Laserfiche WebLink
181 <br /> <br />$1,250,000 OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL <br />OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987, DATED MAY <br />1, 1987 AND MATURING ON JULY 15 IN EACH OF THE YEARS 2003 TO <br />2007, BOTH INCLUSIVE; FIXING THE FORM, DENOMINATION AND <br />CERTAIN OTHER FEATURES OF SUCH BONDS; APPROUING THE SALE OF <br />SUCH BONDS; APPOINTING A REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT FOR SUCH <br />BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF AN AND APPOINTING AN ESCROW <br />AGENT; DESIGNATING THE REFUNDED BONDS FOR REDEMPTION; AND <br />OTHERWISE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS AND THE <br />REFUNDING AND REDEMPTION OF THE REFUNDED BONDS" was approved <br />by the following vote. Ayes: Ms. Daugherty, Rev. Edwards, <br />MSo Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Mro Vandever. <br /> <br />LUNCHEON MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever welcomed new School Board member Robert <br />Bloodgood. <br /> <br /> Ms. Artie Dimberg, Administrator for Charlottesville <br />Schools, presented an outline of the report and <br />recommendations of the Charlottesville Science Education Task <br />Force and introduced Dr. Preston Prather, Chair of the Task <br />Force. <br /> <br /> Dr. Prather stated that a $730,000 grant had been <br />awarded by the National Science Foundation to pay tuition for <br />science teachers in Albemarle County and Charlottesville to <br />be trained and sent back into their respective schools as <br />leaders in scienCe education. Dr. Prather explained that <br />the program, operated through the Curry School of Education <br />at the University of Virginia, would be offered for a week in <br />August, one evening a week throughout the school year, and <br />during the summer of 1993. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever requested that the School Board bring <br />Council up to date on the status of Channel I. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rauzelle Smith, Chairman of the School Board, <br />explained that a survey had been conducted regarding Channel <br />I, a 12 minute news program with 2 minutes of advertisements, <br />and mixed feelings had been expressed with regard to its <br />value in the schools. Mr. Smith stated that 84% of the <br />teachers supported continuing the program. A public hearing <br />had been held by the School Board and no support was <br />expressed for continuing channel I, with the major opposition <br />expressed about the advertisements and the incompleteness of <br />the news broadcasts. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dimberg stated that she thought teachers supported <br />Channel I because they felt it provided a common experience <br />for students which would encourage further discussion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Frances Johnson, School Board member, stated that <br />from what she has seen and has heard about Channel I she does <br />not think it has educational value and thought it needed to <br />be studied further. <br /> <br /> Ms. Linda Seaman, School Board member, stated that she <br />felt the issue of Channel I raised the question of how <br />current events should be programmatically introduced in the <br />schools. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Dunbar, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, <br />noted that Students are not required to watch Channel I. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty stated that while she felt students should <br />be involved, she was concerned about taking a poll of <br />students to develop school curriculum. Ms. Daugherty also <br />expressed concern about the advertising during Channel I. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bloodgood stated that he'felt certain activities in <br />schools may~go beyond having "educational value" but would be <br />beneficial to students. <br /> <br /> <br />