|
September 30, 2004SALARY SETTLEMENT REPORTS In the August 20, 2004, Management Services Newsletter, MSBA staff noted that only 217 of the state’s 344 districts had returned their “Teacher Salary Settlement Summarization Sheet” for 2003-2005 Agreements to the MSBA office. MSBA thanks the 18 districts who have heeded the request for this information over the last month. Because the data contained in these forms is very helpful to MSBA and other MSBA member districts, we are requesting that – if your district has a ratified 2003-2005 Master Agreement with teachers and is on the following list – you send in the MSBA reporting form as soon as possible. Districts who do not wish to use the electronic reporting form available on the MSBA website (www.mnmsba.org) or who have misplaced the hard copies mailed to them are asked to contact Sue Honetschlager at MSBA for a replacement.
ACGC, ALDEN-CONGER, ASHBY, BADGER, BAGLEY, BEMIDJI, BENSON, BIG LAKE, BLACKDUCK, BLOOMINGTON, BLUE EARTH AREA, BOLD, BROOKLYN CENTER, CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI, CAMPBELL-TINTAH, CARLTON, CENTENNIAL, CHISAGO LAKES AREA, CHISHOLM, CHOKIO-ALBERTA, CLEARBROOK-GONVICK, CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY, COOK COUNTY, CROSBY-IRONTON, DEER RIVER, DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON, DULUTH, ESKO, EVANSVILLE, EVELETH-GILBERT, FARMINGTON, FISHER, FLOODWOOD, FOREST LAKE, FOSSTON, FRIDLEY, FULDA, GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE, GLENVILLE-EMMONS, GRANADA-HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN, GREENWAY, HASTINGS, HERMAN-NORCROSS, HERON LAKE-OKABENA, HILLS-BEAVER CREEK, HUTCHINSON, INTERMEDIATE DIST. #287, JWP, KASSON-MANTORVILLE, KIMBALL, KITTSON CENTRAL, KMS, LACRESCENT-HOKAH, LAKE BENTON, LAKE OF THE WOODS, LAKE SUPERIOR, LAKEVIEW, LEROY-OSTRANDER, LYND, MAHTOMEDI, MENAHGA, MILROY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNEOTA, MOOSE LAKE, MORA, MOUNDS VIEW, MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL, NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN, NEW PRAGUE, NORMAN COUNTY EAST, NORTH BRANCH, NRHEG, OGILVIE, OKLEE, OWATONNA, PARK RAPIDS, PEQUOT LAKES, PERHAM-DENT, PINE POINT, PLUMMER, RENVILLE COUNTY WEST, ROBBINSDALE, ROSEAU, RUSHFORD-PETERSON, SARTELL-ST. STEPHEN, SAUK CENTRE, SAUK RAPIDS-RICE, SOUTH ST. PAUL, SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD, STAPLES-MOTLEY, STILLWATER, ST. CHARLES, ST. CLAIR, ST. CLOUD, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, SWANVILLE, TRACY, TRUMAN, UPSALA, VERNDALE, VIRGINIA, WABASSO, WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY, WASECA, WEST CENTRAL AREA, WILLOW RIVER, WIN-E-MAC, and WRENSHALL.VETERAN’S PREFERENCE ACT During the 2004 Legislative Session, several significant changes were made in Minnesota’s Veteran’s Preference Act, M.S. 43A.11. Most notable were the repeal of M.S. 43A.11, Subds. 3 and 4, which provided additional “points” to the open examination score for qualified veterans applying for civil service positions, and the modification of M.S. 43A.11, Subds. 5, 7, 8, and 9. These modifications give direction to districts on where eligible disabled and nondisabled veteran applicants who meet minimum qualifications for vacant positions shall be listed in applicant pools, as well as the responsibility of the appointing authority (district) to inform unsuccessful members of the finalist pool, who have claimed veteran’s preference, the reasons for their rejection in writing.
“M.S. 43A.11, Subd. 7. [RANKING OF VETERANS.] Applicants who meet the minimum qualifications for a vacant position and claim disabled veteran’s preference shall be listed in the applicant pool ahead of all other applicants. Applicants who meet the minimum qualifications for a vacant position and claim nondisabled veteran’s preference shall be listed in the applicant pool after those claiming disabled veteran’s preference and ahead of nonveterans.”
“M.S. 43A.11, Subd. 9. [REJECTION; EXPLANATION.] If the appointing authority rejects a member of the finalist pool who has claimed veteran’s preference, the appointing authority shall notify the finalist in writing of the reasons for the rejection.”
MSBA/MASA Policy #405, Veteran’s Preference, is being reviewed by legal counsel and will be modified in accordance with the changes made by the 2004 Legislature. MSBA’s Research Bulletin 91-6 regarding Veteran’s Preference, which is regularly used by districts, no longer accommodates the standards found in the 2004 changes.MASTER AGREEMENT ANALYSIS Research has shown that to be successful in negotiations, a district’s administration and school board must plan ahead. By having a knowledgeable third party, another set of eyes so to speak, review and provide a written analysis of your Master Agreement(s) with employees, you are taking the first step toward setting a good foundation for negotiations. MSBA staff will provide a written analysis of any Master Agreement (superintendents, teachers, principals, non-licensed employees) for a fee of $500 for the initial analysis and $300 for each subsequent analysis from a district. If you are planning to have your district’s Master Agreements analyzed prior to bargaining 2005-2007 Agreements, act now by sending them to John Sylvester or Bob Lowe of your MSBA staff.NCLB – 20% SET ASIDE Schools on the AYP list for two years are now required to set aside 20% of their Title I money for school choice transportation. Because the law was considered a gray area, the Minnesota Department of Education had interpreted it to mean schools in the second year of missing AYP needed to set aside 5% of their Title I money. The U.S. Department of Education has informed the state that its past interpretation is wrong. The full 20% must be set aside even if, in one school’s case, only five students opted for school choice and the set-aside money will never be entirely used.
The state is also negotiating with districts that have no school choice option but must still set aside 20% of Title I funds for transportation the second year. State officials said they will be notifying districts about the change in interpretation so they can prepare to set aside more money next year.SCHOOLFINANCES.COM SchoolFinances.com has completed the changes in its Enrollment History System (ENHIST) and its Enrollment Projection System (ENPRO X). The ENHIST report presents the enrollment history for your district. This history is both the fall enrollment and the end-of-year ADM. The report includes two new worksheets that compute the enrollment change in your district attributable to the variation in grade 12 and entering kindergarten and the migration of students in each grade of the district.
The second system, ENPRO X, is its Enrollment Projection System for 2004-2005. This system uses the enrollment history of your district – either fall or end-of-year ADM – and projects enrollment using either cohort survival methodology or numerical survival methodology.
Please contact Jim Sheehan, jim@schoolfinances.com, 952-435-0990, or Ann Thomas, ann@schoolfinances.com, 952-435-0955, to learn more.Return to Management Services Newsletter Home Page
|
|
|
 |
|
