Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education
Work Session Meeting
January 14, 2013
Minutes
The Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education met on January 14, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. at the Long Street
Administrative Office with the following members present: Dr. Richard Miller, Mrs. Kay Wright Norman,
Mrs. Susan Cox, Mrs. W. Jean Kennedy, Mr. L. A. Overcash, Mr. Joshua Wagner, and Mr. Charles
Hughes. Also present were Dr. Judy Grissom, Mr. Gene Miller, Mr. Nathan Currie, and Mrs. Bonnie
Holder, Clerk to the Board.
Call to Order / Roll Call
Dr. Miller called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Kennedy officiated the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. Cox shared an opening prayer.
Adopt Agenda
**Mr. Wagner moved the adoption of the agenda as submitted. Mrs. Norman seconded. Unanimously
approved. (7:0)
Superintendent/Board Comments
None
Discussion Items
Budget Review
Mrs. Trexler said she was going to prime the Board as the budget season is coming up. She advised that
there will be more budget discussions coming up in the near future as the staff prepares for the coming
year.
Mrs. Trexler reviewed the federal, state, and local budgets via a Keynote presentation. She explained
the operating expenditures, which are based on our budget at this time and include salaries and benefits
of $138M, purchased services of $17M, and supplies and materials of $13M.
Mrs. Trexler also explained the revenue side of the budget. She noted that the numbers did not include
the child nutrition, because that is an independent revenue source nor did it include individual school
accounts where they send money in.
Mrs. Trexler stated that almost two thirds of the funding comes from the State Public School Fund, and
makes up $108.6M at this moment. She explained that the other funds the revenue sources include is
current expense of $38.5M, federal allotments of $19.2M, Capital Outlay of $5.8M, and special restricted
funds of $3.4M. She said that the capital outlay budget would fluctuate the most.
Mr. Hughes asked Mrs. Trexler about lottery money. Mrs. Trexler said that it would be included in the
capital outlay budget, and she would discuss that a little later in her presentation.
1
Mrs. Trexler reviewed in further detail the revenue sources, which come from State Public School Fund.
State Public School Fund includes:
Classroom Teachers – 45%
Exceptional Children – 9% or 10M
Teacher Assistant – 6% or $7M
Instructional Support Positions – 6%
CTE – 5%
Clerical, Custodial and Substitute – 4%
School Based Administrators (principals and asst. principals) - 4%
Transportation – 4% (operation and drivers)
Low Wealth – 4% (almost $4M)
At-Risk – 4%
16 Other Allotments
Current Expense Fund includes:
County Appropriation - $32.2M
Federal - $1.8M
State – $190K
Fines and Forfeitures - $1.2M
Rentals - $170K
Interest - $100K
Charter School Appropriation - $116K
Fund Balance Appropriated - $2.7M
Federal Allotments this year were $19.2M. Mrs. Trexler said this money flows through DPI. The local
system never sees this money. It includes:
Title I – All elementary schools and two middle schools. This money pays for a lot of teachers.
Title VI-B (EC)
Race to the Top (expires September 14, 2014)
Title II
EduJobs (Stimulus money that was spent July – September 2012) Will not have this funding next year.
School Improvement Grant
10 Other Allotments
Special Restricted funding source is at $3.4M this year. These include:
Largest is the LINKS Grant
NC Pre-K
Bible History Program
Federal Physical Education Grant
School Nurse Funding Initiative
City of Salisbury and Davie County for Horizons
82 Other Competitive Grants on the books this year. Does not mean there were 82 received this year.
Capital Outlay Budget is at $5.8M, and includes:
State school bus replacement – 1%
Sales Tax – 64%, 3.7M, which includes the $2.1 that is payment for the bond debt.
Contributions and donations – 7%
Fund Balance Appropriated – 28%
2
Mrs. Trexler continued her presentation by going over cuts the system has received in recent years. She
explained that over the past four years, the system has had over $24M in funding reductions, which
meant a cut in over 200 positions. She stated this does not mean actual people, but positions.
Mrs. Trexler showed the figures in State Flexible Reduction from 2002 - 2013. She explained these
figures were in addition to targeted budget cuts of that year.
Mrs. Trexler stated that the concerns for 2013-14 were the void left by expiration of $1M Edujobs, $1M
of fund balance used to balance the budget this year (remainder was the one time 1% bonus), growth in
state “discretionary” cut, transportation cost for additional five school days, federal Sequestration
(delayed until March 2013), and Reinstating cut items and new needs.
Dr. Grissom added that even locally when the funding looks like you are getting the same amount, you
really aren’t because of the state and/or federal mandatory increases in benefits.
Dr. Miller called for a 10-minute recess at 6:30 p.m.
Dr. Miller called the meeting back to order at 6:40 p.m.
Follow up of Meeting with Board of Commissioner’s Chairman, Mr. Jim Sides
Dr. Miller explained that the meeting between him, Mrs. Norman, and Dr. Grissom and Mr. Jim Sides, Mr.
Craig Pierce, and Mr. Gary Page really didn’t happen. However, Dr. Miller shared a copy of questions he
had asked ahead of time and received the answers from Mr. Gary Page. He explained he had asked
about the tax rate, lottery funds, and what the county had appropriated.
Dr. Miller pointed out the paragraph on the first page, number 2, there are no agreements that can be
found in any records about the use of lottery funds. He stated that when the 2002 bonds were passed,
a tax rate was proposed at 6.5, but the county has levied only 2.5 cents of that and has subsequently
taken the remainder out of the lottery money or from other areas to balance their budget. Dr. Miller said
that normal expectation when a bond issue passed is that the passage of the bond authorizes the local
government to levy that. However, 2.5 cents has been levied.
Dr. Miller said the debt has been absorbed in the budget rather than levy the other 4.2 cent.
Dr. Miller said the interesting thing in number 4 of the document is that so much discussion has been
made about the movement of dirt on several sites, and he found it interesting that a $3/4M was spent on
moving dirt at the new jail out in the county, and he didn’t remember a big commotion about that dirt
being moved.
Dr. Miller referred to a second communication that was not a part of this document, but where Mr. Page
answered some of the same questions for the media and others. Dr. Miller said that he asked those
questions to get some answers about what is similar or different for their (the county) projects and some
of the projects the Board is working on. For instance, the contamination at Sloan Park due to an oil tank
where $106,000 was spent and he didn’t remember any concern then. He said he was trying to
understand the difference between the County and the school system on the issue of contaminated soil.
Dr. Miller noted that where, as a culture, we have polluted our environment and when the need to build
on a site that is contaminated, it is cleaned up and move on. He noted that the County has had dirt
issues and were also told to clean it up. They spent a fair amount of money to do so, but the project
didn’t make headlines as our site has.
Mr. Hughes asked, “What purpose does this discussion serve?” Dr. Miller said questions were asked, and
this is data that was requested before that meeting, so this is a report and answers from the meeting
3
with Mr. Sides. Dr. Miller said that moving of dirt is moving of dirt is moving of dirt. Dr. Miller said that
obviously the location doesn’t matter as the question relates to businesses, and part of why he was sent
to the County Commissioners was to build a relationship, and the construction project has been
exacerbating that. Therefore, he believes it was his responsibility to bring this information back.
Mrs. Kennedy said some information that she had read on the internet was on the issue of moving dirt.
She said the publication was a county publication, but she wasn’t sure who was in charge of it. Mrs.
Kennedy stated that from what she had been reading, the moving of dirt seems to one of the obstacles
preventing us from moving forward, and she considers this discussion germane as well.
Mrs. Kennedy digressed to the inquiry about lottery funds, saying that Mr. Page explained to the Board in
one of his communications where the county is using those funds, and she felt like this is ground hog
day because these issues should have been settled years ago.
Mr. Hughes asked about the contamination that might be left on the proposed site and stated that it
could move down to the property below us. Dr. Miller said what is being guaranteed to us by the State
should be good. He explained that the state is cleaning up the site we are to go on and the
contamination should not be a problem. Mr. Hughes said he just didn’t think the issue of contamination
was holding us back, and thought we had voted as a Board to move on with the project. Dr. Miller said,
“Yes, by a 5-2 vote we voted to move on”, but the commissioners are saying they are not moving
forward because the site should be clean.
Mr. Overcash said he was by the site, and the contaminated dirt has removed done by looks of the site.
He agreed the contamination should not hold us up.
Dr. Miller advised that he and Mr. Sides would be meeting on January 15 at 10:00 a.m. to talk about the
relationship between the boards, and what he wanted to take with him was what the Board felt the
relationship should be like.
Dr. Miller wrote the word respect on the paper placed on an easel in front of the Board members and
asked for the Board’s input. Mrs. Cox said, “She felt it should be mutual respect, because both boards
need to be on a level playing field.” Mr. Hughes said, “Communication.” Mr. Overcash said, “Openmindedness.” Mrs. Cox said, “Listening to each other.” Mrs. Norman said, “Respect for differences.”
Mrs. Cox said, “That we consider all input.” Mr. Wagner said, “A clear understanding of what each board
is responsible for.” Mr. Overcash said, “Acknowledge that the boards are equal.” Mrs. Kennedy said,
“The ability to reach a consensus.”
Dr. Miller went back to the word respect or mutual respect. He asked the Board what they meant by it.
Dr. Miller noted that obviously listening is part of respect, recognizing each other’s authority is part of
respect, and acknowledging our differences is part of respect as well, so about half of the responses
have to do with respect.
Mr. Hughes said he agreed that these responses are good, but that we can only be responsible for our
own actions and behaviors. We can’t expect to have respect from others.
Dr. Miller said he wanted to make sure that the whole Board embodies what we all feel respect is to
make sure he is understanding of this Board, of which he is the Chair, that this is what it means to be
respected. We would certainly have the obligation to respect them with no question.
Mr. Wagner said one thing he would add is that respect should be given from both sides because he
feels sometimes that respect seems to sway depending on one particular issue. For example, on the
issue of the central office a lot of things he disagrees on that particular issue. However, he tries to be
4
respectful of everyone here and everyone is respectful of him, but when we are not meeting or debating
we get along fine and it is not personal. Mr. Wagner explained that he feels in the case of our
relationship, respect is easier to give as long as you agree, but when a contentious issue comes up on
both sides, the county and our Board, it’s very easy to pick sides and all of a sudden that respect goes
out the window because you disagree with me. He said he thinks our relationship should be handled at
the table, and that when it is over, we should be able to communicate, and not be hostile and angry
withone another. He said that we should not assume it is the County or all the school board.
Mrs. Norman said there is an expectation on both sides. She said there is an expectation that when the
Board chair or we are at the table, he needs to behave respectfully, but he receives respect as well. Mrs.
Norman said that it doesn’t matter what the issue is because as Mr. Wagner said, “We are all adults.”
However, respect may mean something a little different to one another, but when we sit down at the
table representing the Board, that is a unique responsibility, and the first thing we need to do ourselves
is to behave in a professional manner, and we have no reason to expect the same of everyone else. Mr.
Wagner said he agreed, but he felt it is easy to point the finger. Mrs. Cox asked if Mr. Wagner was
really talking about not pointing the finger. Mr. Wagner said that could be it, but said there are some
instances where the school board may have been disrespectful, but nobody brings that up. It always
seems to be one side or the other.
Dr. Miller said if there was anything he said or did that laid blame anywhere, that was not his intent. He
said he thought he started this discussion to understand what we as the Board believe what respect is
and help him define that, because that is what he has to take into his meeting on Tuesday. Dr. Miller
said he has a job to do tomorrow because good, bad, or indifferent, our Board has to have a relationship
with the County. He said he asked for the meeting and will continue that effort as long as that is what
the Board asked of him.
Mrs. Norman said she thought we have that on our Board. We have one person and that is what we
have decided, but the one person that speaks on our behalf is the board chair. She said that there have
been some people that leave our board and take that information. The only person that should speak for
our board is our board chair. In other ways we have to look that the only one who speaks for our board
is the chair. It is imperative that we have a vision as to what is respect. She feels we pretty much have
defined that.
Dr. Miller said that the points that he would say by consensus of the Board, or if they wanted to take a
vote they could, were respect to us is to acknowledge that the boards are equal, understanding of each
board’s responsibility, consider all input, respect for our differences, listening, and open-mindedness. He
said that our communication will be a product out of this, and the ability to reach a consensus will be a
product out of respect.
Mr. Hughes said he had a problem that both boards are equal because they have different
responsibilities. Dr. Miller asked if legitimacy was the word he was looking for. Mr. Hughes said that
would work. Dr. Miller clarified that Mr. Hughes meant that we both have different functions, but that
both boards are legitimate. Everyone else was in agreement.
Dr. Miller stated that by consensus of the Board, he is taking he is taking the definition of mutual respect
as the components listed in the above paragraph. Mr. Hughes asked for a vote.
Mrs. Norman said if you were paying attention to the budget presentation, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. Overcash questioned changing that both boards are equal to legitimate, but that the two boards are
equal as far as our board was elected by the same people that elected the commissioners, and our Board
has as much a responsibility to carry out their duties as the commissioners to carry out there
5
responsibilities. Mr. Wagner said he understands the point, but our responsibilities and duties are not
the same. Mr. Overcash said one board is not more important of actual power than the other.
**Dr. Miller moved that the Board have as their six points those listed as their description of mutual
respect. Mr. Hughes seconded. Unanimously approved. (7:0)
Seeking Legal Opinion
Dr. Miller distributed another document that had a court document regarding school facilities.
Dr. Miller called attention to the 3rd paragraph on page 2, re-emphasizing what has been said. Mr.
Wagner asked if Dr. Miller would be discussing this document at his meeting with the Mr. Sides. Dr.
Miller said that he could. Mr. Wagner said he thought it would be pertinent to try to come to some
agreement as to the responsibilities of each board.
Mr. Hughes said that he thought the document was good to bring before the commissioners’ attention,
and he felt their opinion may be different.
Announcements
1/17 - NBCT Reception/Horizons/6:30 p.m.
1/18 - Early Release Day
1/21 - Martin Luther King Holiday
1/28 - BOE Meeting/Long St./5:00 p.m.
1/30 - PTA Council Luncheon/Salisbury Civic Center/11:30 a.m.
1/31 - Parents Matter/Jesse Carson High School/5:30 p.m.
2/25 - BOE Meeting/Long St./5:00 p.m.
Adjournment
**Mrs. Norman moved to adjourn at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Wagner seconded. Unanimously approved.
(7:0)
Dr. Richard Miller, Chairman
Dr. Judy S. Grissom, Ed. D., Secretary
6