News

State Insurance Agency to provide itemized bill, detailing what boards owe in terms of GASB

Issue in need of greater rational, less speculative discussion

West Virginia School Board Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D., has received the following written communication from Public Employees Insurance Agency (PEIA) Chief Financial Officer J. A. Haught, CPA,   regarding payment of GASB “post-employment benefits”:

            In compliance with Government Accounting Standards Board Statement
           45, as a multi-employer cost sharing OPEB plan and approved by the            West Virginia Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund Board in November            2006, the remaining Annual Required Contribution payment amount            required for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) is $512.27. Full            payment is required to fund the OPEB Liability. PEIA’s collection            effort will not be aggressive for the remaining ARC at this time. The            amount billed and unpaid must be recorded as a liability on the financial            statements of each agency.

“…Any post-July PEIA bill will detail what count boards are to pay and not to pay and what to consider as a liability…”

In a further conversation with O’Cull, Haught said any post-July PEIA
bill will detail what count boards are to pay and not to pay and what to consider as a liability as stated above.

The memorandum and statements by PEIA officials, coupled with complimentary guidance from the West Virginia Association of School Administrators (WVASA) and the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE), should “at least put the GASB PEIA bill in a more rational, less speculative context,” said O’Cull.

The WVSBA Executive Director in further comments regarding GASB says he has received calls from legislators, particularly from the Northern Panhandle, saying some school administrators have informed them of the need to lay-off staff to pay the $512 PEIA bill and also requests to amend state law so that county boards who “go into deficit” will not be personally liable.

“I am concerned that this conversation – now in second and third generations – has skewed rational discussion of this issue, making it more than it really is, especially in terms of having to lay-off staff or changing the ‘casual deficit’ statute…’” – West Virginia School Board Association Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D.

“I am concerned that this conversation – now in second and third generations – has skewed rational discussion of this issue, maybe making it more than it really is, especially in terms of having to lay-off staff or changing the ‘casual deficit’ statute,” said O’Cull, adding that discussion of the issue at WVSBA’s Winter Conference “hopefully will clear the air.”

By use of the word “rational,” O’Cull said he was referring to a political science or policy term.

He adds that the WVDE may have not handled the GASB question “well” in terms of communicating its impact on county boards and that the agency’s directives may not have appeared “sympathetic” to county superintendents struggling to meet the issue with what he terms “great ambiguity and voids of information.”

O’Cull also contends the entire matter is fraught with a number of other factors, including a “natural tension” that often occurs between the WVDE and the state administrators’ association regarding implementation of agency directives.

“I’m going to explore GASB in the next issue of this publication from various angles, especially how the issue may be blown out of proportion primarily because of assumptions answered by agencies’ silences and a distrust of bureaucracies,” said O’Cull.

He added, “the situation now is an effort, whether good or ill, to bring others into what has been a long-going conversation regarding WVASA and which seemingly must be entered in that organization’s terms. This isn’t all bad in that WVASA is the only organization which has been dissecting and discerning GASB’s impacts with, unfortunately, seeming silence from some agencies. Such scenarios occur when there is a dearth or vacuum of information and people, for whatever reason, don’t feel they’re being listened to or that their concerns aren’t being taken seriously by agencies that promulgate rules.”

County boards do benefit from the debate, said O’Cull, but should have a full context of information. “Again, let’s hope our conference brings this into fruition,” he added, saying board members will receive a list of questions to pose to legislators, based on a recent WVASA commentary regarding GASB.

For more information regarding GASB, refer to a Commentary by WVDE official Joe Panetta who heads the Department’s Office of School Finance.

And in terms of a correction, the Feb. 2 issue of The Legislature, due to an editing error, contained an erroneous sentence saying PEIA “would” aggressively seek funding for post-employment benefits when it should have read will not aggressively seek such funds.

 

School safety funding termed not 'under-funded' mandate

Issue in need of greater rational, less speculative discussion

The governor’s proposed legislation relating to school safety shouldn’t be considered an “unfunded mandate,” according to Mark Manchin, Ed.D., School Building Authority of West Virginia executive director who spoke at a Joint House/Senate Education Committee meeting Thursday.

Manchin, in answer to a question by Del. Richard Browning, D-Wyoming, said county boards would choose whether to seek their allotment of $10 million in funds allocated for school safety by shoring school ingress and egress.

If a county opts not to receive its share of the dollars based on student enrollment, the moneys may accrue to other counties.

Browning, a former school principal, wondered if the bill’s proposed 75/25 percent match equated to an “unfunded mandate.”

In explaining his response, Manchin said that as a former schools superintendent he would have made school safety a priority to receive the state funds. He said some matching dollars may be procured through West Virginia Department of Education allocations for the federal “Safe and Drug Free Schools” program.

The newly-appointed School Building Authority (SBA) director also said public pressure is likely to prompt reluctant boards to acquire the funds and that the Legislature should pass the bill quickly so boards can budget for the matching dollars.

Manchin said the governor’s program is probably the first in a series of efforts to beef up school safety through an emphasis on persons entering schools through lax security or neglected entryways and exits.

A school safety audit would be required locally in for boards to qualify for the funds, with counties to send applications to the SBA and to include school safety measures in their Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan (CEFP) documents.

For more information on the joint meeting, refer to the “Administrative Perspective” column in this issue The Legislature.

In other action this week, the House Education Committee adopted legislation relating to reimbursing tuition and fees for teacher renewal courses, placing greater emphasis on renewals sought in “shortage areas.” That measure is House Bill 2588.

Another teacher-related measure would require the state Department of Education to develop a proposal relating to use of professional development for teacher certificate renewal, reporting to a legislative oversight body by Jan. 1, 2008. The measure is House Bill 2585.

Both bills have additional provisions.

The school safety measures are included in Senate Bill 67 and House Bill 2288.

Manchin has served as county superintendent in Webster and McDowell Counties.

The school safety audit is being developed by RETA Security which is located in Illinois. Paul Timm, RETA’s Vice President, has been a frequent West Virginia School Boards Association presenter.

 

Senate SAF bill expected today

Library funding and taxes key issue

The Senate Education Committee’s School Aid Formula (SAF) bill will be introduced today, according to Staff Counsel Hank Hager.

The bill was discussed in a Tuesday SEC meeting. It will be reviewed in the Feb. 12 issue of The Legislature.

The measure, among other things, addresses the issue of a December 2006 West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case involving nine county boards who are required by “local laws” which originate in the House of Delegates to support public libraries and who, by doing so, are “penalized” through the state SAF in terms of local share calculations.

According to Hager who met Thursday with West Virginia School Board Association Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D., and West Virginia Association of School Administrators Executive Director Martha Dean, Ed.D., the SEC proposes to address the “library issue” by first declaring that public libraries serve a “legitimate” school purpose. Based on that “test,” the bill would require that a library funding obligation established through special acts of the Legislature be paid only from that portion of school board levy revenues that “are not” local share.

The special acts are superseded by limiting the library funding obligation to the amount that county board levy revenues exceed local share calculations.

In discussions with Kanawha County Board of Education President Jim Crawford and Superintendent Ron Duerring, Ed.D., both officials said the Kanawha Board does not oppose support of public libraries but objects to being penalized through local share considerations.

Duerring said the Kanawha Board made the matter clear in the court case, which the high court decided Dec. 6. Duerring said he prefers to continue the library support rather than have additional funds provided through local share changes and then having to address repeated library requests for funding.

Whether the Senate approach, if adopted, will stand a court challenge is unknown, because it still may create a disparity between nine county boards required to support public libraries through school moneys and the 46 county boards which aren’t.

Hager says the question may be moot in that the Senate measure attempts to supersede the local laws. 

Although the House Education Committee has yet to consider a SAF bill, several committee sources told The Legislature that the HEC may simply require the nine county boards that are required to support local libraries to continue to do so through use of increased local share dollars.

The HEC will likely amend its “formula” provisions into the Senate’s bill.

 

Consultant’s recommendations

The bill has several provisions as discussed by SEC consultant Cal Kent, Ph.D., a Marshall University official who has served as a consultant to an interim committee studying the state School Aid Formula. The bill’s provisions would:

• Require local share be calculated based on the assumption that properties are being assessed at 60 percent of market value. This provision would be effective in FY10.
• Eliminate the 1 percent limit on the growth of county board levy rates.
• Freeze county board levy rates at their current rates (Class I: 20.05, Class II: 40.10, Classes III and IV: 80.20).
• Include Kindergarten students under age five who don’t have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in the calculation for determining whether or not a county meets the definition of a growth county for purposes of a bill enacted by the Legislature relating to growth county facilities.
• Create the definition of a “financially impacted county” which is defined using criteria related to increases in enrollment (100 additional students in three of the last five years) and the percentage of classrooms covered by highly qualified teachers, meaning the district has less than 93 percent of its classes covered by highly qualified teachers.
• Require any “additional” local state aid received by a county by reason of a county meeting the definition of a “financially impacted county” could only be used for salaries and personnel.

 

Decrease local share

• Decrease local share so the difference between actual school levy revenues and local share is “widened” and state aid to counties is increased. Beginning in FY08, counties that are assessing at least 57 percent of market value, the local share percentage rate – currently 98 percent – is reduced to 94 percent. For FY09 and thereafter, for those counties, the percentage is reduced another 4 percent to 90 percent.
• Reduce the local share rate for “financially-impacted” counties to 80 percent.
• Create a statutory mechanism so any county which meets the definition of a “fiscally impaired county” for two consecutive years and which fails to meet the definition the year immediately following, local share is reduced by only an additional 5 percent. Thus, for counties assessing property at 57 percent of assessed value, local share would be calculated using the 85 percent figure. For counties assessing at less than 57 percent, local share would be calculated using a 93 percent figure.
• Provide consideration for a tax increase on homeowners through the granting of a refundable property tax credit (up to $750) for property taxes in excess of four percent of income.

 

An interim subcommittee has been studying school funding for the past two years with Kent and West Virginia University professor Tom Witt, Ph.D., as consultants.

An HEC subcommittee discussed library funding in meetings Feb. 2 and earlier this week.

Del. David Perry, D-Fayette, heads that subcommittee.

 

Government Org Committee looks at grievance procedure on Monday

Current grievance board would terminate June 30

The Senate Government Organization Committee will meet Monday, Feb. 11, to consider Senate Bill 442, legislation which would revamp the current grievance procedure for education and state employees.

Sen. Donna Boley, R-Pleasants, said she is concerned the “new board” is not representative of school administrators or of the West Virginia Professional Educators.

In its Wednesday meeting, the committee received the first draft of the proposal which was based on about three years’ study and work, according to Senate Government Organization Chairman Ed Bowman, D-Hancock.

Based on SGO discussions, the measure is likely to be approved Monday. The bill has a second reference to the Senate Finance Committee.

SGO counsel Noelle Starek presented the bill Wednesday. There were few questions, with Sen. John Yoder, D-Jefferson, saying he planned on making a “conceptual amendment” at Monday’s meeting. Yoder didn’t elaborate.

• Sen. Donna J. Boley, R-Pleasants, has said she may attempt to amend the bill to include a county superintendent on the newly revamped West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board.
• At the Wednesday meeting, Boley questioned the board’s composition, asking if it could include the West Virginia Federation of Teachers as a representative of the state’s “largest labor organization” and also a WV/AFT representative as a representative of school employees.
• Following discussion, WV/AFT President Judy Hale said that scenario was possible although she doubted it would happen.
• Boley said she is concerned the “new board” is not representative of school administrators or of the West Virginia Professional Educators, an independent teacher organization.
• Highlights of the legislation based on a Bill Abstract developed by Starek:
• The legislation emanated from a workgroup appointed by Gov. Joe Manchin in 2006 to study the current grievance procedure. A legislative committee had been studying the issue the past three years. Sen. Bowman was chairman of the committee along with Del. Dale Martin, D-Putnam. During the same time the work group was meeting, a Senate/House Government Organization Subcommittee also reviewed the grievance procedure. The workgroup’s proposals were endorsed by the legislative subcommittee in December. The resulting legislation is included in Senate Bill 442.
• The work group’s stated goals were to “promote (a grievance process) that is “efficient, fair, cost-effective and consistent.” Additionally, based on testimony provided to the work group from various employee interests, the panel wanted to “address a lack of trust/integrity that employees have with the current system.” Lastly, the group, while contemplating binding arbitration for grievances, settled on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) instead. The decision to settle on ADR was done to take “baby steps” to develop familiarity and comfort with ADR – and possibly arbitration in the future.

 

To accomplish these objectives, the work group’s measure:

• Eliminates levels I (immediate supervisor) and III (county board/hearing examiners) from both of the current grievance processes, which reduced the steps in the process from four-five to three which presumably decreass the length of time and cost of the process;
• Incorporates mandatory ADR;
• Initiates the process with the “chief administrator or designee” who has authority to resolve the dispute;
• Creates a new grievance board with new members including employee organizations and employers, who will hire new Administrative Law Judges (ALJs);
• Institutes “significant, new data collection and record keeping requirements to be preformed by the board to determine the cost of the process at every level, the results of the process at every level and other important information, and disseminate it annually;”
• Consolidates the process for education, state and higher education employees.

These are among the bill’s procedural aspects:

• Level I: Chief Administrator: An employee has 15 days to file a written grievance requesting either a conference or a hearing with the chief administrator, or designee, who will hold the conference or hearing within 10 days and issue a written decision within 15 days. Parties may agree to move directly to Level III, or a party may go directly to Level III upon being discharged, suspended without pay or demoted or reclassified causing loss of compensation.
• Level II: Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution: Within 10 days of an adverse decision at Level I, the grievant must request mediation by ALJ, private mediation chosen and paid for by parties; requires mutual consent or mediation-arbitration conducted by ALJ; requires mutual consent if mediation fails, ALJ may become arbitrator and decide grievance to be held within 20 days.
• Level III: Adjudication with ALJ: Within 10 days of unsuccessful ADR at Level II, the grievant may file a written appeal with the board requesting a hearing, to be scheduled within a reasonable time in consultation with the parties.
• Appeal: The same process will be used as in current law but the appeal can be made only to the Kanawha County Circuit Court.
• Default: There is new language, stating the employer’s defenses for “injury, illness or a justified delay not caused by negligence or intent to delay the grievance process,” clarifying that employee must choose within 10 days in writing to proceed to the next level or to enforce the default, and removing the presumption, which clarifies that the ALJ will be determining only whether there are any defenses and if the remedy is clearly wrong or contrary to the law.
• Defenses include untimeliness and statutory defenses. The one-year statute of limitations regarding “back pay” is clarified, with 18 months for a willful act by the employer.
• Representation: New language includes the right to have a “representative” present at any step of the procedure.
• As under existing law, reprisal and retaliation are not permitted and constitute a grievance. Supervisors or administrators responsible for willful acts of bad faith toward an employee are subject to disciplinary action, including demotion or discharge.
• Conferences and hearings- additional “flexibility” has been drafted into the process for location, notice and the date and time of the hearings in accommodation to the parties’ work schedules. The recording of the hearing is available to all parties and a transcript to those appealing.
• Witnesses are added to the section giving them time off for their roles in the grievance process.

 

State Public Employees Grievance Board

The new grievance procedure would have significant data collection and reporting requirements, including identification of grievances by type, level of resolution, cost of the grievance, number granted or denied at each level, caseload and resolution rates.

• The bill proposes the existing Grievance Board, including current members, hearing examiners and administrative law judges, terminate June 30, 2007. 
• The new West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board would commence operation July 1 with five new members appointed by the governor: One person from the state’s largest labor organization, one person from an education employee organization, one employer from the executive branch, one employer from education and one citizen member. Members would serve three-year terms, must meet four times a year, can be removed for cause, hire ALJs, prepare a budget, draft rules and procedures, create forms, and file mandamus proceedings against employers who fail to comply with reporting requirements. 
• There would be new “significant” data collection and reporting requirements, including identification of grievances by type, level of resolution, cost of the grievance, number granted or denied at each level, ALJs caseload and resolution rates.
• A report relating to these matters would be provided to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance at the end of the year.
• The Grievance Board would sunset in 2010.

 

Administrative Perspective

Wide range of issues before House Education subcommittee

Decreasing school aid brings calls for financial picture support

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

Feb.8, 2007

The state school aid formula which determines how much money in local taxes county school systems receive is a major topic in both houses of the Legislature these days.

The subcommittee of the House Education Committee continues to meet and conduct its work. Subcommittee A met Monday and worked on four bills. Subcommittee C met Tuesday and concluded the meetings at which they have received information concerning the school aid formula from a variety of presenters.

Tuesday, members heard about school nurses, counselors, information technology specialists and librarians. From this information, they are going to propose changes in the school aid formula and it looks as if they will be addressing the unfunded and under-funded personnel issues.

 

Support for school nurses funding under consideration

The West Virginia Department of Education, represented by Melanie Purkey, made several recommendations concerning nursing services. They began with recommending a manageable certified school nurse (BSN) ratio of one nurse for every 1,500 students Pre-K-12 in the school system.

A chart they provided indicated all counties have currently employed enough nurses to meet this change in law. However, it must be remembered that only one nurse for every 1,500 students K-7 is funded through the state aid funding formula.  Other nurses currently employed are either paid through county funding or the legislative action last year that provided funding to only 18 counties who had not previously employed sufficient nurses. That funding, unless extended by the Legislature, was only for the 2006-2007 school year.

Further recommendations included an incorporation of multiple educational levels of RNs in the school system. These include master’s, bachelor’s and associate degrees and diploma-prepared RNs, LPNs incorporated into the service personnel classification and health aides incorporated into the service personnel classifications as classroom aides providing health services.

Purkey told committee members schools are being asked to provide more health care and health services. If the law requires schools to provide these services, then the school aid formula should address a funding mechanism that meets the need, she said.

 

Students need to be prepared for today’s high tech jobs

Committee members appeared to be very interested in the provision of information technology personnel in schools. It was pointed out that computers and other equipment are needed to provide students skills for today’s job and teachers must be trained to integrate technology in the classrooms.

The committee has asked Joe Panetta, executive director of the Office of School Finance/West Virginia Department of Education, to present a report showing how the funding for schools has declined over the past several years. This report is to be ready by Tuesday, Feb. 13.

Stan Hopkins told the committee about the need for school counselors. The department has recently hired someone to be responsible for counseling services.  Librarians have been given the opportunity to become trained as information technology specialists (50 in the state). This was not presented as a total solution to the need for IT specialists, but some media specialists have taken advantage of the training offered last summer to become more valuable to the personnel and students in their schools.

The subcommittee is bringing its work to a close. It will be working on drafting a bill to address school aid formula changes.

Delegate Browning brought up the issue of the decrease in percentage of the total state budget that goes to fund schools. The committee has asked Joe Panetta, executive director of the Office of School Finance/West Virginia Department of Education,  
to present a report showing how the funding for schools has declined over the past several years. This report is to be ready by Tuesday, Feb. 13.

Stan Hopkins told the committee about the need for school counselors. The department has recently hired someone to be responsible for counseling services

 

New look being taken at school aid formula funding

The Senate also is concerned with the school aid formula. This work is concentrating on the local tax effort as it relates to the school aid formula. The Senate passed SB 570 last year which would require county assessors to assess property at 60 percent of actual value as determined by the State Tax Commission through its annual tax study.  SB 570 would have further reduced the percentage of local taxes to fund the school aid formula.

The current work is similar, but other aspects have been incorporated into a bill that is planned to be introduced next week. The bill would reduce the amount of local taxes that count as local share from 98 percent to 94 percent in 2007-08 and to 90 percent in 2008-09.  It would also add a description of counties that are “financially impacted.”

For financially impacted counties, the local share would be reduced an additional 10 percent. For the next two fiscal years, counties would only have to have their assessments at 57 percent of the market value in to receive the additional share of local taxes. To soften the blow for low-income individuals, they could apply for a refundable tax credit if their property taxes exceed 4 percent of their total income.

 

LOCAL VS. STATE CONTROL OF SCHOOL TAX DOLLARS AT STAKE

In order for the increase in local taxes that are not counted as local share to have a significant impact on school systems, it is important for the Legislature to allow county school superintendents and boards to decide the purpose for which these funds are used.

There are many needs in most counties that are not being met because of lack of funds.  Only by leaving to the counties the decisions as to how to use these additional funds can each county set the priorities that superintendents and boards have evaluated and found to be most pressing needs.

This is a topic that I hope will be discussed with legislators at next week’s reception and/or individual meetings. Counties have different needs according to population, proximity to state borders, type of students served, availability of jobs and access to cultural experiences to name a few. This justifies allowing counties to decide what should have the highest priority for additional dollars if they become available.

 

WVSBA Briefs

WVSBA Conference Feb. 16-17 in Charleston

Wide range of current school issues to be discussed, debated

County board members are urged to arrange for visitations with legislators as part of the West Virginia School Board Association’s 2007 Winter Conference Feb. 16 and 17 at the Charleston Marriott Town Center Inn.

“Board members are responsible for making legislative visitation arrangements,” said WVSBA Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D. About 250 persons are expected to attend the sessions.

O’Cull said he had received telephone confirmation from House Majority Leader Joe DeLong’s, D-Hancock, office concerning a scheduled Feb. 16 meeting with a contingent of Northern Panhandle county board members and superintendents.

“The chief program topic will be the Governmental Accounting Standards Board  (GASB) issue along with school security, special needs students’ issues, legislative matters and other programming which we believe members will find both informative and helpful,” said Kim Cooper (Raleigh) WVSBA president

County board members and superintendents from Association Region VI who plan to attend that 30-minute session at 9 a.m. next Friday are urged to contact the association office for details.

“The chief program topic will be the Governmental Accounting Standards Board  (GASB) issue along with school security, special needs students’ issues, legislative matters and other programming which we believe members will find both informative and helpful,” said Kim Cooper (Raleigh) WVSBA president.

Cooper reiterated that the GASB portion of the program has been divided into two segments, the first being presented by “practitioners,” with West Virginia Department of Education officials “presenting their take and analysis of the issue followed by questions-and-answers and brief remarks from our counsel Howard E. Seufer Jr..”

”I know that I speak for all attendees when I say I look forward to this and certainly other portions of the program,” Cooper said.
Other program highlights:

• The program will feature __ exhibitors who include: (Dr. Turner I’ll fill this in.)
• There are two “participant-led” sessions which allow members to interact with a facilitator to discuss issues of concern to participants. O’Cull will lead one session and WVSBA Executive Board representatives will lead another.
• The special needs students program will be presented by Dr. Lynn Boyer, a state Department of Education official, and Bowles Rice Attorney Claudia Bentley of Martinsburg.
• WVSBA Vice President Stephen Cook (Monongalia) and WVDE Office of School Finance Director Joe Panetta will present the “excess levy” workshop.
• Dr. Stanley Hopkins who serves as the WVDE’s director of Adult and Technical Education will present the state Board of Education Policy 2510 workshop.
• O’Cull and Seufer will discuss board/superintendent relations based on a program they recently presented to the state association of school administrators (WVASA).

 

A copy of the program is printed below.

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.

Seufer is a partner in the Charleston-based law firm Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Loove.

The first WVSBA legislative conference was conducted in 1987.

 

West Virginia School Boards Association 2007 Winter Conference Program

 

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.                     “Perspectives on GASB”
                                Segment I – Representatives/West Virginia Association of School Administrators                                                              (WVASA)
1:45 p.m.               Break
2 p.m.                     Segment II – Representatives/West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE)
2:45 p.m.               Wrap-up
3:15 p.m.               School Safety (Ingress/Egress) – Mark Manchin, Ed.D., Executive Director School Building Authority of West Virginia
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

 

Committee on Communications to Meet Feb. 16

The Association’s Committee on Communications, headed by Jean Westfall (Ritchie), will meet Friday, Feb. 16 immediately following the school safety presentation. “It is imperative that all committee members and interested persons attend this meeting,” said Westfall. For more information, please contact the WVSBA office at 304.346.0571.

 

RESA VII sponsoring workshop relating to Reductions in Force (RIFs) and transfers

RESA VII to sponsor RIF, transfer workshop; all county board members, superintendents invited

West Virginia School Board Association counsel Howard E. Seufer Jr., Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, will present a workshop regarding personnel Reductions in Force (RIFs) and transfers Feb. 19 from 10:00 a.m. – Noon at RESA VII offices in Clarksburg. County board members from RESA VII and other regions in the state are invited to attend and will receive two hours’ school board member training credits. Persons wishing to attend the meeting, should contact RESA VII officials by Feb. 15. There is a $50 program fee. For further information, please e-mail RESA VII Executive Secretary  Regina Snider at rasnider@access.k12.wv.us or call 304-624-6554 Extension 221.

 

Resources

The following is a precedential Opinion from the state Ethics Commission regarding county board meeting notice and agendas.

Open Meetings Advisory Opinion relates to public meetings and agenda; presidential opinion

Issued on January 4, 2007 By The

WEST VIRGINIA ETHICS COMMISSION COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS

OPINION SOUGHT

The Clay County Board of Education (Board) requests guidance on the method and time frames for issuing notice and agendas for its meetings.

 

FACTS RELIED UPON BY THE COMMITTEE

The current policy of the Board requires that the news media be advised of the date, time and location of each regular and special meeting of the Board and its committees.  Notice of special meetings is to be provided in time for the media to make public announcement of the meeting, except when an emergency makes such notice impossible.

The meeting agenda is prepared by the Superintendent and mailed to each Board Member on Thursday prior to a meeting on the following Monday.  Additional items may be included in the agenda through an addendum prepared by the Superintendent if the Board approves the addition by a majority vote.

Current policy does not specify when or where the meeting agenda is made available to the public and the media.  

 

CODE PROVISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE COMMITTEE

W. Va. Code § 6-9A-3 provides in pertinent part:

Each governing body shall promulgate rules by which the date, time, place and agenda of all regularly scheduled meetings and the date, time, place and purpose of all special meetings are made available, in advance, to the public and news media, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action.

Each governing body of the executive branch of the state shall file a notice of any meeting with the secretary of state for publication in the state register. Each notice shall state the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting. Each notice shall be filed in a manner to allow each notice to appear in the state register at least five days prior to the date of the meeting.

 

ADVISORY OPINION

The Open Meetings Act generally requires governing bodies of public agencies to make certain information available to the public and news media in advance of a meeting, including: (1) the date, time, place and agenda of all regularly scheduled meetings; and (2) the date, time, place and purpose of all special meetings. 

Meeting Notice  The Act specifically requires State executive branch agencies to publish notice of any special or regular meeting in the State Register at least five days before the meeting.  Otherwise, the Act does not comprehensively describe when and how this information should be disseminated.

The Clay County Board of Education is not a governing body “of the executive branch of the state” within the meaning of the Open Meetings Act.  Therefore, the Board is not required to publish notice of its meetings in the State Register at least five calendar days in advance of the meeting.

Regular Meetings  The Open Meetings Act does not specify how far in advance of a regular meeting a governing body at the county or municipal level of government, such as a County Board of Education, must make available a meeting notice and agenda for each regular meeting.  This Committee finds that the Legislature intended such governing bodies to provide “reasonable” notice of the date, time, place and agenda of all regular meetings, as well as the date, time, place and purpose (or agenda) of all special meetings.

Thus, governing bodies are required to issue: (1) a “meeting notice,” stating when and where the meeting will be held; and (2) a “meeting agenda” listing the particular matters which will be dealt with during the meeting. 

When a governing body meets in accordance with a fixed schedule, such as the second and fourth Monday of each month, it may comply with the meeting notice requirement in the Act by annually posting notice of the date, time and place of these “regular” meetings for the coming year, and keeping this notice posted throughout the year.  Posting such notice in the Board’s central office, in a place which is readily available to the public during normal working hours, would fully comply with the Act. 

Obviously, a governing body may provide additional notice to the media and the public over and above the minimum notice required to comply with the Act.  Accordingly, the Board is encouraged to continue providing notice of the date, time and place of all regular and special meetings to the  news media in time to make public announcement of this information. 

Special Meetings  When a governing body meets on an irregular schedule, or needs to meet before the next regularly scheduled meeting to address matters that do not involve an emergency, these are considered “special meetings.”  Notice of special meetings must include the date, time and place of the meeting, as well as explain the “purpose” of the meeting. 

The “purpose” of a special meeting is considered synonymous with the agenda for that meeting.  If only one or two matters will be dealt with at a special meeting, those matters may be described in the meeting notice, and no separate agenda will be necessary.  However, if the special meeting will deal with several matters, a separate agenda may be prepared and made available at the same time and in the same manner as the meeting notice.

In order to provide reasonable notice of a special meeting, the Board should post the meeting notice  in the Board’s central office, in a place which is readily available to the public during normal working hours, at least two business days in advance of the meeting.  In counting business days, the day of the meeting, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded.  Thus, in the absence of an intervening legal holiday, the Board may issue notice of a special meeting to be held on Tuesday, not later than the close of business on the preceding Friday.   

Meeting Agendas The Act requires governing bodies of public agencies to make a meeting agenda available in advance to the public and news media.  The Act does not specify when or how this must be done.

When  The Board may comply with the Act by  making the meeting agenda available at least three business days before each regularly scheduled meeting.  Business days are counted as described earlier in this opinion.

How The Board may comply with the Act by posting its meeting agenda for each regularly scheduled meeting in a public place at its central office, as well as having copies of the agenda available to be picked up at the same location during regular business hours.  In addition, the Board, in its discretion, may distribute agendas to the news media by mail, telephone facsimile or E-mail, or the agenda may be posted on an Internet website, if the Board has established a presence on the Internet.  While additional dissemination to the public and the media is encouraged, failure to provide an agenda by such additional means will not invalidate an otherwise proper public meeting.

When the Board has made its agenda available three business days or more in advance of the meeting, it may, at its option, amend the agenda to add additional items of business - items not known at the time the original agenda was prepared and made available to the public.  Amendments may be made as late as two business days before the meeting, and made available to the public and media in the same manner as the original agenda.   
 
However, no amendment of the agenda may be made less than two business days before a meeting, unless it is to deal with an emergency matter.  Routine matters that come up after the deadline for issuing an amendment has passed must be held over to the next meeting.  If an agenda is amended to accommodate action on an emergency matter, both the meeting agenda and the meeting minutes must explain the facts and circumstances of the emergency. 

The procedures by which a governing body, such as the Clay County Board of Education, determines whether to include an item on the agenda, or amend the agenda to add one or more additional items, involves a logistical matter.  The Board has broad discretion in establishing such procedures, so long as the agenda and any amendments are made available to the public and media as otherwise provided in this opinion.  

In addition to regularly scheduled meetings and special meetings, public agencies may hold emergency meetings.  Emergency meetings may be held with little or no advance notice.  Any meeting notice issued, and the meeting minutes, must fully explain the purpose of the meeting and the facts and circumstances justifying an emergency meeting. 

This advisory opinion is limited to questions arising under the Open Governmental Proceedings Act, W. Va. Code §§ 6-9A-1, et seq., and does not purport to interpret other laws or rules. Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 6-9A-11, a governing body or member thereof that acts in good faith reliance on this advisory opinion has an absolute defense to any civil suit or criminal prosecution for any action taken based upon this opinion, so long as the underlying facts and circumstances surrounding the action are the same or substantially the same as those being addressed in this opinion, unless and until it is amended or revoked.      

 

Effective communication is critical to a successful education program

Research shows keeping staff, parents and communities informed a must, not an option

By Bob Noyed, APR
President, National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA)

I have had many opportunities to work with school board members, superintendents and other school leaders across the nation. Most school leaders recognize communication is critical to establishing strong connections between a school district and its community.

While this remains true, a review of educational research has clarified a more significant role for effective communication. According to a white paper released by the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), communication to increase parental involvement and develop better understanding of what schools do is critical to student achievement.

The white paper, “How Strong Communication Contributes to Student and School Success: Parent and Family Involvement,” reported research investigating links between effective school communication and parental and community involvement. It is part of the Communication Accountability Project (CAP) that NSPRA has initiated to demonstrate that an effective communication program is essential for every school district.

Another major finding is a call to action for districts to train employees to be more effective communicators. According to the research, test scores grew at a rate 40 percent higher in schools where teachers reported high levels of outreach to parents than in schools where teachers reported low levels of outreach.

Here are a few ideas to improve connection between teachers and parents:

• Start with training – Many teachers and other school employees may not understand how to most effectively communicate with parents. Providing basic communication training to employees is a great first step.
• Establish expectations for communication – If communication is going to be seen as important by teachers, it needs to be an expectation of every teacher. Establish an expectation of how often teachers need to communicate with parents and hold employees accountable.
• Communicate in small pieces, not big chunks – Long, complicated newsletters and other materials are not usually widely read by parents. Provide information in smaller pieces so it is easier to understand and make communication with parents more regular.
• Take advantage of technology – An increasing number of parents have access to e-mail at home or work. Sending a short e-mail once a week or once every other week is a cost-effective way to share information. Give them a two to three-sentence summary of what you want them to know and  provide a link to your web site that includes more information.
• Focus on key messages – Determine three or four key ideas you want to communicate to parents and community members and repeat regularly. It is easier to remember information if it is focused on specific messages.

While most school districts have some communication activities, often missing is a sustained communication program. Effective communication cannot happen once or twice a year or just be connected to a referendum. It needs to be regular and use a variety of communication strategies to reach parents and residents. 

Here are a few ideas to improve your district’s communication program:

• Assess your district’s communication program – Conduct an audit of your communication effort to find out what’s working, what isn’t working and what needs to be done.
• Develop a communication plan – If you don’t have a plan, effective communication will never happen. Establish your communication objectives and develop strategies to meet objectives.
• Identify and seek out opinion leaders – Some people in every community are able to influence others. Identify them and regularly communicate with them so they can share information with others.
• Explain reasons behind decisions – It is not enough to communicate the decision or issue. It is necessary to help people understand the reasons behind a decision and process.
• Communicate from the inside out – We need to communicate with internal and external audiences, but all communication should start with internal audiences.  Your staff can help you communicate with parents and community members.
• Make communication and building relationships part of everyone’s job – No one person can do this. Everyone needs to know that they are a critical part of the communication effort.

Communication from schools and districts must be seen as an investment in the greater success of students. It is not an option, but an integral part of every high-functioning school district.

 

Legislative Jargon

Our sometimes annual guide to some of the terms used during the legislative session

Chambers - the two areas set aside for meetings of the entire membership of the Senate and House (also referred to as the floor). The bill is on the floor means that it is out of committee and before the entire membership of the House or Senate.

Christmas tree - a bill that has had several amendments added.  We had to kill the bill because it got Christmas-treed (also called loving a bill to death).

Committee Substitute - an amended version of a bill recommended by a committee; generally offered when there are numerous amendments or substantial rewriting of an introduced bill (also referred to as a com sub).

Concur - the action of one house in agreeing to or approving a proposal or action of the other body.

Double Referenced - a bill gets assigned to two committees instead of just one.

Enrolled Bill - the final version of a bill, passed by both bodies.

House of Origin – the body in which a bill or resolution is introduced.

Journal – the formal, written record of floor proceedings printed daily by the clerk of each house; can be picked up outside the journal room on the ground floor and contains that day’s agenda for the floor session.

Motion - a proposal made to the presiding officer.

Motion to Lie Over - consider the bill the next day

Motion to Postpone Indefinitely - delay action forever;

 PPI=d - a dead bill.

Readings - the three stages bills must go through on the floor of a chamber. First reading is informational, second reading is the amendment stage and third reading is passage stage.

Report Out – when a committee prepares a report with its recommendations regarding a bill and sends it to the full body for consideration

Title – a concise statements of the contents of a bill. It is a constitutional requirement that the title accurately reflect the bill.

Well - the round area at the center of the capitol building between the chambers; often used as a meeting place, as in AMeet me at the well.@

Abbreviations Used:
SB – Senate Bill
HB  - House Bill
SR – Senate Resolution
HR – House Resolution
SCR – Senate Concurrent Resolution
HCR – House Concurrent Resolution
SJR – Senate Joint Resolution
HJR – House Joint Resolution
Com. Sub. – Committee Substitute

Source: West Virginia Association of Counties – Patti Hamilton, executive director.

 

Bill Abstract

 

Education-Related House Bills

• House Bill 2105 – Extending the expiration date of provisions permitting retired teachers to accept employment as substitutes in areas of critical need and shortage for an unlimited number of days without affecting retirement benefits. Approved by governor 2/2/07.
• House Bill 2588 - Reimbursing tuition and fees for courses for the renewal of teaching certificates. Approved by House Education Committee 2/5/07. Referred to House Finance Committee.
• House Bill 2585 - Relating to the renewal of teaching certificates and permanent certification. Approved by HEC 2/5/05. Passed House 2/8/07. Referred to Senate.
• Senate Bill 84  – Allows county boards to enter into lease-purchase agreements relative to land, buildings and equipment. Senate Education Committee approved Jan. 25. Referred to Senate Finance Committee.
• Senate Bill 100 – Requires county boards to reimburse “school employees” for mileage at a “rate consistent with the state mileage reimbursement rate.” – Senate Education Committee approved Feb. 1. Referred to Senate Finance Committee.

2007 Legislative Calender

 

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

 

Commentary

Editor’s note: As a means to develop additional insight into the Government Accounting Standards Board issue, we are including this commentary by Joe Panetta, executive director of the state Department of Education’s Office of School Finance.

West Virginia School Board Association Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D., will provide his take on GASB in the Feb. 16 issue of The Legislature.

GASB 45 - Why All the Fuss?

 

By Joe Panetta, executive director
            Office of School Finance/West Virginia Department of Education  

Beginning in 2008, all states and many local governments throughout the nation will begin reporting in their annual financial statements the cost of all benefits promised to employees after they retire. This will comply with the requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Most governments already are reporting the cost of the monthly retirement payments, but have been reporting the cost of other post employment benefits, such as health care, on a pay-as-you go basis. They have been reporting only the cost of the monthly premiums for just the retirees for the year. Costs for all other employees have been ignored until now.

GASB, an independent agency that sets accounting standards for state and local governments , became concerned with this situation and issued GASB Statement 45 in 2004.This statement requires governments to hire actuary firms to compute the actuarial cost of these other benefits promised to employees when they were hired, and report those costs in the financial statements as benefits are earned.  The statement does not require that these costs, described as accrued actuarial costs, be paid, just that they be computed and reported.

In West Virginia, the Public Employee Insurance Agency (PEIA) decided to have the actuary study conducted for all agencies and it was instrumental in getting HB 4654 passed during the 2006 legislative session. The bill established an irrevocable trust fund for the administration of retiree post-employment health care benefits. It requires PEIA to start sending invoices in July of this year to all state agencies and local governments that offer PEIA coverage to their employees to show each agency’s share of the costs.  Any funds paid by the various agencies will be deposited into the trust, but PEIA expects to receive very few payments, if any, for deposit into the trust.

There are two major reasons for this. The first is that PEIA is working with various companies to try to lower the cost of prescription drugs and if successful the amount of the accrued actuarial liability as currently computed will be less. Secondly, there are indications from the governor and the Legislature that funds will be appropriated for deposit directly into the trust fund. Depending on the amount appropriated each year, this will reduce the costs reflected in the invoice each agency will be receiving.

PEIA has indicated that it does not intend to pursue collection efforts of the amounts reflected in the invoice beyond what each agency is currently paying. It is up to each agency to decide whether to pay the additional amounts reflected in the new invoice for deposit into the trust fund.   School boards, however, have been advised by the Department of Education to continue paying just the portion of the bill they are now paying, not to pay any additional amounts and not take any personnel actions as a result of this new requirement until the dust settles. Should a board pay the total amount of the invoice and it is later determined that the amount is more than it should be, the board will not be able to get a refund or credit because the funds would be deposited into the irrevocable trust fund.

Another issue that needs to be resolved before boards start paying the full bill is the legal question as to whether  individual boards or the state is financially obligated to pay the total costs of the post-employment health care benefits.

Not reporting the cost is not an option. Even if costs are not reported in the financial statements all bond councils are aware of this requirement and governments will be required to disclose the liability in any bond offerings they issue. Because most governments will show a liability for these types of benefits, reporting the cost will most likely not have a negative impact on a government’s bond rating. Ignoring the liability, however, will.

So why all the fuss at this time? The state has commissioned an actuary to compute the total cost of the benefits for all employees who still have the privilege. All governmental entities are being notified what their portion of the cost will be. An irrevocable trust has been established to manage the costs. The state is implementing steps to reduce the prescription costs in the future. Funds will be appropriated into the trust fund so investment earnings can be used to help keep the costs down. The state ceased offering the option of converting unused sick leave benefits to paid-up insurance coverage upon retirement for all employees hired since 2001. All are positives in attempts at trying to manage a huge cost that is only going to increase.  Left unchecked, it could very easily bankrupt not only the state but most local governments and make it very difficult to float bond issues.

 

Left unchecked, it could very easily bankrupt not only the state but most local governments and make it very difficult to float bond issues.

 

ETC.

Wisdom

 

If someone calls you an ass once, think little of it. If another person calls you an ass, take greater heed. If a third person calls you an ass, put on a saddle. – Yiddish proverb.

 

Meanwhile in Rhode Island...

 

A Catholic elementary school in Rhode Island has banned students from talking during lunch after three recent incidents of choking in the cafeteria. The incidents weren’t serious, say officials at St. Rose of Lima School, but a silent lunch will ensure teachers can henceforth identify a choking child in time to administer the Heimlich maneuver. Parent Christine Lamourex thinks the school is overreacting. The students are “silent all day,” she said. “They have to get some type of release.”

 – The Week, Feb. 9, 2007, and other sources.

 

Soundbites

 

“It’s incumbent upon us to take action now.” – School Building Authority of West Virginia Executive Director Mark Manchin, Ed.D., discussing the governor’s school safety legislation which provides county boards matching moneys to beef up school security through heightened awareness of school building ingress and egress.

“I can’t see how many rural counties would be harmed by this legislation…” – Marshall University researcher Calvin Kent, Ph.D., discussing the Senate’s proposed school aid support measure which is to be introduced today.

“We came up with about every data collection formula and stuck it in the bill…” – Senate Government Organization Committee counsel Noel Starek discussing Senate Bill 442 a measure that overhauls the state’s grievance procedure for education and state employees. In various hearings this summer, a panel convened by the governor learned that little data was collected regarding grievances except for information concerning Administrative Law Judge decisions. The absence of data was a major concern of the grievance panel, including attorney fees.

 

Last Word

Editorial: Are teachers really underpaid?

As legislators listen to the latest plea for higher pay for teachers, a few facts courtesy of Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

Over the last four decades, per-pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, has more than doubled. Americans now spend more than $500 billion on public education and efforts to hire more teachers and pay teachers more account for most of that increase.

But are teachers underpaid?

Annual earnings figures are misleading, the authors wrote. Teachers work fewer hours per year and their health and retirement benefits tend to be better than other workers.

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that public school teachers were paid $34.06 an hour in 2005 -- more than architects and economists.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that raising teacher pay raises student achievement. There is some evidence that paying bonuses to teachers who improve student performance increases achievement.

West Virginia struggles to compete with richer states for well-qualified teachers. The Legislature is right to explore ways to address that problem.

But lawmakers should keep hourly pay rates and total cost of compensation in mind as they make their decisions.

- Charleston Daily Mail

 

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”