Board Member Comments
--various documents I have written--
Cap on Dental Insurance
Superintendent's Payraise
Facilities Improvement Bond Levy
PHS Graduation Controversy
My 1994 speech to the State Board of Education seeking budget cutting authority
Disbursement of Hydroelectric in-lieu-of-tax Funds
Back to School '98
[Note: Additional documents I have written recently have been shared with my WoodBoard discussion group, whose Archive can be viewed at from my LINKS page. You are encouraged to view those postings and, if you find them interesting, please join WoodBoard as shown below.]
Cap on Dental Insurance: In the early '80s, employees were given a choice between a $100 pay raise, or a dental plan equivalent to $100. The ballot noted that future dental increases would be passed on to the participant, but this was never done. The service employees opted for the $100 raise, and are still getting that same amount today. The professional employees opted for the dental plan, which had quietly grown to a nearly $600 per person benefit (approximately 1000 professional employees and the insurance cost was well over a half a million dollars). It is one of the most generous dental insurance programs in the area, better than any other major employer. In 1997, we changed our insurance plan and went to self insured, which brought the costs down to below $500,000. At that point we voted to show our intent that the half-million mark was a limit, and that any future increases above that line would be split among the participants, as announced on the original ballot. In effect, this legitimized what had been an illegitimate payraise (increasing the original $100 benefit to the equivalent of $500), but some teachers are upset about our action. However, it follows the original intent of the ballot, it stops an inequitable situation between professional and service employees from getting worse, it gives participants an incentive to keep costs down, and it helps the BOE to better predict and control our budget. It was the fair and prudent course of action, because getting our budget stabilized was a top priority (just like moving to a flat-rate administrative index). If this had ever been adjudicated, I think any judge would recognize the original intent was not to offer a choice of either $100 or a never-ending ever-increasing health benefit. This also was a recommendation of the broad-based Budget Study Committee appointed to study ways to improve our financial status.
Superintendent's Payraise: In 1991, prior to my election in 1992, the BOE gave the previous superintendent a 4 year, $75,000 contract. When it expired in 1995, myself and the other new board members began our search for a new superintendent. Usually school boards advertise the vacancy, interview the applicants, make a selection, and then negotiate the salary and length of contract. However, we decided to take a novel approach. We determined the salary and length of contract up front (1 year at $68,000), and put those terms in the advertisement for the job. Everyone who applied knew what we would give them. We wanted to back the salary down so that the new person could grow in the job and be rewarded for positive efforts.
Dr. Curry took the job, and made some drastic changes in his first year, that were much needed. As a result, the BOE in 1996 unanimously gave him a 2 year contract at $73,500. We felt that a two year contract was important to show our continuing support for him, since many of the administrative cuts he had made were not popular with those inside the system (the administrators have filed a grievance against these changes, which is still in process).
It is easy to complain about administrative spending being out of control in the school system, but the fact is that we have made significant advances in getting it under control. BOEs cannot make these changes by ourselves--we can only approve or deny recommendations of the superintendent. The previous superintendent was not forthcoming with recommendations for cuts, so we were pleased that Dr. Curry was willing to study the issues and recognize the need for change.
We have cut several administrative positions, including a reduction from 4 to 3 assistant superintendents. We are reducing the number of 261 day year round positions. We converted the administrators index (a local salary supplement) to a flat rate system, rather than the multiplier system it had been. The problem with the multiplier index was that whenever the state gave a teacher pay raise, it forced us to constantly spend more local money on administrative pay. We have created some new job titles, but this has been through creative combinations of previous jobs (e.g., we now have a technology director, but this was created when the county library director slot came open, and includes library duties as well as technology).
In 1998, when it was time to review the superintendent's performance and set up a new contract, it was clear to us that he had accomplished many of the goals we had agreed upon. Dr. Curry was running the second largest school system in the state, and was doing a good job. Yet his $73,500 salary placed him 18th in the state, and West Virginia is one of the lowest states in the country in terms of school superintendent salaries (the national average is above $100,000). We were getting a good superintendent for less than smaller systems like Mason, Wetzel, Ohio, Boone, Putnam, Logan, Marion and 10 other counties in West Virginia. Just across the river in Ohio, the Marietta City Schools superintendent gets paid more to run a system with only about 3,000 students, compared to our 15,000.
The consensus of the Wood County Board of Education was that it was now time to return to the $75,000 level for a one year contract. This is the same salary for the 98-99 school budget year that we had paid back in 91-92. Since Dr. Curry's arrival, we saved $10,000 in superintendent salary costs ($7000 in the first year, $1500 in the second, and $1500 in the third). This increase to $75,000 was so small that Dr. Curry (running the 2nd largest system) only passed one other superintendent (Jefferson County in 17th place) on the state salary list.
There are a number of citizens in our county who can't understand why he should get a raise to $75,000. However, not just anyone can be a school superintendent. There are many pre-requisites in state law for the job. In Wood County, it means leading approximately 1500 employees in the effort to educate 15,000 students. It means being the point man for one of the largest employers in the Mid-Ohio Valley. Unlike the managers of local private industries, a school superintendent is constantly facing media scrutiny. It is a very important job, and the job market helps to set the prevailing rates. Superintendents with doctorate degrees are generally in high demand.
Rather than complaining about the superintendent's salary, I am pleased that we have been able to hold the line on this expense, not just in comparison to the national average, but also within our own state. The Wood County Board of Education has been very restrained in this matter, and I wish other counties would do the same. It is a public sector job, paid for by the taxpayers, and as such will never be compensated at the same rate as similar responsibilities in the private sector.
Here is the list of West Virginia school superintendent salaries (UPDATED as of 7/21/98):
The Facilities Improvement Bond Levy: The Wood County Board of Education knew that there were some serious needs for physical improvements to our buildings, and so we asked that a special committee be set up to study our schools and make recommendations for a possible bond levy. We thought that an independent committee that would include community members with expertise in construction, real estate, bondmarkets, etc. would be the better than having our own employees work up a plan. In hindsight, we did not realize that this committee would adopt a strategy of leaving BOE members out of their decision-making process and keeping their recommendation secret until it was presented publicly at a BOE meeting.
I think that all five board members were shocked at the $96 million pricetag on their original proposal. However, the independent committee carried out the charge we gave them and set up several public hearings around the county. They listened to the public and went back to the drawing board to modify their proposal. A subsequent round of public hearings resulted in hardly any negative feedback. Thus, when they came to us for approval, they had done all that we had asked them, and now they wanted us to approve placing their proposal on the ballot for the citizens to vote on. As a board, we did cut the costs down to $89 million, and we used some of our carry-over surplus from the previous year's budget to pay for the bond election, so that no current year budget dollars were reallocated. At our public meetings prior to this vote, there was no one speaking out against this measure.
However, shortly before the February 14 vote, a vocal opposition group was organized to defeat this measure. If this opposition had been visible at the public hearings or at the BOE meetings when the election was being finalized, then perhaps we could have avoided the referendum. As it turned out, the issue was soundly defeated.
I hold no grudge about this issue. This is what is great about a democracy. We let the people have their say in this matter, and accept their decision. I think it served as a wake-up call to some who had under-estimated the anti-tax sentiments in our community. I will keep this experience in mind as I finish the remainder of my term on the Board.
To illustrate some of the issues complex involved in this bond levy election, I have attached copies of the two letters to the editor which I sent before the election to the local newspapers. Although the electorate went the other way, I think some of the points I made will be pertinent to us in the future.
On February 14, the people of Wood County will vote on the school bond referendum. As
a school board member, I did a lot of thinking after an independent committee brought this
to us for approval. No one enjoys paying taxes, and this was a major proposal to put
before the voters.
During the past five years, I have learned a lot about our schools and about the funding
process. Each year we hear from various concerned citizens about the need for physical
improvements at our schools. There is no doubt that there is a significant need for
improvements. And in West Virginia, the only way to pay for such capital improvements
is through a bond issue. There is no way that our general budget can cover building
expenses. That is why state law provides bond referendums for capital improvements.
Knowing that a bond issue is the only way to raise capital improvement funds, and knowing
the massive expenditures necessary to adequately improve our schools, I decided to
approve this proposal. By fixing the physical problems at all of the schools, it will put the
Wood County school system in good standing for the advent of the 21st century.
I am grateful that in the '50s, the voters of Wood County twice supported tax increases
which built new schools that were much needed. Because of a previous generation's
foresight, I attended a school which had a room for each grade. Otherwise, I would have
attended a one room schoolhouse. I know we had some good teachers in those one room
schools, but I don't know how all of us baby boomers would have squeezed in had those
referendums failed.
This commitment to the future children of Wood County will make a strong statement as to
the importance this community places on education. There is no better attraction for
developing new jobs than a good education system, so passage of this bond may be the
most persuasive economic development pitch this county can make. The fact that these
improvements will better allow us to use technology in our schools will also be beneficial. It
can mean future prosperity for our area and local jobs for our graduates.
I also want to acknowledge another crucial but little-known reason why passage of the bond
is important at this time. The judicial branch has been questioning the legitimacy of using
property taxes to fund education. There may come a day when individual counties will not
be able to decide for themselves about capital improvements. This may be our last best
chance for Wood Countians to decide for ourselves the quality of schools we want for our
own children and not be subject to limitations from the state.
So I urge those of you with qualms about this bond issue to reconsider your position.
Please think about the future generations that will benefit from this investment and join those
of us who will vote yes. Let's position Wood County to be a leader in our state and in the
nation.
The past two weeks have seen some letters opposing the upcoming bond referendum.
They unfortunately contain a lot of misconceptions. It is important that the voters of
Wood County understand the facts and not be misled by those opposed to the bond
issue.
The only way to fund major capital improvements for the 21st century is through a bond
issue. Major renovations and new buildings cannot be paid from the regular budget. It
would be illegal to divert our limited amount of federal funds for physical improvements.
Reappraisal was not a bonanza for us because we reduced our excess levy to offset the
increase. A bond issue is the only solution, and these bonds are paid for by tax increases. A
typical home appraised at $50,000 has an assessed value (60% of appraised value) of
$30,000 and thus would see a $68 tax increase the first year.
This $68 is that particular owner's share of the fixed annual cost to repay the bond issue.
As the county develops and grows, each taxpayers' share of the fixed repayment will
decrease. In all likelihood, the $68 tax increase for the first year will decline in coming
years, not increase as some have suggested.
Every county from time to time faces the need for a bond referendum. There is no doubt
that Wood County will need to pass a bond to make significant capital improvements.
However, if we defeat this bond this year and wait longer to make needed repairs, the
total cost will undoubtedly be much higher. The real question is should the example
homeowner pay $68 now, or more later?
Most of the complaints by the opposition center on things that happened in the distant
past. They are apparently unaware of all the positive changes that have occurred in
recent years. For example, legal spending has been drastically slashed, the
superintendent's salary has been reduced, administrative salaries have been trimmed and
positions have been cut. As a result, more money has been redirected to maintenance
and to the classrooms.
This bond referendum is the result of a methodical study by a committee formed in
September 1996. They held numerous public meetings to get citizen input into the plan.
There is no doubt that our schools need these improvements. For example, in today's
technological age, most of our buildings need to have enhanced electrical service and air
conditioning to allow our students to use more computers. But technology is just one of
many reasons why these improvements are needed. The bottom line is that passing this
bond referendum will provide better facilities throughout the county, so that our children--and
then their children--will benefit.
Letters to the editor are not censored for accuracy. Be aware that many of the
opposition letters are filled with misconceptions. If you have questions, seek the answers.
Feel free to call me at 428-3040. I hope that voters will realize the significance of this
referendum for the future of our county, and vote yes on February 14.
PHS Graduation: Here are my thoughts on graduation ceremonies, from a 1997 letter to the editor:
To the Editor:
Recent weeks have seen a succession of letters critical of
Superintendent Dr. Dan Curry's comments regarding PHS
graduation ceremonies. This letter is not meant to inflame
those who hold a different opinion, but merely to present
the other side of the story to your regular readers.
As a graduate of PHS myself, I am troubled by the way
commencement has changed in recent years. PHS has some
strong traditions that have stood the test of time, but the
beach balls are a new development that many people feel
needs to be nipped in the bud. I can assure readers that I
have heard from more people expressing concern about PHS
graduation antics than I have from those in favor of such
behavior.
Commencement should be a dignified and respectful occasion
of individual recognition. Each graduate is officially
presented to the community members in attendance as having
achieved the necessary level of education to leave Wood
County Schools. It is symbolic of their passage to the
responsibilities of adulthood and citizenship. Instead, the
awarding of diplomas at PHS in recent years has become a
mere sideshow to the beach balls, cap guns, and other
student shenanigans.
The problem is that the party is supposed to start AFTER the
ceremony. Until then, every student should be allowed their
individual moment of walking across the stage with the
spotlight solely on them. Unfortunately, after the first
few dozen graduates have gone across, the beach balls start
coming out and the rest of the graduates do not get the
respect of the crowd's undivided attention.
Some parents and students have written in previous weeks
that this is all harmless fun. However, I imagine that the
previous letters written to your paper were from people who
have not had the privilege of comparing the graduation
ceremonies at our other county schools. I would contend
that the students at South or Williamstown have just as many
fond memories of their graduation ceremonies, without the 5
foot wide giant beach balls bouncing around.
At South, they have developed a new tradition in recent
years that is very positive. Their slide show of senior
year pictures is shown after the diplomas are awarded. Even
if you are not a member of the graduating class, everyone in
the audience is able to identify with the emotions that the
pictures evoke. Unlike PHS, I don't hear from attendees
wishing something could be done to improve the ceremony. It
is a striking difference to the nearly out of control
atmosphere at PHS.
It is not easy for a superintendent or school board members
by themselves to force change on people and students who do
not want change. However, I would hope that the PHS
community, and especially the class of 1998, will spend some
time during this coming year investigating ways to make
graduation night acceptable to all who attend.
[I am glad to report that the Class of 1998 did indeed wait until the last senior crossed the stage before bringing out the beach balls this year. I hope their maturity and respect for peers will continue in future classes.]
1994 speech before the State Board of Education: Due to a miscalculation by the Assessor's Office, Wood County Schools was facing a severe budget crisis in 1994, and I attempted to find a way out without the carnage of cutting over 100 positions. Unfortunately, the State Board was unwilling to go against the recommendations of our superintendent at that time. However, under Dr. Curry's leadership, many of these cost cutting measures have now taken place. Mr. President, Board Members, Dr. Marockie, and guests. Thank you for allowing me to address you today. I am an elected member of the Wood County Board of Education, the second largest school system in the state. My colleagues encouraged me to talk with you today regarding the fiscal problems which we are facing.
This 93-94 fiscal year is the last year for our current excess levy. Therefore, we had to hold an excess levy renewal election this past fall. For nearly fifty years, Wood Countians had supported a full 100% excess levy for our schools. However, Wood County has some strong anti-taxation sentiments (ask Joe Albright or George Farley). With the statewide reappraisal about to take effect, the school system was getting criticized about the "windfall profits" that we would make as property valuations increased.
Discussions with various civic groups and community leaders resulted in the idea that the new levy proposal should be lowered so that it would only raise the same amount as this, the final year of the current levy. This would totally negate the "windfall profits" argument that opposition groups would have centered their campaigns on. After seeking expert advice from the county assessor's office and the state tax department, we were assured that an 80% levy should generate the same $10.8 million that the current 100% levy produced. We voted at our last meeting in August to go forward with the 80% levy.
You may recall that shortly after that, the Kanawha County levy was defeated. Experts were predicting that defeat would start a domino effect on the many other levy elections slated to take place this year. Fortunately, not long after that, Wood Countians voted to pass the 80% levy. We are convinced that the roll back to 80% made the difference in our victory. We are also convinced that our victory in Wood County helped to show that the Kanawha County defeat was not going to gather momentum in other counties.
As we began our budget building process in January, we knew we would be facing some difficulties. It was time to "pay the piper" for previous deficit problems. But we were unprepared for the shocking news we received at our February 1st meeting. We were told that the 80% levy would generate only $10 million, about $800,000 less than had been earlier predicted.
The administration's response to this sudden loss was to cut more employees (112 in all), but the Board wanted to consider other options. Upon investigation, several areas surfaced as potential candidates for cutbacks. These include our local administrator's index, 261 day administrative contracts, the local dental plan, or even an across-the-board cut in our local salary supplement for all employees. Unfortunately, we were informed that Chapter 18A-4-5a and b of the State Code precluded us from cutting those areas.
Actually, that code section does provide the capability to reduce these locally funded supplements in certain specific situations. They are as follows: "...unless forced to do so by [1] defeat of a special levy, or [2] a loss in assessed values, or [3] events over which it has no control and for which the county board has received prior approval from the state board prior to making such reduction."
Well, we probably don't qualify under the first exemption for defeat of a levy, even though our old 100% levy was, in effect, "defeated" and replaced by the 80% levy. We probably don't qualify under the second exemption for a loss in assessed values, even though there was, in effect, a loss of some sort between August 1993 and February 1994. So our only hope is the third provision, which requires your approval. I am here today to notify you that we want to have this on your agenda at your April meeting.
We feel you should agree that the inadvertent miscalculation by experts outside the school system in determining our 80% levy rate would qualify as an event over which our Board had no control. Indeed, the West Virginia Supreme Court, in Newcome v. Tucker County Board of Education (1979), ruled that inflationary pressures alone qualified as an event over which a county board had no control over. If simple inflationary pressures satisfied the Supreme Court, surely our unique situation would merit your approval. To do otherwise would amount to punishment of the Wood County School System for trying to be responsive to the citizens of our county. We understood their concerns about the reappraisal and sought a win-win solution for all.
If you grant us the exemption, we will use it wisely. For example, we need to change our local administrator's index. Unlike our flat rate schedule for all our other employees, it is a multiplication factor system that results in ever-increasing raises for administrators. Whenever Charleston raises their salary, we must give them a raise, too. Our four Assistant Superintendents have a 1.72 index, meaning that if teachers get a $1000 pay raise this year, we must automatically give them an additional $720 raise from our local funds. Over $328,000 of local excess levy revenues are devoted to the administrator's index. Even the central office employees themselves acknowledge (see letter to Board members dated February 15, 1994) that it is time to change this system, a relic from better budgetary times.
In closing, we hope you will approve our efforts to get our budget under control. We look forward to your decision at your next meeting. Thank you!
Hydroelectric Funds:[Latest Update: The Supreme Court refused to hear the Commission's appeal, letting the circuit judge's ruling in our favor stand.] Now that the County Commission has decided to expend even more taxpayer dollars on a Charleston attorney to appeal their case to the Supreme Court (despite the circuit judge's admonition that such an appeal is "without merit" and "frivolous"), I have added an updated version of a letter to the editor I sent on this subject (before the original decision in our favor), as well as a proposed agreement which I shared with the County Commission at one of their meetings.
I was very disappointed by the County Commission's response to the Board of Education on how hydroelectric funds would be distributed. The Commission and the Board were the only
governmental entities who were signatories on the agreement with AMP-Ohio. Since the agreement was signed, the school Board has looked forward to sharing these "in lieu of
tax" payments with the Commission.
These payments were especially important because there is so much need in our school system which cannot be covered by the state school aid formula money. In recent years, the
Board has taken strong action to tighten our belts and more wisely spend our limited dollars. Significant reductions have been made in personnel costs.
Also--unlike the County Commission--the Board chose to roll back our levy rate from 100% to 80%, to avoid the windfall tax revenues that the reappraisal process would otherwise have brought to us.
At least one person has asked why doesn't the BOE and the County Commission to split the hydro money 50/50. That is precisely what we thought when the County Commission and the BOE (and no municipalities) signed the agreement. The only stipulation was that the money
should go for tangible projects, such as technology or capital improvements. The AMP-Ohio representatives specifically mentioned at our executive session that a technology program for the schools would be something they would be proud to fund with our share of the money.
As soon as the BOE completed a comprehensive technology plan for our schools (1995), I attended a commission meeting and gave a copy of the report to each commissioner. We wanted to fund it with the hydro money and needed to start talking about how to get our share. Various negotiations occurred on this topic for the past year and a half, but the commission has never been willing to give us a concrete plan for the distribution of the money. It has been printed in the newspaper that one individual commissioner was willing to split the money into thirds between the commission, the municipalities, and the school system, but that is the most generous offer we have
heard. However, I am a bit confused as to how the municipalities entered the picture, since they were not signatories to the original agreement.
I was willing to agree to a 50/50 split as a fair way to benefit Wood Countians. However, there are sound legal arguments that the state code would require the BOE to receive about two-thirds of any in-lieu-of tax payments. Unfortunately, we have been unable to get the county commission to agree with us for even the original 50%. We have heard some mention numbers as low as 20%. It is with great reluctance that we are forced to pursue legal redress, but even long-time legal expense critic Harley Bailey made the motion to employ former state tax commissioner Ned Rose as our attorney in this matter. We can only hope that this will be decided quickly so that legal costs are kept low.
Below is the text of an agreement I wrote on behalf of the BOE and presented to the commissioners for their consideration but which was never acted upon.
The Wood County Commission will share with the Wood County Board of Education (BOE) exactly 50% of all annual proceeds from the OMEGA JV5 project for the life of the project
payment agreement.
The BOE proceeds from the hydro funds will only be used for tangible improvement projects, and will not be used for existing personnel costs or current general operating expenses. Allowed expenditures by the BOE would include (but not be limited to) the following examples: building
improvements, playground improvements, technology, etc. Where feasible, the BOE will appropriately commemorate these projects as being funded from the OMEGA JV5 agreement.
Upon receipt of the annual disbursement, the BOE will place these funds in a separate interest earning account. Following the completion of each fiscal year, a report will be provided to the county commission explaining the expenditures made from the account.
Any amendments to this agreement would need the approval of a majority of both the BOE and the Wood County Commission.
back to the top of this page