At its most recent meeting, the Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools board heard from the district chief financial officer about the school bus provider contract and went through a workshop with an outside consultant that provided training on how to perform as board members.
Bus Contract Bids
The MRPS Chief Financial Officer Michael Concessi recommended the district accept a bid from school bus provider Student Transportation of Vermont, the current provider. The costs for Student Transportation remains lower than those from other bidders with a top line cost in FY27 at $573,685.10; that same line was $645,529.46 from First Student, Inc., another bidder. In FY30, the final year of the four-year contract, those numbers are $664,109.10 for Student Transportation of Vermont and $726,133.20 for First Student, Inc.
Concessi noted that contracting with a bus service was a better investment than handling transportation “in house” by owning and maintaining a fleet of school buses.
“This is one part of the country where you want to lease and then get rid of them based on what happens,” he said. “You’ve seen the rust, right? It’s brutal.”
School Board Workshop
Elaine Pinckney, former longtime superintendent of the Champlain Valley School District and now a consultant, led the board in a workshop about what it means to be a school board member, the challenges of the position, and strategies for doing the work. Superintendent Libby Bonesteel introduced her as an “educational god … renowned in Vermont and very veteran and loved.”
Pinckney described the “realities of governance,” which comprise three points: One is elected as an individual but governs as part of a team; one does not have authority as an individual school board member; and one’s success as a school board member is “completely dependent” on the board’s success as a whole.
Pinckney gave a hypothetical example of being approached at the grocery store about school board matters. In this instance, Pinckney instructed the board, one should reply that they can merely bring the matter to the board, nothing more. She added, “It is always important to never let constituents imagine that you as an individual board member are going to make something happen.”
Pinckney noted which responsibilities belong to whom, assigning duties such as vision, mission, superintendent evaluation, and resource allocation to the board. Areas such as program instruction and human resource management, among others, fall to the district administration, such as the superintendent, she said.
Pinckney compared the process of joining a board to hopping onto a carousel already in motion and the importance of trust from new board members in those serving before them. She said matters will be more clear once a new board member has made a circuit around the carousel, that the carousel cannot freeze in motion so everything can be explained to new riders.
“That is not to say that you shouldn’t ask questions,” Pinckney said. “You should. But … I advise that you be comfortable with a little bit of distance: ‘I don’t understand this 100%. But I know that once I get around the wheel, I will.’”
Pinckney also said school board work prioritizes student outcomes. Board priorities, she said, are the first step. Board goals are generated from those priorities. Goals should align with the continuous improvement plan, which, she added, is created by the superintendent, and should be accepted by the board, even if individual members don’t agree with it.
The board’s “aligned goals,” based on the superintendent’s plan, generate “indicators of success,” which require data analysis, also the responsibility of the administration. Next steps include board review and communication to the public.
Board Chair Mia Moore asked if the board should check with the district administration about the continuous improvement plan so as to set aligned goals. Bonesteel said the board still has to approve the continuous improvement plan.
Pinckney advised board members not to challenge the district superintendent’s continuous improvement plans. She said such plans tap multiple sources of data and information, and that it is a big lift on the part of a superintendent.
“So, obviously, if Libby came to you with a continuous improvement plan that didn’t align at all with what you’re thinking, that’s a conversation,” Pinckney said.
She said such plans incorporate state requirements and many other areas, and advised against challenging it.
“In that moment, it wouldn’t be appropriate, it wouldn’t be the best move to say, ‘Oh, well, you know, that’s your continuous improvement plan, but we as a board, collectively, decided to not comply,’” Pinckney told the board. “That would not be helpful,” she added, that instead a “conversation” would be appropriate and that these matters should be brought to the administration’s attention for the following year’s plan.
“It’s collaborative,” she said.
Pinckney then discussed “governance rules of the road,” or governance principles, norms, and protocols. Among others, norms included mutual respect, support, and open communication. Protocols included smooth-running meetings and having yearly board work plans, among others. Some principles were sustained attention on student achievement and wellness, and transparent governance.
The public portion of the meeting then closed when the board moved to enter into executive session to discuss labor relation agreements.
