THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

MINUTES, APRIL 3, 2003

 

The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Special Meeting at 9:00 a.m., in Room 160, at the J.E. Hall Educational Services Center, 30 East Texar Drive, 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 9:02 a.m.)

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 Special Meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

 

II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

On motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, adoption of the agenda was approved 4 to 0, with Mr. Clark absent for vote.  (NOTE: Mr. Clark entered the Special Meeting at 9:02 a.m., immediately after this vote was taken.) 

 

III. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

(NOTE: Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, Mr. Mark Pursell, Director of Maintenance, and Mr. Shawn Dennis, Director of Transportation, served as facilitators for this particular segment of the Special Meeting.)  Mr. Kirchharr began with a brief review of the “strategic planning process” that occurred at the March 24, 2003 Special Meeting.  The Board Members and the Superintendent then participated in an activity that resulted in consensus on the following draft mission statement:  “To provide an environment that creates opportunities for all students to achieve their highest potential while building a foundation for continuous learning.”  Mr. Dennis then led the Board and the Superintendent through an activity to determine the “prioritization” of the goals that they selected at the March 24, 2003 Special Meeting and Mr. Kirchharr reviewed the aspects of short-term versus long-term goals.  As suggested by Mr. Kirchharr, the Board and the Superintendent collectively agreed that the draft mission statement should be distributed to all stakeholders with a request for their review and feedback.  Mr. Kirchharr advised that the next meeting on the “strategic planning process” would involve a review of the “prioritized” goals, participation in activities to classify goals as short-term or long-term, and development of a mechanism for obtaining feedback on the draft mission statement.

 

The Board collectively agreed to schedule the following meetings:

Special Meeting (Re: Strategic Planning Process and Budget Process)

April 9, 2003, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 160, at the J.E. Hall Educational Services Center

Special Meeting (Re: Strategic Planning Process and Budget Process)

April 17, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 160, at the J.E. Hall Educational Services Center

 

The Special Meeting recessed at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:25 a.m., with all Board Members, the Superintendent, and Mr. Negron present.

 

IV. BUDGET PROCESS

(Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit “A”)

 

General Revenue Budget Reduction Proposals 2003-2004

Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, gave a brief update on the “budget situation” by reviewing a handout provided to the Board, entitled “Analysis of Projected Budget Increases Versus Revenue Increase Based on Governor’s Budget.”

 

The Superintendent and his staff presented the following proposals:

(NOTE: It was the consensus of the Board, to simply discuss the following proposals and to postpone any action to the next Special Meeting scheduled for April 9, 2003.)

 

1) Reduce Retirement Incentive

No discussion was held.

 

2) Realignment of Custodial Services Department

The Board recognized Ellen Lawrence, Director of Escambia NEA UniServe and Custodial Operations Committee member, who advised that the backup documentation for this recommendation, included several of the recommendations previously made by the Custodial Operations Committee. 

 

3) Fund 80% of High School Summer School Program from Title I Funds

Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that the $190,000 in Title I funds, was “coming from District dollars, not from dollars allocated to the schools.”

 

4) Transfer Cost of Bus Aides to ESE/IDEA Funding

No discussion was held.

 

5) IDEA Funds to Pay for School Psychologist Position

Mrs. Stidham noted that the “rationale” (as outlined in the backup documentation) for this recommendation, indicated that “this position would remain vacant until such time as the ESE Department was sure that their budget would permit this expenditure.”  She noted that based on that particular statement, it seemed as if the District “did not necessarily have to have this position, but would fill it if the IDEA dollars were there.”  She questioned why the recommendation was not just to eliminate the position instead of leaving it vacant.  Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that the position was certainly needed, however, due to “desperate financial conditions,” it could remain vacant for the 2003-2004 school year, without having a negative impact to schools.  He noted that the position became vacant at the end of January, due to a retirement.

 

6) Staff Development to Fund the Equivalent of One Subject Area Specialist Position

In answer to Mrs. Stidham’s question, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that this recommendation “would not be considered supplanting.”

 

7) Reduce the Number of Visiting Teachers by One

Dr. DeWitt stated that due to an increasing amount of “social problems,” he was concerned with reducing the number of visiting teachers, as they were the “ones that are out there trying to help kids.”  At the request of Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that he would research and then provide, the State recommended ratio regarding number of students per visiting teacher.

 

8) Redirect $500,000 of Instructional Technology Funds to General Revenue

No discussion was held.

 

9) Teachers at the High School Level Teach Six of Seven Periods

In response to general questions posed by Ms. Finkelstein, regarding the Class Size Reduction Amendment, Dr. Alan Scott, Director of Secondary Education, reviewed the following information (as outlined in the backup documentation for this particular recommendation):

How will this save money? As a result of the class size reduction constitutional amendment, ECSD has reduced the basic staffing ratio at middle and elementary schools by two to reduce class size.  We can achieve class size reduction at the high school level by increasing each high school teacher’s class load from five of seven to six of seven periods.  A teacher who teaches 150 students over five periods averages 30 students per class.  The same teacher teaching 150 students over six periods averages 25 students per class.  High school teachers teaching six of seven periods results in class size reduction without adding additional staff to the high schools.  (Amount of General Fund Savings: $1,316,000) How many teachers would we have to add at the high school level to reduce class size by two without going from five of seven to six of seven?  In order to meet the requirements of the Class Size Reduction Amendment, the basic high school staffing ratio would have to be changed from 23:1 to 21:1.  This would increase the number of high school teachers district wide by 35.  In order to make the proposed change from five of seven periods to six of seven periods more palatable, the pupil teacher ration was reduced from 23:1 to 22:5:1.  This adds seven additional teachers at the high school level.  If we do not implement the six of seven period teaching schedule we will have to allocate an additional 28 teachers to reduce class size by two (21:1) at a cost of $1,316,000.  Does this issue have to be bargained with the union?  No, by contract, teachers are only guaranteed one planning period at the high school level.  Is there an alternative option?  Yes, moving to a six period day and 24 credits to graduate from high school with teachers teaching six of six with a common planning time before or after school.

The Board recognized Bob Husbands, Executive Director of Escambia NEA UniServe, who noted that there was a “substantial pattern of behavior” that had existed for many year, with regard to teachers at the high school level teaching five of seven periods, and therefore, this particular recommendation was “indeed a bargaining issue.” 

Ms. Finkelstein believed that it was important for the Board to understand that the District “was being supplied the money from the State, in order to make the Class Size Reduction, a reality.”

 

10) Reverse Board decision to implement freeze on instructional positions in January rather than October

Mrs. Stidham stated that she had never understood how the District could “achieve our goals, when there is a substitute teacher in the classroom as of October 1st.”  She stated that she would not support the approval of this recommendation.  (NOTE: Under a 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.)  Dr. DeWitt and Mrs. Bergosh agreed with the comments made by Mrs. Stidham.  Dr. DeWitt stated that he would not support the approval of this recommendation, as he believed that “other cuts could be made at a different level.”  Mrs. Bergosh noted that the District’s first responsibility was to educate students with “a highly qualified certified teacher in the classroom.”

 

11) Use 2-Mill Capital Outlay to fund $500,000 of property insurance

No discussion was held.

 

12) Eliminate one auditor position

Mrs. Stidham noted that the backup documentation for this recommendation indicated that “any additional audit work, if deemed necessary and cost beneficial by the Board or Superintendent, could be outsourced.”  She questioned “what would be the cost for additional audit work if it was outsourced?”  In response to Mrs. Stidham’s question, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, explained that a cost for outsourcing additional audit work would have to be obtained “whenever you wanted something done.”  The Superintendent noted that every department was “tightening up” and this recommendation was simply a request for the Internal Auditing Department “to find a way, just like every other department has had to find a way, in which to do more with less.”  Mrs. Stidham stated that she was “not comfortable with cutting” the Internal Auditing Department again, noting that it had already been “cut” by one auditor position several years ago.  Mr. Sam Scallan, Director of Internal Auditing, expressed his concerns with this particular recommendation.  He questioned “do you want a department that does nothing but audits of school’s internal funds, or do you want a department that’s available to respond to other special assignments that come up, because that’s basically what that other auditor position enables us to do.”  Dr. DeWitt and Ms. Finkelstein expressed their desire to maintain the auditor position.  Dr. DeWitt believed that maintaining that position, would allow the Internal Auditing Department to continue to perform special assignments, without ever questioning, “can we afford to have this investigated?”

 

13) Freeze Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) funds, excluding funds committed for temporary or permanent employees, extra pay, and substitute teachers, and limit 2003-2004 carryover to 25% of balance

At the request of Mrs. Stidham, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that she would provide a “breakdown” of each school’s current SAI fund balance.

 

14) Charge a fee for family dental insurance

The Board recognized Bob Husbands, Executive Director of Escambia NEA UniServe, who noted that it was a “past practice” of the District, to offer free family dental insurance.  He advised that “to change that without the benefit of bargaining, would subject the District to a charge of an unfair labor practice.”

 

15) Bus Compounding

This item was deferred to Executive Session for separate discussion.   

The Board collectively agreed to schedule an Executive Session to discuss collaborative bargaining issues (including bus compounding) on April 9, 2003 (immediately following the previously scheduled 1:00 p.m. Special Meeting), in Room 130, at the J.E. Hall Educational Services Center.

 

V. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Special Meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

 

Attest:                                                           Approved:

____________________________            _____________________________

Superintendent                                             Chair