WVSBA The Legislature

January 26, 2007 - Volume 27 / Issue 5

Overview Info

Stats

Days of Session Remaining 43
Days of Session 17
Bills Introduced (as of Jan. 18) 767

Inside

 

News

The Senate Education Committee on Jan. 25 approved a committee substitute for Senate Bill 84, a measure that would allow county boards to enter into lease-purchase agreements for land, buildings and equipment.

The bill was amended to remove a provision that would have required the School Building Authority of West Virginia (SBA) to approve any lease-purchase agreements.

The bill also says that if a building is (or has been) constructed to provide a school through a lease-purchase agreement, the county board cannot enter into the agreement for the school unless the lessor complied with the prevailing wage law.

The first education bill adopted this session is House Bill 2105, which relates to allowing retired teachers to substitute in areas of critical need and shortage. It passed both houses and was forwarded to the governor for consideration.

The bill was not referred to the Senate Education Committee, but went directly to the Senate floor. The House passed a similar bill last year but it died in the Senate in the waning days of the 2006 Regular Session.

Also on Jan. 25, Joe Panetta made a presentation about the state School Aid Formula to the House Education Committee. Panetta is director of the state Department of Education’s Office of School Finance.

Sources: Senate Education Committee attorney Hank Hager, House Education Committee staff members and WVSBA reporting.

 

Administrative Perspective

State superintendent optimistic about results for schools this legislative session

By Martha Dean, Executive Director
West Virginia Association of School Administrators

Jan. 25, 2007

For superintendents and others, this week began with a statewide video conference that addressed the following issues: 

  1. Importance of NAEP Testing
  2. GASB Statements of 34 and 45
  3. Special Education Staffing Ratios
  4. Teacher and Administrator Professional Development
  5. The Legislative Session. 

These issues all were very important. GASB continues to be a concern and will be further addressed at the upcoming WVSBA Winter Conference on Feb. 15-16. State Superintendent of Schools Dr. Steven L. Paine addressed the legislative session and appeared optimistic about  positive results for school systems. 

The official list of priorities from the State Board of Education includes 20 items of importance. Dr. Paine emphasized that professional development for school personnel is extremely important. Although the governor is holding firm so far about a teacher pay raise of 2.5 percent, Dr. Paine stressed the importance of gaining at least some of the “OS Days” for professional development activities.

"State Superintendent of Schools Dr. Steven L. Paine expressed support for WVASA’s first priority issue, which is to recapture local share at the local level at the 10 percent level rather than the current 2 percent."

He also expressed support for the first priority issue of WVASA, which is to recapture local share at the local level at the 10 percent level rather than the current 2 percent. These funds would provide needed dollars for local boards.

So far in this session, there have been many bills introduced, but, as of Thursday morning (Jan. 25), only one had passed both Houses: House Bill 2105.  This bill allows retired teachers to substitute beyond the 140 days allowed by the retirement board before their retirement is reduced. This provision has been in effect in previous years but the enabling legislation expired June 30, 2006. To permit the additional days, counties must establish areas of need by policy and submit it to the State Board of Education. Passing the Legislation this early in the session allows time for boards to act before the 140 days is exceeded.

At the request of the governor, Senate Bill 67 and House Bill 2288 have been introduced. As far as I can tell, these bills are identical and they give specific guidelines for the disbursement of the $10 million mentioned in the governor’s State of the State Address that will address Safe Schools issues.

The meat of this bill is titled “School Access Safety Act” and is a new section of law, §18-9F-1 through §18-9F-7. Minor changes are made in §18-9D-15 to accommodate references to the School Access Safety Act. This legislation, if passed, will mean all counties will have access to funds to improve the safety of schools in their counties. I summarize, below, what I deem the most important facets of the bill.

§18-9F-1 states the legislative findings, purposes and intent.  Establishing and maintaining safe schools is critical to maximize student achievement.  All school facilities should be designed, constructed, furnished and maintained to provide safeguards to the health, safety and security of those who use the facility. Adequate safeguards for ingress and egress of those using school facilities are critical for safety. Planning for safety upgrades should involve the public. The School Building Authority is to be empowered to facilitate and provide the funds for the School Access Safety Act.

§18-9F-2 gives the definitions of terms used in the new section. There are four definitions, but the most important is the definition for “School Access Safety Plan.”  It means the comprehensive county-wide school access safety plan that “(i) is prepared by each county board of education seeking funding under this article and incorporated in its comprehensive educational facilities plan in accordance with guidelines established by the authority; (ii) addresses the access safety needs for all school facilities in the county; (iii) includes a projected school access safety repair and renovation schedule for all school facilities of the county; and (iv) is required prior to the distribution of state funds for a school access safety project pursuant to this article.”

§18-9F-3 gives the authority to the School Building Authority to establish guidelines and procedures for school access safety plans and school access safety projects. These guidelines must establish the necessary elements, the manner, timeline and process for the submission of the plans, appropriate project specifications, procedures for the submissions of a preliminary plan, and procedures for notification of amounts available for distribution. The authority is responsible for evaluating the school access safety plans. The SBA will establish guidelines for allocation and distribution of funds. The State Department of Education, in cooperation with the SBA will conduct on-site inspections at least annually of the facilities that received money under this act.

§18-9F-4 describes the school access safety plan. The plan must be developed in consultation with the county-wide council on productive and safe schools. There is a list of 10 items to be included in the plan, of which one is a county-wide inventory of each school’s means of ingress and egress. Also required is a prioritized list of each project contained in the plan.

§18-9F-5 establishes the School Access Safety Fund, provides for the deposit of the funds, and allows for the expenditure of those funds. Further, it provides that any remaining balance, including interest, shall remain in the account and will not revert to the general revenue fund.

§18-9F-6 provides for how the funds will be distributed. They will be distributed to the county school systems based on the net enrollment of each county. They will decide how much total money they have for distribution, establish a per-pupil amount based on the state net enrollment and then multiply the net enrollment of each county by the established per-pupil allocation. To get money from the state, each county must contribute at least 25 percent of the amount of money available to the county as per the net enrollment calculation described above. Further, no money will be distributed unless the county has an approved school access safety plan. If the county board fails to spend the allocation within one year of receiving it, they will forfeit it and be ineligible for further allocations until they are ready to spend the money according to an approved school access safety plan.

"The School Building Authority on Feb. 22 will have an informational session for superintendents to learn how to develop their county plans in accordance with this legislation."

§18-9F-7 describes the school access safety requirements for new schools, those schools for which design and construction begin after July 1, 2007.

The School Building Authority on Feb. 22 will have an informational session for superintendents to learn how to develop their county plans in accordance with this legislation. The meeting is at the Charleston Marriott Town Center hotel.

The House version of this legislation was the subject of the Jan. 25 subcommittee meeting, according to House Education Committee staff members.

 

WVSBA Briefs

About 210 county board members, school administrators and others have pre-registered for the West Virginia School Boards Association’s Winter Conference Feb. 16-17 at Charleston’s Marriott Town Center hotel, according to WVSBA Administrative Assistant Shirley Davidson.

The West Virginia School Boards Association/West Virginia Association of School Administrators “Reception With Legislators” is scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 15 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., followed by the WVSBA Executive Board meeting.

These are the training programs for the conference:

  1. The “lead” program segment relates to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Rules §34, §45 (GASB) program.
  2. This session will be followed by a brief review of legislative deliberations – a request of several county board members and county superintendents. There may be further discussion of GASB during this session if legislation relating to the matter has been introduced. This is likely.
  3. Association counsel Howard E. Seufer Jr., Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, and WVSBA Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, will discuss board-superintendent relations, using a format developed for a Jan. 25 meeting of the state Association of School Administrators (Please see O’Cull’s remarks in the “Commentary” section of this week’s edition).
  4. A seminar relating to county implications of West Virginia Board of Education Policy §2510.
  5. A WVBE-requested session about special needs students. Claudia Bentley, a BRMGL attorney and Lynn Boyer, a state Department of Education special education official, have been invited to present this program.
  6. A workshop about county board excess levies, presented by WVSBA Vice President Steve Cook (Monongalia) and WVDE Office of School Finance Director Joe Panetta.
  7. A second participant-led discussion session moderated by O'Cull. This session differs from previous programs in that members would provide suggested topics in advance.

The program will include 7.25 hours of school board member training.

The conference program also features visits to legislators at the capitol, arranged by WVSBA. These visits are Friday, Feb. 16, from 8:30 a.m. to noon, preceding the conference program which begins at 1 p.m. that day.

This is the last planned association training session until May. That program will provide 4.5 hours of training, as it is a “drive-in” conference similar to the program format for this past November’s school security workshop.

Feb. 16-17
Charleston Marriott Town Center

Thursday, Feb. 15       

6 p.m.            WVSBA/WVASA “Reception with Legislators”

8 p.m.            WVSBA Executive Board Meeting

 

Friday, Feb. 16

7:30 a.m.       Breakfast

8:15 a.m.       Visits to Capitol

1 p.m.             “GASB or What Hath God Wrought?”

2:30 p.m.       Break

2:45 p.m.       Further Discussions Regarding GASB/Legislative Issues

4 p.m.             Adjournment (Dinner on Own)

7 p.m.             Workshops

  1. Participant-led discussions
  2. Policy 2510 

9 p.m.      Adjournment

 

Saturday, Feb. 17

7:15 a.m.        Breakfast

8 a.m.             FY08 Annual Business Meeting

9 a.m.             Special Needs Students: The latest information about proposed
                        West Virginia Board of Education policy and practical approaches to practice

10:30 a.m.     Break

10:45 a.m.     Workshops

  1. “Board-Superintendent Relations: What’s going on?” 
  2. County Board Excess Levies: An overview

11:45 a.m.     Adjournment

 

Commentary

These are the prepared remarks from a presentation by Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D., executive director of the West Virginia School Boards Association, at the Jan. 24-25 West Virginia Association of School Administrators Conference. O’Cull addressed WVASA members on Jan. 25 at the Days Inn in Flatwoods, W.Va.   

Thank you for invitation to speak to your group. I respect each of you for what you do and for the contributions you make in regard to public education.

I am reminded of two things. The first concerns the divinity student who was taking his initial homiletics class. Having written the outline for his first sermon and proud for including a number of points he wished to make, he asked the professor how many points his sermon should have.

After a somewhat awkward, pregnant silence, the bespectacled, white-haired professor answered, “Well at least one.”

Secondly, I remember a program WVASA had a few years ago when Dr. Larry Jones (Ohio County Schools Superintendent) was your president. It was titled, “The Care and Feeding of Board Members.” At the time, when I was somewhat wetter behind the ears and a little less gray, I was incensed at that title, thinking it was patronizing. Now, I’m not so sure.
           
In fact, the point I most want to make this morning is that county boards of education, given the complexity of today’s society, may no longer be relevant in the sense we’ve often considered in the past.

"County boards of education, given the complexity of today’s society, may no longer be relevant in the sense we’ve often considered in the past."

To use another “in fact,” county boards – and lay governing boards in general – may no longer be able to keep pace with the rapidly changing society and environments in which they operate, even to the point of impeding the progress of the very systems they are elected to advance.

As we elect county board members to bring public accountability to a largely professional enterprise which could operate without lay oversight, county boards – given the complexity of today’s issues - often resort to methods that scratch around the nub of issues. These are issues that clearly are larger than they or even school systems.

This proves exceedingly frustrating to the county board member who, unlike in the past, could try pleasing various constituencies – his or her political base – with some tangible goodies, including hiring the right personnel (read: coaches) in many instances.

Yet it proves more frustrating to those in the superintendency: Board members are demanding more and more information; more and more input; more and more public involvement; more and more directional latitude and leeway just at a time when county systems face what governance guru John Carver refers to as “regulation strangulation.”

Thus, on the one end, you, as superintendents, are faced with the “care and feeding of board members,” as Dr. Jones’ program title declares, while also having to meet exceedingly complex regulatory demands, particularly from the State Board and Department of Education.

Board members, while recognizing these complexities – they do if you’re patient enough to explain them – also know they have to accomplish something larger than these mandates to answer the political pressures they face. Or, more properly stated, to do their jobs as they perceive them.

If not, these rules and regulations become tantamount to “leading” systems in terms of outputs and not the local agendas that appeal to county board members and their constituent bases, often called the three “Bs:” Buses, buildings, and boosters’ groups.  Although, of course, that’s not a truly fair, equal characterization as these are vital areas of board concern and oversight.

Guess who’s caught in the middle? Look around and you know.

"County boards must have a more-defined, but not less-decisive role. Their role, which depends upon provision of good information as well as informational interpretation, is one of oversight and monitoring."

I am suggesting – as I have for years – a redirection for county boards and board members, namely a more streamlined function for boards, but one which will allow them to fully represent constituents and bring public accountability.


There are at least three things – I may end where the divinity student did – that must be done to preserve boards, making them viable for the 21st century:  


  1. County boards must have a more-defined, but not less-decisive role. Their role, which depends upon provision of good information as well as informational interpretation, is one of oversight and monitoring. Again, the key is good information – information that is timely, to the point, and relevant to issues at hand.

  2. We have to question the validity of county boards being involved in some regulatory and adjudicatory issues, such as hearing grievances, unless there are compelling reasons for that involvement. Is it relevant for a county board to hear an employee grievance, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity? What about student suspensions? What about some detail-like issues which truly are administrative in function but find themselves on board agendas? Obviously, you may place them there because you have determined, rightly or wrongly, that boards should decide these issues or matters – or want to decide them. After all, isn’t that what boards do?

  3. County boards must become more focused on large, directional issues and ends and not on detail. I fault – if that’s the right word – many of you for tying up boards in detail, and then complaining about micromanagement. I’ll get to that in a moment. It’s the superintendent’s role to lead his or her board, but not the other way around.

The reason we are seeing great discussions about board-superintendent relations is because, to a large degree, boards are mimicking administrations or are becoming administrative in thinking. Some would say that’s because some boards and board members don’t trust the administration (read: superintendent).

“County boards must become more focused on large, directional issues and ends and not on detail . . . It’s the superintendent’s role to lead his or her board, but not the other way around.”

In this room, I can name some situations in which that is true. But that’s not always the point. It’s easier for superintendents and board members to mingle roles. In fact, it often works and all is hunky-dory.

More often or not, this is the big bone that’s fought over: Who can out administrate whom. Sadly, some county board members have won. In other places, mass graves are being prepared for those littered along the way as the county contest becomes one of determining who will best whom – not over policy, but over priorities and procedures.

That’s why we’re having so much micromanaging. It’s not because of mistrust – again there are exceptions. It’s about misguided energy, misguided focus, misguided role or even role displacement assumed or taken by county boards as they, as lay boards, try to get a handle on the complexity of county school systems.

Seemingly, if not overwhelming, boards reach out to use the tools at their disposal to have access and leeway over the systems. This may include resorting to putting public pressure on the superintendent and administration, bad board meeting deportment, and outright rogue behavior.

“The key to board-superintendent relations is not to build a climate of trust – you can’t build trust because trust evolves.”

I contend that you, as superintendents, have the ability, through information, leadership and a structured commitment, to “care and feed” board members without patronizing them. To truly lead systems. You have much in your arsenal of resources.

The key to board-superintendent relations is not to build a climate of trust – you can’t build trust because trust evolves.

Here are the five keys to effective board-superintendent relations:

That said, I have these additional thoughts about dealing with micromanaging or rogue members:

“It is your job to collectively direct county board members’ energies and efforts into unified, strong decision-making.”

There’s precious little you can do about them if you decide to take them head-on. Give them space so to speak. Provide them information. Play deference to them – but not undue deference and not at the expense of the system.

Develop a thick skin – very thick – and let things play out. I’ve been around school boards for about three decades. I’ve observed that micromanaging members often are non-aligned. Their actions, if to intervene in the system, obviously are unauthorized.

Deal with these matters through board policy and decorum to the degree you can, especially during calm and quiet times. Don’t wait until you are greeted by these members to act.

Many superintendents and other board members mistakenly presume they can control the micromanaging member. Great enterprises are erected to bring this about. There’s talk of censure…things escalate…tempers and passions flare…systems suffer, especially in small school systems…priorities become skewed…and eventual displacement occurs.

I’m not saying don’t do anything about micromanaging members. I’m trying, admittedly from a distance, to put things in context and perspective. The board, in fact, should only deal with the micromanaging member when that member crosses the line and becomes the dreaded rogue member.

Then it is the board’s – not yours – responsibility to deal with the member the best it can. Again, precious little may be able to be done, but the board can do one or two things. Give these members their due. Often they see the system from angles and vantages you don’t.

Stress effective meetings. Be sure presiding officers don’t allow things to get out of hand. Be sure any questions posed to administrators come through you and not directly from the board member to the central office administrator.

Again, you may have to abide and learn to live with these members, including the most-dreaded rogue member.

If you don’t think I’ve given you much advice, it’s because, through years of observation, I’ve not witnessed much else work except to wait out these members. While they may not become part of any board majority - there’s power through being on the outside – their motives and behavior become so predictable they often find themselves in a corner. They become a typecast board member.

Finally, there’s something about longevity. The longer you’re in your position – the more rogue and micromanaging members you’ve outlived – the more your largess of trust, especially if there’s board longevity. And with trust comes mutually heightened expectations and earned latitude and leeway to make more mutual decisions.

“You know you have arrived . . . when your board is fully informed, able and capable to govern effectively as plied with good information for sound decisionmaking – and they trust you to operate on your own.”

But it cuts both ways. You get comfortable where you are in “trusted latitude,” and then elections occur. That means educating a new group of members who may not understand the comfort level and administrative leeway to which you have become accustomed over the years. The tyro member, heady from an election, may conclude you have too much leeway while a previous, seasoned board had no problems with you, your operations or administrative leeway.

When you again assume the position where you “were” previously – and trust has evolved – you know you have “arrived.” It’s not when you have 5-0 votes or the like. It’s when your board is fully informed, able and capable to govern effectively as plied with good information for sound decision making – and they trust you to operate on your own.

This is what the care and feeding of board members constitutes.

It’s not patronage. It’s preparing a lay board for a narrowed but perhaps more focused way of governing, based on mutually enhanced expectations, commitment, zeal and hard work.

            Thank you.

Subcommittee recommendation would solve two issues

By Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D., Executive Director
West Virginia School Boards Association

One of the recommendations proposed by the legislative subcommittee that has been studying the Public School Support Program (State Aid funding formula) is to reduce the percent of local share used in the computation of state aid from the current 98 percent to 90 percent over six years. Lawmakers also have discussed expediting the reduction over a one- or two-year period, possibly to 94 percent the first year and 90 percent the second.

This proposal not only would increase the amount of regular levy tax collections county boards will have to expend at their discretion, but also may resolve the constitutionality issue raised by the state Supreme Court in its recent decision about the nine county boards that are required to contribute a portion of their regular levy tax collections to support public libraries as a result of special acts of the Legislature. Those county boards are:  Berkeley, Hardy, Harrison, Kanawha, Ohio, Raleigh, Tyler, Upshur and Wood. Cabell and Lincoln also are required to fund their public libraries, but those funds are from their excess levy collections, with which the Court did not find fault.   

Reducing the percent to 94 will mean the portion of the tax collections each of the nine county boards is required to contribute to the libraries will come from their share of projected regular levy tax collections and not from the portion that is included in the local share calculations.

As suggested by several legislators – and for consideration by the West Virginia School Boards Association’s Committee on Legislation -- would this change create a win-win situation for all concerned?  Not only will it provide additional funds for all 55 county school boards and likely resolve the constitutionality issue, it also will eliminate any incentive for the Legislature to repeal the existing special acts that support the libraries. This will assure continued financial support for these libraries, and it equitably treats all 55 county boards.  

Should the Legislature instead decide to revise the statute related to the calculation of local share, to exclude the portion of the tax levies from the calculation for just the nine county boards listed above, it would discourage the future passing of special acts to support libraries and it would discriminate against county boards that voluntarily support their public libraries each year through budget allocations.

Public libraries serve an integral part in the education of children and it behooves all boards of education to support this proposal.

Editor’s Note: Joe Panetta, executive director of the West Virginia Department of Education Office of School Finance, contributed information for this article. Please see the accompanying tables.

For additional information about what has become known as the “library ruling,” please see past issues of The Legislature.

 

Public School Support Program

DECREASE LOCAL SHARE AS INDICATED FOR TWO YEARS WITH CLASS I LEVY RATE REMAINING @ 20.05 FOR THE 2006-07 YEAR

 

 

Local Share Calcuations

Decrease in Local Share Calculations

Current Local Share Calculation @ 98%

345,548,621

-

Local Share Calculations @ 94%

330,274,560

(15,274,061)

Local Share Calculations @ 90%

315,000,504

(30,548,117)

OSF 01/19/07
Local Share 2006-07 @ 94% & 90%

 

 

 

Public School Support Program

DIFFERENCES IN AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO PUBLIC LIBRARIES PER SPECIAL ACTS AND LOCAL SHARE AT PERCENTS INDICATED FOR THE 2006-07 YEAR


County

Local share calculations @ 100%

Difference in Lcl Shr Btwn Max & And 94%

Library Levy Amts Req./Special Acts

Diff Btwn Lcl Shr @ 94% & Proj Gross Library Levies

Difference In Lcl Shr Btwn Max & And 90%

Diff Btwn Lcl Shr @ 90% & Proj Gross Library Levies

 

Barbour

1,791,054

115,428

-

-

192,380

-

Berkeley

18,958,225

1,303,358

541,712

761,646

2,172,263

1,630,551

Boone

8,754,811

564,220

-

-

940,366

-

Braxton

2,427,379

156,437

-

-

260,728

-

Brooke

4,428,805

284,696

-

-

474,494

-

Cabell

15,552,269

1,002,294

-

-

1,670,491

-

Calhoun

1,134,493

73,114

-

-

121,857

-

Clay

1,730,721

111,540

-

-

185,899

-

Doddridge

1,757,951

113,294

-

-

188,824

-

Fayette

6,035,502

388,969

-

-

648,282

-

Gilmer

1,730,312

111,513

-

-

185,855

-

Grant

4,221,848

272,085

-

-

453,474

-

Greenbrier

6,925,073

446,299

-

-

743,832

-

Hampshire

6,199,167

415,619

-

-

692,698

-

Hancock

5,742,820

366,368

-

-

610,613

-

Hardy

3,504,942

225,882

12,810

213,072

376,471

363,661

Harrison

14,072,598

906,934

153,921

753,013

1,511,557

1,357,636

Jackson

5,784,679

372,804

-

-

621,340

-

Jefferson

12,001,773

832,500

-

-

1,387,501

-

Kanawha

44,809,619

2,887,838

2,400,529

487,309

4,813,063

2,412,534

Lewis

4,410,981

284,274

-

-

473,790

-

Lincoln

2,253,367

145,222

-

-

242,037

-

Logan

6,111,654

393,877

-

-

656,461

-

Marion

9,206,723

593,344

-

-

988,907

-

Marshall

8,157,580

525,730

-

-

876,217

-

Mason

5,106,591

329,104

-

-

548,506

-

Local Share 2006

7,998,197

514,147

-

-

856,911

-

Mineral

3,820,657

246,229

-

-

410,382

-

Mingo

5,959,244

384,054

-

-

640,091

-

Monongalia

18,541,162

1,194,919

-

-

1,991,532

-

Monroe

1,208,050

77,855

-

-

129,758

-

Morgan

3,953,488

254,790

-

-

424,650

-

McDowell

4,567,611

294,368

-

-

490,613

-

Nicholas

4,760,808

306,819

-

-

511,365

-

Ohio

6,939,663

447,239

372,790

74,449

745,399

372,609

Pendleton

1,702,359

109,712

-

-

182,853

-

Pleasants

3,632,276

233,612

-

-

389,353

-

Pocahontas

3,401,843

219,238

-

-

365,397

-

Preston

5,476,619

352,951

-

-

588,251

-

Putnam

12,098,660

779,720

-

-

1,299,534

-

Raleigh

12,832,491

827,013

735,582

91,431

1,378,356

642,774

Randolph

4,720,184

303,829

-

-

506,381

-

Ritchie

2,009,402

129,500

-

-

215,833

-

Roane

1,879,674

121,139

-

-

201,898

-

Summers

1,745,406

112,486

-

-

187,476

-

Taylor

2,444,385

157,533

-

-

262,555

-

Tucker

2,319,302

149,472

-

-

249,119

-

Tyler

1,709,015

110,141

1,800

108,341

183,568

181,768

Upshur

4,081,890

263,065

75,383

187,682

438,441

363,058

Wayne

5,785,029

372,827

-

-

621,378

-

Webster

1,622,698

104,578

-

-

174,296

-

Wetzel

3,437,867

221,560

-

-

369,266

-

Wirt

603,690

39,307

-

-

65,512

-

Wood

16,282,838

1,048,308

433,848

614,460

1,747,179

1,313,331

Wyoming

4,840,205

311,936

-

-

519,893

-

Total

 

353,185,650

22,911,090

4,728,375

3,291,403

38,185,146

8,637,922

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OSF 01/19/07
Local Share 2006-07 @ 94% & 90%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources

 

Several county board members have inquired about §6-5-12, a section of law that allows “leave of absence for public officials for performing public duties.” The statute reads as follows:
           
“Any person elected to a part-time public office or appointed to a part-time elected public office shall be entitled to a leave of absence from his or her private employment except when such employment is with an employer employing five or fewer persons on a full-time basis on the days or portions of any day during which he or she is engaged in performing the duties of his or her public office. The leave of absence shall not result in any penalty being imposed upon the persons entitled to the leave of absence: Provided, That such leave of absence may be without pay by the private employer.”

According to West Virginia School Boards Association counsel, the leave may apply to county board training because it is required by statute. However, the leave has certain restrictions based on the size of the firm employing the county board member and that it may be without pay.

For more detailed information, please contact WVSBA Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D., or counsel Howard E. Seufer Jr., Esq., Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love. Seufer’s telephone number is (304) 347-1776. O’Cull’s e-mail address is hocull@wvsba.org.

 

Bill Abstract
Edcuation-Related House Bills

Education-Related Senate Bills

 

First Day - Jan. 10, 2007: First day of session. (WV Const. Art. VI, §18)

20thDay – Jan. 29, 2007: Submission of Legislative Rule-Making Review bills due. (WV Code §29A-3-12)

41st Day – Feb. 19, 2007: Last day to introduce bills in Senate. Does not apply to originating or supplementary appropriation bills. (Senate Rule 14) Does not apply to Senate resolutions or concurrent resolutions.

45th Day - Feb.  23, 2007: Last day to introduce bills in House of Delegates. Does not apply to originating or supplementary appropriation bills. (House Rule 91a) Does not apply to House resolutions or concurrent resolutions.

47th Day - Feb. 25, 2007: Bills due out of committees in house of origin to ensure three full days for readings.

50th Day - Feb. 28, 2007: Last day to consider bill on third reading in house of origin. Does not include budget or supplementary appropriation bills. (Joint Rule 5b)

60th Day - March 10, 2007: Adjournment at Midnight. (WV Const. Art. VI, §22)

- From the West Virginia Legislature

 

ETC.

Mingo intervention issue was brewing

In the Feb. 21, 1997 issue of The Legislature, Senate Bill 300, the controversial “Jobs Through Education Act,” was the subject of considerable rumor, namely that the West Virginia Department of Education had prepared 600 pages of regulations to implement the legislation.

According to Deputy State Superintendent of Schools William J. Luff, the regulations would, in fact, repeal several state Board of Education policies. Some legislators, however, remained skeptical, including Del. Fred Gillespie, R-Wood, who introduced legislation to repeal the bill which was aimed at preparing students, given diverse skills, for the 21st century workplace.

In other legislative news, Rita Ray, representing the state’s Distance Learning Coordinating Council, said her agency was working on a state “Intranet,” a means by which to “tie in” technological programs throughout the state. It would “replace” microwave-based communications through fiber optics, according to The Legislature. 

The prelude to the Mingo County Board of Education’s 1998 state intervention was brewing during the 1997 session. One state Board of Education member said the county’s situation – low test scores, larger numbers of personnel “over” the state School Aid Formula (SAF) ratios, and numerous school facilities – constituted a “five-alarm” fire.

 

 

A Seattle school district has temporarily banned schools from screening Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” after complaints from Frosty Hardison, an advocate of creationism and father of seven children.

“Condoms don’t belong in school and neither does Al Gore,” Hardison said. “The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.” School board officials say the ban will be lifted for any teacher who accompanies Gore’s film with another film representing an “opposing view.”

From “The Week,” Jan. 26, 2007

 

 

“How can you think and hit at the same time?”

– Yogi Berra

 

 

“At this point, we’re not for it or against it. We’ve got to find out what’s going on.”
-  Mike Hayden, executive director of the West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, discussing a measure that would require random drug testing of athletes participating in championships. Sen. Clark Barnes, R-Randolph, introduced the measure.

 

“You’ve got some very serious situations.”
– Senate Education Committee Chairman Bob Plymale, D-Wayne, discussing legislation – and the need for quick legislative action – that would allow Teachers Retirement System (TRS) retirees to serve in shortage positions for unlimited periods of time without losing retirement benefits. The bill has been forwarded to the governor.

 

“This is not the ‘English-only bill.’ It’s getting a bad rap.”
– Sen. Billy Wayne Bailey, D-Wyoming, discussing what has become a legislative perennial – a measure to require all state, county and local documents to be printed in English only. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the measure, only 2.7 percent of state residents speak a language other than English at home – the highest percentage in the nation. The measure has been adopted by one house or another of the Legislature, although it has failed to pass.

 

Last Word

From the Charleston Gazette

Anyone who says libraries are not needed in today’s society hasn’t spent much time in one lately.
           
All kinds of information may be instantly available on the Internet, but only if you’ve got a computer, a good connection and you know how to use it. And even if you do, much of the information on the Internet is not worth having. It’s not authoritative and not reliable. Information that is worth finding does not necessarily pop up after the first couple of search queries. If only there were someone in town skilled at storing and retrieving large amounts of information, evaluating it for the quality of its sources and helping people to find answers to their questions.

This is the role good libraries have always played — in addition to stocking the latest Robert B. Parker novel or setting up children’s activities to stimulate literacy skills. With so much information moved to digital formats, society’s need for Sherpas through the mountains of information is greater than ever.

No wonder that libraries are seeing their visits and the amount of traffic in their materials increase. They still do a fair amount of book business, but there are also various forms of multimedia holdings, computer classes and public access computers.

Many libraries, including the Kanawha County Public Library, make their catalogs available online, so anyone with a computer on his desk can search their holdings from afar. If you have a working library card, you can search and download articles from specialized journals, a service that would cost any individual thousands of dollars.

Because libraries are as vital as ever, it was good to hear lawmakers talking about them and the need to fund them in a recent Senate Finance Committee meeting.
The state Supreme Court recently overturned state laws set up for some counties that require county school boards to give part of their tax collections to their county libraries. Counties with such laws were taking a hit in the school funding formula. They were assessed with funds that they were not free to spend on schools, and so their share of state funds was decreased.

The Supreme Court’s decision may make for cleaner law — why should library funding be tied by state law to county school levies? But it is cursed inconvenient for the libraries, which may get more than 80 percent of their funding this way.

Clearly, the solution is to come up with a legal way to collect the money that these counties were already collecting for libraries. We’re glad to hear lawmakers are talking about it.

 

Editorial reprinted from The Charleston Gazette, Jan. 25, 2007, www.wvgazette.com.


 

The Legislature is published by the West Virginia School Boards Association. It provides county board of education members, state policymakers, school administrators and the education community information and opinions regarding West Virginia legislative issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect official opinion or policies of the WVSBA, unless specifically stated.

West Virginia School Boards Association
PO Box 1008
Charleston, WV 25324
Phone (304) 346-0571 • Fax (304) 346-0572 WVSBA.ORG

Kim Cooper (Raleigh), President
dukecoop77@yahoo.com

Jean Westfall (Ritchie County), Chairman
WVSBA Committee on Communications*
Ljwm1108@ruralnet.org

Howard M. O’Cull, Ed. D., Executive Director, Editor
hocull@wvsba.org

Shirley M. Davidson, Administrative Assistant,
Production and Circulation
sdavidson@wvsba.org

* Committee on Communications: Judi Almond (Raleigh), Beth
Cercone (Clay), Bob Duckworth (Taylor), David McCutcheon (Roane),
Mike Mitchem (McDowell), Nancy Walker
(Monongalia), Don Tuttle (Wetzel)

Vincit omnia veritas
“Truth conquers all”