January 8, 2015 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, I feel a renewed hope for the future of our district.  Ms. Jolieen Bertram and Mr. Elmer Utz were sworn in and are now officially members of the Pendleton County School Board.  Welcome Jolieen and Elmer.  It is nice to add another “mom” on the board and make it more gender balanced.  I shared in my opening comments that Mr. Utz, Mr. Spence, and I were all members of the PCHS Class of 1985.  All through school, our class was known as the “bad class”.  I remember distinctly an administrator mentioning that our classmates were going nowhere in life.  It is interesting that 60% of your district school board were members of this “hopeless” class.  I don’t really think our class was hopeless.  We just had many people in our class that did not have a clear idea of where they were headed.  They had many of the same struggles that our students face today.  This makes me reluctant to “label” students because we as educators don’t have a crystal ball.  Future success in life can never be predicted.

 

This morning I heard the most inspiring message from NKU’s President Geoffrey Mearns.  He shared some absolutely amazing stories about several of our NKU students.  One student who battled drug addiction has recently finished his degree and has been accepted into NKU’s graduate counseling program.  Another student who despite a heart problem that required him to get an internal defibrillator is continuing to play basketball for the University and doing extremely well.  The reason I share these stories is students are very resilient. If they have someone to truly believe in them, students can overcome these setbacks and move forward.  President Mearns asked that the faculty to recommit themselves to keeping the focus on student success.  He said that if we can ignite a spark in us, together our flame can be a light for our community.  Sitting in the audience, I couldn’t help but think about the Pendleton County School District and how his message could be applied to our district.  I have always been committed to students’ success, but I want to recommit myself to focus on student success in this coming year.  I know that our new board can be the flame that is the light for our community.  I encourage others to fuel the flame and to recommit to student success in 2015!

 

December 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.

 Tonight, Dr. William Verax III (16 years) and Mr. Daryl Mullins (15 years) were honored for their many years of service.  These gentlemen were very deserving of this reception.  They have given up many nights away from their families.  Being a board member is often a thankless job.  For these gentlemen to spend this many years doing board work is a testament to the dedication that these men had to our district and to our community.

November 20, 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 was our first Board meeting after the 2014 general election.  Whether you were “thrilled” or “less than thrilled” with the results, I hope you agree that our system of democracy worked in the intended way.  In the long term, democratic elections will put the best people in place.  Integral to this process is the practice of free speech.  In my opinion, events at this meeting were another attempt to suppress my right to free speech (in the form of the weblog you are now reading).  My voters can rest assured that one sided debates on the merits of this blog and feeble attempts at “manufactured conflict” will not change my determination to keep them informed.  A Venezuelan political prisoner named Leopoldo Lopez wrote (WSJ Dec 26, 2014) the following (from prison) about his autocratic government:  “The ‘sunshine that disinfects,’ and the scrutiny that motivates good decision-making, no longer benefit our leadership.”  Thankfully we don’t live in countries like Venezuela.  Our country is run on the idea that institutions funded with public dollars need public scrutiny and oversight.

October 30, 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.

 Bus Purchases

 Bus purchasing was postponed from our last meeting.  After talking with several reliable sources about transportation costs, I came to the conclusion that replacing approximately 5% of your fleet is probably a good idea.  This avoids larger leases or purchases down the road that can become “budget busters”.  My issue with this is timing.  These leases can be dealt with in June, when the health of our annual budget is more measurable.  I made an amendment to only lease a special needs bus at this time.  This amendment failed due to lack of a second from my fellow Board members.  The lease of two new buses and the new bond debt that goes with it passed 4-1.

School Calendar

There was a great deal of discussion about the school calendar at this meeting.  I am extremely concerned about taking a full week for fall break plus the additional day for the Woolfest.  If the focus is kept on student success, I believe it would be better for our students to cut the fall break down to the Friday of Woolfest plus an additional two days on another week.  This past year, our district missed a great deal of school for snow days, and our Board excused some of those missed days to prevent the students from being in the classroom past June 3^rd.  Our teachers still had to come in and attend professional development.  My concern is the lost days of instruction.  This is a major setback for our students and reduces opportunities for our students.  It also puts our schools at a competitive disadvantage relative to other school districts.  Until all of the schools are proficient, I don’t see how this is best for our students.  I have received input from several parents expressing their concern about such a long fall break.  However, I welcome input from all stakeholders.  Please feel free to contact me at SMNordheim@aol.com before November 20^th, which is the date of our next board meeting.

Staffing Allocation Formula

There was a discussion on our staffing allocation formula.  I am still researching this topic and will comment on this important topic in the future.

October 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.

 

Unbridled Learning Test Results

Pendleton County Schools have been given the label of “Needs Improvement/Progressing” by the state.  Our improvement came from the growth scores on standardized testing and the program reviews.  The program reviews were added last fall and are the district’s self-assessment of how well the educational programs are working.  This counts for nearly a quarter of a school’s overall grade.  Northern Elementary joined PCHS this year and are considered “Proficient” schools.  Overall scores at both schools were 71.9.  Southern Elementary’s overall score was 63.8 and earned a “Needs Improvement/Progressing.”  Sharp Middle School earned a 60.7 and is now classified as “Needs Improvement/Focus School.”  This is a step in the wrong direction for Sharp Middle School.  However, I know that our district administration already has steps in place to address this issue.  I would like to thank all the employees in our district for their hard work and dedication to the education of our students.  We can still see growth in the coming years if we stay focused on what is working in the classroom and continue initiatives that will build capacity in our teachers and students.  Additionally, our district spending needs to be centered on instruction.

 Treasurer Report  

After last month’s report from our District “outside” Auditor, I think you would agree that district spending and revenue are worthy of Board discussion on a more regular basis.  Ms. Denise Keene stated last month that our spending was not sustainable.  In fact, Ms. Keene writes in her report “It will be impossible to maintain current programs past 2017 without increasing revenue or reducing expenses.”  (p. 12).  I will also mention again that Ms. Keene reported that we had a decrease in “Ending Net Position” of $1.511 million.  Despite what you may read in our esteemed local press, any questions I had at this meeting were not accusations directed at our Director of Finance.  These concerns were also not about hundreds or even thousands of dollars.  They were concerns about several hundred thousand dollars.  Comments made in a recent news article are simply meant to confuse the reader and deflect attention from the larger issue, which is district administration spending.  I need to stress to the public that as Board members we do not have to submit questions ahead of a meeting.  It is the public meeting of your School Board, and the public has every right to know what is going on and not have the discussion take place behind closed doors.  I also need to stress that budget priorities are not decided by our finance officer, but by the Board (who gives direction to the Superintendent).  There may be false arguments made that try to place budget problem blame on the bookkeeper.  I do not shift my budget oversight and budget direction responsibilities to others.

 

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.