Meeting Notes for May 19, 2025
Financial update, Committee formats, meeting layouts, and more
Members Absent: Simpson
Introduction
Meeting began with AD Zajac introducing student athletes, but the video is interrupted. Evidently, a large portion of the meeting was edited out.
An unknown (to me) woman then discusses additional sports news. Shortly after, we have video but no audio.
As many of you know, I used to livestream these meetings. Vic Pratt was a huge help, both to me personally and to the district, with getting these meetings on video, if not live-streamed. He recently accepted a new position outside of our district, and I’m afraid we’re struggling without him. I will try to work with the district next week on potential solutions for getting a better video feed. If nothing else, I will do it myself, again.
Financial Update - Kelli Glenn
I’ve attached the relevant audio from her update. I will attempted to summarize the highlights below, but the audio clip is worth a listen if you have an interest in our district finances.
First, Ms. Glenn presents our month-by-month revenues and expenditures. Expenditures > revenue, but this trend reverses by summer. As I explain later in the article, education finance is difficult to follow as it does not follow a precise monthly cycle. It would be like if you paid your phone bill for the year in February, then received your paycheck for the month of May in July. It’s wonky, but it can be compared annually.
The other significant item was that Lansing proposed a $10k per pupil funding rate at one point, which would give us an approximately >$1k increase in funding per pupil. This rate increase is tied to an evaluation of our state economy that will transpire soon. Ms. Glenn is not holding her breath for this increase. I’ve talked to a few folks in the community recently who share her skepticism.
McGee: Asks about inconsistencies with the budget, requests information she’s asked for previously, asks why this information hasn’t been readily available (audio below).
Glenn: Responds pointing out the ebb and flow of school finance, and how it’s difficult to provide comparison’s month-to-month.
Trustee Miller then mentions that we have $7.5m left and asks how we make sure this will cover all remaining expenses. Glenn explains that this will be briefed in the June amendment, and that (Ops Director) Josh Mattison has provided her with what projects remain to be funded. Miller then shares his experience with end-of-year budgets, noting that sometimes projects must be cut as funds dwindle, asking if we anticipate this. Glenn responds by assuring him that she is having, or will have, those conversations with principals.
Miller then asks if it’s customary to reserve funds in case of future overruns? Glenn responds saying there are four categories that the board has discretion on. Most of the fund balance is unrestricted, meaning we can spend it however we want. Some is earmarked (like prepaid subscription for software license, for instance). The board can direct Kelli to set aside funds to earmark it, but takes a board resolution. Trustee Davis then gave an example of when, two or three years ago, we reduced summer projects due to budget shortfalls, and said we’ve had a lot of discussions about the capital fund.
Trustee McGee then expressed that “12% is not enough”, stating that she would like to see the forecast month-by-month so we are not completely “relying on taxes”. Glenn notes that while it’s too early to tell, it is possible that we may need to borrow funds to complete pool renovations. Superintendent Hilton then asks if the fund balance was higher, would we be able to avoid the loan? Glenn replies “yes and no”. Fund balance is a positive indicator on how healthy a school district is, but not all of it is cash, some is investment, inventory, etc.
Hilton: So this is typical?
Glenn: Yes
McGee: I think we may need to pull back on expenditures.
Davis: I have a combined seven years on the board, had the same questions (as McGee), am a little more comforted now, and yes we could pull back on expenses, but we need to go by Dr. Green’s recommendation to be board members and not challenge the financial experts.
Lewis: (inaudible, seemed like support for Kelli)
Brooks: It’s not like we haven’t been here before.
Hilton - LISD Bi-Annual Election
Lewis’ comments were inaudible, and no information on these candidates were discernible from the audio or video. TPS Board Nominates for LISD board:
2 year term - Chris Porter
4 year term - Kerry Dylan, Dale Winger (sp?)
LISD Budget Review
Davis agrees with the budget, important to maintain high standard of tech in Lenawee. Audio Issues prevented the rest of her statement from being heard.
Brooks: When we voted the budget down last time, it was a message to start sharing CTE funds.
Martinez: If you keep symbolically voting, it’s no longer symbolic, you’re just being obstinate.
Brooks: We do have that reputation
Lewis: (inaudible)
Martinez: There are certainly problems, we can have a continued discussion
Davis: Appreciates McGee’s comment, from a CTE perspective, do we know what our rate is compared to the county? Asks Hilton to have a regular conversation with tech center about how many students they’re bringing in.
Hilton - Revisit Topic of Board Committee
Hilton suggests getting through June before we make committee changes. Still believes there are pros and cons.
Pro: equal access to information, shifting of our structure for fewer separate meetings, could be a con, no need for committee members to summarize for full board
Con: longer meetings, longer to reach recommendation, more people involved (repetitive discussions), timing.
Hilton then seemed to prefer the existing model of smaller committees. Brooks, Martinez, Lewis, Miller, and McGee then added comments in support of smaller committees, each for different reasons. Trustee Davis pointed out that she trusts her colleagues on the board to ask the right questions in these committees. McGee and Davis then suggested recording/transcription programs that could record smaller committee meetings.
Hilton - Public Comment Response
Hilton is In support of one public comment vs an agenda item only section + public comment section. He presented a format (a feedback loop):
The public comments
The board acknowledges these comments
Hilton (superintendent) researches the comment, if warranted
Hilton then provides an update to the board in the next public meeting
Brooks: Has no idea why we still have two different public comments (agenda only, then non-agenda). We’ve had two instances that were uncomfortable and avoidable.
Miller: Agrees, no one stands up for agenda items.
Brooks: People were told to sit down (in the past) because they weren’t talking about an agenda item, and it was awkward.
McGee: Suggests sharing info with the public so we understand expectations in the open meetings act. We need to reconsider seating arrangements, as they are not conducive to the public. She then asked why are we timing public comment. She suggests eliminating the time limit, and refers to the quote from Mayor Baker about wanting to hear what people say.
Brooks: You can’t address it then (I understood her to mean once someone runs over, it’s too late to do anything about it).
McGee: Sometimes elderly people take a little more time to say things, so we can gently redirect them if needed.
Miller: We could let folks come back after 3 min to finish their thought.
McGee: Also, we need board (info) packets. People can’t see the projector. We should be getting this info to the community.
Hilton: He and Vic Pratt tried to set it up (library meeting arrangement) six different ways, but this was the only one where we could capture the whole board with the camera. It’s challenging because of the room layout.
Davis: The lack of 3-minute limits on public comment caused her to miss flights. She strongly supports public comment, but this meeting is the board’s meeting, and the public is only invited to it. Asks Hilton to consider options. She then gives an anecdote about being held in a meeting until midnight because a member of the public talked well over three minutes (hint: it was Tim Simpson). The purpose of the meeting is to take care of board business.
Miller: states that he doesn’t need this much space (referring to the desks board members sit at). Local school board goes paperless, so why don’t we? Board members could see handouts on their laptop screens so they could face the public.
Hilton: Very open to the idea of e-packets.
Davis: In favor of it, could use laptops, need to get with ADA and consider board members that can’t afford their own device.
Brooks: In Lynns former board, everyone had a laptop. This is a meeting held in public, not with the public. As a citizen, she felt shut out by “Lynn’s board” because they sat behind their laptops.
Davis: That was definitely not the case (responding to Brook’s suggestion that board members were chatting amongst themselves), but agrees it could make the public feel that way.
Brooks: Open format is more open, so we’re not all staring at each other
Lewis: (inaudible, something about 3 minutes helps people condense their thoughts)
Brooks: 3 minutes is the norm
LISD budget vote
Brooks/Miller vote nay.
McGee/Davis/Lewis/Martinez vote aye. Motion passes.
Public Comment
none
Board Comment
None relevant to board business.
My thoughts
Financial Update
Both Kelli (Glenn) and Heather (McGee) had great points in this discussion, which is why I opted to let them say it for themselves in the audio clips. It seemed like there might have been a miscommunication, however. To Kelli’s point, district finances really are hard to track unless it’s annual. Kelli was kind enough last year to let me peak at what she sees. To say it was complex and unpredictable would be an understatement. My hat is off to Ms. Glenn for tackling it each month.
Trustee McGee did not seem to be asking for a month-to-month comparison, however. She seemed to be simply asking why we don’t keep monthly reports handy. Trustee Miller has also mentioned processes from the corporate world that might inform our district processes, and I’ve been a little confused in the past at how antiquated our budget processes are. I am sure no one questions Ms. Glenn’s credibility or expertise.
As heard in the clips below, Trustee McGee’s comments were interrupted multiple times by groans or whispers from Trustee Brooks. This petty behavior evokes a poignant echo of a bygone era for Tecumseh and, as such, must end. We are witnessing a New Tecumseh emerging with new leadership committed to professionalism and collegiality. I urge Trustee Brooks to respectfully allow her colleagues to speak without interruption.
Review of Dr. Green’s Recommendations
I was thoroughly impressed with Mr. Hilton’s proposed feedback format (mentioned earlier). This ties into my recent article (Trust The Process) about how the feedback process should be established and utilized. For matters that cannot be solved at a lower level (like district financial decisions or curriculum), Mr. Hilton’s format for public comment at board meetings is certainly promising.
Trustee Brooks’s shared experience watching the former board “sit behind their laptops” was a helpful perspective. I can say with certainty however, knowing several of them personally, that the former board would not have been “messaging each other” during a meeting. Still, it can be frustrating to talk to people with a laptop in their face. I appreciated the open discussion from the board and Mr. Hilton on this matter, and look forward to potential solutions.
Information sharing is the goal of this blog. As I write this, a FOIA request to district secretary Veronica Moore remains unanswered after several months, well beyond the legal requirement (one week + 10 days) for response. As usual, others have come forward with their own accounts after I mentioned trouble with the process in my last article. It seems our superintendent and board are eager to champion transparency, so I hope this logjam can be resolved soon.
Changes to Educate Tecumseh
Educate Tecumseh now has its own Facebook page to notify folks of new articles without having to subscribe. It also allows for respectful discourse within a smaller, more focused group.
Substack places large “subscribe” boxes with articles by default, so I’ve removed them to create a cleaner feed. As a reminder, you “support my work” by reading the articles and providing feedback.
Finally, on feedback, I appreciate yours. Folks have written to provide context I didn’t have, to suggest counter points, and to just say thanks. I want this blog to be your voice as well as mine, so thank you to those who speak up.