationship with Dr. Perkins and the Superintendent. Ms. Zamora said that if Mr. McNelly believes that she has overstepped the procurement process, she apologizes. Ms. Johnson made a motion to move the item from information to action. Mr. Wayson seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (7-1), Mr. McNelly opposed to move the item from information to action. Mr. Rudolph asked Mr. Bennett, Board Counsel if the Board has the authority to approve a sole source contract. Mr. Bennett responded in the affirmative. Mr. Leahy asked Mr. Bennett if it is his understanding that the schools, based on funds they have control over presently could commit and spend some percentage of those funds in anticipation of a review and change of the Board’s policy with regard to this particular provision. Mr. Bennett’s understanding is that the practice is that schools have funds that they can use for staff development and he thinks those funds could be properly applied to a consultant or a speaker, irrespective of this policy. Mr. Rudolph believes that there is nothing in the policy that would prevent the Board from doing anything as far as giving a sole source contract. As a matter of fact, the Board is the only one to give a sole source contract if it is over $15,000. Mr. Peterson asked, for the record, how long Ms. Groat has been the purchasing manager for AACPS, to which Ms. Groat replied, since 1995. Mr. Peterson said, you have seen a lot of these kinds of contracts. This is unique and you have given advice on sole source contracts before, to which Ms. Groat responded yes. It is your professional opinion that this is within the boundaries of the contracting practices of Anne Arundel County, to which Ms. Groat responded yes. And that we would not violate any state, Federal or local procurement laws by granting this contract? Ms. Groat said that the school system is not in violation of any statute that she knows of. Mr. Peterson commented that he appreciates the presentation. I know that Mr. McNelly’s comments are well intentioned and he believes strongly in what he believes in and I respect that. Mr. McNelly went out of his way to say he respected the Superintendent for the disclosure he made, albeit in his opinion, not soon enough. None September 1, 2004 Page 15 of 17

of these comments are in any way meant to denigrate any of the fine work that any of you do. We’re just trying to arrive at a decision here – that’s all we’re trying to do. The Superintendent recommends that the Board of Education award Contract 05SC-19, Consulting Services from Urban Learning and Leadership Center, Inc. in the amount of up to $250,000.000. Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Wayson seconded. Mr. Leahy said that rules are rules and he believes that the policy in place would preclude the Board from taking this action. He then offered an amendment to specify that any funds expended, initially under this program would come from the school’s discretionary or available funds before other funds from other budgets of the Board were expended, to give the policy committee time to conform the policy to what we are all trying to do. Mr. McNelly seconded the motion. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (2-6), Messrs. Leahy and McNelly in favor, all others opposed to approve Mr. Leahy’s motion. The motion does not carry. Mr. Carey asked for a vote on approval of the contract. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (6-2), Messrs Leahy and McNelly opposed, all others in favor. The motion carries. Mr. McNelly excused himself from the next presentation. AWARD OF CONTRACT: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT PARTS: Contractor shall provide Original Equipment Manufacturer’s repair parts for Thomas School Buses on an as-requested, when-requested basis. These parts are not available from any other source as more fully described in the attached Purchase Order and Determination. The Superintendent recommends that the Board of Education award Contract for Thomas OEM replacement parts to American Truck and Bus in the amount of $25,500.00. Ms. Johnson made a motion to move the item from information to action. Mr. Wayson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (7-0), Mr. McNelly away, to move the item from information to action. Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Wayson seconded. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (7-0), Mr. McNelly away, to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Wayson made a motion to move into Closed Session to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter and to consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation as authorized by Section 10-508(a) (7) and (8) of the Open Meetings Act. The meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m

September 1, 2004 Page 16 of 17

September 1, 2004 Page 17 of 17