The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Special Meeting at 4:00 p.m., in the Board Room, at the Dr. Vernon McDaniel (Administration) Building, 215 West Garden Street, Pensacola, Florida, with the following present:

Chairman:        Dr. John DeWitt                           

Vice Chairman:            Ms. Linda Finkelstein

Board Members:  Mr. Gary L. Bergosh

Mrs. Cary Stidham

Dr. Elmer Jenkins

School Board Attorney:  Mr. Francisco M. Negron, Jr.

Superintendent of Schools: Mr. Jim Paul

1. CALL TO ORDER

 Dr. DeWitt called the Special Meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.  Dr. Jenkins gave the invocation and Ms. Finkelstein led the pledge of allegiance. 

II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

 On motion made by Ms. Finkelstein and seconded by Dr. Jenkins, adoption of the agenda was unanimously approved.

The Superintendent made the following statement: 

“When I became Superintendent, I promised to increase employee salaries.  I am still committed to that promise.  Last year we made significant gains in teacher pay.  Educational Support Personnel, administrators, Professional/Technical staff, got little or nothing.  I believe in one case I referred to it as a “pittance.”  While teacher pay has “garnered” the headlines, all employees in our district are inadequately compensated in comparison to their peers in other districts.  It is my belief that all decisions should be based on data and best practices, and that our constituents view us as an efficient and effective system.  In fact, if we hope to renew the sales tax initiative for school construction,  I think it is important that we show the public – the taxpayers - that we are prudent with all of our money.  The issues being presented today are “time-sensitive” in that implementation for the 2002-2003 school year requires swift action by the Board.  This list that is presented today is by no means our final list – and I think it is important for everybody to understand that what we are presenting today is – most of this is very “time-sensitive” – but it is not the end.  If this Board agrees to all –    $8.9 million in budget reduction proposals put before them today and we get the projected $7 million dollars from the State in new money for 2002-2003 – our general revenue budget will increase only $800,000 dollars – so if everything is accepted that we put forth today – and we receive an additional $7 million dollars for next year – we will only have $800,000 dollars of where we started July 2001.  Obviously - obviously – not enough to provide the kind of pay raise for all of our employees necessary to continue to be competitive – that won’t happen – in the final analysis – we have a fixed number of dollars – with which it is our charge to provide the best education possible to 44,000 students and the best working conditions for 5,500 employees.”

At the request of the Superintendent, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, gave a brief update on the budget situation.

III. CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION BY A.A. DIXON ELEMENTARY

(Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit “A”)

The Superintendent assured the Board that District staff had done all that was possible to help A.A. Dixon through the charter application process.  At the request of the Superintendent, Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, reviewed a report previously provided to the Board, from the Charter School Review Panel regarding their review of the Dixon Charter application.  Although the Superintendent still believed that the school should be closed, he stated that he would not oppose the charter and suggested that the Dixon building be leased to the Intervention Group, Inc., (the organizing group of the charter application) for $1 per year.  Motion was made by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Dr. Jenkins, to approve the charter application by A.A. Dixon Elementary and to lease the Dixon building and contents within, for $1 per year to the Intervention Group, Inc.  A substitute motion was made by Mr. Bergosh, seconded by Dr. Jenkins, to consider a “Notice of Intent to Advertise the Re-Opening of A.A. Dixon Elementary School for School Year 2002-2003.”  Mr. Bergosh stated that based on data that the Board had previously received, the District has approximately ten (10) more elementary schools than districts of comparable size.  He stated that he would have previously voted to close this school, however, because he believed that the budget situation would not be quite as severe as previously thought, he would now recommend the re-opening of Dixon.  He noted that he would also base his decision on concerns expressed by teachers and other educators who supported the re-opening of Dixon, rather than the approval of the charter application.  Mrs. Stidham noted that “neighborhood schools” such as Dixon, were not feasible and believed that if the school was closed, students that transferred to other schools within the District would still receive a quality education.  She noted that the Board had previously made a commitment with the Blue Ribbon Committee, to close an inner-city school in which the decision ultimately “came down” to Dixon.  She believed that the Board should consider “long range planning” in the future and noted that many difficult decisions such as this, would have to be made in an effort to increase teacher salaries.  Dr. Jenkins stated that he would have more confidence in the re-opening of Dixon rather than the approval of the charter application.   Dr. DeWitt expressed his concern about with the “yo-yo” affect on teachers, parents and students, noting that the issue of closing Dixon had now been discussed for several years.  He noted that the Board had previously made a commitment with the Blue Ribbon Committee, to close an inner-city school and ultimately the decision “fell on Dixon.”  He stated  that because Dixon was assumed as closed, they had now missed deadlines on grants for which they may have been eligible to receive.  He further stated that no funds had been spent on renovations at Dixon for many years, and believed that if the substitute motion to re-open Dixon was approved, then construction of the new media center, as outlined on the One-Half Cent Sales Tax project list, should occur.

The Superintendent stated that while economics and efficiency of this issue should be considered, the “yo-yo” affect on parents, teachers and students should also be considered.  He stated that unless for some unforeseen circumstances, he would not re-address this issue in the future.  

The Board recognized the following speakers who expressed various concerns regarding this issue: Judy Ladner, Paula Moorer, Nicole Brandon, Anthony Boling, Marvin Ginns, Darnell Sims, Tracy Banks and Diana Fordham.

Mrs. Stidham and Mr. Bergosh also believed that unless for some unforeseen circumstances, this issue should not be re-addressed in the future.

The Board recognized Ronnie Clark, who expressed his concerns regarding this issue.

The Superintendent clarified his previous comments, noting that while he could not guarantee that the issue would not be re-addressed in the future due to unforeseen circumstances, he would not re-address the issue again.  In response to the Superintendent’s clarification, Mr. Negron advised that any comments made by the Board or Superintendent are “non-binding assurance,” noting that those type of comments would unconstitutionally restrict the power of the Board.

Ms. Finkelstein stated that “Dixon was sentenced as an “F” school several years ago undeservedly, which was the first horrible blow to the school and now it seems that they are on and off closure list.”  She believed that the Board should consider equity and fairness, noting that other schools recommended for closing  (i.e., Byrneville and Pensacola Beach) were given approximately one (1) year to “figure out their fate” while Dixon was given only a few months.  She expressed concerns with the approval of the charter application with regard to “parental involvement,” noting that while there are parents who wish to be involved, they simply are not able to do so.  She also believed that there were other issues (i.e., pre-k at existing elementary school sites, retaining sixth graders at elementary school sites, etc.) that should be considered before a decision was made to close a school.

Substitute motion failed 3 to 2, with Mrs. Stidham, Dr. DeWitt and Dr. Jenkins voting “No.”

The original motion to approve the charter application by A.A. Dixon Elementary (with staff to negotiate the contract) and to lease the Dixon building and contents within, for $1 per year (for the terms of the charter) to the Intervention Group, Inc., was approved 4 to 1, with Ms. Finkelstein voting “No.”

IV.            PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

(Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit “B”)

 Dr. DeWitt explained that the Board had been advised by Mr. Negron that the following proposed budget cuts, as recommended by the Superintendent, should be deferred to Executive Session for separate discussion:

1)            Bus Compounding

2)            Charge a fee for family dental insurance

3)            Closing all buildings during winter break

4)            Negotiate the removal of the retirement bonus

Mr. Negron advised that the deferment of those items should not be taken as a statement that the Board concedes that those items are only bargaining items, nor is it to mean that the Board concedes that those items must be bargained.  He noted that the Board simply wants the opportunity to review those issues separately.  He stated for the record, “any of those items and I am specifically referring to the dental item, the school closing – I’ve advised the Board before that it is my opinion that those items are not subject to collective bargaining except in very, very narrow circumstances – so it’s not to be taken as a general admission – as a matter of fact this Board at this point denies the representations of the assertions of the union that those items are subject to collective bargaining.”

The Board recognized Bob Husbands, Executive Director, Escambia NEA UniServe, who expressed his concerns regarding a number of proposed budget cuts that he believed were either bargaining items or would have bargaining impact.

Mr. Negron responded to comments made by Mr. Husbands, by reiterating his opinion that the proposed budget cut referring to dental insurance (“charge a fee for family dental insurance”) was not subject to collective bargaining.

The Board recognized Ellen Lawrence, UniServe Director, who expressed her appreciation that those four (4) proposed budget cuts (as outlined above) were deferred to Executive Session for separate discussion.

Implementation of Budget Reductions Previously Approved by the School Board

 1)      Reduce Diesel Fuel Allocation by $100,000

2)      Transfer $500,000 of Maintenance Expense to the 2-Mill Fund

 3)     Transfer of Office of Facilities Planning Expenditures to PECO Funds

 No discussion was held.

4)  Close Dixon Elementary School                      

This issue was addressed under Item III “Charter School Application by A.A. Dixon Elementary.”  (NOTE:  A motion to close Dixon Elementary School was approved at the January 8, 2002 Special Meeting.  A separate motion to allow Dixon Elementary until January 31, 2002 to complete a charter application was also approved at that time.)

5)  Close Old Hometown Program

 Motion was made by Dr. DeWitt, to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to close the Old Hometown Program and instead, continue to support (financially) the program for another year.  Motion was seconded by Dr. Jenkins.  Dr. DeWitt reiterated his support of the Old Hometown program as he had expressed at the February 28, 2002 Special Workshop.  At the request of Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Jacqueline Young, Social Studies Coordinator, listed the “highlights” of the program (i.e., awards, recognitions).  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Dr. Young stated that many students, in addition to those who actually attend the program, are affected by various aspects of the Old Hometown program (i.e., books published by the program, tutoring services provided by Old Hometown students, etc.).  Mrs. Stidham stated that while she recognized that this was a good program, she could not “say I am willing to close an elementary school (referring to Dixon Elementary) but keep this program open, that does not actually service the same number of students.”  She noted that the Old Hometown program had already been provided ample time (approximately a year) to secure alternative funding.  She believed that schools could continue some of the same activities that occurred at Old Hometown and would not support the motion to extend funding for another year.  Mr. Bergosh stated that although he believed that this was a great program, he would not support the motion to extend funding for another year.  Motion to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to close the Old Hometown Program and instead, continue to support (financially) the Old Hometown program for another year, failed 3 to 2, with Mr. Bergosh, Mrs. Stidham, and Dr. Jenkins, voting “No.”

6)  Close Roy Hyatt Environmental Center

 Motion was made by Ms. Finkelstein, to allow the Roy Hyatt Environmental Center to remain “open” (for educational purposes by attaching the property to an existing program) and to reassign current staff based upon contract guidelines and personnel certifications, experience and available open positions.  Dr. Jenkins seconded the motion for discussion purposes.  Ms. Finkelstein noted that the property must continue to serve an educational purpose for the District, otherwise it would revert to the federal government.  She believed that the property could be given to Tate Agricultural Program for other uses or attached to Ransom or Tate to continue some educational services for the District.  Upon inquiry by Mr. Bergosh, Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, stated that while there were on-going discussions with several community/national groups regarding their interest in providing support for the Center, no firm commitment had been made.  He noted that once a firm commitment was made, it would be presented to the Superintendent for recommendation to the Board.  Motion was unanimously approved.

7)   Positions Eliminated

 No discussion was held.

Proposals for Cost Savings to the General Fund Presented by the Department of Operations

1)Privatization of Custodial Services

 Motion was made by Mr. Bergosh, seconded by Mrs. Stidham, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation for the privatization of custodial services.

The Board recognized the following speakers who expressed various concerns regarding this issue: Teresa Watford, Jennifer Palmer, Gail Husbands, Ellen Lawrence and Bob Husbands.

Dr. Jenkins expressed his concerns regarding the general concept of “privatization” and its potential impact on District custodial employees.  He stated that he would not support privatization of custodial services and suggested that the District look into ways to administer custodial services more efficiently.

Dr. DeWitt made a substitute motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Stidham, for the Board to direct the Superintendent to prepare and submit to the Board, a “Request for Proposal” (RFP) for the privatization of custodial services, which addresses all concerns (as expressed at the February 28, 2002 Special Workshop and those outlined in the Superintendent’s recommendation).  Dr. DeWitt stated that the intent of his motion was to have the Board review the RFP before it was presented for bids, to ensure that it addresses all concerns (as expressed at the February 28, 2002 Special Workshop and those outlined in the Superintendent’s recommendation) especially those concerning employee status, noting that all current custodial staff employed by the District would remain employed by the District.

The Board recognized Ellen Lawrence, UniServe Director, who inquired as to whether there would be any assistance from District staff in developing a bid, noting that according to the “proposal” for privatization, District custodial employees would have the opportunity to “compete” for contract.

The Superintendent responded to Ms. Lawrence’s inquiry by explaining that the District would do anything necessary to make sure that the process is done the “right way.”  Mr. Bergosh stated that while he was aware that “privatization” can work in some instances and not in others, he believed that it was a good idea to develop.  He believed that it was important for current custodial staff to know that they would remain employed with the District and believed that they should have the opportunity to “compete” for the contract.  The Superintendent believed that there seemed to be some confusion, therefore he clarified that under his recommendation, all current custodial staff employed by the District would remain employed by the District.

The Board recognized Gail Husbands, Ellen Lawrence and Myra Palmer, who expressed their opposition to the issue of privatization of custodial services. 

Dr. DeWitt called the question, which was approved unanimously.

The substitute motion for the Board to direct the Superintendent to prepare and submit to the Board, a “Request for Proposal” (RFP) for the privatization of custodial services, which addresses all concerns (as expressed at the February 28, 2002 Special Workshop and those outlined in the Superintendent’s recommendation), was approved 3 to 2, with Ms. Finkelstein and Dr. Jenkins, voting “No.”

2)  Outsource Courier Service and Reduce Service to Three (3) Days Per Week

 Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Bergosh to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to outsource courier service and reduce service to three (3) days per week. 

The Board recognized Ellen Lawrence, UniServe Director, who expressed her opposition to this recommendation.             

Mr. Ronnie Arnold, Director of Information Services, responded to comments made by Ms. Lawrence, stating that neither the quality of employees nor the services provided by those employees, was a factor in this recommendation.  He noted that those employees would continue to serve the District in other capacities.  Motion was approved 4 to 1, with Ms. Finkelstein voting “No.”

3)  Bus Compounding

 This item was deferred to Executive Session for Collaborative Bargaining.

4)  Closing All Buildings During Winter Break

This item was deferred to Executive Session for Collaborative Bargaining.

Proposals for Cost Savings to the General Fund Presented by the Department of Human Resources

1) Charge a Fee for Family Dental Insurance

 This item was deferred to Executive Session for Collaborative Bargaining.

2) Negotiate the Removal of the Retirement Bonus

 This item was deferred to Executive Session for Collaborative Bargaining.

3)     Charge Fees for all Locally Issued Teaching Certificates Equal to those Charged by the State of Florida

 Motion by Dr. Jenkins, seconded by Mrs. Stidham, to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation to charge fees for all locally issued teaching certificates equal to those charged by the State of Florida, was approved unanimously. 

Proposals for Cost Savings to the General Fund Presented by the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

1)Eliminate Middle School Athletics

 Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Ms. Finkelstein, to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to eliminate middle school athletics, and to direct the Superintendent to review the issue of assistant coaching supplements, in an effort to determine potential cost savings.  Mrs. Stidham explained that she would like the issue of assistant coaching supplements to be reviewed to determine whether or not there may be potential cost savings, rather than to eliminate middle school athletic programs.  Upon inquiry by Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Alan Scott, Director of Secondary Education, stated that there are three (3) types of competitive sports in middle school athletic programs (i.e., basketball, track and swimming).  Dr. Jenkins suggested that the Board consider a reduction to the two (2) types competitive sports where there is greatest participation.  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Manny Harageones, Subject Area Specialist, Physical Education, Health and Wellness, stated that there were in fact, possibilities for reducing the number of current coaching supplements and still maintaining the middle school athletic programs.  Dr. DeWitt noted another issue to be considered was an “intramural” program and he inquired as to whether there would be cost savings associated with that.   Mr. Harageones stated that there could be cost savings or a cost increase with “intramural” programs, noting that it would depend on the type of “model” used.  He noted that each “model” would consider various issues such as the number of activities offered, number of days per week that each activity is offered, and the length of time for each activity.  The Superintendent expressed concern with the safety of students as a result of a reduction of coaching supplements, noting that there would be less supervision.  Mr. Bergosh stated that while he shared the Superintendent’s concern regarding supervision, he would support the motion because he believed that the middle school athletic programs should be maintained.

            The Board recognized Reagan Reeves who expressed her support of middle school athletic programs.

            Motion to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to eliminate middle school athletics, and to direct the Superintendent to review the issue of assistant coaching supplements, in an effort to determine potential cost savings, was approved unanimously.

The Special Meeting recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:07 p.m., with all Board Members, Mr. Negron and the Superintendent present.

2)Close the District’s Print Shop

The Superintendent stated that his recommendation regarding the print shop had changed to allow it to remain open with a reduction of staff from six (6) to two (2).

Motion was made by Mr. Bergosh, seconded by Mrs. Stidham, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to allow the print shop to remain open with a reduction of staff from six (6) to two (2).  Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that the purchase of updated equipment (i.e., digital typesetter) with funds from the print shop’s equipment budget, would enable the shop to continue operation with only two (2) employees.  He stated that departments and schools had expressed concern that if they had to go to “outside” companies for printing services, they would not have the funds within their budgets for everything that they need.  He explained that the issue of relocating the shop to the George Stone site as a vocational program had been explored, however for various reasons it would not be possible.  Dr. DeWitt did not believe that there was enough data to support the reduction in staff from six (6) to two (2) or to confirm that the program was not “paying for itself.”  The Board collectively agreed to table this item until more data (relating to Dr. DeWitt’s concerns) was provided.

3)      Maintain Vacancies in Management Information Systems Department (MIS)

            Motion made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to maintain vacancies in Management Information Systems Department (MIS), was unanimously approved.

4)      Contract After-School Child Care and Increase Fees

Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation and rather increase the fees for existing contracted after-school care programs from $1.00/child/hour to $1.50/child/hour; and to maintain District-operated after-school care programs, however charge them $1.00/child/hour.  Dr. DeWitt seconded the motion for discussion purposes.  Mrs. Stidham believed that the Superintendent’s recommendation to increase fees from $1.00/child/hour to $2.00/child/hour would be burdensome to both the contracted after-school child care programs and their consumers however, her suggested increase to $1.50/child/hour would be much more manageable. While she wanted to maintain District-operated programs, she believed that those programs should be charged $1.00/child/hour with those funds reverting to the District, to be placed in a type of “general fund” and used to offset District-level expenses.  Ms. Finkelstein  noted that the School-Age Child Care Advisory Board was currently in the process of raising fees for both District-operated and contracted after-school care programs.  She explained that all expenditures for District-operated programs are paid from funds that they receive from paying customers and other funding and noted that those programs must operate “in the black.”  Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, confirmed that District-operated programs did in fact keep all generated funds, however she noted that there had been a few situations in previous years, when “carryover funds” had been taken by the District due to serious financial constraints.  Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Ms. Ann Freeman, Applied Technology Specialist, confirmed that the rates for both District-operated and contracted after-school care were currently being reviewed by the School-Age Child Care Advisory Board.  After discussion, Mrs. Stidham realized that her motion dealt with more than one issue and therefore, changed her original motion to read: Maintain District-operated after-school care programs, however charge them $1.00/child/hour to be retained by the District.  Motion was seconded by Dr. Jenkins. 

The Board recognized Ms. Marge Anderson who, as a retired principal from Hallmark Elementary and a founder of the District-operated child care programs, explained the many benefits provided by District-operated child care programs.

After discussion, Mrs. Stidham suggested and the Board collectively agreed to table the entire issue regarding “Contract After-School Child Care and Increase Fees” to the March Regular Meeting.

5)      Partial Holdback of Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) Funds

Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Bergosh to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation for partial holdback of Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) funds.

The Board recognized Bob Husbands, Executive Director, Escambia NEA UniServe, who expressed his opposition to this recommendation.

            In response to comments by Mr. Husbands, the Superintendent, Dr. DeWitt, Mrs. Stidham and Mr. Bergosh, noted that while unpleasant, budget cuts such as a partial holdback of SAI funds were necessary given the current and projected budget situation.

            The Board recognized Gail Husbands, who expressed her opposition to this recommendation.

            Motion to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation for partial holdback of Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) funds, was approved 4 to 1, with Ms. Finkelstein voting “No.”

6)     Reduce the Number of Visiting Teachers from ten (10) to five (5)

   Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Dr. Jenkins to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to reduce the number of visiting teachers from ten (10) to five (5).  Dr. Jenkins and Dr. DeWitt expressed concerns with reducing the number of visiting teachers, noting that they provide many extra services to help students (i.e., donating clothes, shoes, food, etc.) in addition to those within the scope of educational responsibility.  Dr. Jenkins offered a substitute motion that was seconded by Dr. DeWitt, to reduce the number of visiting teachers from ten (10) to seven (7).

            The Board recognized Cathy Breakall who expressed her concerns regarding this issue and her appreciation for the services provided by visiting teachers.

            Substitute motion to reduce the number of visiting teachers from ten (10) to seven (7), was approved unanimously.

7)      Move Judy Andrews Pre-K and Petree Pre-K to Existing K-5 Sites

At the request of the Board, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, explained that changes to the funding systems for pre-school-aged students had necessitated the need to explore alternative, more cost effective delivery methods.  Noting that Pre-K students would now require extended school days (from 4 to 6 hours per day) as specified by funding sources, he stated that the District would no longer be able to transport preschoolers separate from K-5 children.  He stated that using separate facilities would increase the per-student cost of educating preschoolers and noted that there are existing spaces underutilized at K-5 sites in reasonably close proximity.  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Fetsko stated that the intent of the recommendation would be to close the Judy Andrews and Petree facilities, unless needed for other purposes.  Motion made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Dr. DeWitt, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to move Judy Andrews Pre-K and Petree Pre-K to existing K-5 sites, was approved unanimously.  Dr. DeWitt noted that a recommendation regarding the use of the Judy Andrews and Petree facilities would be presented by the Superintendent at the March Regular Meeting.

Proposals for Cost Savings to the General Fund Presented by the Department of Finance and Business Affairs

1)      Increase Pupil-Teacher Ratio by two (2) for Basic Grade 3 and by one (1) for Basic and Vocational Grades 4-12

Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Dr. Jenkins, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to increase pupil-teacher ratio by two (2) for basic Grade 3 and by one (1) for basic and vocational Grades 4-12. 

Dr. Alan Scott, Director of Secondary Education, briefly reviewed information provided to the Board, regarding this issue. 

The Board recognized the following speakers who expressed their opposition to this issue: Madonna Jackson-Williams, Cathy Breakall, and Bob Husbands.

Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, addressed the issue of problems caused by scheduling and “leveling” of classes versus increased pupil-teacher ratios.

            Ms. Finkelstein expressed her opposition to this issue. Mrs. Stidham stated while unpleasant, budget cuts such as an increased pupil-teacher ratio, were necessary given the current and projected budget situation.

            The Board recognized Marge Edwards, who expressed agreement to comments made by Mr. Fetsko regarding problems caused by scheduling and “leveling” of classes versus increased pupil-teacher ratios.

            Mr. Bergosh stated that while he did not favor this recommendation, he would vote to support it, noting that it could be “loosened up” in the future. 

            Motion to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to increase pupil-teacher ratio by two (2) for basic Grade 3 and by one (1) for basic and vocational Grades 4-12, was approved 4 to 1, with Ms. Finkelstein voting “No.”

2)      Reduce School Operating Budgets by 5% and Reduce Departmental Operating Budgets by 10%

            Motion made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to reduce school operating budgets by 5% and reduce departmental operating budgets by 10%, was unanimously approved. 

V.              ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX

Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, noted that he had provided a draft copy of the Half-Cent Sales Tax Extension Project List to the Board for their review.  He stated that the final list would be presented at the March Regular Meeting.

VI.              PURCHASING

1.       Revised Agreements for a Fiber Optic Metropolitan Wide Network

[Item approved at February 19, 2002 Regular Meeting pending review/approval by General Counsel]

      Dr. DeWitt explained that Mr. Negron had submitted this item to Mr. Richard Lott, Bond Counsel, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, for review.  Because Mr. Lott had made significant changes to the agreement, Dr. DeWitt believed that it should be reviewed again by Mr. Negron.  Dr. DeWitt moved to approve the revised agreements for a Fiber Optic Metropolitan Wide Network, pending review/approval by General Counsel.  Motion was seconded by Dr. Jenkins and unanimously approved. 

VII.            ITEMS FROM THE BOARD

ADD    1.               Notice of Intent to Advertise Re-Opening of A.A. Dixon Elementary School for School

                              Year 2002-2003 – Gary Bergosh

            This issue was addressed under Item III “Charter School Application by A.A. Dixon Elementary.”

VIII.        ADJOURNMENT

Prior to adjournment, Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, stated that he had been in negotiations with Pensacola Beach Elementary School regarding the use of the building for their start-up charter school.  He noted that the Board had approved a motion (under Item III “Charter School Application by A.A. Dixon Elementary”) to lease the A.A. Dixon Elementary School building and the contents within, for their (A.A. Dixon) start-up charter school and inquired as to whether the same would apply to Pensacola Beach.  The Board collectively agreed to lease the Pensacola Beach Elementary School facility and the contents within, to the start-up charter school.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

                        Attest:                                    Approved:

________________________________    ________________________________

Superintendent                                                        Chairman