It's Your Money

This past weekend the School District released their FY 2009/2010 budget. Reviewing it in comparison with other Martin County government functions brought to mind some statistics that few taxpayers seem to comprehend. They may be aware of the approximate size and yearly spending by the Sheriff - 560 employees - $58 million and County Fire/Rescue - 350 employees - $39 million. Because of all of the press and TV coverage the cost of all other County functions, including capital spending and other Constitutional offices – 650 employees and a 2010 proposed budget of $250 million is reasonably well understood.

Most, however, are unaware that our School System is virtually tied with Martin Memorial Health System as the largest single employer in the County with approximately 2,600 full and part – time employees and is budgeted to spend/allocate resources of more that $283 million this school year. This makes our Superintendent of Schools by far the County’s most challenged elected official in terms of employees, spending and span of control. She oversees the operations and physical plant of 6 pre-school centers, 12 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 3 high schools, 2 special education schools and administration/other assets valued (October 2008) at over 425 million dollars. She is responsible for the instruction of over 17,500 students of all ages along with allocating as well as transporting many of them to their appropriate schools. Her cafeterias provide over 1.6 million meals every school year and she is responsible for all union negotiations and resolving personnel disputes.

We could continue with more statistics, but believe you get the idea – School Superintendent is in one of the most challenging management/leadership positions in the County. With that in mind we continue to be dismayed by the actions of the School Board that undermine her authority and ability to function effectively. Several weeks ago the School Board proposed to reduce the dollar amount of contracts that the Superintendent can approve without their vote from the $25,000 in place for several years, to $10,000. This approval is after appropriate requests are made, negotiations concluded and her talented principals and staff sign recommendations.

Many, including our organization, protested that this was an unnecessary action that would significantly delay many small contracts, increase vendor costs and the district’s staff work. For example, the press reports that there have been over 100 additional contracts this year that would have had to go to the Board for approval. Since the School Board only officially meets once a month, this will mean many “special” meetings (and staff costs) or long delays for what may be critical supplies or services. In fact, this is in direct opposition to a State trend that has increased the Superintendent approval level to $50,000 in some districts. We have found no other Districts that have reduced their contracting oversight levels.

Some Board members have cited the turn down of the local economy as a need for more oversight. Others have indicated the reason as the recent firing of several individuals for misuse of funds and violating established maintenance contracting procedures. This is a situation that is still under investigation so data has been limited. However, seldom is it noted that this was a problem that was ongoing for several years and was brought to light by the new Superintendent. She was the one that identified the problem, took unilateral action soon after taking office and then turned the situation over to the State Authorities for investigation. The outcome of the debate: the Board voted 3 – 2 to reduce her contracting authority to $10,000 with little discussion, while rejecting the Superintendent’s input.

Our School’s Committee attends or watches the coverage of every School Board meeting This committee consists of a prior school board member, prior District volunteers, and experts in human resources, accounting and management. Members meet monthly with School Officials and have frank, productive discussions on District issues and where we believe improvements can be made. Our analysis of the situation: 1. We believe every leader that makes decisions makes mistakes and we can understand the reluctance of the Board to let a new Superintendent have her way on every issue she advocates. 2. It is their job to analyze and pass judgment on her actions. 3. We can understand why the new Superintendent wants to reshape her staff to her management style and 4. the hostility this engenders in those whose contracts are not renewed.

What we cannot understand is why the Board continues to insult and degrade the Superintendent with subtle actions as well as those that can only be seen as childish. One illustration is that the Board would not even let the Superintendent, our School’s ELECTED leader, speak directly on an issue before it was voted on by the Board. While we do not publicly advocate one way or another on most school issues, we do believe that some members of the School Board need to reevaluate their behavior and find a way to work with the Superintendent for the betterment of our students – not continue to retaliate for real or perceived past differences.

.