Officials face off on budget

By Jane DeGeorge
Eagle Reporter
Published: May 22, 2008

Madison County supervisors and school officials argued about the trust issues and communication problems between the two groups that have “gridlocked” this year’s budget process.

“The problem here is a lack of understanding and a lack of trust. To recover the trust between these two boards is very, very hard,” Supervisors Vice Chairman James Arrington said at the boards’ May 20 joint budget workshop meeting. About 25 community residents gathered at the Wetsel Middle School library to hear the boards discuss the coming fiscal year’s budget.

This year’s budget planning hit some rough patches in April when the supervisors announced they were considering providing the schools the same amount of local funding as the current budget year.

Due to decreases in state and federal money and rising costs, school officials had said the level local money would force them to eliminate employees’ salary increases and slim its summer school program – two things the school board recently made final. School officials had initially proposed an average salary increase of seven percent for all employees in order to attract and retain high-quality teachers and staff.

In an effort to further evaluate schools’ staff salaries to make a final decision about providing the schools level local funding, the supervisors previously requested information from the superintendent about the actual amount it had spent on salaries within each line item at the end of the previous fiscal year, officials said at the May 20 meeting.

When they did not receive this information, county officials obtained the school system’s expense reports and worked to compare the amount the board had budgeted for salaries during the 2006-2007 fiscal year and the amount actually spent on salaries, according to County Administrator Lisa Kelley.

The supervisors’ comparison showed that for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the school board had set aside about $620,000 more for employees’ salaries and benefits than it had actually spent.

“It’s difficult to sit up here and think we have actual numbers when its listed $620,000 of appropriations over actual expenditures,” Supervisors Chairman Eddie Dean said at the meeting. (It is unlikely the budgeted amount and actual expenses will match exactly as sometimes employees retire mid-year and are replaced by lower-paid substitutes or replacement teachers, officials said.)

Superintendent Brenda Tanner said the confusion was due to the expense reports being “coded” differently than the budget, adding that part of the money set aside in the budget for teachers’ salaries is recorded in the expense report under a separate category called “supplemental salaries,” which refers to money paid to teachers for tutoring and other stipends.

School officials insisted the confusion was due to structural problems and miscommunication, not a lack of integrity on their part.

“Because of a misunderstanding of numbers…really the people who are suffering are the kids. Every year our books are audited and money is spent the way it’s [allotted],” said School Board member Doreen Jenkins.

County and school officials agreed to extend communication between the two boards – which is typically handled by the county administrator and the superintendent – to also include the boards’ chairmen as well, in order to avoid future misunderstandings.

The supervisors said they would have appreciated if the school board had informed the supervisors they were eliminating summer school prior to its decision, which was discussed at the school board’s regularly scheduled May 12 meeting.

“We would have been very pleased if you let us know that you cut this program prior to the decision. It would have had some impact with us,” Dean said, requesting that the school board keep the supervisors updated about how their funding will effect the schools’ budget.

Supervisor Bob Miller made some suggestions to the school board regarding other ways it could reduce its budget, including charging “activities fees” for students who participate in sports.

Jenkins said she was concerned the fees would possibly discriminate against students whose families could not afford the extra cost. However, Miller proposed that the “activities fees” be waived or reduced for students of low-income families.

“If you put on the backs of every citizen of this county every function of the county, you’re going to bury us,” Miller said at the meeting.

Miller also suggested the schools’ charge for remedial summer school courses, saying the fee could possibly even motivate students to do better in their classes during the regular school year in order to avoid the extra cost.

The school board and the supervisors agreed to meet again prior to the supervisors approval of its budget in June, however the date and time of this meeting has not yet been set and will be announced later.