By Travis Reems
Filed Saturday, September 23 at 6:31 AM
The following was posted to the SLSWatch email list by Chad Beffa:
September 21, 2006 -- At a quiet, public meeting Tuesday the St. Louis school board got to work on some of the major problems facing the school district.
The issue that generated the most discussion at the meeting was finances.
Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer Enos Moss reported that the budget prepared under former Superintendent Creg Williams did not allocate enough funds for several areas. He did not report how much was needed to fill those gaps, but said he would do so at a later meeting when he had solutions to offer.
Assistant Superintendent of Operations Deanna Anderson reported that transportation alone was underfunded by between $10 million and $12 million. She said it was not the case that the true costs weren't known before, she was director of transportation under Williams, it was just that Williams and former Chief Financial Officer Cedric Lewis ignored the costs and budgeted a much lower amount.
Moss said one of the areas not included in the budget at all was transportation for homeless students, even though state law mandates that the district provide transportation to and from school for homeless students.
Board member Bob Archibald expressed concern about the finances and wanted the board to reject the bus routes, arguing that the board could not approve bus routes without knowing how to pay for them. State law requires that school boards approve school bus routes and submit them to the state by October, but St. Louis had ignored that regulation in recent years. The school board did not approve last year's bus routes until June, nine months after the approval was due.
Board member Peter Downs also expressed concern about the finances, but his concern was that the board had unknowingly approved a budget that did not meet the legal requirements of the State. He asked whether budget reports could be changed to show the whether the board was meeting state or judicial requirements for funding programs and how much spending was at the board's discretion.
The motion to approve the bus routes passed 4-3.
Downs also asked about the process for recommending air conditioning contracts. Anderson brought to the board a recommendation to take the contract for air conditioning Shaw School away from one contractor and give it instead to Murphy Co. She had explained to the board last week in its administrative meeting that the change was necessary, because the proposal previously recommended to the board did not meet the requirements for air conditioning Shaw. The original contractor had, in fact, already submitted changes orders to raise the contract price even though it had yet to begin work.
Anderson recommended giving the contract to Murphy as the company that provided the lowest bid that actually complied with the specifications issued by the school district.
Downs asked what administrative processes were put in place to prevent that kind of mistake from happening again. Anderson said that now bids are reviewed by people familiar with the work that is needed, whereas before they weren't.
In other business, the board reviewed drafts of school report cards that the administration is preparing with the intent of providing the board a means to review school progress every quarter. The board also accepted Superintendent Bourisaw's report recommending that the district give up Williams' scatter shot "strategic plan" for the district and instead adopt a focused approach to meeting the demands of the State of Missouri and the accreditation process.
Bourisaw also announced that she is putting a group in place to promote magnet schools better, and she is going to see if money can be moved in the budget to restore some of the cuts made in magnet programs. She mentioned that she will be going to the state education department with data that shows that African-American students in city magnet schools outperform African-American students who transfer to county schools under the desegregation agreement.
As its final piece of business, the board authorized the superintendent to contact planning companies to make public presentations to the board about school district planning. Archibald was the only board member opposed to the motion.
Although a productive start was made on rebuilding the school district from the damage done to it over the previous three years, much remains to be done. Speeches by the teachers' union president and vice president underscored that work.
Mary Armstrong and Byron Clemons said management had been very disrespectful to the union in a labor-management meeting the week before. Armstrong said the union had taken 12 issues to the table and management refused to discuss them. The union officials said the union would not return to meetings with management until management was ready to actually "confer" on issues.
16 Comments:
It is all good, rebuild, until that last paragraph. Perhaps I don't understand the time line as well. The management was disrespectful of the teachers union?
Is the honeymoon over?
TRouble
Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:14:00 AM
TRouble, Good question. The honeymoon you refer to has been spent in separate beds. The Union was split over the decision to replace Mr. Williams. That is no secret for anyone who cares to actually ask Local 420 for their position. We had major issues with Mr. Williams, but had invested a lot of time and money into trying to work with his administration. So we discussed it (I'm on the Exec. Board of Local 420) and came to our position. It is called the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. When he was replaced (and much of his staff) many of our efforts had to begin from scratch. Grievances and policy statement violations were at an all-time high...they still are.
So, we began again. The Union is, once again, trying to work with a new administration. Many believe it is a much better administration, but we will not sit by quietly and let anyone violate our members' rights. I think that is what you are hearing from comments made by the President and 1st VP. I am speaking for myself, of course, but the Union is an advocate for WORKERS (and most SLPS employees work their butts off everyday). Yes, we love children and are dedicated to their welfare, but we also know that we can't give them the quality education they deserve if we can't afford the gas to get to work, or food for our own tables. Some active members want to stay quiet about any disagreements with Dr. Bourisaw. I say bullshit, tell the truth. ONLY BY TELLING THE TRUTH can things get better.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:18:00 AM
I have been focused on media coverage.
I posted three articles which i saw online at the pd site by Steve Giegerich.
The first article dealt with the defamation lawsuit being brought by Floyd irons. I guess it needed to be reported, but i cannot imagine it will go anywhere. It appeared in the paper.
The second article gave some of the information given in the original post here, but not nearly as much detail. Comparatively, of the three articles it had the most substance. It did not appear in my newspaper.
The third article was, of course, the one which was played up big, and the one which was jumped on by other media. It dealt with the issue of changing Bourisaw to permanent superintendent.
My understanding is that it should have been not very controversial, because it did not alter the deal where she is disposable within 60 days. But the way in which it was handled made the board majority look very bad---almost stupid.
Also, it was the first i heard of action being taken by the pd regarding board communication on Bourisaw under the sunshine law. What is that all about?
Finally, Kevin Slaten's producer at kfns, iggy, said that a big article about Floyd irons will soon appear in the Riverfront Times. If it is someone other than Kristen Hinman doing the article, I would wonder why---she has written extensively about him as far back as last November.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:58:00 PM
In response to Jim Heger:
I have to wonder if you're a little niave when it comes to thinking that Creg Williams was actually going to follow through with his promises to your union president. As far as telling the truth about the issues? I agree 100%, but on the same hand, we must have the facts when doing so. As far as active members wishing to stay quiet about disagreements that is because some of the statements being made are not exactly factual. Not everyone agrees with every decision Mary Armstrong makes either but have you ever tried discussing that with her? I'm not discounting everything she says or does but she could benefit from thinking before she acts sometimes.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 7:57:00 PM
Downs "expressed concern about the finances, but his concern was that the board had unknowingly approved a budget that did not meet the legal requirements of the State"
Why did the board "unknowingly approve a budget"? That's simple: they failed to exercise the required due diligence that Boards - public or corporate - must perform in order to meet the demands of their office.
The Board is not a social club - it has a fiscal responsibility to the City and State. The concept of "due diligence" continues to escape the Board.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:37:00 PM
"Board member Bob Archibald expressed concern about the finances", now that's amusing! Has he forgotten how much money was lost on his Lewis and Clark anniversary reinactment scheme? When you are making a six figure salary to manage something, one would think that losing a million dollars on an idea would be worth expressing "concern about the finances". I guess his board doesn't require the same level of accountability that he does as a board member.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 9:49:00 PM
I think our board members have failed to understand that being a board member is not a hobby or a way to satisfy attention cravings - its a critical responsibility to the community!
Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:19:00 PM
Anon at 11:19:25, you hit the nail on the head with that comment!
Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:32:00 PM
In the many comments to the post yesterday, "School Accountability and Finances," there are many misgivings about the School Board's passing of the budget earlier this year. I was at the board meetings when the original budget was proposed to the board, rejected, and re-worked from roughly negative $4 million to a positive $3 million in a matter of a couple weeks.
It struck me as odd at the time that in two weeks $7 million could be removed from a budget that took the administration months to prepare. Keep in mind, when you remove money from a budget, there is now a hole in some program that previously existed. At the time the new budget with the positive cash-flow was accepted by the board, board member Bill Purdy had asked for a line-item view of the budget, which shows every single expenditure, but was not presented one by that previous administration to my knowledge.
There were great accolades for the former Superintendent having cut several million dollars from the budget and finding additional revenue sources to come to the new positive budget. But even then, there were concerns from Cedric Lewis, then interim CFO for the SLPS, that several items had been budgeted with what amounts to guesses because exact figures were unknown, but those items were most likely under budgeted. And now, we find that his prognostications were true.
We are under budgeted. And, regardless of the efforts of the board to push for a balanced budget, we will spend more again this year than our revenue. What is worse is that there are indications that our overages, will again be borrowed from the desegregation fund, from which we have borrowed heavily already. Also, I believe there are instruments of indebtedness which come due in the next 9 months. I wonder how we will repay those bonds.
The current board cannot be blamed for either the under estimated current budget, nor the deep financial hole of the district, as most members were not on the board when that hole was dug. And, the Superintendent cannot be blamed for the underestimated costs contained within the current budget, as that budget was developed by the previous administration. What we must hold both the current board and Superintendent accountable to doing is finding a path forward, not only to accreditation but fiscal solvency.
Let's face it--we're bankrupt. That former interim CFO under the previous administration admitted as much. Our current and impending debts, when totaled, far out value our assets and prospective revenue sources. We are making ends meet, as many parents in the district do--from paycheck-to-paycheck. That is a difficult enough situation for a family, and we cannot do that as a school district.
We must charge our all-volunteer school board and our Superintendent with fixing a problem they did not create: return the district to solvency without diminishing academics.
Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:09:00 AM
Anon on Sat 8:57,
I didn't say I thought Williams was going to come through on anything. Please don't attribute incorrect statements to me. Read what I have stated and please don't add anything more. But I probably am naive in lots of ways!
Those who have spoken to me know that I was NOT in favor of most of Mr. Williams' actions. I always thought he was all about show, not substance, and have said so many times in many different venues. However, what would you have Local 420 do? Not try working with him? We must make efforts to work with whomever is in "power" at the time. After trying, if they refuse to do what we believe needs to be done, then we work to replace them.
Mary A. and I have had many discussions/disagreements over the last three years (some of them quite heated) but I do respect her. I guess what I was trying to say is that once we discuss the issue together as Union officials, and hash out our position, then we are bound to stand together as a Union. That is the democratic process I am talking about.
As far as what is factual, that is, (as you probably know) a slippery subject. The recent discussions about Steve Giegerich and biased reporting are a perfect example of how the truth can be interpreted (or misinterpreted).
The FACT about the Union's relationship with Superintendent Bourisaw is that we have more grievances being filed and more policy violations than ever before.
I have been informed of this by other Union officials, Field Representatives and lawyers. Many of these are left over from Mr. Williams, but the new administration is not making adequate efforts to resolve them, either. (I also understand the money crunch, but these issues must be settled.) This is a FACT and can be verified by checking with Local 420. This is the truth that I was referring to in my blog, that some don't want known.
Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:35:00 AM
Jim:
The following question comes out of curiousity, and not contention:
In my experience in a union environment (as a member of management), our grievances were related mostly to the application of things such as overtime and company policies being applied differently between different business units. It does not seem that either of these would effect union employees of the district. I know that you cannot go into specifics of any grievances, but could you please shed some light on the GENERAL topics, such as working conditions, pay, etc.? Thanks for any information you are legally and ethically allowed to share, if any.
Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:35:00 AM
Great question Travis,I would also like to know since my wife is a teacher and 420 member in the district and tells me that she doesnt know of any grievances in her school building,actually speaks highly of comunications between principal,teachers and 801.
Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:30:00 PM
How ironic that they now have someone taking the bids that understands what is going on! How did SLPS survive the last 200 years. They had people that knew what they were doing all along, but the past administration insisted that they bring in their experts to run things. I know who is reviewing the bids now and he DOES know what he is doing but he didn't just get here,,,,I hired him at B&G years ago!! He was a critical part of the team until the powers decided to replace us. If all of these out of town experts are so great why do they want to travel to come to our town to work?
A QUIZ:
Question-what is the definition of "EXPERT"
Answer- Someone about half as smart as the person who is already doing the job, except that the expert is from out of town.
Monday, September 25, 2006 12:29:00 PM
Anon at 1:29:35 PM, the only thing we can be sure they were "experts" at was taking our city tax dollars back to Philadelphia, Chicago, and Houston to spend.
Monday, September 25, 2006 9:07:00 PM
I can't believe you all are talking about the change in title for Bourisaw. The board did not need to ask the public. From reading the article in the Post it seems like the got a motion had discussion and a vote was taken. They can still do a search. Move on folks as it appears this new board is moving along and leaving the complainers behind.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:56:00 PM
Travis (and Anon),
Sorry it took so long...got very busy all of a sudden. I am not the best to ask about grievances, etc. but I can tell you that the nature of grievances tend to vary by time of the year. After asking those who do know better, I found out that most grievances right now are about "mistakes" on paychecks. Please understand that most of these grievances have only been filed after repeated tries to correct the mistakes. Some date back over two years. Grievances toward the end of the school year might tend to be more about unfair evaluations, etc.
The Anon whose wife is a teacher is right in pointing out that the amount and nature of grievances vary widely by school. We have some great administrators who rarely have problems with their staff, but there are also a few who seem to mistreat employees no matter where they are placed.
This also, of course, depends upon the employee. I have never felt the need to file a grievance and have been able to work out any differences before that became necessary.
You also have some employees who are afraid to file grievances because they fear reprisals from administrators. I'm certain that you could find lots of horror stories, just as you could find lots of employees who have had no problems. (We tend to only hear the horror stories).
I know I didn't answer your question very specifically, but I am not involved in the grievance process very deeply (and have legal and ethical obligations to 420 and its members).
Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:33:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home