THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

MINUTES, FEBRUARY 7, 2003

 

The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Special Meeting at 10:00 a.m., in the Board Room, at the Dr. Vernon McDaniel Building, 215 West Garden Street, Pensacola, Florida, with the following present:

 

Chair:  Ms. Linda Finkelstein      

Vice Chair:   Mrs. Cary Stidham   

 

Board Members:   Mrs. Carissa Bergosh

Mr. Ronnie L. Clark (entered the Special Meeting at 10:25 a.m.)

Dr. John DeWitt

 

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

 

Superintendent of Schools:  Mr. Jim Paul

 

(NOTE: The purpose of this Special Meeting was to allow the Board to begin setting their priorities/goals for the 2003-2004 budget year.  The Board would also schedule several more Special Meetings in the near future before approving the 2003-2004 budget.)

I.  CALL TO ORDER

 

Ms. Finkelstein called the Special Meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

 

II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

 

On motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Dr. DeWitt, adoption of the agenda was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.

III. 2003-2004 BUDGET PROCESS

(Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit “A”)

 

The Board discussed the following specific budgetary issues:

 

Estimated Costs to Implement Increases in Substitute Teacher Pay

 

(NOTE: The issue of “substitute teacher pay” was previously discussed at the January 17, 2003 Regular Workshop.)  Dr. DeWitt stated that the Board had received information regarding the costs to implement increases in substitute teacher pay.  He noted that according to that information, an increase of $10 per day for short-term substitutes and $20 per day for long-term substitutes would constitute an  ‘annual estimated cost’ of $360,000.  He stated that he was more concerned with an increase for short-term substitutes as opposed to long-term substitutes and requested that the ‘annual estimated cost’ for an increase in short-term substitute teacher pay be provided.  Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that the figures that were provided were based on the “total budget” for substitute teacher pay.  She explained that the figures would have to be “broken down”, as short-term and long-term substitute teacher pay was not “separate in the budget, but rather all in one budget.”  Mrs. Bergosh stated that while substitute teachers did deserve an increase in pay, she was concerned about “how that would affect the total budget in looking at trying to increase our teachers salaries.”  Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that in his opinion, a day with a short-term substitute teacher in the classroom, was an “instructional day that is lost.”  He noted that “typically the instructional momentum that goes on in the classroom is lost, regardless of how much you pay a short-term substitute teacher.”  He believed the Board should consider increasing the pay for long-term substitutes rather than short-term, noting that those long-term substitutes would “maintain the instructional momentum in the classroom.”  He also suggested that instead of increasing substitute teacher pay, the Board might want to explore different types of incentives to motivate teachers not to take their ‘leave’ days.  He noted that there were several incentives that other school districts had implemented, such as “giving teachers back a portion of the money that was set aside for their leave days if they don’t take them (‘leave’ days).”  He believed that such an incentive would benefit not only the teacher, but also the students, by “keeping the instructional momentum going in the classroom,” in having the teacher present in the classroom rather than a substitute.  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Bob Husbands, Executive Director of NEA UniServe, stated that while there would be bargaining issues associated with the suggestion regarding ‘leave’ days, that was “not to say that we (the Union) would oppose it.”  The Superintendent stated that information would be provided to the Board regarding the ‘annual estimated cost’ for an increase in short-term substitute teacher pay (with no change to long-term substitute teacher pay) and information associated with the suggestion regarding ‘leave’ days. 

 

Estimated Cost of Implementing the Hiring Freeze on January 1st as Opposed to October 1st for Classroom Positions Only

 

Dr. DeWitt explained that under the current hiring freeze implementation of October 1st, the District would be unable to hire new teachers to replace those that resign, resulting in many classes that would be occupied by a long-term substitute.  The Superintendent stated that he tended “to like the idea (of implementing the hiring freeze on January 1st as opposed to October 1st for classroom positions) particularly in critical needs areas (i.e., math, science, special education),” but noted that there would be concerns regarding the financial aspect.   Mrs. Stidham expressed her support of the idea of implementing the hiring freeze on January 1st as opposed to October 1st for classroom positions only, noting that it should be “incorporated into the budget.”   Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that while “this could be a long-term goal,” she did not believe that the District could afford to implement the proposal during the 2003-2004 budget year, which was “looking like a very bad year.”  Mrs. Stidham noted that the District’s first responsibility was “educating students with the best teachers that we can get in the classroom.”  She believed that if “something else” had to be “cut” from the budget, in order to implement this idea, then it should be “cut.”  Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Dr. DeWitt, “that the budget be structured around implementing the hiring freeze on January 1st (as opposed to October 1st) for classroom positions only,” was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.

 

Estimated Cost to Implement Three (3) Full-Days of In-Service for Instructional Personnel

 

(NOTE: The issue of implementing three (3) full-days instead of six (6) half-days of in-service for instructional personnel, was previously addressed at the January 17, 2003 Regular Workshop (under Item V.C.1.f.8, “Request approval to adopt the 2003-2004 student calendar.”)  Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, stated that staff would explore several options (including three (3) full-days of in-service) regarding “in-service” days for instructional personnel, and any bargaining issues associated with those options.

 

List of 12-Month Positions that Could Possibly be Converted to 11-Month Positions

 

Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, stated that the conversion of 12-month positions to 11-month positions, was a “staffing issue.”  He stated that compiling a list of 12-month positions that could be converted to 11-month positions would require staff to review all 12-month positions and then submit their recommendations to the Superintendent, who in turn, would submit recommendations to the Board.  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, the Superintendent stated that if there were any 12-month positions that could be converted to 11-month positions, the Board could “expect” a list of such positions within the next few weeks.  Mr. Bob Husbands, Executive Director of NEA UniServe, advised the Board that “the impact of staffing (on instructional and educational support personnel) is very clearly a bargaining issue.”

 

The Board posed questions regarding the following general budgetary issues:

 

Transportation

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Shawn Dennis, Director of Transportation, stated he anticipated an approximately 20% increase in fuel costs for the 2003-2004 budget year.  He explained that trunk routing had resulted in a reduction in the number of miles that buses were covering (as opposed to regular bus routes), which in turn resulted in fuel savings.  He noted that current trunk routes were running very efficiently and very much at capacity.  Therefore, he believed that the District could anticipate an increase in trunk routes in the future.

 

Mr. Clark entered the Special Meeting at 10:25 a.m.

 

Charter Schools

 

Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, stated that “currently the law is still as it was, that there was a limit (‘cap’) on the number of charter schools within a school district, based on the student population of the school district.”  He noted that the ‘cap’ would not include conversion charter schools.   He also noted that the District currently had a ‘cap’ of twelve (12) charter schools based on the student population of the District.  In answer to Ms. Finkelstein’s question, Mr. Thomas stated that ‘caps’ on the number of students in a charter school was determined jointly by the Board and the board of the charter school.

 

Budget Format

 

Mrs. Stidham and Ms. Finkelstein questioned whether there was “any way to make the budget more user-friendly?”  Ms. Finkelstein believed that “anybody should be able to come in, look at our budget, and at least have an ability to understand it.”  Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that she was not sure how the budget could be formatted to be user-friendlier, noting that the District’s budget was “very detailed.”  The Superintendent believed that if the budget format was “any simpler, we would lose control and the Board would not get the information that it wanted.”  Mrs. Laura Shaud, Director of Budgeting, stated that the “budget summary is about as broad a category as we can give to the public to tell them where the District spends their money.” 

 

Health Insurance

 

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, stated that early projections indicated a 12% to 14% increase in health insurance benefits costs for the 2003-2004 budget year.   

 

Property Insurance

 

Upon inquiry by the Superintendent, Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, stated that early projections indicated a “small spike” in property insurance premium costs for the 2003-2004 budget year. 

 

After discussions, the Board collectively agreed to schedule a Special Meeting on February 26, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., in the Board Room, at the Dr. Vernon McDaniel Building, to continue setting their priorities/goals for the 2003-2004 budget year. 

 

IV.  ITEMS FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT

1.  Escambia County School District Strategic Plan (2002-2007)  

Mrs. Sheree’ Cagle, Director of Comprehensive Planning, reviewed the strategic planning process and noted that several of the issues discussed during this meeting were actually addressed in the strategic plan.  Upon inquiry by the Superintendent, Mrs. Cagle stated that “successful strategic plans, are plans that do not come from the ‘top down’ but rather include everybody in the process so that there is no one dictating what goes into the strategic plan.”  She noted that a strategic plan should be “the umbrella of everything that we do in the District,” and “whatever decisions we make, we should refer to our strategic plan to see if we are following the plan.”  Mrs. Stidham stated that she was not ready to make a decision on the strategic plan, and expressed concerns that the Board, with the exception of Dr. DeWitt, was not actually included in the strategic planning process.  Mrs. Cagle explained that “no one was trying to keep the Board out of the process, this is just a place to start.”  Ms. Finkelstein and Mrs. Bergosh also indicated that they were not ready to make a decision on the strategic plan and therefore, no action was taken on this item.  Ms. Finkelstein noted that the strategic plan “should be discussed at a later meeting.”

 

V. ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business, the Special Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

 

Attest:    Approved:

 

Superintendent           Chair