Last School Board Meeting

[alexsaitta]

I made a motion and it passed that will put the 2nd reading of the prayer policy BEAA on the agenda for the March general meeting.

After the Greece, NY ruling in May, the prayer policy was sent to the policy committee and was re-written in July and August to bring it in line with the Greece, NY ruling. In September the board passed it 6 to 0 on the 1st reading. In October, the board voted (4 to 2) to table the 2nd reading of the policy saying they wanted the attorney general and our insurance company to review the policy. I voted against tabling the policy along with Jimmy Gillespie. The attorney general and insurance company has since reviewed the policy.

A motion is tabled to postpone an item for future consideration, not kill it.

Months have passed since the 2nd reading was tabled and that information has come back to the board. No reason for a delay in final vote anymore. The policy deserves a simple up or down vote and that is what it will finally get in March.

I'll vote to pass the policy in March. If it passes it will be implemented starting in July.

[alexsaitta]

The employees relation committee was asked to by the board to examine teacher pay. The committee reported this back to the board tonight.

Data:
We first examined data on teacher morale. The report cards require each school to do a teacher survey on the learning environment at the school, the social and physical environment at the school, and school-home relations. On average 93.1% of teachers are satisfied with those three conditions. That figure is rising. Dr. Merck said pay is a concern of teachers, but not critical, but the board/ district needs to move on the issue. This is a priority to the board this budget session.

Next we looked at the teacher turnover rates. Our turnover rate of 7.6% is lower than the average of 8.8% for Anderson, Greenville and Oconee. Oconee has the lowest turnover rate of 6.8% and Anderson District 4 has the highest at 14.2%.

Next we looked at medical costs for employees, and how much those costs have taken a bite out of salary increases. The cost of a family plan rose by $2,784 during the last four years. The school district passed only $144 of that on to employees and paid the other $2,640. That’s equal to 3 annual teacher step increases that instead went to funding the teacher’s rising medical costs.

Pay:
When it came to pay, on average our annual teacher pay is $1,955 behind surrounding counties. That’s one problem.

When you look closer at our pay scale, another problem becomes clear. About ¾ of the scale is paid 10.4% above the state minimum pay scale, but more than ¼ of the cells in the scale are only 5% or 6% above the state pay scale. Our scale is not uniform, but the pay scales of surrounding counties are uniform, so that is causing bigger gaps in pay in some places so the scale. That’s a second problem with our pay scale.

Options:
The committee is recommending we pay teachers their mandated step increase for 2015-16. That will cost $850,000. Then we recommend giving all other employees a 2% increase for 2015-16 and that will cost $350,000 more or $1.2 million in total.

Surrounding districts will do the same, so to narrow the teacher pay gap we’ll have to add more to the teacher pay scale. Doing an extra teacher step increase will cost $850,000. Fixing the inconsistencies in the pay scale will cost $325,000. Mr. Wilson and I preferred fixing the pay scale first and making it uniform and Mrs. Edwards prefers the step increase first.

The committee is presenting the board with both options to be included in the budget process, realizing we are in a wait and see mode unsure how much state revenue our district will be given. Also the state legislature and SDE is talking about modifying the teacher pay scale, and we want to see how that pans out.

[alexsaitta]

Prayer Policy:
The prayer policy had its 2nd reading tonight. The first reading was in September. The second reading in October was tabled for more information. The board received that information in December, and the chairman (Brian Swords) did not put it back on the agenda and in February I made a motion to get the final reading on the agenda for a vote at the March meeting. It was one of those rare 3 to 3 votes with Henry Wilson, Phil Bowers and Alex Saitta voting to pass the policy, and Brian Swords, Judy Edwards and Herb Cooper voting against. The new policy failed.

Right now a school board member gives the opening prayer – it is non-sectarian. Judy Edwards who gave the board prayer tonight is a Christian, but the current policy prohibits her from praying in Jesus’ name, but only to God, Father or Lord. The current policy is in line with the 4th Circuit Court ruling that was in force at the time the policy was passed in early 2013.

Late last year the US Supreme Court struck down that 4th Circuit ruling and said if a local clergy is invited in to give the prayer, he can pray according to the dictates of his own conscience, without any government interference or restriction.

This new policy would have switched to the clergy method of the opening prayers of the board meeting.

I gave 4 reasons why I supported the policy change. This was my final reason.

I can’t think of an issue that has more support in my district.

The people want the school board to start their meetings with an invocation where the person giving the prayer is free to pray according to the dictates of his own conscience and without government restriction. The people of Pickens County want our school board to pass this policy because it shows their government (the county school board) purposely and officially support that constitutional right of freedom of religious expression.

Having a board member give a non-sectarian prayer, has not satisfied the people because our current school board policy restricts how the board members can pray, and the community resents that.

And having a public input section where a pastor may or may not sign up to exercise his right to freely pray, leaves it to chance this right will be exercised, and that isn’t good enough for the people either.

Continued below

[alexsaitta]

Continued from above

We should always strive to give the public what it wants, but as trustees of the public we also have to insure the public is not exposed to undue risk. We’ve done that with this policy.

This policy is backed by two US Supreme Court Rulings.

Marsh vs. Chambers in 1983 states a deliberative or legislative body can start its meetings with a prayer. Greece, NY vs Galloway in 2014 states a local clergy can give the invocation according to the dictates of his own conscience without any interference or editing from government.

This policy is backed by the state law 6-1-160 which says a deliberative public body like a school board can adopt a policy to have a public invocation before each meeting. An invocation speaker is selected on rotating basis from among a wide pool of the religious leaders serving in the local community.

To get further clarification on this, we contacted the State Attorney General. He wrote an opinion specifically for our school district. It reaffirmed that state law and was very supportive of this method of prayer. Here is what the AG wrote: "In summary, we believe the Town of Greece decision provides a road map for a local deliberative body, such as a school board, to use in order to uphold as constitutional its prayer policy. Thus, we recommend to any local deliberative body such as the Pickens County School board, that the Town of Greece decision be closely followed and adhered to."

The state law also says, "the Attorney General shall defend any deliberative public body against a facial challenge to the constitutionality of this law". We are following the state law, so if we are sued the State Attorney General will stand with us in court.

Just to be sure, after the policy was written, we asked the attorney general to look at the policy and he wrote our "prayer policy is good".

I contacted the Alliance Defending Freedom organization. I spoke with the attorney who helped defend Greece, NY in the Supreme Court case (Brett Harvey). He read the first draft of our policy. He suggested changes, which our attorney reviewed and added to the policy's 2nd reading. The Alliance Defending Freedom says the policy is legally sound.

The attorney for our liability insurance company said the policy was legal and if we were sued, our liability insurance policy would cover our legal costs.

Finally, this method of prayer at government meetings is being implemented by councils and boards across the country. It is my understanding the City of Liberty is already doing this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It provides a good example of why we are losing the cultural war. If FFRF would have won this lawsuit, the would be jamming it down our throats right now. When the Supreme Court hands us a clear victory, too many of our leaders are afraid to move forward or don't see the benefit in doing so.

[sweetie]

Will it ever change or is it dead? John 14-27: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

[alexsaitta]

A policy needs two readings or votes to become effective. Most always the first reading is one month and the second reading is the next month.

This policy would have to go back to first reading. Either the chairman could put it back on the agenda or the board could try to add it to the agenda. The chairman (Brian Swords) opposes the policy and voted against putting it on the agenda in March, so that option is unlikely. It is unlikely the board could vote to get it on the agenda, because just putting it on the agenda would be voted down 3 to 3. So it is dead for now I would say. My feeling is with more than 90% of the county supporting the policy, it will find life again at some point in the future.

The policy went to committee in July. It passed 6 to 0 for first reading in September. It was tabled at the second reading in October because they said they wanted to hear back from the state Attorney General and the insurance company. That information came back in December. Both said the policy was legal/ looked good. The chairman didn't put the policy on the agenda for a second reading in Jan or Feb. At that point it was clear they tabled it not to get more information but to kill it. So at the Feb meeting I made a motion to put the policy on the agenda in March. It passed 3 to 2 to put it on the agenda for March (Cooper was not at the Feb meeting).

I'm disappointed the policy did not pass. The silver lining was our local democracy shined (due to persistence), because there were some games with this policy and the agenda, but in the end the item did make it to the agenda got the up or down vote it deserved.

[alexsaitta]

www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/pickens-county/2015/04/14/pickens-county-school-district-budget-calls-tax-increase/25780453/

This is an excerpt from that article: But in order to cover the cost of those step increases, the district teaching force would shrink by about 15 positions under the proposal, according to Clark Webb, the district’s finance director. Those would be jobs left unfilled after teachers retire or leave the district, and the loss won’t have a significant effect on the overall student-teacher ratio, he said.

There are three points that come to mind after reading this article.

First, the administration presented this plan to the school board and the public, and the administration said they proposed giving teachers their annual raise, plus giving them a second raise as well. In the presentation they didn’t tell the board or the press they were paying for it by eliminating 15 classroom teaching positions.

When I looked at the numbers, I knew something was missing. Looking at the math from the proposal, total salaries were up $1.6 million, but the proposal hands out $2.4 million in raises. The presentation didn’t give any explanation of how they were making up that difference. There was a lot of talk about growing revenue, so on the surface it looked like growing revenue was paying for it. It isn't.

Second, the reporter followed up after the meeting, asked the questions and came up with the answer. The proposal eliminates 15 classroom teaching positions. So if 50 teachers retire, they'll only hire 35 back, and 15 teaching positions disappear. At a $55,000 savings per, that saves $825,000. That is how the proposal pays for that extra pay raise.

The final point is, I will not vote for this -- putting more children in the classroom, taking the savings and giving employees an extra raise. How is that going to help the students? It doesn’t. I’m all for helping employees and narrowing the pay gap, but not at the expense of students. There has to be another way to do this and it should be pursued.

[alexsaitta]

I read the Greenville News article, Easley Backs Down From Fight With County On TIF. Reading the article, Easley agreed to pay the county all of the remaining surplus -- 4 years that was due under the precedent setting Clemson ruling.

Under state law any annual TIF revenue generated from the TIF area that is above the annual bond payment is considered surplus and is to be returned to the taxing authorities of the school district (55%), county government (25%) and the city of Easley (20%). Total revenue over the life of the 15-year Easley TIF will be about $4.25 million. The cost of the bonds (interest and principle) will be about $2 million, so the total surplus according to the law will be about $2.25 million. The school district should have gotten $1.2 million of that surplus, the county about $550,000 and the city of Easley about $450,000.

Up until this point, the Easley TIF had been spending the surpluses or about $1 million so far. The school district and county government called Easley on this, and argued the spending of the surpluses going forward needed to stop immediately and completely, pointing to the court precedent set in the Clemson TIF case. We decided what was in the past, was the past and didn’t seek to recoup past surpluses the Easley TIF had already spent.

Looking ahead, the school district was due $410,000 in surpluses over the next four years (when the TIF ended in 2018). The county was due about $160,000.

Unfortunately, the board/ administration settled with Easley in February to accept only three years or $300,000. That cost the school district $110,000 which it was entitled to.

The logic at the time was, the district should take less money because it would save money from going to court with Easley. This was my point and why I voted against the settlement in February. Easley was not going to go to court. They were not complying with the TIF law, and Clemson court ruling/ precedent assured Easley would lose in court if it went that route.

Instead of negotiating down on what the county government was entitled to, the county threatened to sue Easley. In turn, Easley agreed to give the county all the surplus it was due ($160,000 -- see the article).

Overall the pursing enforcement of the TIF law was a positive for the school district. This upcoming year the district will receive about $660,000 in surpluses from the TIFs in Clemson, Easley, and Liberty. For instance, we funded $355,000 of additional classroom supplies with this money already. I thank the county council for standing with the school board on correcting this issue.

www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2015/04/14/easley-backs-county-special-tax-district/25782451/

[geraldgarrett]

Apr 28, 2015 7:39:29 GMT -5 alexsaitta said:

I thank the county council for standing with the school board on correcting this issue.

CORRECTION: The county council stood FOR the School Board, while the School Board members - apparently on their advice of your homogenous band of attorneys - cowered behind waiting to see what was going to happen next. (And, Alex, please don't misread that word "cowered" and get defensive. I didn't misspell a word, although "cowered" and "coward" do have similar connotations.)

Congratulations on getting the windfall from those TIF's, which, as anybody should have known, were designed to benefit EVERYBODY in the county, not just those in the Kingdoms of Easley and Clemson and the Duchy of Liberty. It is money that can now be directed toward things other than rainbows and fluffy pink clouds, and that's a big plus for the county.

But let me see if I understand something you said in your post. Did the School District's attorneys really fail us miserably for the second time in less than a year?

What I read was that the School Board settled with Easley in February for less than what would have been owed after determining (I assume, on advice of counsel) that Easley would fight in court and y'all didn't want to risk the costs of further litigation. That left a $110,000 hole in the District's potential revenue stream.

Last year, on advice of counsel and on a majority vote of four cowering School Board members, y'all adopted a hybrid prayer policy that means not one of the six majority-elected Board members who (to my knowledge, are all Christian) can personally open a meeting with public Christian prayer. That left a gaping hole in the souls of the Christian community in Pickens County which, as you may or may not know, is the MAJORITY.

I'm curious. When might your bold band of public servants consider hiring competent attorneys who are willing to do their jobs instead of running from their own shadows at the first sign of opposition? Perhaps you could find someone who won't tuck his tail and run away every time he or she is confronted by some bully, barbarian, charlatan or blowfish who rears his ugly head in this neck of the woods?

Could you, maybe, talk to County Council and see if they can recommend somebody?

Or is that asking too much of an education elite that already knows everything about everything and is never afraid to stand on principle as long as somebody else is willing to fight their fights for them?

[alexsaitta]

Easley has been spending the surpluses since 2005. After the Clemson case, in July 2014 we called Easley on this. I was the chairman then. At that time, we said we are going to treat Easley just like Clemson. That is, we’d let them keep any past surpluses, but from July 2014 on, they were going to have to follow the law and court precedent and pay out the surpluses to the county, school district, etc. I’ve got a letter from our attorney to Easley saying that with all the figures.

Our thinking was, you are getting to keep years of surpluses you weren’t entitled to, but going forward that was going to have to stop. Just like with Clemson. This would have given the district $410,000 minimum over 4 years. For the most part the board was united with Shelton, Gillespie and myself leading the way for equal treatment. The attorney also said you have to treat Easley like you did Clemson, so he agreed.

We get a new chairman (Brian Swords), and all of a sudden they were negotiating down with Easley from four years to three, from $410,000 to $300,000. It was what it was. The new argument was we need to mend fences. Mend fences? Someone takes money from you they aren’t entitled to, and your aim is to mend fences? How about getting all the money you are entitled to first? I thought, gosh we are letting them keep everything up to this point they weren’t entitled to. That’s a very big olive branch. Why give them more? Relationships or old-time politics drove that decision at the expense of the school district.

The attorney also did a 180 feeling. He was all of a sudden s saying if you go to court, you’ll have court costs, etc. I said, Easley isn’t going to go to pay an attorney to go back to the same judge to lose.

The 3 year -- $300,000 settlement with Easley passed 5 to 1 with me voting against it. It cost the district $110,000 that a judge said the district would be entitled to. It was surreal. To the county's credit, they didn't let relationships drive the situation. They treated Easley just like Clemson.

The student led prayer was illegal. Our attorney had that right. It would have been foolish to continue with that because there are court rulings going back to 1962 they would have clubbed us with.

The clergy led-prayer voted down last month (and our attorney was against) is very legal and supported by the US Supreme Court. It was disappointing. Again, decisions should be driven by the law.

I agree with this story. This issue won’t go away because the clergy led prayer is very legal and like 90% of the county support it.

www.yourpickenscounty.com/public-keeps-prayer-issue-alive/

[alexsaitta]

This is what I wrote on Facebook Feb 19th in response to this article.

www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/pickens-county/2015/02/19/easley-mayor-blasts-county-chamber-speech/23690529/

The Easley TIF walked/ fell into the same hole the Clemson TIF did. Their leaders didn’t know the TIF law, nor its limits and frankly couldn’t identify the limits either when they were asked as well. They deferred to their lawyers throughout whose eyes will filled with alluring bond fees and said there was no limit to how much school district or county money their TIF could spend on bike trails, ball fields and sidewalks.

In the end, the judge ruled the lawyers/ Clemson TIF had stretched the law, so the Clemson TIF had to pay the county and school district plus their lawyer fees for all the bad advice Clemson received. The TIF law is very clear – Section 31-6-40: Any pledge of funds in the special tax allocation fund [annual TIF revenue] must provide for distribution to the taxing districts of monies not required for payment and securing of the [bond] obligations and the excess funds are surplus funds. All surplus funds must be distributed annually to the taxing districts in the redevelopment project area by being paid by the municipality to the county treasurer of the county in which the municipality is located.

The city of Clemson hadn’t distributed any of the annual surpluses, and the judged ruled against them. Easley hasn’t distributed the annual surpluses either. If Easley is sued by the county, they’ll be taken back to the same judge who will look at the same state law, his past ruling and very similar facts in the Easley case.

Instead of trying to take their case to the court of public opinion which doesn't matter to the courts, if I was sitting on the Easley City Council I would pay the county the surpluses they are likely asking for -- from the point Easley was notified of the problem, going forward. That way, Easley will get to keep the past surpluses (nearly 10 year’s worth) and it’ll just have to follow the law going forward.

[alexsaitta]

I looked at the school district numbers closely on the 1st Reading, and will write more in the future. Revenue is growing and what I give the board/ administration credit for is it is being spent on top priorities. The top priorities were set by the administration in December and they were building maintenance, technology refreshes, classroom supplies and teacher pay. The board spent $4.7 million on the first two (in Feb). We funded that by refinancing bonds, savings from previous capital projects and selling a piece of property. About $450,000 was spent on classroom supplies (in Feb) and that was funded with that new TIF money. This budget proposes to spend more on teacher pay to narrow the pay gap. Overall, that is a solid financial principle in action -- set spending priorities and focus the new money on them.

In the past, when new money came in, it would be spent on everything from A to Z, and top priorities were not satisfied. That's good budget discipline.

There is no tax increase in the budget.

There are a couple issues I'm unhappy with in the proposal, and will detail them in a few days. There was no vote on this first reading.

[alexsaitta]

This exchange on Facebook provides good insight into the budget proposal put forth by the district administration:

Robin Nelson Miller wrote: We celebrate the fact that we will not have to eliminate positions for the upcoming school year, but please understand, the positions that are eliminated through attrition will have an impact. We are already understaffed for a school district of our size.


Alex: The first part of the sentence says the district will not have to eliminate positions. The second part says some will be eliminated. She sounds confused. Her inability to explain situations like this shows me she lacks understanding…. The district administration has proposed in their budget giving teachers a pay raise, plus an extra pay raise on top of that. The way the administration aims to pay for this second pay raise is by eliminating 16 classroom teaching positions. Let’s say 50 teachers retire this year. They will hire only 34 new teachers. The students in those other 16 classes next year will be without teachers and will be merged into existing classes, raising overall class sizes. The savings will fund the second pay raise…. Is it good public policy to eliminate classroom teaching positions, put more students in a classroom, take the savings and give yourself an extra pay raise? I don’t think so. Most would agree, yet, Robin Nelson Miller is celebrating this and has praised the budget proposal. How is that standing up for the children? I think it is a top priority to narrow the teacher pay gap with surrounding counties, but there are other ways to do this without harming students... Continued below.

[alexsaitta]

Continued from above... Someone from Concerned Citizens of Pickens County also wrote this, and I think it was Robin Nelson Miller because she was at the Monday night budget meeting: As you might imagine, there was a bit of posturing going on last night. Alex Saitta defended the previous practice of paying people less so that we can (avoid a tax increase and) keep folks on staff while maintaining lower student / teacher ratios.

Alex: That is jumbled gobbledygook. Let me explain what happened. In 2011 the district/ board voted to eliminate 30 classroom teaching positions to plug a budget deficit, and that raised class sizes. I voted against that. In 2012 the administration proposed eliminating about 20 classroom teaching positions. I proposed an alternative, freeze teacher pay one year, and not eliminate any more classroom teaching positions, and keep class sizes down. It passed. The administration is now trying to make up that pay raise by eliminating teaching positions this upcoming year.

CCPC Continued: Henry Wilson was displeased that STEM allocations will remain largely unfunded. Neither Saitta nor Wilson objected to the fact that teachers would remain one step behind the State's MINIMUM salary schedule.

Alex: Again this is confusing because it creates the false impression Pickens County teachers are paid below the minimum state pay scale for teachers. This is untrue, and if it was true, it would be illegal. Our school district teachers are paid about 8% above the minimum state pay scale for teachers. The reason I say about 8%, because ¾ of our teachers are paid 10.4% above the minimum state teacher pay scale and about ¼ are paid only 5 to 6% above the state scale. That is unfair to those latter teachers. This year I proposed fixing that so all teachers would be paid 10.4% above the state pay scale.

[geraldgarrett]

Alex, I'm not trying to be a dumba** or a smarta** with this question. I really don't know the answer, so I'm passing it on to you.

You keep referencing the "minimum state pay scale for teachers" which, I'm assuming by its description, is set by the STATE, and we at the local level have no control over it without spending a generation or two changing the entire culture of the General Assembly, not just the faces.

What happens if those legislators in Columbia, in their never-ending efforts to pander for votes every two years, decide to raise that "minimum state pay scale for teachers" by, say, 5% across the board (also called "buying our votes with our money) and WE, in our infinite wisdom, have decreed from on high (i.e., a majority vote of the School Board of Pickens County attempting to buy our votes with ... oops, I repeat myself) that OUR teachers have to make 10.4% above that scale.

Do we defy the state and tell them to blow their pandering out their ear, or do we stand firm with our own pandering to our local educators, bite the bullet, and find money to keep that promise? If you are opposed to the so-called "minimum wage" in the real world (and I'm not, by the way, but I've heard you and others on this board say you are), why in the world would you impose not just a "minimum wage" for teachers but a "minimum wage" that's a full 10.4 percent ABOVE the minimum wage set by another agency?

Being opposed to a "minimum wage" is kind of like being pregnant. Either you are, or you aren't. (Speaking of that "hypocrisy" somebody referenced in a post on another thread a few days ago ...)

But I guess my basic question is, "How wise is it to anchor our local teachers' pay scale directly to a base over which we have no control?"

As a followup, as a reporter, I'd ask you (off the record), "Do you, as a fiscal conservative with an eye toward the future, really want to go down that road?"

Just curious. Carry on.

[alexsaitta]

I do think there should be a minimum wage in our economy, and it should be at a level so someone can not pay a worker an exploitive wage like 50 cents an hour. I do not think the minimum wage should be a living wage, which many are trying to make it today. I think the minimum wage of $7.50 is fine and I would not raise it. Above that level, wages should be set by the market.

The state says a district has to pay a teacher a minimum for given years of experience and degree. For example, a teacher with 4 years and a Masters must be paid $35,575 according to the state. We pay that teacher $39,656 or $4,081 above the state minimum. That extra amount is called the local supplement and it is 10.4% of the total pay in that example.

That local supplement of $4,081 in our example, can not be lowered by state law, only kept the same or added to.

The state sets the minimum teacher wage. Plus it does not allow districts/ boards to lower the local supplement. Wise? I think there should be a minimum teacher pay to keep teacher pay in the state somewhat uniform, and given the state pays about 70% of that minimum, I guess they feel they can set it.

It is up to the districts to pay only the minimum or more than the minimum based on their local market/ desire/ need and how much it pays above the minimum is up to the district/ board to determine. The district or board pays 100% of that local supplement.

My point above was we pay some teachers 10.4% are above the state minimum scale and other teachers are only 5 to 6% above the minimum. If the aim is to narrow the gap of teacher pay in our county vs. surrounding counties (a good goal), I would start by boosting the pay of the teachers who are furthest below surrounding counties and those are the teachers that get only a 5% to 6% local supplement. I would raise them to a 10.4% local supplement so all teachers are above the state minimum by 10.4%. That would do two things. Make the pay uniform for all teachers in our district (more equal given years of service and experience) and it would also narrow the teacher pay gap with surrounding districts which is about $1,955 a year. Did I answer your question?

[alexsaitta]

This meal issue is a good issue and I’m glad Concerned Citizens of Pickens County brought it up.

CCPC Wrote: It is worth mentioning that later in the meeting, Mrs. Nicholson presented a couple of items requiring a vote by the board. One was a $.10 increase in the price of meals per a federal mandate. Mr. Saitta took the liberty to share his conclusion that meal sales were in decline, and suggested that increasing the price of meals might result in a further decrease in the number of meals sold, thus eventually forcing us to dip into the general reserve to make up the cost. Mrs. Nicholson very patiently explained to him that overall meal sales had increased steadily over the course of the last 5 years and that the number he was looking at was for "a la carte" items. She also explained that by refusing to increase the cost by $.10, we would immediately lose a significant amount of federal funding thus forcing us to dip into the general reserve now.

Alex: Let me tell you what I said at last night’s meeting on this. When you visit schools, talk to employees, or talk to your child or their friends you hear a lot. A few years ago the feedback I was hearing was the taste/ quality of the meals had declined. Others were hearing it and the board asked for a survey of employees and they were taken about 3 years. The survey had three criterion: decor, service and taste/ quality of the food. On average the décor had like an 85% satisfaction rate, service 90% and taste/ quality of the food was just about 50% -- confirming what we all were hearing. One question I remember was now often do you eat in the cafeteria, and like 45% responded less than once every two weeks. Hundreds were taking the survey.

No one had an issue with the service or the food service workers. All are very satisfied with the job they are doing. The surveys prove that. The focus was the low satisfaction with the taste/ quality of the meals. The reason for the decline was the tightening federal nutrition standards under the Obama Administration. When a district takes the federal lunch subsidies you have to follow their standards on salt, fat and sugar. The director said they don’t cook with salt or fat. The food service organization made an effort to improve the taste of the food, but with no salt or fat I can see why so many were saying the meals were bland.

Continued below.

[alexsaitta]

Continued from above.

And it was showing in the numbers. The revenue paid by students and employees for meals was $2.7 million in 2008-09, $2.5 million in 2010-11, $2.3 million in 2013-14 and it is on track for less than that this year. This year only 38 took the survey. My feeling is they just gave up giving input, because they figured what good would it do?

One of the things the administration asked the board to approve last night was an increase in school lunch prices.

After looking at the audit, I realized what is saving the Food Service budget from going into deficit was rising federal government reimbursements on each meal. But if the federal government pulls back on those subsidies, with falling revenue in paid meal sales, the budget will go into deficit. We surely don’t want to get in a situation where we have to spend education money on food services.

Thinking ahead, I said the key is to get paid revenue from meal sales growing again. So my question was, is raising the price of a meal that it seems less want to eat a good way to stabilize or boost sales? The response was the federal government mandates we increase the price. OK, I said, then what we need to do is try something different to improve the food, otherwise revenue is going to fall further. Think about it. If many don’t like the taste of the meals at $2.00 they surely won’t be attracted to them by at a higher price.

The food service workers are doing the best they can with these overly strict standards, but too many see the food as bland and sales are declining – a problem. The federal lunch subsidies are so lucrative, the department doesn’t want to give the revenue, and the too strict standards remain – a problem. While the meal is considered the pinnacle of health, the students throw out a lot of it and many employees don’t find them appetizing enough to eat, so these healthiest of meals do they benefit them? No – a problem. If you see three problems and they aren’t being addressed to the point something will improve, you vote no and I did.

[alexsaitta]

This budget is the least challenging of the last five or six years. We made the tough decisions in 2010 and 2011 and that has and is still paying off. The budgets the last couple of years balanced themselves and with the economy accelerating this budget is pushing a surplus.

Tonight’s 2nd reading of the budget passed 4 to 1 to 1. I abstained for the reason I mentioned below. The final vote is later in the month.

The way the budget process works is the board and administration first talk about priorities for the upcoming year. Then the administration formulates and presents a plan to the board based on those agreed priorities. The board then asks questions about the plan, and the administration answers them. A series of budget meetings, debate and board votes take place and a final budget is voted on and passed.

At the first reading, I asked three questions about the plan presented by the administration and the administration is still working on answering them, so I’m personally still in the question answer mode of the budget process. The beauty about having 3 budget votes on a budget is the first two votes are really public reading and gathering information time. My questions should be answered well before the final vote on June 22.

I did make the following suggestion on coaches supplements, tonight, though. I support increasing coaches supplements, but we haven’t been able to do that in 5 years. It appears such increases will be quite irregular. My advice is give this increase and also create a bonus program based on the revenue of the sports programs at each school to help boost the coaches’ pay. We did something like that in 2012. This would incentivize each school to do better in generating sports revenue in the future, and I think the coaches, schools and district would both benefit.

I’ve talked with Roy Costner a couple times on this. There are many things that can be done with this idea, if we incentivize the system to pursue this route.

[alexsaitta]

Let me give you an example of how this would work. This is what we passed in 2012. Let's say high school xyz has $150,000 in sports revenue from ticket sales, merchandise sales, photo day, concessions, whatever. And the programs' cost was $100,000. So they would have $50,000 net at the end of the year. Let's also asssume they have 25 coaches being paid a total of $100,000 from the general fund of the school district. The superintendent, the principal of the school and AD would sit down and say, we want to put $25,000 in the bank of the sports programs for that school and pay out $25,000 in bonuses for the coaches. $25,000/ $100,000 would be a 25% bonus across the board for all coaches at the school. It has to be because of Title IX. So if coach Southwestern was paid a $4,000 supplement, his bonus would be $1,000.

If School EFG didn't want to particpate because it thought this was a ridiculous idea, it would not have to.

Marketing is not fund raising or raising money through donations, which we have too much in our schools already. Marketing is the sale of the brand through better merchandising, ticket sales, selling advertising, creating strategies to draw more people to the events.

Right now there is a sense of envy in schools of football. This dynamic would change because all coaches would cooperate with the bigger revenue sports because they would primarily fund the overall revenue and hence the coaches bonuses.