THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

MINUTES, APRIL 11, 2003

 

The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Workshop Meeting at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Room, at the Dr. Vernon McDaniel (Administration) 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

Dr. John DeWitt

 

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

 

Superintendent of Schools:  Mr. Jim Paul

 

 

I. CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Finkelstein called the Regular Workshop to order at 9:00 a.m.

 

A. Open Discussion

Request to Change Date of June Regular Meeting to June 16, 2003

At the request of Dr. DeWitt, the Board collectively agreed to change the date of the June Regular Meeting from Tuesday, June 17, 2003 to Monday, June 16, 2003.

 

Concept of Site-Based Budgeting

(NOTE: The concept of ‘site-based’ budgeting was previously discussed at the February 17, 2003 Regular Workshop.)  Mrs. Linda English, Assistant to the Superintendent, stated that she had twice contacted the Office of the Superintendent in Okaloosa County, to arrange for a presentation on the concept of ‘site-based’ budgeting, however, she had yet to receive a response.

 

Update Regarding the Issue of “Student Dress”

(NOTE: The issue of “student dress” was previously discussed at the March 14, 2003 Regular Workshop.)  Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, explained that the Superintendent had commissioned two committees (elementary and secondary) to review the issue of “student dress” and to assist in the drafting of district-level dress codes.  He stated that the committees had completed their task and adopted by consensus, “Notice of Intent to Advertise Amendment to School District Rule 6Gx17-7.02 – Student Dress (Item II.B.2 on the April 17, 2003 Regular Meeting agenda).” The Superintendent advised that the proposed rule included specific guidelines for both a district-wide elementary dress code and district-wide secondary dress code, as well as procedures for adopting a district-wide uniform standard.  Mr. Negron had concerns with the “vagueness” of the proposed rule, specifically regarding terms that were not appropriately defined.  He advised that “if the intent of a rule is to give notice to the public about how to conduct themselves, and in this case parents from wide variety of backgrounds, we want the rule to be specific and clear, so that parents can understand it.”  He stated that he would work with the chairpersons of the two committees, to “cleanup the language,” prior to the April 17, 2003 Regular Meeting. 

 

Due to time constraints, the following items were moved forward on the agenda:

 

Update on Superintendent’s Council for Teacher Recruitment and Retention (Item III.2)

Report from District Equal Employment Opportunities Coordinator (Item III.3)

Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, and Mrs. Mary Helen Fryman, Director of Instructional, Professional/Technical and Administrative Personnel, gave a brief update on various teacher recruitment and retention activities (i.e., Home Grown Teacher Program Troops to Teachers Program, etc.). Mrs. Fryman also provided information to the Board regarding minority employee demographics.  Dr. Garber noted that the District was in the process of implementing a “centralized hiring process, ” whereby, all instructional applicants would be “cleared” and have appropriate paperwork on file in the Human Resource Services Department prior to their interviews with principals at individual schools.  Mr. Clark questioned whether the “centralizing hiring process” would need to be established as a Board policy.  The Superintendent did not believe that it would, noting that it would be his responsibility as Superintendent of Schools, to make sure that the “practice” was followed. Mr. Negron advised Mr. Clark, that if his desire was establish the “centralized hiring process” as a policy, that he certainly could make that recommendation.

 

II. COMMENTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT

The Superintendent listed the additions, deletions, amendments and corrections to the agenda.

 

III. COMMITTEE/DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS

1. Report from Mike Adkins, Audit Committee

Mr. Adkins stated that the Audit Committee had reviewed and approved numerous school internal fund audits.  He noted that the only “finding” was the “segregation of duties” issue, which was common due to the small staff size in schools.  The Committee had also reviewed and approved the following internal audit reports listed on the April 17, 2003 Regular Meeting agenda:

1) “Extra Pay Timesheet Review” (Item V.G.3.a) – Mr. Adkins stated that this was a district-wide follow-up review to two separate reviews of the Weis Elementary Saturday School Program.  (NOTE: Mr. Adkins previously addressed the issue of ‘extra pay’ received by employees at Weis Elementary School, at the January 17, 2003 Regular Workshop.)  He noted that “findings” included: insufficient detail of ‘time worked’ contained on extra pay timesheets; and a lack of documentation maintained at the schools and departments that were submitting the extra pay timesheets.  He stated that while the District had provided some instructions and guidance, it seemed to have been ineffective.  He noted that the potential for duplicate salary payments for employees paid from multiple funding sources still existed.  He noted that recommendations included: the revision of extra pay procedures, extra pay timesheets and documentation requirements; that periodic training workshops be conducted for staff; and that the District establish procedures to periodically monitor the quality of documentation retained at the schools and departments.

2) “Booker T. Washington High School Cheerleading Booster Association Review” (Item V.G.3.b) – Mr. Adkins stated that the most significant “findings” were that adequate accounting records had not been maintained.  He noted that a cheerleading sponsor (a district employee), had been directly compensated by parents, for conducting the required annual summer camp, and in addition, the sponsor had also conducted fundraisers without maintaining adequate accounting records.

3) “AON Consulting, Inc. Invoice Analysis” (Item V.G.3.c) – Mr. Adkins stated that as directed by the Board (at the February 26, 2003 Special Meeting), the Internal Auditing Department had performed a detailed analysis of invoices submitted for payment, by AON Consulting, Inc.  He explained that the purpose of the analysis was to determine whether AON was complying with the terms and conditions of their contract, and to identify whether the District may have been over-billed for services and/or expenses.  Mr. Adkins noted that the initial analysis indicated a lack of documentation sufficient for district personnel to perform an adequate review and approve payments.  After obtaining detailed documentation from AON, the analysis revealed that meals and entertainment provided to district employees, were billed back to the District, as part of the AON billings.  He noted that the ethical considerations related to the meals and entertainment expenses with regard to the consulting firm and the district employee, suggested the need for a higher emphasis on a professional ethics policy

With regard to the “AON Consulting, Inc. Invoice Analysis,” the Superintendent advised that he did not want “to give the opinion that any of our employees has done anything wrong or unethical until we have had appropriate time to complete our investigation.”

 

The Regular Workshop recessed at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:57 a.m. with all Board Members, the Superintendent and Mr. Negron present. 

 

Mrs. Stidham questioned whether there was any action that could be taken against AON in response to the analysis “findings.”  Mr. Negron stated that he was not certain whether AON was in fact, licensed through the Department of Insurance (DOI), but noted that if they were, the Board could certainly report the “findings” to the DOI.  At the request of Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Negron stated that he would confirm whether AON was licensed through the DOI.

 

2. Update on Superintendent’s Council for Teacher Recruitment and Retention

3. Report from District Equal Employment Opportunities Coordinator

These items were addressed earlier in the meeting.

 

4. Update from Elementary Grading Committee – Deborah Malishan

(NOTE: The following update refers to the issue of an “elementary grading policy” which was previously discussed at the February 17, 2003 Regular Workshop.)  Dr. Deborah Malishan, Director of Elementary Education, and Ms. Marcia Nowlin, principal of McArthur Elementary School, gave a brief update on the development of a district-wide “elementary grading policy.”  Dr. Malishan stated that the Grading Committee would continue their work on the policy and hoped to present the Board with a formal recommendation at the May Regular Meeting.   

 

Due to time constraints, the following item was moved forward on the agenda:

Lightspan EduTest Assessment Software for Various Schools (Item V.D.11)

Dr. DeWitt noted that there was no contract included in the supporting documentation for this item.  Mr. John Dombroskie, Director of Purchasing and Business Affairs, stated that this item would actually involve an “amendment” to a license agreement that was previously approved at the September 17, 2002 Regular Meeting.  He explained that the “amendment” had been reviewed by Mr. Negron and then sent back to Lightspan, Inc., with a request for revisions.  He advised that once the revised “amendment” was received, it would again require a review by Mr. Negron, prior to submission to the Board.  Dr. DeWitt noted that the total cost of this three-year program would be $802,537.00.  He questioned whether the software, which was currently being used in several schools, had actually benefited the students “for the amount of money that was spent.”

The Board recognized Patricia McElfresh, principal of Oakcrest Elementary, who expressed her support of the EduTest software.    

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Wayne Odom, Director of Title I, explained that the EduTest software was an “instrument” for helping teachers use student assessments to improve their instruction or to modify their approach to individual students.  Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Ms. Laura Colo, Reading Specialist, explained that the District’s current reading program (HarCourt) did in fact offer assessments, however, those assessments were correlated to the reading process itself (i.e., fluency, comprehensive word identification, vocabulary) and not specific to FCAT standards, as was the EduTest software.  She believed that it was important to use student assessments that were benchmark specific, to both the reading process and FCAT standards.  She noted that the current reading program (HarCourt) and the EduTest software “partnered together” would give the District a “complete package.”  In answer to Mr. Clark’s question, Dr. Deborah Malishan, Director of Elementary Education, stated that teachers at those schools currently using the EduTest software, had in fact, been able to use student assessments to implement ‘corrective instruction’ specific to the individual needs of students.

The Board recognized the following speakers who expressed their support of the EduTest software: Pat Forehand, technology coordinator at Spencer Bibbs Elementary; Michele Baker, fifth grade teacher at Navy Point Elementary; and Alexzene Minor, curriculum coordinator at Navy Point Elementary.

Mrs. Bergosh expressed her support of this particular item, as she believed that the EduTest software would be a “valuable tool for teachers to use, in order to individualize student learning.”  Mrs. Stidham agreed that the EduTest software would be “valuable tool” for teachers, however, she was not sure that it was the only “tool” available on the market or whether a similar “tool” might be found at a lesser cost.  She noted that this was a request for approval of the first year of a three-year program.  She stated that if this item were approved for the first year, she would need documented performance results from each of the schools, in order to support it for the second year.

 

IV. PROPOSED ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT RULES

Notice of Intent to Advertise Amendment to School District Rule 6Gx17-5.05 - Non-School Use of Educational Facilities (Item II.B.1 on April 17, 2003 Regular Meeting agenda)

 

(NOTE: The purpose of this amendment was to allow rental of district facilities for non-school functions and charge fees to cover the costs associated with use of the facility.)

Dr. DeWitt referenced the following section of the proposed rule amendment: (4) Schedule of Fees (c) “In addition to the above schedule of minimum fees, the user shall pay directly to the school any additional costs incurred by the school in providing the requested facility, including, but not limited to, costs incurred in connection with providing a custodian.”  Dr. DeWitt expressed his concern that the above statement could be subject to misinterpretation, as it only specified “costs incurred in connection with providing a custodian” and did not specify any other staff that might be provided (i.e., lighting director, lifeguard).  Mr. Sam Scallan, Director of Internal Auditing, referenced the following section of the proposed rule amendment: (4) Schedule of Fees (b) “All fees shall be promptly remitted in advance to the district’s General Accounting Department, Revenue Section, directly or through the school’s internal funds accounts.  All checks shall be made payable to the School Board of Escambia County, Florida.”  Mr. Scallan noted that if the intent of the rule was to have fees remitted to the school’s internal funds accounts, then checks should be made payable to the school rather than the School Board.  He suggested that the last sentence of that section be revised to read as follows: “All checks shall be made payable to the school.”

 

Notice of Intent to Advertise Amendment to School District Rule 6Gx17 – 7.02 - Student Dress (Item II.B.2 on April 17, 2003 Regular Meeting agenda)

This item was address earlier in the meeting.

 

V. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Curriculum and Instruction

1. Reading First Grant

Mrs. Stidham expressed concerns regarding the declining funding balance, as outlined in the grant.  She noted that each year of the budget for the grant would decrease, with a difference of approximately $600,000 between the first year budget and the sixth year budget.  She was concerned that “years down the road,” the District might have to “come up with the additional $600,000 to keep the program running.”

 

B. Finance

4. Financial Status Report

Mrs. Stidham noted there were several “grant funds that would not carry forward, with a final date to encumber of June 30, 2003.”  Mrs. Laura Shaud, Director of Budgeting, stated that measures were being taken, to improve communication with all grant directors, as to the available amount of funds for each grant/project and the timelines for spending those funds.

 

8. Budget Amendments

a) Resolution 6: General Operating Fund

Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mrs. Laura Shaud, Director of Budgeting, stated that the District had received a $14,030.93 in Medicaid (Object 3202) reimbursements, for providing direct services to Medicaid recipients.  She noted that “all we are doing here, is reporting the fact that in February we received $14,030.93 that had not been previously budgeted and indicating where it is being appropriated to.”

b) Resolution 6: Other Special Revenue Fund

c) Resolution 7: Capital Projects Fund

 

15. Half Cent Sales Tax Fund 3940, (Pages 38-42)

a. Reallocate funds ($6,834.45) between objects within Blue Angels Elementary School project.  Reappropriate funds from furniture, fixtures, and equipment ($6,182.02 decrease)(object 641) and software ($652.43 decrease)(object 691) to library books ($6,834.45 increase)(object 611).  Budgeting initiated this budget amendment to facilitate the proper classification of expenditures.

Mrs. Stidham believed that there should be a process to ensure that schools spent their half-cent sales tax funds within a certain period of time.  She noted that in this particular case, it had taken Blue Angels Elementary nearly three years.  She believed that schools should be advised that “if they do not spend their half-cent sales tax funds after a certain period of time, then those funds would go back into the sales tax allocation, to be used to benefit other schools.”  Mrs. Laura Shaud, Director of Budgeting, advised that the District did have a “standard practice” whereby, school should spend their funds within a year after the completion of the sales tax project.  She noted however, that the “practice was not followed through on very well,” and therefore, the Finance Department had recently established a procedure whereby, schools would be notified thirty-days in advance, “that their year was coming to an end and that they need to finish expending those funds.”  Mr. Ron Peacock, Director of Facilities Planning, stated that each time a project was initiated, principals would be given written notification as to the amount of funds available and a “timeline” of one year, for making their expenditures.  

 

The Regular Workshop recessed at 12:32 p.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m., with all Board Members, the Superintendent and Mr. Negron present.

 

C. Human Resources Services

1. Instructional/Professional

f. Special Requests

2. Request approval to hire Randall Rohr on a temporary assignment in the Data Center as a Systems Support Technician IV, Professional Salary Schedule, from March 17, 2003 through June 30, 2003.

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, explained that the temporary assignment of a Systems Support Technician was needed, as the resignation of one Data Center employee and the deployment to active duty of another, had left two positions temporarily vacant.  He noted that the temporary assignment of March 17, 2003 through June 30, 2003, would ensure that the data system was maintained through the end of the school year.  In answer to Dr. DeWitt’s question, Mr. Bill Bush, Director of Management Information Systems, stated that a permanent employee would be hired at the conclusion of the “hiring freeze,” in order to fill the position that was vacated due to a resignation.

 

3. Request approval to adopt the attached amended Escambia School District Calendar to include employee holidays and work schedules.

In response to concerns expressed by Mrs. Stidham and Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, stated that it was a “past practice” to designate six (6) paid holidays during the Winter Break, for eleven (11) and twelve (12) month Administrative, Professional and Instructional salary schedule employees. (NOTE: The following statement refers to the loss of annual leave for ten (10) month and eleven (11) month employees due to a recent “finding” by the Auditor General.)  Mrs. Stidham was concerned with the “fairness” of allowing this particular “past practice” to continue, due to the recent loss of annual leave for ten (10) and eleven (11) month employees.  Mrs. Stidham questioned whether half-days of in-service for instructional personnel would be added to the calendar.  At the request of the Board, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that a recommendation for the 2003-2004 school year would be presented at the May Regular Meeting, regarding half-days of in-service for instructional personnel.

 

4. Request approval to adopt the attached Department Personnel Planning Document for 2003-2004

This item was addressed later in the meeting.

 

2. Educational Support Personnel

c. Terminations

NAME             JOB TITLE      EFF DATE      LOCATION

Robinson, Lysonia   Tchr Asst Spec  03/25/2003  Transportation

Mr. Clark noted that an investigative report was being conducted by Mr. Elvin McCorvey, Coordinator of Affirmative Action/EEO, in response to complaints of sexual discrimination, filed by Ms. Robinson. Upon inquiry by Mr. Clark, Dr. Doug Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, stated the investigative report, once completed, would be provided to the Board.  He advised that the recommendation to terminate this employee was based on evidence put forth regarding job performance during the “probationary period.”  He noted that if the investigative report did in fact, find evidence supporting the complaints made by this employee, there would be possible recourse for the employee to return to work.

 

D. Purchasing

7. Bid Renewal / Extension: Healthcare Benefits Management Services

(NOTE: This item was a request for an extension to a current agreement with United Health Care (UHC), to provide year three of healthcare benefit management services including both a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and Healthcare Maintenance Organization (HMO) networks, discount rates, medical stop loss insurance and claims administration on healthcare benefits plan.)  Mrs. Stidham questioned whether the fee structure would change, if the Board decided to “do something different” with the current plan (i.e., different grouping, different layers, different programs, etc.).  Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, explained that fees were based on a percentage of the value of claims, and therefore, the “fee structure would not change based on changing the plan, assuming that the District stayed self-insured.” Dr. DeWitt noted that the backup documentation for this item included the following statement: “Cost projections indicate an anticipated 14% increase in the cost of healthcare for the upcoming year (including a corresponding increase in administrative costs.)”   Dr. DeWitt stated that he was not sure that he was ready to commit to a 14% increase, due to the uncertainty of the “budget situation” for the next fiscal year.  Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Joe Bernard, Director of Risk Management, explained that “historically, projections have been included in the renewal ‘lumped’ together with the administrative fees and the stop loss insurance.”  He stated that he would provide the Board with a “breakdown” of administrative fees.  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Bernard assured the Board, that approving this item, would “in no way tie the Board down to any plan changes (i.e., adding a third tier, changing deductibles, co-pays) that you may decide to make.”  Dr. Dewitt questioned whether this agreement could be revised with an effective date of May 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003 (rather than May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2004), to coincide with the insurance plan.  Mr. Bernard stated that he would contact the company to obtain their agreement regarding a revised effective date.

 

8. Bid Renewal / Extension: Pharmacy Benefit Management Services

(NOTE: This item was a request for an extension to the current agreement with Advanced PCS, to provide year three of pharmacy benefit management services including a pharmacy provider network, discounts, and rebates on prescription drugs and claims administration.) 

Dr. DeWitt question whether this agreement could be revised with an effective date of May 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003 (rather than May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2004), to coincide with the insurance plan.  Mr. Bernard stated that he would contact the company to obtain their agreement regarding a revised effective date.

 

11. Lightspan EduTest Assessment Software for Various Schools

This item was discussed earlier in the meeting.

 

21. Teachers for Jacqueline Harris Pyramid School of Learning

(NOTE: This item was a request for approval of payroll services for seven teachers from April 3, 2003 until June 30, 2003, at the Jacqueline Harris Pyramid School of Learning.) Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, stated that this item was a request for the payment of teachers at Jacqueline Harris Pyramid School of Learning (JHPSL).  He explained that the District would submit the payment to a payroll service company contracted by JHPSL, who in turn would pay the teachers.  He noted that the District could not pay those teachers directly, as they were not District employees.  In answer to Mrs. Stidham’s question, Mr. Thomas explained that the District “was a ‘pass-through’ because these were Title I funds.”

 

24. Change Notice #1 to Purchase Order #239927 (Children’s Services Center)

(NOTE: This item was a request to issue Change Notice #1 to Purchase Order #239927 for an additional $65,000 to allow continuation of childcare services provided to the teen parents of Escambia County School District until June 30, 2003.)

Mrs. Stidham questioned why there was an additional expenditure of $65,000.00. Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, stated that it was difficult to project the number of teen parents that there would be during the course of the year, as it varied from year to year.  Therefore, a projection was made “as to what we thought it would cost for the year,” however, because there had been more teen parents than projected, an increase to the purchase order was necessary.

 

E. Operations

1. Facilities Planning

B. Miscellaneous

2. School Board Deed and Resolution with Department of Transportation

Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, stated that this item was a request for a small area of land in front of Brown Barge Middle School to be declared “surplus” (as it was not needed for educational purpose) and sold to the Department of Transportation (DOT).  (NOTE: Because the DOT proposed to improve Interstate 110, it was necessary that they acquire this small area of land.)

 

F. Student Transfers

No discussion was held.

 

G. Internal Auditing

3. Other

a.Extra Pay Timesheet Review

b. Booker T. Washington High School Cheerleading Booster Association Review

c. AON Consulting, Inc. Invoice Analysis

These items were addressed earlier in the meeting.

 

VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

No items were submitted.

 

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Items from the Board

1. Review and Revision of School Board Policies – Cary Stidham

Mrs. Stidham noted that a review of Board policies was supposed to occur annually, however, the last review had occurred nearly two years before, in November 2001. She stated that she would propose a motion at the April 17, 2003 outlining a process, whereby each month, a different chapter of policies would be reviewed and revised. Her motion would also include propose that under the direction of the Superintendent, each department head would contact General Counsel with any changes or additions that needed to be made to policies that fell under their responsibility.

 

B. Items from the Superintendent

No discussion was held.

 

C. Items from the General Counsel

No items were submitted.

 

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Regular Workshop adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Attest:                                                           Approved:

____________________________             ____________________________

Superintendent                                               Chair