September 18, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

This meeting included the annual report from outside financial auditor, Ms. Denise Keene.  That report was followed by our district Finance Director’s (Ms. Jan Johnston) presentation of our Fiscal Year (FY15) 2015 “working” budget.  The school district’s fiscal year starts in July and ends June of the next calendar year.  While these reports are prepared by different groups and presented separately, they obviously need to be viewed together.  This is because the audit shows “where we were” last year financially, and the working budget shows “where we think we’ll be” financially this school year.  While I voted “yes” to accept both reports, this vote comes with additional concerns that you need to be aware of.  The outside audit was a 71 page document.  The working budget was a 41 page document called the “MUNIS” report that is a standardized budget spreadsheet that most or all Kentucky public school systems use.  The administration, in concert with our Board chair, currently posts the meeting agenda about 48 hours prior to the School Board meeting (whether you agree with this lead time is another issue!).  I would argue that reading both documents, being briefed by their authors, and drawing conclusions from them requires a little more time.  I become smarter on our district budget priorities every month that I serve as your Board member.  While I voted to accept this working budget, I disagree with some of its spending priorities.  Any opportunity for changes in compensation or workforce size occurs before contracts are signed with our district employees, and not in September.  After just a few days with these documents here are a couple of things I noted:

 

(1)    One item on the auditor’s report is called the “Ending Net Position”, which is a snapshot of the district’s fund balances on the last day of the fiscal year.  One of Ms. Keene’s reports calculates this position without consideration for property (school buildings, land, vehicles, etc.) and debt (bonds payable).  The net position rises and falls daily as bills are paid and revenue comes in, but if taken at the same point year over year it is one indicator of our district’s financial health trend over the long term.  Our net position at the end of the 2010 school year was $8.751 million.  Over the last year (or portion) of Superintendent Yost’s service in FY11 it fell dramatically (by $2.689 million).  This drop was reversed in the first year of Mr. Strong’s tenure, and our position increased $.030 million (or $30,000).  The downward slide continued the following year (fiscal ’13), as it fell by another $.645 million. Ms. Keene’s report this year showed that our “Ending Net Position” fell again, by another $1.511 million.  This left a value of $3.936 million at the end of June 2014.  You don’t need a degree in accounting to realize that this is not sustainable.  Federal funding cuts (sequestration), and flat local revenue (property values and no significant school tax increase) are not helping matters.  These two sources of revenue, however, would only fix about 1/3 of our dilemma.  The Board and administration have to address the spending side of the equation in order to operate within the funding that our county, state, and nation can provide.  The good news is that one of our long term bond debts was refinanced.  After this transaction was complete (and the “normal” annual bond payments made), our long term debt on bonds fell by $2.073 million (to $29.634 million).

 

Pendleton County School District “Ending Net Position”

 

June 30th of Fiscal Year	Change in Ending Net Position	Ending Net Position
2010		8.751 million
2011	↓ 2.689 million	6.062 million
2012	↑.030 million	6.092 million
2013	↓.645 million	5.447 million
2014	↓1.511 million	3.936 million

 

 

(2)    Administrative costs have risen faster than other district spending.  The current administration has addressed spending concerns in many areas of our district budget over the last 36 months.  Instruction, debt servicing, student transportation, building maintenance, and food service costs have been held to modest rises (or even reductions).  The largest of these expenses is instruction.  Three years ago teacher payroll ($7.01 million) was just over 39% of our general fund income.  For the school year we just started, the budgeted commitment is to be about the same portion of our spending ($7.42 million or 40%).  This 3 year trend is not the case for school administration and support.  The MUNIS accounting software names these employee groups: student support, staff support, district admin, school admin, and business support. Three years ago these 5 groups total payroll was $1,838,000.  This was just over 10% of our district’s general fund budget.  By June 2015 this annual total is projected to be $2,841,000.  This comprises 15% of our general fund for this school year (fiscal 2015).  That 5% shift in priorities means a million more dollars per year (compared to 2011)!  This salary total doesn’t include benefits, and the benefits are quite robust in one of these groups.  Whether or not that extra admin and support spending is the best “bang for your buck” in producing better prepared graduates will be in my thoughts as the working budget becomes the final spending report over the next 9 months.

September 2, 2014 Tax Hearing & Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

The 2014 school tax rate meeting was one of the more baffling meetings of my term to date.  The minutes of the meeting will shed some light on the mechanics of the votes.  The thoughts and positions of board members are more difficult (or in some cases impossible) to understand.  I obtained a DVD of the proceedings attempting to make sense of it.  Mr. Strong made the recommendation to the Board for the “compensating” rate plus an additional 4% added to this rate for real estate and tangible property.  There was support for this position on the Board, but I disagreed.  I have written and discussed with voters at length in previous months about our district spending priorities (administration positions, vehicles, etc.) and their impact on our annual budget.  While our district could definitely use additional revenue, I have become convinced that these additional dollars will be subject to the same flawed outcome.  Our district budget problems are caused by spending, and these problems are many times larger than the $155,000 that this additional revenue would provide.  This tax rate motion (compensating +%4) failed 2-3.  Because of my support for additional programs in the last school year (pre-school program, new reading and math curriculum), I felt compelled to support a lower level of rate increase.  I made a motion for compensating +2%.  This motion was seconded, but also failed 2-3.  A third proposal was made for the compensating rate with no other increase.  This passed 5-0.  The real struggle will occur over the next 9 months as we address our spending priorities and attempt to “balance” our working budget.

 

August 21, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Tonight, we honored 14 retirees at our board meeting- Leonard Whalen, Gary Grigson, Virginia Wright, Cheryl Hughes, Kim Simpson, Karen Delaney, Lynn Orr, Debra Holland, Brenda Kells, and Charles Elliot.  Retirees honored but not present were Barbara Hutchinson, Bill Ockerman, Helen Haywood, and Joel Nahari.  I thank each of you for your commitment to the Pendleton County Schools and most importantly to the impact you have had on each of our students’ lives.  I have a plaque next to my desk and it reads “A teacher takes a hand, opens a mind, and touches a heart.”  While it says teacher, it could easily read a bus driver, a custodian, or a counselor.  My point is that each of you has been instrumental in the emotional and educational development of our students.  Thank you for getting our students home safely at night.  Thank you for cleaning up after them at school and for preventing others from getting sick.  Thank you for making an impact on our students that you will never see or even know.

July 31, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

In the spring of 2014, the Kentucky Center for School Safety performed a safety assessment at Pendleton County High School and Southern Elementary.  Mr. Chad Simms (PCHS Principal) and Mr. Mark Hegyi (Southern Elementary Assistant Principal) presented the safety assessment findings to our board.  They addressed issues such as building access, tobacco use, bullying, consistent rule enforcement, and active supervision.  In fact, if everyone in our district participated in the active supervision of our students, issues such as bullying, smoking, etc. would become less of an issue.  Active supervision, similar to active parenting, is the key to addressing many of the issues plaguing our schools.  When a parent is present, children are less likely to get into trouble.  The same holds true for active supervision at the schools.  Thanks to both of them for sharing their insight.

 

July 14, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Director of Special Programs Pam Harper addressed our board tonight regarding the Pre-school program.  Because of the elimination of mid-day transportation, our Pre-school student enrollment has gone down significantly.  This elimination of mid-day transportation was done to save the district $50,000.  To get enrollment back up, Ms. Harper suggested that we implement a Four-year-old Pre-school Wrap-around Program.  Essentially, Pendleton County Schools would provide instruction to the students for a half-day.  Then students would be transported to local contracted day care programs for the remainder of the day.  Transportation would be provided to the day care program through the school bus system.  Some of the students may start their day at the daycare facility, and then they come to Pre-school in the afternoon.  I strongly support early Pre-school education and this is why:  Research strongly supports that early learning plays a crucial role in helping students prep for kindergarten.  Many of our students in Pendleton County (68.5%) are not kindergarten ready.  In our March meeting, Ms. Harper mentioned that Pendleton County scored 13^th from the bottom of all districts on kindergarten readiness.  The only districts in Northern Kentucky falling below Pendleton County are Gallatin County, Newport, Dayton, and Augusta.  The children in our county are coming to school with great needs.  It is difficult to catch them up if they enter kindergarten already behind.  If we don’t reach these students early, it impacts each and every one of us.  When these students fall behind, they become disruptive in the classroom.  This disruption prevents every child from learning, not just the disruptive student.  If they fall behind, they are more likely to drop out of school.  Dropping out of school puts them at risk of earning less income.  Over a lifetime, they will earn an average of $375,000 less than high school graduates, and roughly $1 million less than college graduates (Center for Labor Market Studies, 2007).  This ultimately impacts the tax base in our county.  High school dropouts are more likely to get in trouble with the law.  If they are incarcerated, who pays for it?  We pay for it as taxpayers.  Therefore, I strongly support Pre-school education because of all of these reasons and more.

 

During board comments, I mentioned my school board training in Lexington this past weekend.  I heard one of the most inspiring messages I have ever heard at our board trainings.  Dr. John Draper shared with the audience that students should be able to nominate successors, someone who has supported their success.  I recommended that a program be established that allowed students to do just that.  A successor program would allow employees to feel valued and appreciated.

 

June 16, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Tonight was Courtney Moore’s first school board meeting.  Courtney was elected by the student body to serve this year as Pendleton County’s first school board student representative. I am so glad we brought student representation to the board last year.  Having Courtney there will remind each of us of why we are serving on this board and the impact our decisions can have on students.  I look forward to having her on our team and learning from her this coming year.