t Sup’t. resigns, effective July 24

At the Orcas Island School District (OISD) Board’s special budget meeting on July 15, they were faced with two sets of numbers, those recommended by the Educational Service District’s (ESD) and those proposed by the public Budget Advisory Committee (BAC). OISD Chair Janet Brownell said, “We’re closer on some numbers and respectfully disagree on others. We can look at the two numbers as options, or come to another number, but [Business Manager] Ben Thomas needs to draft a budget for the July 24 meeting.”

Also at the meeting, OISD Superintendent Glenn Harris officially submitted his resignation to the Board, effective July 24. Harris and his wife are moving back to California, where they will be closer to their children and grandchildren. The Board accepted his resignation.

After the long back-and-forth between the BAC and district proposals, the board ended up with an approximately $90,000 deficit remaining, just to break even, and without returning any of the 4.0 fulltime equivalent (FTE) in teaching that remain from those that the Board reduced earlier this year.

Before presenting the ESD view of the proposed 2008-2009 budget’s (by program and activity code), Business Manager Ben Thomas said that he had met twice in the two previous days with OISD Chair Janet Brownell, Board member Keith Whitaker, Sara Morgan and Amber Johnson from the business office, and also with Budget Advisory Committee Chair Steve Diepenbrock to go over the figures. He then reviewed the 14 pages of the latest Budget Preparation Review, revised just hours before the 4 p.m. meeting.

This presentation did not consider the fund balance, which was discussed later in the meeting.

Thomas said that, in the ESD’s findings, after cuts, the budget still has a $86,500 deficit; while the BAC version shows a surplus of $42,000. In both cases, these were prior to consideration of any teacher reinstatements.

Incoming revenue is projected, by both, to be nearly $5,620,000, which includes $100,000 in donations from OIEF which have already been incorporated into the budget. (Figures in this article are rounded off to the nearest thousand-dollar amount).

Although the business office and the BAC had come to relative agreement on certificated and classified salaries and benefits, Thomas noted that significant differences still existed in other areas. Projections for expenditures in supplies and materials, purchased services, travel, and capital equipment outlay showed the ESD recommending over $70,000 more than the BAC. Some of the difference relates to the BAC proposal to suspend strategic plan spending for a year.

Thomas then reviewed a second, 10-page budget development document. Sara Morgan confirmed that the staffing analysis showed that the overall expenditures for staff and support benefits comes to 38 percent of the overall expenditures. Two pages were devoted to the ESD and BAC proposal for budget cuts for NERCs, identified by program.

Thomas described the efforts to reconcile ESD and BAC versions of the beginning figure for the Fund Balance as “where the rubber hits the road.” The ESD recommended a beginning fund balance of $185,000. The BAC recommended $200,000. They both agreed that the target (by Aug. 2009) figure should be $295,000.

After much deliberation, Whitaker offered that the Board was “really considering two separate problems;” the first was reconciling the numbers Thomas had presented; and the second was making “elective board decisions” as to where expenditures would have to be cut.

Whitaker reminded the meeting that even after reconciling the ESD and BAC figures and balancing the budget, “All existing RIFs are still intact.”

(The Board had set 7.7 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff reduction earlier in the budget development process, resulting in reduction-in-force (RIF) notices going out to teachers anticipating contracts for the 2008-2009 school year. That number has since been reduced to about 4 FTEs).

The board then attempted to reduce specific items in the first document, a process Brownell described as “tedious but logical.”

Ghazel objected to the fact that the BAC had not re-evaluated their proposal from the perspective of budget reduction in each school department, as he had proposed at the board meeting on July 7.

Whitaker responded that after a lengthy discussion, the BAC decided not to go through that process, as there wasn’t time for it and also because they disagreed with “the assumption that the existing budget is equitable,” and that across-the-board cuts would, therefore, be equitable.

When Ghazel questioned which numbers to rely upon “on the spur of the moment,” Whitaker brought out that the BAC had spent hundreds of hours doing research on the numbers.

Diepenbrock added, “In the spirit of looking across the board, the BAC had already made a line-by-line analysis.”

BAC member Dave Parish suggested that the Board question the BAC about how they had arrived at any of the numbers they recommended.

Whitaker said that, since the BAC first proposed some $365,000 in budget reductions, they had modified their recommendations “considerably – by well over $100,000.”

Board member Scott Lancaster said, “We as a Board need to determine if we can afford the teachers we have now.”

Whitaker said that they had to “mix and match” among three options: non-program budget reductions; program reductions; and staffing. “At the end, we’ll have reductions in places we don’t want them, wherever we make them.”

Harris suggested that they might proceed by seeking consensus on a beginning fund balance and a target fund balance, to be achieved by Aug. 1 2009. After polling, the Board compromised on $185,000 as a start and $250,000 as a target for the ending reserve fund balance. This increase (from the $210,000 previously recommended by the business manager) had the effect of adding $40,000 to the amount needed to overcome the deficit.

Then they began moving down the list of items, compromising on the reduced amount for many items.

In the end, the deficit remaining was about $90,000, and Thomas said that he would find additional reductions from the list of cuts the board had already indicated in order to have a balanced budget to preset to the ESD by the end of July.

At the next meeting, scheduled for Thursday, July 24, the Board will review the latest changes and see if they can find additional revenue, or additional cuts, in the hopes of reinstating RIF’d teachers.

The July 24 meeting will begin with a special meeting at 2:30 p.m. to discuss District Administration, followed by the regular meeting to begin at 4:30 with a closed Executive Session and reconvene with a public session at 5:30 p.m.

Items to be acted upon in the agenda include an amendment to the Strategic Plan, changing the 2008–09 budget reserve from 5.5 percent to 4.65 percent, and resolutions to adopt the 2008-2009 budget and authorize the performance of the Superintendent’s duties.