The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Special Meeting at 1:00 p.m., in Room 130, 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

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 1:00 p.m.

II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

On motion made by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Mrs. Stidham, adoption of the agenda, was approved unanimously.

III. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

(NOTE: Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, and Mr. Mark Pursell, Director of Maintenance, 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 April 3, 2003 Special Meeting.  Mr. Pursell then led the Board and the Superintendent through an activity to evaluate their goals (selected at the March 24, 2003 Special Meeting) based on specific criteria.  (NOTE: The following discussion refers to a draft mission statement developed at the April 3, 2003 Special Meeting, which read: “To provide an environment that creates opportunities for all students to achieve their highest potential while building a foundation for continuous learning.”)  Mr. Kirchharr stated that as agreed to at the April 3, 2003 Special Meeting, the draft mission statement had been distributed (via email message) to the Strategic Planning Committee, with a request for their review and feedback.  He then reviewed comments from the responses that had been received, regarding the draft mission statement and the “strategic planning process” in general.  Following the review, Mr. Kirchharr proposed that the draft mission statement be distributed (via email message) to all stakeholders with a request for their review and feedback.  He further suggested that the draft mission statement be posted to the District web-site, with a request for comments/feedback, to be directed to an established email address.  The Board and the Superintendent collectively agreed that the draft mission statement be distributed (via email message) to all stakeholders with a request for their review and feedback.

The Board collectively agreed to schedule the following meetings:

Special Meeting (Re: Strategic Planning Process and Budget Process) April 21, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 160, at the J.E. Hall Educational Services Center

Special Meeting (Re: Legislative Update) April 21, 2003 at 12:00 p.m., in Room 160, at the J.E. Hall Educational Services Center

The Special Meeting recessed at 2:14 p.m. and reconvened at 2:20 p.m., with all Board Members, the Superintendent, and Mr. Negron present.

IV. BUDGET PROCESS

General Revenue Budget Reduction Proposals 2003-2004

(Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit “A”)

The Superintendent presented the following recommendations:

(NOTE: Proposals were previously addressed at the April 3, 2003 Special Meeting.)

1) Reduce Retirement Incentive

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Reduce Retirement Incentive,” was approved unanimously.

2) Realignment of Custodial Services Department

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Clark, to table the Superintendent’s recommendation for “Realignment of Custodial Services Department,” until the final report from the Portolan Group was received, was approved unanimously.

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

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Clark, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Fund 80% of High School Summer School Program from Title I Funds,” was approved unanimously.

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

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Clark, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Transfer Cost of Bus Aides to ESE/IDEA Funding,” was approved unanimously.

5) IDEA Funds to Pay for School Psychologist Position

Motion was made by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation for “IDEA Funds to Pay for School Psychologist Position.”  Motion was approved unanimously.

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

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation for “Staff Development to Fund the Equivalent of One Subject Area Specialist Position,” was approved unanimously.

7) Reduce the Number of Visiting Teachers by One

Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Reduce the Number of Visiting Teachers by One.” Mr. Clark questioned whether this reduction would place a burden on other visiting teachers, “to where they would not be able to perform their duties in an accurate manner.”  The Superintendent believed that duties could be reassigned without a negative impact to the department.  He noted that the increased use of technology had assisted in equalizing duties and expediting services to schools.

The Board recognized Bob Husbands, Executive Director of Escambia NEA UniServe, who expressed his thoughts regarding this proposal.

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.”  Mr. Clark agreed with the comments made by Dr. DeWitt and stated that he would not support the motion on the floor.  Motion failed 3 to 2, with Dr. DeWitt, Ms. Finkelstein and Mr. Clark voting “No.”

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

Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Redirect $500,000 of Instructional Technology Funds to General Revenue.”  Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, the Superintendent clarified that this particular recommendation was to redirect $250,000 which remained in this fund source from the 2002-2003 fiscal year Technology budget, and an additional $250,000 from the 2003-2004 Technology budget.  Board Members questioned whether schools had been notified that they were going to be losing some of the funds that they had already allocated within their technology budgets for this year.  Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to table this item until more information was provided, was approved unanimously.  (NOTE: The following discussion took place after action was taken on the Superintendent’s following recommendation that “Teachers at the High School Level Teacher Six of Seven Periods.”)  In answer to the Board’s inquiry, Mr. Don Manderson, Director of Instructional Technology, clarified that this recommendation would involve “taking only unencumbered funds.”  Motion made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Redirect $500,000 of Instructional Technology Funds to General Revenue,” was approved unanimously.

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

Motion was made by Mrs. Bergosh, seconded by Mrs. Stidham, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation that “Teachers at the High School Level Teach Six of Seven Periods.”  Mrs. Bergosh stated that while this was a “difficult decision,” it was a decision that had to be made, due to the District’s “tight financial constraints.”  Mr. Clark stated that he would not support this particular recommendation, as he believed that it would “affect the quality of education.”  Mrs. Stidham advised that she would “expect to see more cuts coming that will not affect classrooms, in order to support this recommendation.”  Dr. DeWitt stated that he would not support this particular recommendation until it became “critical.”  He believed that there were “other cuts that could be made that would not have a direct impact on students.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Dr. Alan Scott, Director of Secondary Education, briefly reviewed information regarding the number of class periods taught by high school teachers in other school districts.  Ms. Finkelstein stated that she would not support this particular recommendation, as she believed that there were “other avenues that could be explored.” Motion failed 3 to 2, with Ms. Finkelstein, Dr. DeWitt and Mr. Clark voting “No.”

10) Reverse Board Decision to Implement Freeze on Instructional Positions in January rather than October

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Dr. DeWitt, to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Reverse Board Decision to Implement Freeze on Instructional Positions in January rather than October,” was approved unanimously.

11) Use 2-Mill Capital Outlay to Fund $500,000 of Property Insurance

Motion was made by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Mr. Clark, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Use 2-Mill Capital Outlay to Fund $500,000 of Property Insurance.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mrs. Laura Shaud, Director of Budgeting, stated that if proposed legislation allowing the payment of property insurance from the 2 Mill Capital Outlay Fund, was not passed, this recommendation would not be possible, as it would then be illegal.  Dr. DeWitt offered a “friendly amendment” to the motion, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Use 2-Mill Capital Outlay to Fund $500,000 of Property Insurance,” pending the approval of appropriate legislation.  Mr. Clark accepted the “friendly amendment.”  Motion as amended, was approved unanimously.

12) Eliminate One Auditor Position

Motion was made by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Clark, to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Eliminate One Auditor Position.”  Mrs. Stidham and Ms. Finkelstein expressed their desire to maintain the auditor position.  Mrs. Stidham noted that maintaining that position would allow the Internal Auditing Department to continue to perform special assignments.  Ms. Finkelstein believed that maintaining this position would contribute to a “strong” Internal Auditing Department.  Ms. Finkelstein noted the importance of having a “strong” Internal Auditing Department, because “mistakes are made and we want to make sure that we can correct those mistakes as quickly as possible.”  The Superintendent noted that “each time there are cuts, the teachers, the principals, everybody has been asked to do more with less, and this is simply asking the Internal Auditing Department to do the same.”  Motion was approved 4 to 1, with Mrs. Bergosh voting “No.”

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

Motion was made by Mrs. Bergosh, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation to “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.”  Motion was seconded by Mrs. Stidham for discussion purposes.  Mrs. Stidham was concerned that some schools might have purposely saved their SAI funds, to pay for previously planned field trips.  For that reason, she offered a “friendly amendment” to the motion, to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation, to “Freeze Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) Funds, Excluding Funds Committed for Temporary or Permanent Employees, Extra Pay, Substitute Teachers and Previously Planned Field Trips, and Limit 2003-2004 Carryover to 25% of balance.”  Mrs. Bergosh accepted the “friendly amendment.”  Board Members expressed concern that backup documentation for this recommendation, included information which indicated that some schools had not encumbered a majority of their SAI funds.  Motion by Dr. DeWitt, seconded by Mrs. Stidham, to table this recommendation until more information was provided, was approved unanimously.  (NOTE: The following discussion occurred immediately prior to adjournment.)  Dr. Alan Scott, Director of Secondary Education, verbally provided information that addressed the Board’s concerns regarding school SAI budgets.  Motion as amended, was approved unanimously.

14) Charge a Fee for Family Dental Insurance

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mr. Clark, to table the Superintendent’s recommendation to “Charge a Fee for Family Dental Insurance,” was approved unanimously.

15) Bus Compounding

Motion by Mrs. Stidham, seconded by Mrs. Bergosh, to table the Superintendent’s recommendation for “Bus Compounding,” was approved unanimously.

V. ITEMS FROM THE BOARD

(Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit “B”)

ADD 1. Pre-K and Title I Recommendations – John DeWitt

Dr. DeWitt stated that he had placed this item on the agenda for discussion purposes only.  Mr. Wayne Odom, Director of Title I, advised that the District was not able to continue the dual system of state and federally funded school readiness programs.  He noted that the District had operated the dual system for this school year at a loss, due to the uncertainly of eligibility for students and thus, the uncertainty of funding.  In addition, he noted that the state requirement of charging a parent co-payment had made it impossible to adequately support and supplement the state funded programs with Title I funds.  Therefore, it was the Superintendent’s intention, to recommend to the Board, that the District not operate separate state and federally funded programs, resulting in the reduction of fourteen pre-k classes for the 2003-2004 school year.  Instead, the Superintendent would propose a Title I (federally) funded pre-k program, serving only the schools with the highest percentages of low-income families.  Any four-year-old child living in the attendance area of those schools, or the schools served by the pre-k centers, would be eligible for the Title I pre-k program, regardless of their eligibility for a state subsidy.  Then, within the context of a Title I pre-k program, if the Coalition consented, the District would accept a school readiness voucher for any child living within the areas cited above, who met state criteria, but with the understanding that the parent would not be charged a co-payment for services.  This plan would allow children in the highest poverty schools to be served whether they met only the federal criteria or the state criteria, as well.  Mr. Odom noted that the Superintendent would prefer that the District continue as a provider of school readiness services under the auspices of the Coalition, if it could do so in a manner that allowed the most efficient use of federal funds and the maintenance of the highest quality programs.  He noted that should the Coalition decide that it did not want to have the District as a provider of school readiness services under the conditions described above, the District would operate a separate Title I pre-k program for eligible children.  Mrs. Stidham noted that many of the “principals at the schools that did school readiness this year, would be more than happy to give it up, because it was not worth the hassle and it diverted attention that they felt like they should be giving to K-5 students.”  Dr. DeWitt noted that the Coalition had called a special meeting, to address the recommendation made by the Superintendent.

The Board collectively agreed to allow Dr. DeWitt, as the Board’s representative on the Coalition, to seek agreement from the Coalition, regarding a waiver of the parent co-payment for services and/or any funding that would contribute to the continuation of the fourteen (14) pre-k classes.

VI. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Special Meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Attest:                                                               Approved:

____________________________               ____________________________

Superintendent                                                Chair