|
Bath supervisors adopt school budget
By Cynthia B. Coleman • Staff writer
WARM SPRINGS - After many meetings and work sessions, the Bath County Board of Supervisors finally met to vote on the advertised 2008-09 school budget. After a heartfelt and thoughtful opening prayer, where he prayed for guidance, supervisor Richard Byrd made a motion to approve the school budget as presented in the public advertisement.
The school budget categories advertised were for: instruction $6,668,481; administration $433,621; transportation, $842,928; maintenance, $1,271,869; food service, $555,485; totaling of $9,772,384.
Supervisor Jon Trees asked for discussion, to which Bryd spoke up quickly. He asked Trees if he could speak of the joint work session with the school board on Wednesday, April 23.
"I was very specific with some of my communications," Byrd said, referring to last week's meeting. "That communication was that if I was to consider a different option to the advertised budget then I needed some specific answers to specific positions restored in that communication. As of right now, I have received no communication from anyone."
Byrd was referring to his request last Wednesday for restoring two teaching positions at Valley Elementary School. He said he had spoken to some school board members about whether there had been a meeting about his requests and was told there had not.
"It leaves me very much behind the eight ball," he said, "to consider any options at this time."
Byrd discussed another consideration. "This board considered all options prior to advertising the school budget," he said, "and in our considerations for this, we had no discussion at all … of doing away with any positions, except for those leaving the system through retirements." The original number of positions to be removed through attrition was three and a half.
Byrd was concern about receiving a proposal from the school system where seven and a half positions "are going to be taken away. And, I do not know where they (the school system) are coming from."
Byrd said he was not a "line item person about a (school) budget," but felt since making a specific request about the two positions at VES he had the right to "ask for line item funding" on his request.
"I've gotten no answer for that," he said. "Therefore, I have no alternative to support the budget as advertised."
Supervisor Stuart Hall said he felt the same way.
Supervisor Carol Hardbarger said she had no objection to $200,000 being added to the budget if that amount was used solely for restoring teaching positions and not used toward raises. "However, I am a little bit concerned when I came in tonight," she said, "that there was not a document to look at that outlined a response to the questions that we raised last week … so there could be some look at where the essential and crucial cuts would have to be made."
Hardbarger spoke of the two different perspectives each board takes on the proposed school budget, the amount of money "asked for and what we are offering." The county made its cuts against the 2007-08 budget while the school board looks at those cuts against what it proposed to the county for 2008-09.
Hardbarger did not feel she could "adequately and realistically make a case" to her constituents for adding $200,000 back into the budget "based on figures that are from the (school board's) proposed budget." The school board's budget differs from last year's budget by more than $600,000.
Supervisor Percy Nowlin's concern was that the county would have to raise the tax rate to 55 cents, which is a 10-cent increase in one year. "That's the most difficultproblem we've got," he said. "We were also looking to see if there were any alternatives in the cuts" he said, "rather than lose any teachers." Nowlin would prefer staff cuts be done through attrition.
After the discussion, Trees asked Byrd if he approved of the discussion and Byrd said he would like to put the motion on the floor. Byrd repeated the original motion, and when Trees asked supervisors to vote he was interrupted by Hardbarger, who made a substitute motion to "approve the budget as advertised, adding $200,000 with the strong recommendation that the money be used, not for raises, but to avoid layoff of key instructional personnel. And that, money be placed back into the instructional category for a total of $6,868,481. All other categories would remain the same."
Trees reminded the board county administrator Bonnie Johnson had presented a balanced budget, and if the school budget figures were used, along with Hardbarger's request for an additional $200,000, it would increase the tax rate about a penny and a half.
Byrd said he could not support the substitute motion. "I think Mrs. Hardbarger hit on the reason in her discussion (earlier). I don't think pertinent information this board requested was ever provided to this board. We'd asked for pertinent information, there's no documentation to us since the Wednesday meeting. I have nothing to justify an increase in any way, shape or form. At present, the only thing I know is what was presented to us on last Wednesday, which requested the options and showed us a possibility - I am going to be very pertinent here - a possibility of something that could be cut or removed from the budget as a proposal.
"We as a board asked for specific information at that work session, and to my knowledge - and I want to reinforce this, and due respect to the school board - I do not know for a fact that the school board has been involved with information to provide any answers to this board. So therefore, there's no way I could support an increase in that, when the question that we asked, which was very direct, has never been directed to the body that needs to answer those questions. There's no way I could support the substitute increase in that category."
While Hardbarger agreed in part with Byrd, she said she had struggled with the issue. "I have thought and thought and thought over the past few days and I really don't want children to suffer. And I'm afraid and very concerned that if the money is not put back into the budget, that on some level we are going to have children who suffer a great deal."
She received phone calls and visits since from people concerned programs would be cut. Her concern was over cutting teaching positions and programs, not over raises, though she does believe teachers do deserve raises.
Byrd agreed, but was frustrated with the lack of response by the school board, its administration and principals, as he expected them to consult with supervisors.
" I'm amazed, I'm amazed right now," Byrd said. "My expectations were that the school board and the principals were going to consult with our questions … But I have nothing to hold onto, I have nothing at all to hold onto ... If my county administrator had not provided me with information that I requested last Wednesday and I had a meeting today, she would be looking for a job on Monday."
"When it comes to a budget of $10 million of taxpayers' money, I expect, I desire, I need and I should be provided the information necessary for a responsible call by this board," Byrd said. "I'm going to use a statement from one of my cohorts: We have the financial, fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of this county, and all people of this county affiliated with this governing body have the same responsibility to provide us with the information so that we can make the decisions that ultimately transpire into how our children are going to be taught and what teachers are going to be available to teach them. Therefore I have a grave concern with not being provided the information to assist me. I still think I'm making the right decision, but still, yet, you know, I'm probably making the wrong one because I know the impact on some of these children and I cannot help them because I did not get my information."
Byrd asked if supervisors would need another meeting to receive more financial information. But the board decided to vote, first on Hardbarger's substituted motion, which was denied 1 to 4, with Hardbarger the only assenting vote. Byrd's original motion passed 4 to 1 with Hardbarger dissenting.
The board will meet Tuesday, May 13 for a regular meeting to approve the proposed county budget. On Thursday, May 22, supervisors will meet to discuss the county budget and hold a public hearing Thursday, June 5. They will vote on the budget the following Thursday, June 12.
| 
