Mike Matousek for PCR-3

07/31/2024

***Possible Property Tax Increase***

Here is another quick update from the July school board meeting.

The Metropolitan Community College (MCC) is expected to pursue November ballot language that would increase property taxes in PCR-3. MCC is required to brief the school board (which they have), but this is not a school district or school board initiative.

According to MCC’s presentation, the average market value of a single-family home in our community is $366,000. MCC’s proposed levy might be $0.1780, which means the average homeowner would pay an additional $123 annually in real estate taxes. Obviously, the actual tax increase would vary based on the value of your real estate and personal property.

Currently, students in our district that attend MCC pay out-of-district tuition that is roughly $237 per credit hour. If voters approve the tax increase in November, students from our district would instead pay in-district tuition that is roughly $124 per credit hour, or nearly 50% less.

In other words, the ‘cost’ is the tax increase, and part of the ‘benefit’ is reduced tuition rates for students that live in our community that would attend MCC.

I’d encourage you to review MCC’s presentation. Again, MCC is required to brief the school board, but otherwise our district is not involved in any way.

Thank you for your time and I would welcome your feedback.

Mike

Send a message to learn more

07/22/2024

My apologies for not posting anything the last few months, but here’s my update:

As a reminder, in April, voters approved Prop C which was intended to invest in staff and school security. In May, the Board received the administration’s recommendations for implementing Prop C and after some adjustments, the Board unanimously approved them during a special meeting in early June. Thank you to Superintendent Jay Harris and his team for their work on this.

During the regular June meeting, the Board unanimously rejected adding the word “Diversity” to the title of the district’s Equity and Inclusion Plan. This issue was raised earlier in the year, so the Board referred the question to the Equity and Inclusion Committee. The committee recommended adding the word despite presumably not having a quorum, no recorded vote, or any certainty if the recommendation was unanimous. It’s my understanding the recommendation wasn’t unanimous because two board members that serve on the committee voted against it.

During the July meeting, the Board rejected a proposed restroom policy by a vote of 1-6. In doing so, the Board rejected a policy that mirrors a position it is defending in court without any public discussion or debate.

I realize this is an uncomfortable and controversial issue, but the Board is supposed to set expectations for students. In this case, there is no board policy, no guidance in the staff or student handbooks, and no memo or email from the administration that provides any direction whatsoever. There is nothing in writing. Instead, the district’s “position” was developed and implemented by one person, it’s unclear how this position is transmitted to staff and students, and the district is being sued because of it.

That’s my update. As always, I’d welcome your feedback and would be happy to answer any questions.

Mike

Send a message to learn more

03/19/2024

Thank you to PCMS Principal Chris Miller and his team for hosting me on 3/15 for board member appreciation week. I really enjoyed my visit and learned quite a bit. I also had a couple of good questions from teachers in the staff lounge, including:

Q: Do I support Prop C?
A: Yes, I’m going to vote for it.

Q: Do I support adding the word “Diversity” to the title of our district Equity and Inclusion Plan?
A: Yes, unless the Superintendent provides the Board with a reason not to do it. I’ve added this item to the April agenda for the Board’s discussion and consideration.

Again, thank you to everyone at PCMS for the hospitality.

Mike

02/24/2024

We had our February school board meeting last night. Here’s my update:

Over the last few months, the Board has been developing a legislative platform. It was approved by a vote of 5-1-1. Here’s why I voted no.

To be clear, I didn’t see much value in a legislative platform from the beginning, and I still don’t. In my opinion, the Board approved what amounts to a ‘copy and paste’ of 25+, somewhat vague, legislative positions that originated from other school districts or organizations. Collectively, these issues could be related to dozens or hundreds of bills pending before the state legislature, and to be candid, I can’t understand or explain many of them.

The Board set no boundaries on how it should be used, which district staff can use it, and rejected basic oversight provisions. In other words, any district employee can individually interpret our legislative platform, and acting in their official capacity as an employee of Platte County schools, represent our entire district before the state legislature or any other public official, and they don’t even have to tell us about it. I think the Board neglected its oversight responsibility.

I offered two amendments, both of which were rejected by the Board, including:

(1) A motion to limit our Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent as the only two district employees, acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Platte County School District, that are authorized to discuss our legislative platform with state lawmakers and other area public officials. Further, it would’ve required the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent to notify the Board of any meetings or communications with a public official within 30 days of the meeting, and a summary of the purpose of the meeting, a list of attendees, and which legislative issues were covered.

(2) A motion to add the following provision to the platform: “We support legislation to clarify state law regarding the use of restrooms in public schools.” As a practical matter, school districts in Missouri are being sued, in part, based on a gray area in state law, so there is a legitimate need for the state legislature to clarify what school districts can do, or not do, regarding restroom use policies in public schools.

The Board could’ve also prioritized the list of issues in a way that reflects the priorities and needs of Platte County. In other words, go through a more deliberate process to pick the top 5 issues and instead of simply giving our Superintendent authority to discuss the platform, give him some direction to proactively pursue the issues that matter most.

On a lighter note, I also moved to amend a separate board policy that was on the agenda (Policy JGF) to ensure that searches of student property are “…carried out in the presence of adult witnesses, except when emergency conditions exist.” The original policy as proposed only required the presence of an adult “when possible.” That motion was approved 7-0.

That’s all for now. I’d welcome your feedback (good, bad, or indifferent) and happy to answer any questions that might come up.

Mike

01/21/2024

The Board met on Thursday night. Here’s my update:

During the December meeting, the Board voted to require agenda items to be submitted by Board members at least 5 days prior to the meeting, instead of the 24-hour standard that had been in place for a long time. The Board agenda typically isn’t provided to members until Friday before the meeting, or later, which means we aren’t able to add anything to the agenda after reviewing it (except for an emergency). I asked if the change was required by state law (it’s not), but that wasn’t known at the time, so I decided to revisit the issue in January.

During the January meeting, I moved to go back to the 24-hour standard, but it was defeated by a vote of 1-6. I think we’ve handicapped the Board’s authority to develop the Board’s agenda for the Board’s meeting, especially because if any member abuses the 24-hour standard (nobody is doing that), all it takes is a simple motion at the beginning of the meeting to strike the late add – one of our first votes every meeting is to adopt the agenda, which is when a motion to strike could be offered if something was added late for nefarious reasons. In other words, it’s entirely mechanically unnecessary to impose the 5-day requirement.

I know a lot of people don't care about process, but I think it's important. That’s all I have for now. Happy to answer any questions.

Mike

12/20/2023

We had the December school board meeting last Thursday. Here’s my update:

The Board unanimously approved ballot language for the April elections. I’ll do my best to describe what voters will ultimately decide, but please do your own research just in case I get something wrong.

The ballot language is a no tax levy increase, Prop C waiver, and levy transfer. Rather than explain the mechanics, if approved, it would effectively provide a pay raise for all district employees and security enhancements. As an offset, we would lower our long-term debt payments which, according to the district, would be recovered by future growth.

In other words, there is NO tax levy increase, but a portion of your local school district taxes would shift from one bucket to another – i.e., from debt payment to operations. Please note the tax levy is separate from assessed valuations, so while your taxes might go up, it would be from the increase in assessed valuations, not from an increase in the levy.

That’s my attempt to explain it. Feel free to correct any mistakes.

Last month, I mentioned the need to clarify board policy in certain areas. While we didn’t change any policies related to that post, we did clarify that the Board has broad authority to address all types of issues. In other words, if you have a suggestion, request, concern, or disagreement with the district, you can always address the Board. Assume the Board has authority to provide whatever resolution you seek unless the Board tells you otherwise.

That’s all I have. Happy to answer questions or clarify anything.

Mike

11/18/2023

Rather than waiting until the December board meeting, here’s a more detailed explanation in support of my proposed policy clarification to Board File JGD, which deals with “Student Suspension and Expulsion.”

The district’s interpretation of existing policy is that (1) it prohibits parents from appealing to the Board any decision related to an out-of-school suspension less than ten days, and (2) the Board does NOT have authority to provide any kind of resolution that might be requested by a parent.

I disagree with that interpretation.

In my opinion, Board policies are generally intended to be permissive. In other words, unless a policy or law implicitly says the Board can’t do something, let us at least initially assume it can. Board policies also give both the Board and the superintendent a lot of authority and discretion, not just one party or the other.

Undeniably, the Board is responsible for developing policy, oversight of the superintendent, and serving as a court of appeals for parents (or any district patron) when a dispute arises with the district. These aren’t merely functions of the Board; they are core responsibilities. When there is disagreement on the interpretation or implementation of any board policy, the Board needs to provide clarification.

Here's the question: As a parent, if your child is suspended out of school for less than 10 days and you’re concerned about the decision, if the superintendent is unable to address your concerns, should you have the right to seek redress with the Board, and does the Board have authority to provide any relief?

Here’s my answer: Yes, to both. Instead of restricting the rights of parents or the Board itself, if any Board member isn’t comfortable with the relief being sought, they can simply vote no. On this specific issue, putting a barrier between a concerned parent and their school board is wrong and unnecessary.

For those concerned about precedent, I share those concerns. However, if this becomes an issue down the road, the board can reconsider the policy and adjust as needed.

For those concerned about second-guessing our administrators, teachers, and staff, I share those concerns. However, an occasional disagreement is human nature and a mathematical certainty.

Either way, the Board will clarify this policy in December. I hope this explanation helps, even if you disagree entirely. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions or feedback.

Mike

11/17/2023

My apologies for not posting an update after the October board meeting. Here’s my update for both October and November:

Last month, we had a 2nd grade student at Compass Elementary petition the Board for a swing set on the school playground. She collected several hundred signatures in support of her petition, signed up to speak at the board meeting, and her presentation was fantastic. It’s hard to imagine another experience on the school board topping that.

In response, I added a budget amendment to the November agenda (November 16) to direct the Superintendent to, in effect, support the petitioner’s request and start the process to get a swing set for Compass Elementary. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 4-2, with board members Shawn Chiddix and Karen Bryant voting in opposition.

Regardless of your position on the issue, this is how government is supposed to work…in this case, a student petitioned the board for something, and the board responded in a timely manner.

I added a proposed policy clarification to the November agenda that deals with out-of-school suspensions, specifically suspensions that are less than 10 days. The district’s interpretation of existing policy is that (1) it prohibits parents from appealing to the Board any decision related to an out-of-school suspension less than ten days, and (2) the board does NOT have authority to provide any kind of resolution that might be requested by a parent.

I disagree with that interpretation. In fact, I would argue the opposite – the Board has a judicial function to act as a court of appeals for parents, staff members, and students that might not be happy with a district decision, especially decisions that involve removing kids from school. That’s not to say the Board should micromanage the district, but sometimes there are anomalies, and the Board can exercise its own prudent judgement.

My proposal would clarify that “Nothing in this section (Policy JGD) shall be construed to (1) restrict the rights of a parent or guardian to appeal the Superintendent’s decision to the Board for a suspension of less than ten days, or (2) restrict the rights of the Board to consider the appeal and render a decision in accordance with federal law, state law, and district policy.” The Board will likely vote on this during the December board meeting.

Conversely, if the Board rejects it, we’ll vote to clarify that our policy doesn’t allow parents to challenge a short-term suspension and that the Board doesn’t have authority to render an alternative decision. Either way, it needs to be clarified.

That’s my update. Happy to answer questions and welcome any feedback.

Mike

09/23/2023

We had our September school board meeting on Thursday. Here’s my report:

The board approved a 2023 property tax rate of $5.0193, which remains unchanged over the last few years (possibly since 2018-2019). In short, your local tax dollars provide the largest chunk of our public education budget, but I don’t remember the exact dollar amount. A special thanks to Wayne Krueger and his team for their efforts on this – even though the rate is unchanged, there’s still a lot of work that goes into it.

Thank you to Dr. White and Dr. Casey for their presentation regarding the Success-Ready Student Network (SRSN), which is described as “…supporting Missouri public school stakeholders in using competency-based mindset to personalize learning in ways that ensure every student has the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they need to be high school, college, career and workplace ready.” Despite a thorough presentation and several great questions from the board, it’s not something I really understand – and that’s probably because I don’t have a background in education.

My only commentary is to say that, if approved by the board in October, it will impact/change our current approach to testing in some way, though I’m not sure (1) exactly how, (2) if the change is good or bad, or (3) what impact/change it would have at the classroom level. Again, it's just complicated stuff but I'm trying to learn more about it.

I’d certainly welcome any feedback/insight from teachers that are familiar with SRSN.

That’s all for now. Happy to discuss anything in more detail, and if you’ve made it this far, thank you for your time and interest!

Mike

08/19/2023

We had our August school board meeting last night. Here’s my update:

The Board approved a $41,000 “compensation and classification” study by a vote of 5-1. Below is the district’s description of the study:

“The employee compensation and classification study will aim to evaluate and define job roles within the school district resulting in legally compliant function-based job descriptions; provide accurate up-to-date market salary analysis; and establish recommendations for appropriate pay scales that ensure internal equity, and provide strategic and sustainable compensation structures for all staff classification to fully meet the needs, budget conditions, and strategic direction of the district. The compensation analysis will guide our work as the district explores additional opportunities to attract, retain, and develop a high quality staff while continuing to be exceptional fiduciaries of the funds received by the district.”

I voted no. Here’s why:

- Something didn’t feel right about it, and I needed more time, but my motion to table until September was unsuccessful. The issue was mentioned to the Board earlier this year, but to the best of my knowledge the details weren’t available until the Board agenda was published earlier this week.

- It’s $41,000 that is not going into classrooms or being used for security enhancements, capital improvements, or maintenance needs. Further, I don’t think this was in the budget we approved in June (I could be wrong) and the district is already going to deficit spend this year, largely because of the opening of Platte Purchase Middle School. In short, we already have a lot of expenses.

- The district has a ton of compensation data and it’s not clear what additional data this study will provide. It might confirm what we already know, tell us we’ve been doing everything wrong the last decade, or something in between. I do like the idea of a third-party review, but the key question in my mind is whether the results and recommendations will be (a) accepted, (b) realistic, and (c) relevant.

That said, I hope this produces the missing piece to our compensation puzzle and I can look back on this as a bad vote. It’s my understanding it will be finished in less than 6 months.

That’s all I have. Happy to answer questions or clarify anything.

Mike

07/22/2023

We had our monthly school board meeting last night. Here’s my update:

A special thanks to board members Tyler Fadler and Amy MacCuish for working together to develop and approve a public participation policy that maintains a direct path for district residents to address the school board. In short, there is a big difference between ‘may’ and ‘shall’ – the Board settled on ‘may’ and that’s the way it should be. While we didn’t get everything we wanted, the newly approved policy closely resembles our original proposal from the June meeting. The only real difference is on paper – I’d argue it’s misleading, but functionally it doesn’t change anything. Finally, thank you to the other board members for reconsidering their earlier position and supporting this version. The final public participation policy was approved by a vote of 6-0.

That’s all for now. Happy to answer any questions. Enjoy your weekend.

Mike

06/16/2023

The school board met last night. Here’s my update:

Led by our Superintendent Jay Harris, YOUR school board is on a path to restrict YOUR ability to address the school board. Currently, if you live in the district, you can add an item to the agenda and address the school board WITHOUT jumping through a bunch of hoops. Our administration is pursuing a policy – one that goes beyond what is required by state law – to change that by requiring people to comply with a checklist BEFORE they can address the school board. Yes, YOUR school district and YOUR school board are trying to make it more difficult for YOU to address YOUR elected officials during a public meeting.

Last night I offered an amendment that would simply “encourage” a person to do certain things before they address the school board, such as meet with the building administration and/or Superintendent, but it shouldn’t be required. Despite the administration’s effort to restrict YOUR access to YOUR public officials – and the school board’s apparent willingness to go along with it – please know that I would be happy to add anything to the agenda on your behalf. At least for now, board members can still add items to the agenda without clearing a bunch of unnecessary hurdles.

To provide some context to the last sentence, we have a school board member that wants to revive the Superintendent’s proposed Policy Committee – the one that went down in flames last year. On paper, this committee would’ve restricted the school board’s ability to propose and pursue policy changes (legal concerns aside), but in practice it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Unfortunately, we have people on the school board that despite serving multiple terms still have no understanding of even the most basic Rules of Procedure.

The school board also voted last night to formally hire Superintendent Jay Harris as our leader for the next school year. I was proud to support him but I’m terribly disappointed by his proposal to restrict YOUR ability to address YOUR elected officials.

That’s all for now. Let me know if you have any questions. Enjoy your weekend.

Mike