0:00 Welcome, O Canada

19:20 Chief Superintendent Johnson gives a brief response to the provincial budget

24:05 Stakeholder reports: Helen Mowat, (27:50) four parents speaking about the proposed Arabic bilingual program

46:20 Trustee Taylor’s inquiry: “In the context of the legal review described in the Calgary Herald article of September 20, 2011, was a formal request for proposal (RFP) completed prior to retaining the ongoing legal services of Davis LLP or were the services of Davis LLP contracted via “single source” purchasing?” Answer: “The services of Davis LLP were engaged through a sole-source agreement.”

47:55 The Board of Trustees vote against completing an Alberta School Board Association (ASBA) survey. Trustees Bazinet and Taylor in favour, Trustees Lane, Cochrane, King, Ferguson and Bowen-Eyre opposed.

1:08:40 Meeting adjourned

ARTICS is concerned that this is an attempt by the Calgary Board of Education to intimidate and silence ARTICS. We are a small group of concerned citizens, who are not affiliated with, and do not receive funding from, any other organization. It is intimidating to receive a letter from a lawyer warning us that if we continue “to make allegations of a false and misleading nature concerning the actions of CBE Administration or the Board… the CBE will pursue its legal options against ARTICS… without further notice.” Unlike the CBE, we do not have a multi million dollar legal budget.

ARTICS has been successful in generating more public interest in the work of the CBE Board of Trustees. We record and post CBE board meetings, bring to light issues that may be of concern to the public, and ask many, many questions. We understand that it is not comfortable to be under scrutiny, but as publicly elected officials, the trustees are ultimately accountable to the citizens of Calgary.

Public time for December: 8 hours, 15 minutes (or 35.5% of the total board meeting time)

Private time: 15 hours, 1 minute (or 64.5% of the total board meeting time)

This hardly reverses the trend that we have previously highlighted, where trustees are spending more time in private than public during the current school year. August: 100% private, September: 52% private, October: 73% private, November: 77% private, December: 65% private.

Breakdown by meeting:

December 6: Public meeting time was from 5:00pm to 8:39pm (with a 15 minute recess) for 3 hours, 24 minutes of public meeting time. Private time was from 8:45pm to 8:49pm for just 4 minutes in private. In private, the trustees agreed for the Board Chair to sign a private letter on behalf of the Board of Trustees.

December 12 and 13: A private meeting from 9:02am to 5:10pm on December 12 (with a 28 minute recess at lunch), continued on December 13 from 9:05am to 4:30pm (with a 30 minute recess at lunch). That’s a total of 14 hours, 35 minutes in private. It’s interesting to note that Trustees Bazinet and Taylor voted against holding the meeting in private. Although there were no motions to indicate what work was done during these two days, the consultants from Aspen Group International, R. Quinn and L. Dawson were present both days.

December 20: Public meeting time was from 5:03pm to 10:46pm (with three recesses of 21 minutes, 19 minutes and 12 minutes) for 4 hour and 51 minutes. Private time from 10:51pm to 11:13pm, which is 22 minutes. In private, the trustees received another update from the chief superintendent, as well as private correspondence. The Board also approved the policy monitoring process and annual summative evaluation to be used for the chief superintendent.

Once again, we’ll remind you that this list includes only meetings that are posted online and does not include working group meetings, attended by all trustees. Our goal by publishing this information is to shine the light on the volume of work being done by trustees behind closed doors.

CBE Board Meeting February 7, 2012 from ARTICS AssocResponsiveTrusteeCgy on Vimeo.

0:00 Welcome, O Canada

West View school presentation

Trustee Bazinet questions additional funding received based on increased enrolment

The CBE has hired a third-party consultant to conduct this fee review, with the explanation that this is someone who is independent and unbiased. On the other hand, it’s someone who may not know the legal and financial parameters within which the fees exist. It also introduces another middle-man in the chain of communication between the public and decision-makers. Good governance would be for public representatives to communicate directly with their public.

Very short notice was given to invite parents to focus groups which will be, as far as we know, the only time to speak to the issue of fees other than through an online survey which will be coming soon. At 4:40pm on Friday, February 3 an email was sent out to parents who had signed up to be part of “community engagement initiatives” to give them the dates and times of the focus group meetings. There has been nothing posted about this on the CBE website. All sessions will run from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on:

• Feb. 6 Ranchlands School
• Feb. 9 Lord Beaverbrook High School
• Feb. 13 Langevin School
• Feb. 7 Feb. 21 Vincent Massey School

There is no indication of how responses received will eventually influence decisions. We can assume that a independent consultant will communicate completely and clearly all of the opinions and views that are presented by the public. Good governance would state that when decisions are made, an explanation is given as to how the feedback influenced the decision. There will be times when the feedback received is impossible to implement. In that case, the reasoning for not following the will of the public should be clearly communicated.

Ideally, the public would be given all the necessary background information needed in order to make suggestions that are feasible. Limitations should be clearly stated before the conversation, in order to make the feedback as useful as possible, and to help respondents make best use of their brief opportunity. Here is a list of questions that I, as a parent, felt needed to be answered before I could give an informed opinion (and that I have submitted to the consultant).

Legal questions:

1. According to a CBE legal opinion leaked to the Calgary Herald last year, noon-hour supervision fees for bus eligible students who come to school by other means (eg. by car) are of questionable legality. Then Education Minister Dave Hancock was also quoted as saying noon hour fees should not be charged to students who are not within the school’s walking boundaries. Is the CBE absolutely certain that they are legally able to charge this fee to students who are bus-eligible, but who do not take the bus?

2. Fees are charged to pay for services for my child. It would be a form of taxation if the CBE were charging certain parents more in order to pay for services provided to other students. Would this not be illegal under the School Act? Non-bused students are paying $295 in noon-hour fees, while bus-eligible students are being provided with $176.30 through the CBE Resource Allocation Method (RAM). It then stands to reason that parents who are paying $295 are subsidizing the noon hour supervision of other students. Is the CBE absolutely certain that they are legally able to charge more to parents than what they are providing through RAM?

General questions:

1. If transportation and noon hour supervision are done on a purely cost recovery basis, how did they end up having the exact same fee of $295? Please provide a detailed breakdown of revenues and expenses to show how the CBE arrived at the number $295 for each service.

2. Are there any other options for determining which families can receive waivers other than receiving Social Services assistance or getting the Alberta Works Child Health Benefit?

3. Why is there a family maximum for Instructional Supplies and Materials Fees of $264 per year, but no maximum for noon hour supervision or transportation fees?

Questions regarding transportation fees:

1. How many K-12 CBE students are on charter buses? How many of those students go to alternative programs? How many are on special needs buses?

2. How many CBE students take the Kindergarten noon-hour charter busses? How many of those students go to alternative programs?

3. How many conditional riders take charter buses?

4. How many students take city transit to school? Approximately what percentage of those transit users submit their transit passes in order to obtain their rebate?

5. In 2010-11, the CBE received the following transportation funding from the province. (Alberta Education provided these numbers to me.) Could you provide the numbers used to calculate this year’s funding (ie. the # of expected passengers, special needs students and additional funding)?

No. of Expected Eligible Passengers  33,448 x $538.00   $17,995,024.00
Special Needs Students                2502 x $2857.00   $ 7,148,214.00
Additional Funding                                      $ 1,991,049.00
TOTAL ALLOCATION FOR 2010/2011                          $27,134,287.00

6. How many charter busses does the CBE contract for designated schools? For schools of choice? For special needs students?

7. What is the average cost of a charter bus per year?

8. How much more in fees revenue did the CBE receive due to eliminating the family maximum?

9. How much would the CBE save by only providing one way transportation to Kindergarten students?

10. How much would the CBE save by having junior high students take transit unless they are part of a middle school or are special needs?

11. The CBE has recently been “single-tracking” schools, thus reducing the number of neighbourhood schools offering a regular program and increasing the need for students in older neighbourhoods to be transported to their designated school. Are there any estimates as to how this strategy has increased transportation costs?

Questions regarding noon hour supervision fees:

1. In the CBE Resource Allocation Method (RAM) document, it states that all Gr. 1-6 bus eligible (not just bused) students receive $176.30 for noon hour supervision. Why are bus eligible students who are driven to school also being charged the $295 fee even though they are already getting funding for this through RAM?

2. Gr. 7-9 bus eligible students receive $86.35 in RAM, for noon hour supervision, but non-bus eligible students do not pay any noon hour supervision fee even when they eat at school. Why is there no junior high noon supervision fee charged?

3. How much will the CBE spend in total on elementary noon hour supervision this year? How much of that is provided through RAM and how much through collected fees?

4. Because they are unionized, noon hour supervision staff spend many more hours in the school performing other duties other than just noon hour supervision. Does the budgeted amount for noon hour supervision include the total cost of these employees, or just the time that they spend performing noon hour supervision? (ie. Are parents paying fees for only noon hour supervision, or also for other non-related school duties?)

5. Are principals required to use all noon-hour supervision revenues, through RAM and fees, for noon-hour supervision, or can these revenues be used for other purposes? How does the CBE monitor this?

1. Are these policies significantly different from the old policies?

From what trustees have said in the board room and at a recent CAPSC meeting, the answer is no. The existing policies have just been refined and clarified. Several trustees have said that the policies should now be easily understood by the public, although they are quick to point out that the concept of policy governance is not well understood by the public.

2. Will there be more or less financial oversight under these new policies?

The Board of Trustees felt that they were “micromanaging” by approving transportation fees, spring staffing (i.e. budget allocation to schools) and expenditures over $500,000, so these three items were removed in the new policy. Otherwise, the financial policies have not changed much. If you were satisfied with the level of financial oversight under the previous policies, you will not have a problem with the new financial policies. However, policies are only as good as their implementation. While there is a possibility that there could be less financial oversight, there is also the possibility that there could be more.

3. Why is the Board of Trustees approving expenditures under $500,000 but not over $500,000? Isn’t that backward?

Under the previous policies, trustees only approved expenditures over $500,000. Now, trustees will no longer be approving any individual expenditures. Instead, trustees will be informed of “significant transfers of money within funds or other changes substantially affecting the organization’s financial condition.” It is not specified whether the trustees will be informed before the purchase or contract is final, or afterwards, but the trustees have delegated approval of all expenditures to the Chief Superintendent. We also do not have a definition of what “significant” means in the context of a billion dollar budget.

4. How will the public be involved in setting school fees if the trustees no longer approve them?

Under the previous policies, the only fees that the trustees approved were transportation fees. All other fees were set by the CBE administration, and the trustees were informed of what they were. Now, it is completely up to the administration to involve the public in determining acceptable fees. The policies do state that the Chief Superintendent will “reasonably include people in decisions that affect them.” As fees are a source of revenue, they will also be included in the annual budget, which by law, must be approved by trustees. However, transportation contracts are usually sent out before budget approval, so it would be unlikely that any changes would be made to  transportation fees during the budget deliberations.

5. Are the trustees approving anything anymore?

Trustees will continue to approve that which is required by the School Act, such as the budget and school/program closures. Trustees have also retained the authority to name schools and other CBE facilities. All other approvals have been delegated to the Chief Superintendent.

6. So, what exactly do trustees do?

In GC-3, the new Board Job Description, it describes what the trustees are supposed to do. They are to advocate for the CBE and students, engage stakeholders, write and monitor policies, appoint an external auditor, approve collective agreements, name schools, and do anything else required by law.

7. How will trustees hold CBE administration accountable for their decisions?

The trustees monitor their policies according to a schedule, which has not yet been released. The Chief Superintendent interprets the policies and decides what data she will use to show whether she is in compliance with the policies. Essentially, the administration determines themselves whether or not they are in compliance, and the trustees then vote on whether or not they agree. When ARTICS asked what happens should the Chief Superintendent be found in non-compliance, the response was that the trustees would hold the Chief Superintendent accountable through monitoring the policies. The complete question and response can be found on our video of the meeting at 45:20 minutes.

8. Who wrote these policies?

As the writing of the policies was all done in private, in-camera meetings of the Board of Trustees, we do not know. Although it is the work of trustees, there have been many, many references to following the advice of their U.S. consultants (the same who helped them develop their policies in 2005), their legal counsel and the Chief Superintendent and other CBE administrators. There were no public consultations or engagement initiatives done prior to or during the writing of the policies.

9. How much did the trustees pay these U.S. consultants to help them clarify their policies?

The trustees have met with their consultants on three occasions, each time for two days. In response to a public question on January 24, Chair Cochrane stated that they had received and paid two invoices to the Aspen Group for a total of $48,174.45. It is unclear as to whether or not this is for two of the sessions or all three sessions. The trustees have said that they will continue to work with their consultants in implementing the policies.

10. Why were these policies written in private? Aren’t the trustees legally required to hold meetings in public unless it is in the best interest of the public to do so in private?

The trustees are permitted to go in-camera when a majority of trustees votes that it is in the public interest to go in private. Trustees Bowen-Eyre, Ferguson, King, Cochrane and Lane voted that it was in the public interest to do this work in private. Trustees Bazinet and Taylor voted against. It is common practice for preliminary/brainstorming work to be done privately. However, since the trustees were planning on doing all three readings and approval of the policies in a single meeting, and seemed surprised when Trustee Taylor brought forward an amendment at the public meeting, it is safe to say that the trustees went far beyond preliminary deliberations in their private sessions.

CBE Board Meeting January 24, 2012 from ARTICS AssocResponsiveTrusteeCgy on Vimeo.

0:36 Welcome & O Canada

3:10 Lord Beaverbrook school presentation

43:30 Public questions. Question from Jennifer Andrews: Can you please tell us what the cost of having the Aspen Group consult, as well as the cost of any other outside groups required, in formulating the plan to adopt the new governance policies planned to be passed in tonight’s meeting. Answer: There is just the Aspen Group, the cost to date has been $48,174.45.

Question from Larry Leach: Why did the Board of Trustees feel that it was “in the public interest” to review and revise all of their public policies in private, in-camera meetings? Answer: We are allowed to meet in private when we choose.

Question from Trina Hurdman: Several trustees have publicly stated that the chief superintendent will be held accountable by the Board of Trustees, should she fail to be in compliance with board policies. What is the process that the trustees will use to hold the chief superintendent accountable for non-compliance, and why has it not been written into policy? Answer: We monitor policies.

46:45 Stakeholder report by Helen Mowat

51:04 Stakeholder report by Julie Miller

54:35 Stakeholder report by Jennifer Andrews

57:45 Stakeholder report by Leslie Newton, president of the Calgary Association of Parent and School Councils

1:00:05 Trustee Inquiry from Trustee Taylor: Does the Calgary Board of Education have a whistleblower policy in place? If not, does administration anticipate putting a whistleblower policy in place and, in the absence of a whistleblower policy, what are the implications for current or former employees who disclose proprietary information to trustees or other parties? Answer: A policy was circulated for feedback, and the policy will be introduced after a neutral third party is found.

1:03:35 Recommendation for consideration of closure regarding the Mandarin bilingual program at Langevin school. The board voted unanimously to proceed with consideration.

1:35:40 Recommendation for consideration of closure regarding Roland Michener school. The board voted unanimously in favour.

2:17:00 Annual monitoring of EL-12 Asset Protection.

2:52:52 Adoption of revised governance policies. The board voted unanimously in favour.

Untitled from ARTICS AssocResponsiveTrusteeCgy on Vimeo.

0:00 Welcome, O Canada, trustee and chief superintendent reports

12:35 Start of the policy revision discussion

25:05 Board development session: Internal Assessment System

1:04:50 Questions from trustees on the board development session

1:29:34 Discussion as to whether or not trustees should debate 1st reading of the policies

1:33:30 Debate to adopt the Coherent Governance model. Unanimously approved.

1:35:13 Debate to approve 1st reading of the new policies. Unanimously approved.

1:57:49 Debate to approve 2nd reading. In favour, Trustees Bowen-Eyre, Ferguson, King, Cochrane and Lane. Opposed, Trustee Taylor.

2:10:33 Debate to approve 3rd reading. In favour, Trustees Bowen-Eyre, Ferguson, King, Cochrane and Lane. Opposed, Trustee Taylor. (Because the vote was not unanimous, the Board could not proceed with the motion to give final approval to the new policies.)

2:13:10 Debate to approve the Glossary of Terms. Unanimously approved.

The meetings of a board shall be held in public and no person shall be excluded from them except for improper conduct.

Instead, they used subsection (3) of Section 70 which states:

When a majority of the trustees present at a meeting of the board are of the opinion that it is in the public interest to hold the meeting or a part of the meeting in private for the purpose of considering any matter, the board may be resolution exclude any person from the meeting.

This subsection is used very frequently by the CBE Board of Trustees. Unfortunately, they are not required to ever state why they are of the opinion that it is in the public interest that certain matters are best kept private. So, who decided that it was in the best interest of the public to be kept in the dark? At the start of each of these policy development “public” board meetings, the trustees voted whether or not to go in-camera. Only trustees Taylor and Bazinet voted against doing this important work in private. They were handily opposed by the other five trustees who felt that it was in the best interest of the public to create a whole new set of policies without the public ever knowing what was discussed, let alone have the opportunity to provide any input. (And no, there were no previous community consultations conducted before this process started or anytime throughout the process.)

In the new policies themselves, the Board (of Trustees) Job Description states that:

The Board will initiate and maintain constructive two-way dialogue with students, employees, parents and the citizens as a means to engage all stakeholders in the work of the Board and the organization.

That sounds great, if it ever happens. It obviously wasn’t done for this important work of the Board. I am sure that many students, employees, parents and citizens would have loved to have had input on a new set of policies, just as the public has appreciated having multiple means to provide input into the new provincial Education Act. Too bad for us. The Board of Trustees has decided that it’s not in our best interest.

Public time for November: 2 hours, 54 minutes (or 22.5% of the total board meeting time)

Private time: 10 hours (or 77.5% of the total board meeting time)

We’re beginning to see a very worrying trend. August: 100% private, September: 52% private, October: 73% private, November: 77% private.

Breakdown by meeting:

November 1: Public meeting time was from 5:00pm to 6:30pm for 1 hour, 30 minutes of public meeting time. Private time from 6:48pm to 7:24pm for 36 minutes in private. In private, the trustees accepted the minutes of the planning committee meetings, reappointed members of the audit committee and approved a Risk Assessment report.

November 14 and 15: A private meeting from 9:18am to approx. 11:18am on November 14, continued on November 15 from 9:26am to 11:00am. That’s a total of 3 hours, 34 minutes in private. The Board spent this time drafting a letter of response to ARTICS that was to be read into the public letter at the public meeting on November 15.

November 15: Public meeting time was from 5:00pm to 6:24pm for 1 hour and 24 minutes. Private time from 6:37pm to 7:15pm, which is 38 minutes. In private, the trustees reviewed the draft minutes of the audit committee and reviewed correspondence.

November 29 private meeting: Time: 3:00pm to 8:12pm. Total private meeting time: 5 hours, 12 minutes. Topics discussed include: draft financial statements and audit report, request of a report by management on how they will comply with the auditor’s recommendations (due Mar 31, 2012), the ASBA Representative Report, the fact the CBE doesn’t want ASBA to advocate by sending a letter to MLAs, approval of a human resources master services agreement, purchase of Oracle software, and the declaration of Montgomery school as “permanently surplus”. There were two very interesting decisions: the CBE doesn’t not want ASBA to rejoin CSBA or support them financially; and the sale of the old Education Centre at 515 Mcleod Trail. The Board of Trustees agreed to the terms in the letter of intent provided by the buyer, which doesn’t give any indication of negotiations.

Once again, we’ll remind you that this list includes only meetings that are posted online and does not include working group meetings, attended by all trustees. Our goal by publishing this information is to shine the light on the volume of work being done by trustees behind closed doors.