Superintendent Replies to Presentation
During a school board work session on May 14, Dr. Rachel Holloway made a presentation about the agriculture program which the board has decided to cut for the 2009-2010 school year, claiming there are not enough funds for the program.
As is customary, the board did not respond to Dr. Holloway, instead allowing Superintendent Jay Brinson to answer later.
Dr. Holloway’s presentation raised about a dozen actual questions while making a number of points. Her presentation, with questions underlined and bold, is below. Following her presentation is Mr. Brinson’s reply, in bold.
Good Evening, I would like to start by thanking the Superintendent for allowing me to discuss the concerns I have about the impending closure of the Agriculture Program with you tonight. That being said, I would like to extend to the Superintendent and to the Board members the opportunity to stop me at anytime for clarifications or to respond to information or questions I will present.
The first question that I would like to ask is:
What is the total operating cost of the Jasper County Agriculture Program?
We have estimated the overall cost of the program at $111,802. This amount includes the instructor’s salary, benefits, and operating costs. The second question I have is:
How much money does the Jasper County Agriculture Program generate for the county in FTE and QBE funds?
Could someone from the board briefly explain what FTE and QBE hds are? Our calculations indicate that the county receives a total of 46,078.52 in QBE funds.
Does anyone know the net dollar amount the school system will save by eliminating the Agriculture program?
By our calculations, the Jasper County Agriculture Program cost to the tax payers of Jasper County is $65,723.48. That is an annual cost of less than $600 per student. Would anyone like to challenge the calculations I have put forth tonight.
This week, in a conversation with Mr. Brinson, he informed me that the school system was facing a 1.7 million dollar deficit. In that conversation he asked me “what programs would I cut to balance the budget”? In other words, he asked me to decide which services I would be willing to deprive the students of Jasper County of in order to balance the budget? After much deliberation over this question, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps we are asking ourselves the wrong question. Perhaps, instead of asking which programs we should be closing, we should be asking if there are ways to balance the budget without reducing vital services offered to the students.
One question that should be answered tonight is; why does the school system have a 1.7 million dollar deficit? Another question that needs to be answered tonight is; have the leaders of our schools been consistent in their attempts to reduce the overall budget in all aspects of the school system? These are some of the questions that I would like for the Board members and the Superintendent to ask themselves tonight.
Referring to the first question, why does the school system have a 1.7 million dollar deficit? I would like to ask that with a declining economy over the past few years, were steps taken by our leaders to ensure the school system was not put into this position? In other words, did our leaders have the foresight to plan accordingly for the eminent reduction in revenue that we are now experiencing? On March 20, 2008, Mr. Brinson was quoted in The Monticello News to say that, “reported revenue projections by the new state budget has been reduced by $65 million, and [he had] lingering concerns over several tax reduction bills still in various stages in the state legislature.”
Therefore, it seems that the superintendent has had budgetary concerns for over a year now. Does that statement sound accurate? On July 22, 2008, the School Board reported a deficit of 1.2 million dollars. However, there was no Reduction in Force policy discussed or implemented at the time. In fact, the School Board reported that the 1.2 million dollar deficit would be covered by Fund equity and by increased state funding. However, only a few months earlier, the superintendent reported the state budget was going to be reduced by $65 million dollars. So, how could the board report in July that the deficit of 1.2 million dollar be made up partially by increased state funds? In addition,
If the board members were willing to tap into the Fund Equity to alleviate a 1.2 million dollar deficit, why can’t you use the Fund Equity, with a balance as of April 21,2009 of $7.3 million dollars, to help with the current 1.7 million dollar deficit?
Why can’t Fund equity, with a balance of $7.3 million dollars, be used to help balance the budget now instead of cutting the Agriculture Program?
At the same board meeting on July 22, 2008, the School Board voted to approve a 1.40 reduction to the millage rate. According to the superintendent, that “would be equivalent to a 5.6 percent revenue reduction.” With the 2009 budget of $16,338,553 in General Funds Revenue, reducing the millage rate of 1.4 equates to a revenue loss of 914,958.97. At that same meeting the, “Board members emphasized the message of ‘meeting the school needs without increasing taxes.”’
With the current budgetary situation, it is apparent that the School Board made an error in their ability to cut local funding by 914,958.97 and continue to meet the needs of the school system. Would the Agriculture program have been cut if the School board had not reduced the millage rate nine months ago? Also, for the last two years the State auditors have commented that the school system has had too much money in Fund Equity. In addition, the State auditors commented that the school system did not meet the 65% minimum expenditure requirement.
This means the school system spent less than 65% of their overall budget. So, the original question was, why does the school system have a 1.7 million dollar deficit? From our research this budget deficit did not happen overnight, in fact the Superintendent and School board have been aware of these issues for some time now. My question to you is, knowing what you know now, would you have made the same financial decisions over again, or do you think you could have made different choices that may have prevented the “FINANCIAL CRISIS” the school system is currently in?
Another question that needs to be answered tonight is have the leaders of our schools been consistent in their attempts to reduce the overall budget in all aspects of the school system? Referring back to the Question fiom Mr. Brinson of how would I balance the budget, I would like to discuss a few opportunities I have noticed that might help answer that question. For example, on September 18, 2008, the School Board approved the repair and repaving of the primary school drive and parking lot for $63,130. How did that $63,130 help to educate our students? Also,
Why does Jasper County have two alternative schools?
In all of the surrounding counties, every school system only has one alternative school to serve the school system. Perhaps eliminating the redundancy of having two alternative schools might help ease the financial burden on the county. Let me ask the Question,
How much does it cost the county to operate each alternative school?
I would venture to say that it cost the county at least $250,000 per year to operate both. Does that estimate sound accurate? Also,
Should the county be closing the Agriculture Program while operating two alternative schools?
By our calculations, the money saved by combining the two alternative schools would offset the operating cost of the Agriculture program. Do you agree that combining the two alternative schools would help balance the budget?
Should we devote more funds to the handful of students in the Alternative schools, rather than the 100+ in the Agriculture Program?
Another opportunity to help balance the budget and keep the Agriculture Program is the ISS position at the High School.
This year the ISS (In School Suspension) room at the High School is staffed with a non-certified staff member whose annual salary is less than $20,000.00 per year. However, it has been reported that next year the ISS room will be staffed by a certified teacher whose salary is $62,540.18.
So, the County can afford, in these economic times, to staff the ISS room with a certified teacher, but can’t afford to keep the Agriculture Program?
The ISS teacher will earn no FTE or QBE money for the county. As a matter of fact, the county will have to pay their entire salary with no assistance from the state. Do these actions seem financially responsible to you? By the way, it has been reported that the new ISS teacher is also the wrestling coach, which brings me to my next point. With the impending economic hardships facing the school system, how did the county have the available funds to start a wrestling program from scratch this year? This includes hiring a wrestling coach and outfitting the entire program. In which, the wrestling mat alone cost the county about $10,000.
So, do you believe that the wrestling team that services less than 25 students for a couple of months out of the year is more valuable to the students of the high school than the Agriculture Program? I ask this question because in actuality, the new wrestling program cost the tax payers of this community more than the Agriculture Program. Let me recap, the Wrestling Coach makes at least $62,540.18 per year, the initial start up equipment cost over $10,000, and the teacher will earn zero FTE or QBE funds for the school. Mr. Brinson, you asked me what programs I would cut to balance the budget, I believe and most of the tax payers in this county would agree with me that the Agriculture Program, which has been active for 80 years, and is more beneficial to the students than the wrestling team.
One final point, in October 2006, Jay Brinson, Kathy Thomason, and Celeste Cannon signed a contract accepting a $270,000 grant from the State of Georgia to purchase “Agricultural Construction -Related Equipment” for the Agriculture Program. In the contract it explicitly states that,
“The local board agrees that if, for any reason, any portion of the specified lab ceases to be used for the purposes established in the grant program request, instructional equipment will be released for transfer to other vocational programs in the state.”
Therefore, if the program closes the state can take all of the equipment that was purchased with the grant monies. Subsequently, there has been much talk by the board members and school officials that the program will only be closed for a year or two at the most.
Well if plan to reopen the program next year, do you think the county will have the $270,000 necessary to purchase new equipment?
In closing, one of the Jasper County Board of Education system’s beliefs is that, “IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE RESOURCES MADE AVAILABLE BY THE COMMUNITY.” I hope that this belief is shared by each board member and each board member feels that it is their civic duty to make fiscal decisions based on this belief. Before I go, I challenge each and every one of you to put the needs of the students first in every decision you make, because it is in these students in which our future rests. Lastly, I encourage the School Board Members to revisit the issue of closing the Agriculture Program.
Thank You,
Dr. Rachel R. Holloway
LT MSC USNR
Dear Dr. Holloway:
The Board asked me to thank you for your presentation to the Board of Education on May 14, 2009, and to provide this response. The Board appreciates your interest in the Agriculture program. Because of the need to reduce expenses in the FY 2010 budget, during time of precipitous decline in revenues, the Board has examined not only the Agriculture program, but all Preschool through Grade 12 programs.
The Board appreciates your suggestions and wants to be responsive to your concerns. Please understand that the Board of Education is responsible for all PK-12 programs, and is tasked to provide programs, as best possible, for all students. The Board is also responsible for expending funds designated for capital projects, only on capital projects, such as paving.
Because the school system’s leadership team was monitoring the school system’s financial status, PK-12 enrollment and class size requirements, the Board was able to approve a plan to address the financial issues prior to teacher contracts being issued.
The analysis of the data resulted in the reduction of 14 teaching positions/programs in the school system. The high school was not exempt from the reductions. One of our CTAE programs had to be closed based on the analysis of the data; data determined the Agriculture program to be the program that will be eliminated for FY 2010.
As economic times improve, the Board of Education’s goal is to restore many of the programs affected.
Sincerely,
Jay L. Brinson
C: Board Members