|
School to ask again for 5 percent staff raise
By Cynthia B. Colema n • Staf Writer
HOT SPRINGS - Monday, Bath County School Board members wrestled with numbers, and their consciences, as they worked to cut the proposed school budget by $1,022,790, as directed by county supervisors.
All board members, plus administrators Dr. David Smith, Sue Hirsh, Paul Lancaster, Justin Rider, and school principals, gathered at Valley Elementary School.
Smith told the school board he had asked supervisors what specificallyhad been cut to arrive at the amounts proposed by the county April 7.
"They wouldn't reveal that information," he said, "saying they weren't to have line item control over anything."
Smith presented the board with a table of school-requested amounts versus the county's budget proposals, showing where they differed and by how much, either by a reduction or an increase. Smith asked the board to look particularly at the differences in instruction, administration, transportation, maintenance and food service categories, noting the cuts to the school board's proposed 2008-09 school budget.
Smith said there are two ways to look at the figures, because "as they (supervisors) presented the numbers … they show they added money" to various categories. In transportation, maintenance and food service, supervisors increased amounts adopted for the 2007-08 school budget, while cuts were made in instruction and administration.
The two ways of looking at the figures, he said, are that the school board views the cuts from its proposed 2008-09 budget request while supervisors view the differences between what was adopted last year from what the county proposes the school budget to be for the current fiscal school year. The county views the reductions at $480,927 while the school board tallies them at more than $1 million.
"What we've done is to look at the amount that has to be reduced in administration," Smith said. "We have put some ideas on paper that achieve the target that has to be met."
Because supervisors were not opposed to the school board switching cuts from the various categories, Smith presented the following to achieve the required reductions:
• Administration, attendance and health - Submitted to supervisors $505,717; advertised by supervisors $433,621; no salary increase to cut $14,712; move special education director from administration to instruction category to cut $31,424; postage, reduce by $500; overtime, cut $1,288; census, cut $500; auditing, cut $250; officesupplies, cut by $2,439; dues reduce by $1,000; nurse supplies, cut $600; school nurse contract cut from 220 to 200 days to reduce by $4,380; move secretary from full-time administration to transportation, cut $15,003. Total reduction in this category: $72,096.
School board member Barbara Waldeck expressed concern regarding the reduction without a salary increase. "Nobody gets a raise?" she asked Smith.
Smith said while the table did not show a salary increase, the board was at the "starting point for discussion" in working out the numbers to provide an increase, if they so desired.
"This is what you are looking to show the board of su- pervisors," said Waldeck, pointing to the projected table. "This is what we'd have to cut to come up to what they are asking."
"Yes," Smith said. "In effect, what we need to ask them to do is an amendment to our budget request from (which was submitted at) the end of March."
Waldeck said she was "emotionally struggling" with what was presented. "I'm not sure that in the extreme situation we're in now, that administration … We're completely rescuing administration by transferring it out to transportation and instruction, which means those other two lines are going to have to pay the price. I really feel like we need to think about the message that it sends, that we're protecting our administration line first. I think we need to protect the largest group of employees first."
School board member Joyce Hevener said she didn't think the intent was to protect the administration but to "figure out how to come up with that $72,096 they're taking away from us."
After reviewing the proposed cuts to the administration category, Smith had the board look at the reductions in instruction. They are as follows:
• Instruction - Submitted to supervisors: $7,356,781; advertised by supervisors: $6,668,481; no salary increase, cut of $255,082; move special education director from administration to instruction category, cut $31,424; miscellaneous supplements reduced by $8,720; coaching supplements reduced by $6,190; retiring secretary replaced at Step 10 to cut $16,261; 1.5 MES aides cut and .5 VES aide cut (plus one VES aide moved to kindergarten), for a cut of $47,960; one MES teacher and three VES teachers cut to reduce by $228,036; two BCHS teachers cut to save $103,817; one BCHS aide cut to save $44,919; band materials and equipment level funded at $8,740. Total reduction in this category: $688,300.
Smith explained that most of the staff cuts affect the classroom teacher core academic program. "These do not apply to special ed teachers or aides because those have specific responsibilities required by IAPs," he said.
Waldeck asked if the 5 percent raises could be given across the board if another $100,000 could be cut elsewhere. "Could we give our people 2 percent (salary increases)?"
When she was told that was possible, Waldeck whether a 3 percent raise could be given if $150,000 was cut elsewhere.
Lancaster told Waldeck the more positions cut, the larger a salary increase that could be given as there would be "fewer people to give the raise to."
Waldeck asked how much money it would take to give all school employees the 5 percent raise. Lancaster told her it would take $320,674 to give that raise "across all fivecategories and all employees included … including the steps." He continued, "If you were on step three, at whatever amount, you would be on step four with the 5 percent increase."
Smith said the supervisors' advertised school budget "was a huge reduction to achieve. I was really disappointed that there was not more consideration with our requests for heating oil, propane and electricity increases." Smith said
the price for all three were projected to continue to rise.
"But I am the optimist," said Waldeck. "Come January 1 and the elections over, we pray life returns to semi-normal."
"I certainly hope you are right," Smith said.
Smith reminded the board that reductions in administration and instruction were ideas to reach the supervisors' advertised levels.
"Before I can say yes or no this," Waldeck said, "I've got questions, but they're not questions I can say."
Smith said they could go into closed meeting to discuss Waldeck's concerns, but board chairman Paul Ryder reminded the board that they "could not go into closed meeting to discuss the budget. "We can go into closed meeting to discuss specific personnel." He asked Waldeck if that is what she had in mind, and she said she did.
"I can't look at this (the table of reductions) and envision how I can say yes or no until I can understand where the impact is falling on someone. And the only way to ask that question is to use a name." she said.
The board went into closed session to discuss specific personnel, as allowed by law.
When the board reconvened, discussion continued on categories, possible reductions, and what members would need to show supervisors at the next hearing. Smith said it would need to be "specific items - dollar figures and requests," to move several personnel from one category to another, in order for the supervisors to amend the school board requests.
"I need to talk to (county administrator) Bonnie Johnson for exact wording (on the amended request)," Smith said. He asked the board members to attend the meeting with supervisors.
Hevener said she opposed giving no salary increase. "They are only doing that because they are cutting our budget and we want them to reconsider in these areas."
Smith said that was the message they needed to give to supervisors and encouraged board members to express their concerns during the public hearing.
"I think at a time like this," said Ryder, "when we are cutting positions and programs, it is kind of difficultto give a raise and people lose their jobs. I can't support voting to give a raise when this is happening."
Smith raised another issue. "In terms of programs that are not required but we know they are instructionally sound - our preschool program, at both elementary schools, is not required. And there is a teacher at each school and one aide salary, right now, that go into that program. We are not recommending anything be done with that program because it is so valuable from the child development standpoint. But if we start to look at those things that are not required, then we have to look at all. As we talk about cuts in field trips, athletic trips - these cuts move across all of our programs. They affect everything we do in the schools."
Smith continued, "And this comes at a time when we are under increasing scrutiny from SOL testing and No Child Left Behind and to continue to meet higher standards. And so, at the same time, we are having to make huge cuts in our programs and in our staffing that can help kids achieve at the required levels. So this comes at a time when it works against what we are trying to do. And yes, we realize the county level of funding is in dire straights. Nobody questions that."
Hevener said, "There are other programs in the county and some of those programs might have some cutting. I don't think they need to be cutting the program that is for our children. There are other areas they need to look at to give us back some of what they are taking away ... It's like they are not really looking at the future of Bath County."
In discussing what would be presented to supervisors, Waldeck asked if it would be the specific tables in the administration and instruction categories. "Will we actually have to tell them we're talking about teachers and aides, and whatever, in certain localities - we have to tell them that?"
Smith told her that is what supervisors want to see - what the board would have to do to achieve the cuts.
Heavener also expressed concern about specific details, asking if the cut staff positions could be "just general."
Waldeck made a motion to ask supervisors for additional funding to give school employees a 3 percent raise. "It wouldn't be as much as we'd hope for, but it would be more than this (the budget document) shows."
When Waldeck asked for a second, Hevener said, "If we can't give them 5 (percent) then I'll second for three."
Cleek responded they should ask for a 5-percent raise.
Because of the amended second motion, Ryder asked for a vote on the first motion of 3 percent, which was voted down unanimously. Cleek then made a substitute motion to ask the supervisors for a 5-percent raise, which Dreama Burns seconded.
Ryder told the board, "I'd like to say that I'm not going to vote on this for the simple reason you can't give raises when you're cutting programs and employees."
The vote was four to one, with Ryder dissenting.
| 
