Sean Nuyda called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

Present:                      Father Bob Betz, Carol Anger, Ken D’Alessandro, Joseph Dulka, Chuck Frey, Leslie Henry, Jerry Kromraj, Dan Lentz, Rich Lussier, Sean Nuyda, Don Slomski, Dave Spitzenberger, and Tom Wisniewski

Excused/Absent:        Father Ron Gramza (Sabbatical), Dennis Irwin (Absent), Noreen M. Klopp (Absent)

Guests:                       Teachers, school staff members, members of the school board, members of the school task force, and other members of the parish           

Opening Prayer:         Tom Wisniewski led the group in the reading of the Prayer for Enlightenment provided to all prior to the meeting.

           [Minutes of the Building & Grounds Committee, of the Human Concerns Committee, of the Parish Life Committee, of the Prayer & Worship Committee, and the UPDATE of the Christian Formation Committee had been made available to all council members prior to the date of the meeting.  No discussion pertaining to any of these committee reports was had.]

Sean welcomed everyone to the meeting.  The single item on the agenda refers to the school issue.  He thanked the school task force and the entire school board for the work put forth in the research, study and preparation of their report to the Council.  The report, which all council members received and studied prior to the meeting, included information relating to educational benefits, facilities usage and finances for three possible models for the school along with the pros and cons of each, and tentative enrollment at each.  Tony Stoecker prepared and distributed at the meeting a one-page summary of that report.  Sean indicated that the various models would be discussed, that at this time the TOTs program would not be discussed but would remain “as is,” and that the final decision will be made at the November council meeting.

           The #1 Super Site model would be a single campus, TOTs – 8^th Grade, two classrooms per grade, at the College Avenue site; this model was the first choice of the Educational subcommittee; it was agreed this is for long-term planning.  The #2 model would have the TOTs at its present location and the day school in one location; this was the second choice of the Educational subcommittee.  The #3 model would be a split campus.

           Educational benefits of the models were discussed.  Regarding combined classrooms, or two grades in one room, one of the teachers stated that that was not a suggested method to use not only because of the number of children but because teachers must then be hired because of their ability to teach the two grades in one room.  It was pointed out by others that different schools including some in South Milwaukee have been having double grades in one room for three or four years; this concept has many benefits and some teachers have specifically requested this type of classroom.  Father Bob read a portion of a newspaper article that mentioned that the two City of St. Francis schools would be creating a split campus because of finances.

           Facilities usage was next discussed.  The summary sheet shows the number of classrooms and other available rooms for specialty classes at each site.  With that information at hand, as well as the age and condition of the facilities and the space for future expansion, it points out that the College Avenue site would be the most suitable for a single campus school.

           Discussion regarding enrollment followed.  As stated, those numbers will constantly fluctuate.  The totals for some classes from the two present sites are 25 to 30.  With a split campus, there is more room for growth, but there remains the question of how much growth can be achieved without the necessity of then hiring additional teachers.  It was stated that at a recent school board meeting, the question of whether realistically the enrollment would increase or decrease depending on any particular school model chosen, and the members’ unanimous answer was that it would go down.  The 16^th Avenue site presently has a capacity of approximately 480 children, and the College Avenue site about 425.  A member of the Council asked which model would be more advantageous if it were decided in the future to merge the TOTs program into one of the facilities.  The reply was that a split campus would be the only way until everything was at one site. 

           Father Bob informed the group that the parish’s funding for each student is $2,100; last year’s budget for the parish was $2.4 million, and of that amount $1.4 million was for the school or 53% of the total budget.  The bottom line now is how can the parish save $200,000.

           The financial aspects of the school models were then discussed.  Council members studied the projected budgets for each school model as prepared in the report and rejected the task force’s methods for arrival for a balanced budget as inaccurate.  Using the task force’s methods for arrival at those figures, it would be like money being switched from Peter’s pocket to Paul’s.  There would be no saving of approximately $200,000 to balance the parish budget which, of course, includes the school’s operating expenses.  As was further stated by a council member, the budget must be balanced, no matter what it takes.  This might include the layoff of some teachers.  A tuition increase of 6% or 8% and the acceptance by numbers of agreeable parents was discussed, as well as possible staff elimination and a possible decline in enrollment due to an increase of tuition.

           If a decision is made to go to one site and then to move the TOTs in a year or two later, there would not be enough room to expand the TOTs program.  If the decision is made in favor of a split campus, there would be ample room for expansion of the TOTs.  If the TOTs would move at some point, a vacant building would be created.

           Father Bob indicated that prior to Father Ron’s sabbatical they had talked about which school model would be preferred.  Both agreed on the original split campus model because it would create less waves and both facilities would be used.  However, whichever model is decided upon would be agreeable to both of the pastors as long as it is within the budget.

           It was agreed that the #1 Super Site is the most cost beneficial model; having one site would alleviate building concerns.  One of the council members then stated that everyone is pretty much in agreement as to the site, but then suggested that the matter be turned over to the Finance Committee to establish the amount of the actual deficit.  Tom Wisniewski of the Finance Committee responded by saying financial expectations of the parish are being dealt with; the entire deficit cannot be placed on the school.  Another member said we are attempting to select the model that will result in the best likelihood of avoiding a deficit.  Later in the meeting, and in response to a question of one of the council members, a show of hands of the teachers and other staff members present indicated that, other than the Super Site, they would vote for the #2 school model (day school at a single site with the TOTs remaining at its present location).

           Leslie Henry posed the following:  If the education center at Marquette Avenue is raised and relocated to the 16^th Avenue site, and if the K-8 school at 16^th Avenue is moved to College Avenue, we are not decreasing any of the parish budget.  Why wouldn’t the religious education program be relocated to College Avenue to better utilize that building.  Why would a building be used just one day per week.  Tony Stoecker replied that at least five different teachers use the building on five different days and times, and all materials, supplies and other equipment are set up in order that they can be shared by all those teachers.

           Long term planning was brought up because of a question in the school survey; 82% of the respondents/parents supported the #1 Super Site for long term vision.  It was stated that at this time the long term committee is not suggesting closing any building.

           A member of the school board reminded the Council that parents at the two sites of the school have joined together since the merger and consider themselves as one school.  The school families are working well together, hope the Council will keep in mind everything the parents requested in their survey responses, and hope the parish will stand behind the school board.  Sean assured the teachers, other staff members, and members of the school board and school task force that no questions, comments or other statements were to be construed as undermining their positions regarding the school issue.

           The Council will make its final decision of the model of Divine Mercy School for the 2005-06 school year at the November 18^th council meeting.  That decision will be conveyed immediately to Judy Kalinowski, the school principal, who will, in turn, advise all of the teachers and other staff of the Council’s decision.

           Other Announcements:  

           The next committee meetings will be held on November 4, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the College Avenue site.  The next regular council meeting is scheduled for November 18, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the Divine Mercy Parish Office Building.    

Closing Prayer: 

           Tom Wisniewski led the group in the reading of the closing prayer provided to all prior to the meeting.

Adjournment:  The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

 Respectfully submitted,

 Marcy Gramza, Recording Secretary

 November 9, 2004