exempts no one (even the highly effective teacher) from professional development. Lastly, the “needs improvement" rating has not been applied liberally; it has only been applied to those 3 or 4 faculty members who did not entirely “engage students in the strategy and monitor the extent to which it produces desired outcomes’ — the definition of “Effective”. The minutes do not show that the faculty's chief complaint is that they did not receive a photocopy of the ‘observation in their hands during the post-observation. The minutes do not convey that | explained that the faculty did in fact receive the actual observation to review with me and that | could not photocopy the evaluation packet because the last portion had to be done in the post-observation. “Please note that the DCSTEM necessitate three to five appendices to be utilized at once to count as one evaluation. See attached. | explained in the meeting that | couldAwould not provide an incomplete evaluation to the faculty. 'd like the minutes to show that the Chair recommended | have a secretary photocopy the evaluations, to which | respectfully disagreed due to the sensitive nature of the evaluation and the lack of any funds for such an Executive secretary. | also clarified in the meeting that all faculty have been asked if they wanted a photocopy and explained that | would provide them with one. Many have not asked for a photocopy, and those who have received ‘one shortly thereafter. Finally, | will be either Mr. Dorn or the Executive Director in the official minutes not Nick. Sincerely, Nick From: Alice Burch [mailto:ali Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:45 AM 1olas Dorn; RBernstein_FORW Subject: Personnel Committee Minutes 10-16-14 Dear Nick and Reid, Please review this draft for accuracy. Thank you, Alice Burch, Secretary Doctors Charter School Board H 305-318-9578 This transmission is public record