Loading...
1985-09-25 adj632 September 25, 1985 (Adjourned from September 18, 1985) A joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle 'County, Virginia, and the Albemarle County School Board, was held on September 25, 1985 at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Room ~5, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 18, 1985. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles S. Armstrong, Mr. John E. Baker, Mrs. Jessie C. Haden, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Walter F. Perkins, Robert E. Taylor and Charles R. Tolbert. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Superintendent, Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet; Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration, Mr. David C. Papenfuse; and Directo~ of Personnel, Dr. Carole A. Hastings. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by the Board 'Chairman, Mr. Fisher, and by the Chairman of the School Board, Mr. Robert E. Taylor. Mr. Taylor said the purpose of the joint meeting is to continue good communications between the SchoOl Board and the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 2a. School Staff Evaluation/Compensation Procedures. Mr. Overstreet said some fairly significant changes have been made in the Administrative Evaluation Plan which was implemented in 1984-85. He suggested doing a general run-through of the plan to give the Board of Supervisors an idea of the program and how it works. Dr. Hastings said last year there were three major components to this system, i.e., the job description, the objectives that are set at the beginning of the evaluation cycle, and leader- ship characteristics expected of all administrative personnel in the school system. Mr. Way asked who is included in the administrative group. Dr. Hastings said the group includes all of the central office administrators, principals, assistant principals, directors of instruc- tion, transportation, maintenance, instructional coordinators, etc. There are 61 persons with administrative capacity. In addition to the three components used last year, an additional component, called the Superintendent's discretion, has been added. It is a cyclical-type process where the administrator and immediate supervisor on September 1 of each year reviews expectations based on a job description, expected standards of performance, leadership charac- teristics and setting of objectives. This year a lot more emphasis is being placed on the objectives part of the evaluation procedure. Mr. Overstreet said one addition this year to the job description is that an admini- strator's performance in evaluating other administrators will be evaluated. He thinks the objectives are where the school division can strive for tangible growth. The objectives set by the administrator and his/her supervisor near the beginning of the year will carry increase~ emphasis this year. The objectives have measurable results in instructional matters, Such as improvement of the Curriculum or additional systems to monitor pupil achievement and growth. A high priority area for principals is personnel performance to improve the quality of instruc tion and staff development activities.~ ~~ .... ~ ~~ ~^ ~-~ . Another objective is the effective school concept which indicates a principal is striving to incorpor- ate effective school characteristics in his/her school. Time was spent training the admini- strators after the modification of the plan was completed. The training included how to write meaningful objectives, the outcome expected from the objectives, and a method of verification to determine if the objective was met. Dr. Hastings said last year there was noted a need for someone to oversee the entire program prior to the final results, hence the Superintendent's discretion factor was built into the procedure. The Superintendent reviews all evaluations prior to the final conference held with the administrator being evaluated. A client group is identified for each admini- strator; the persons whom the administrator serves. A survey goes out to a representative group of people within that client group asking how well that person does in terms of leader- ship qualities. It is important to receive feedback on the people in visible roles as to how well they are doing with the people they are supposed to be serving. The feedback is not the actual evaluation. Dr. Hastings then explained in detail the evaluation forms used. The Superintendent's discretion will encourage consistent evaluation throughout the division. Four levels of merit which affect salaries will be possible. For a person to receive a merit they must meet the minimum expectations in each of the components, rather than using an average of the points in all components. A minimum level of points in each component must be achieved in order to move into the next salary level. To be eligible to receive the points from the fourth component (the Superintendent's discretion) an administrator must achieve a minimum level of 86 points.in the other three components. The Superintendent of Schools is the only individual who can advance a person into the highest level of merit. The three levels of merit are the general increase, a one-step increase and a noncumulative bonus. Mr. Perkins asked what amount constitutes one step. Dr. Hastings said within the County's salary scale, one step is equal to two and one-half percent which is vested in the employees salary. Mr. Way said it is therefore possible for a person to receive a general increase, a one-step merit increase and a bonus from the Superintendent. Dr. Hastings said that is possible. Mr. Way said he has problems with having three increases built into the plan. Mr. Baker said the range of possibilities starts with the employee's salary being frozen. Mr. Overstreet said a point of flexibility is that even if the highest level is obtained, the person does not start at that level the following year. One issue stressed this year will be confidentiality in the issue of evaluations. Mr. Fisher asked when the Superintendent's discretion factor comes into play. Does a person have to qualify for the general increase, plus the one-step first? Dr. Hastings said yes, a person must first qualify. Only those persons wh-o achieve at least 86 points could be considered for the Superintendent's discretion. The bonus and the general increase are not set factors, but will be set by the School Board on a budgetary basis. ~crease 633 September 25, 1985 (Adjourned from September 18, 1985) Mr. Overstreet said th~s plan reflects a different philosophy by requiring administrators to attain the minimal level of points in each category. If an administrator fails to attain the minimum number of points in any category, the salary is frozen and a plan of assistance is developed. Mr. Taylor said there are several significant changes which have made the plan more sophisticated in dealing with a difficult and complex issue. Employees are indicating a greater acceptance of the plan this year. If the objectives are brought to the level the School Board is seeking and are accomplished, the quality of education will have been greatly improved. Mr. Overstreet said with the greater level of training, by identifying and monitor- ing objectives, a higher rate of success among employees will be encouraged. Mr. Lindstrom said he supported the elimination of the two and one-half percent step from the plan the Board of Supervisors approved for local government employees. That step tremendously increased the number of people who qualified for merit. That number had been around 30 percent for several years, and when the two and one-half step was added, the number doubled. He did not agree with the Board limiting merits to 25 percent of its employees and he urges the School Board not to create a situation where the Board of Supervisors will try to limit the number of employees who can receive a merit increase. He then asked for comments with regard to the two different plans. Mr. Overstreet said the school's plan is not a merit pay plan. The plan was developed to evaluate administrative performance. It was deVised to adequately measure performance to assist those who need to do better and to identify those persons who are doing well. Mr. Lindstrom commented that when money is tied to the plan in anyway, people think of it as a pay plan. Mr. Tolbert said in reference to the chaffing that may arise from the two Boards having slightly different plans, the local government has had a merit plan for quite a while and has been pressing the School Board to do something. He noticed that the local government's plan is still being adjusted which implies that the plan has not achieved a level of perfection. The differences that exist between the school system's plan and the local government's plan for a few years may be useful. Here are two Boards who are attempting to arrive at an evalua- tion plan and neither Board having the final answer. He suggested it may be useful for its Board to adjust each system until more experience is gained which may be useful to both Boards. Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates what he has heard, but operating in this fashion is operating out a vacuum. He then asked again if there is any rationale for having the two and one-half percent step as well as a bonus. Mr. Tolbert said making the evaluation of other administrators a part of each administrators' evaluation should act as a check so that admini- strators will recommend merit carefully. Mr. Taylor said the question is whether the under- lying purpose is to limit pay or to achieve quality. If the purpose is to improve quality, payment of quality must be allowed. He has asked Mr. Overstreet to make available to him and the other School Board members after October 1, the objectives for all of the administrators. At the end of the year, the accomplishment of the objectives will be available to School Board members. If the objectives are on a quality level throughout the school division and are legitimately accomplished by the end of the year, the quality will have been gained and must be paid for. If all administrators receive the two and one-half percent step, the reasons will be evident and the school division would be open for a lot of criticism. Mr. Baker said he appreciates that this discussion has taken place. To honestly evaluate the merits there must be something else. He suggested the discussion could be more fruitful if both evaluation plans were available for comparison. Mr. Fisher said he believes the changes in the plan are an improvement, particularly making the evaluation of subordinates a part of the job description. If that can be accomplished, it will probably improve the system. He suggested additional discussion of this matter would be useful when the School Board has set the level of the bonus. Mr. Overstreet said he and Mr. Agnor have discussed the plan and suggested when further discussions are held, the plan of general government employees also be discussed. Mr. Agnor said classified employees in the school division are now being evaluated by a performance plan that is identical to the general government's plan. He hopes these two Board will eventually have the same evaluation plan, and compensation plan, Mr. Bowie said he agrees with everything that has been said. He also likes the system proposed by the school division in theory and he thinks it may be more cost-effective. But, if everybody ends up with a score of 102 points, somebody has to be below average. If everybody is above average, average moves up to excellent. Mr. Way said it is fine to experiment, but he is looking forward to the day when both the general government and school division employees have the same plan. Implicit in having two separate systems is the assumption that quality in education costs more than quality in general government which is a wrong assumption. Mr. Marshall said the public thought merit pay was a means of saving money for taxpayers; he has learned that is not the case and never will be. Mr. Fisher said merit pay is a way to get improved performance. Mr. Taylor commented merit pay is the method of getting what is paid for. Mr. Marshall said merit is a method of qualitative control which is a savings to taxpayers. There was a no further discussion on the School Board's administrative evaluation plan. Agenda Item No. 2b. Hiring Certified Staff 1985-86. Dr. Hastings presented the following memorandum dated September 19, 1985, from herself, to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent, to the Board: "For the 1985-86 school year a total of 109 teaching vacancies were filled. Of these, 92 individuals were new to the County. Seventeen individuals were either placed due to leaves of absence granted in 1984-85 or due to recall from positions eliminated at the middle and secondary school levels for 1985-86. 634 September 25, 1985 (Adjourned from September 18, 1985) For the individuals newly hired in the school division, the average entry salary was $17,102. This would equate to approximately step 4 (4-5 years of experience) on the teacher salary schedule for a bachelor degree level teacher, and step 3 (.3 years of experience) for a master's degree teacher. Of these new teachers, 51 percent held bachelor's degrees, 47 percent held master's degrees and 2 percent held master's plus 30 credentials; 81.5 percent were women and 18.5 percent were men. Three percent of the newly hired teachers were minority members. I believe the past summer's efforts resulted in excellent additions to the school division's professional staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there will be a surplus resulting from the difference between the ~actual entry salary of $17,000+ and the projected salary of $20,000+. Mr. Overstreet said yes, there should be, but there were also more tea'chers hired than projected. Mr. Fisher asked how many of the additional positions were kindergarten and first grade. Dr. Hastings said there were fifteen and one-half new positions slated for the kindergarten/first grade ratio. The positions were either filled with teachers or converted those to aide positions, with two and one-half aides being hired for each teaching slot. Of the projected new teaching positions, two positions were not used. Mr. Fisher asked how many new teachers are in those two grades. Mr. Overstreet said there are fifteen, and they had projected seventeen. Dr. Hastings said it is total positions because some of those are in aides. Mr. Fisher again asked.how many teachers were hired. Dr. Hastings said it is eleven and one-half teachers. Mr. Bowie said he assumes that has something to do with student load because during work sessions on the budget, the absolute, locked-in-concrete, indisputable need for seventeen new teachers was debated. Dr. Hastings said one and one-half of the seventeen positions was used for physical education, the other fifteen and one-half were for the first grade/kindergarten problem. Eleven and One-half of those were placed in teaching positions. In some cases, where the student load was distributed differently it made more sense to put in aides, as opposed to hiring and additional teachers. A trade-off was made for about two and one-half aides to one teaching position. Dr. John EngIish, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, said in some cases it was more economical to add paraprofessionals in existing classrooms rather than hiring new teachers. The adult student ratio is much better because of the ability to get the two and one-half aides for each teacher. Mr. Taylor said he thinks this is something positive that has been accomplished in the laSt year. Through good planning and good staff work, this issue which was a very emotional one for parents last year has been greatly improved. PreSently, the school division is leading the State is staff/pupil ratio in the elementary schools. Mr. Bowie said he does not dispute that, but when the Board receives "ironclad" written proof that there is a need for seventeen first grade teachers which turns out to be only eleven teachers, and must hav~_$~0,000 per salary which turns out to be $17,000, that is wonderful, but he would like to kno~ of the funds went. Dr. Hastings said eleven teachers were for kindergarten/first grade, two teachers were for physical education and the other four were added not as teaChers, but as aide'positions. The $20,000 figure was the average teacher salary for 1985-86. Mr. Taylor said he thinks praise should be given on how well hiring went for the year. To get 49 percent of the new people hired with masters or masters plus 30, and to get those people at an average of group 4-5 level speaks well for the school system. Mr. Baker said the school division did not design to get less qualified people to save money. Mr. Taylor said in the long run, they will have some funds left from salaries to pay insurance costs. Mr. Way said he wish to emphasize the importance of the School Board and the staff continuing efforts to improve the percentage of minority hiring. Dr. Hastings said the Superintendent is compiling a report on minority hiring and hopes to share it with this Board soon. Agenda Item No. 2c. Board. Presentation of Format for Monthly Financial Report to the School Mr. Papenfuse said the monthly financial summary for the School Board will be reported in major instructional categories. The financial summary will be provided at the end of each month, and at the end of each quarter a detailed financial analysis of projected revenues and compensation accounts will be provided. He then explained the financial summary in detail along with the activities in each category. A section showing budgeted revenues, as well as actual revenues received will be included. Mr. Overstreet said in some areas budgeted revenues are higher than projected and in other areas, lower than projected. Mr. Papenfuse said the State is changing some of its funding formulas based on prior years services. For those parts of the equation that he already knows about, he is changing those now. Mr. Papenfuse said there is a $75,000 increase in revenue, the net result of increases less what he is projecting as a decrease in Basic State Aid. Although enrollment projections were reached within two students for next year, there are approximately'40 to 45 students enrolled in the Piedmont Regional Educational Program (PREP). These students are funded through categorical aid and not basic aid, so they had to be removed from the ADM count. The ADM was reduced to 8800 to be safe. Mr. Overstreet said when the State funds a regional program, they allow the locality to consider all opera- tional costs, a formula is then applied to that cost and factor it one. The ADM basic aid is based on the composite index for the regular students. It would be a benefit if all opera- tional costs could be applied for all students. Mr. Papenfuse said 60 percent in aid is received for those students where 38 percent aid is received on the others. Mr. Overstreet said there are several areas in which unanticipated expenditures have occurred. The increased cost of insurance will be $138,865. There is a debt overrun for textbook requirements of $40,000. Mr. Taylor said that $40,000 only addresses this year's needs, the actual amount needed is at least $81,000. Mr. Overstreet said this amount only addresses what is needed for the crisis plan that was devised this Fall. Mr. Taylor said the School Board is keeping track of these unanticipated expenditures in the hope they can be dealt with during the year. The School Board will keep the Board of Supervisors informed, and is hopeful that no additional funds will be requested. September 25, 1985 (Adjourned from September 1'8, 1985) 835 Agenda Item No. 2d. Status of Facilities Committee Report. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated September 20, 1985, from his staff to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board: "Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates (KDA), who were selected as the consultants to prepare the County's first Comprehensive School Facilities Plan,.began work in late March. Their work on Enrollment Projections, Floor Plans and Computations for all schools, and the early report requested on Scottsville, Yancey, Meriwether Lewis and Murray Elementary schools is near 100 percent complete. Based upon the completed study thus far, the School Facilities Plan Committee recommended to the Board of Supervisors that an amount of $250,000 be included in the Capital Improvement Budget for 1985-86 fOr planning and acquisition of an elementary school site in the general Ivy area, and that an amount of $4.75 million be included in the Capital Improvement Program for 1986-87 for design and construction of the facility. The Board of Supervisors concurred with the amount of $250,000 requested for inclusion in this fiscal years Capital Budget, and placed the $4.75 million request in a reserve fund pending completion of further cost studies. This has enabled a site selection committee to begin work toward analyzing various alternative site locations. The final .product, plans and recommendations, are expected from the consultant in late October or. early November. It will be reviewed by the Facilities Plan Committee, and forwarded to the School Board and Board of Supervisors for their next joint meeting, anticipated to be scheduled in late November or early December. The final apprOved report is targeted for inclusion in the five year revisions to the County's Comprehensive Plan, which is on the Planning Commission's schedule for the next 12 to 18 months. The final report is also targeted for inclusion in the annual review of the Capital Improvement Program scheduled for March through June, 1986. Mr. Taylor asked the due date of the report from KDA. Mr. Tucker responded September or early October. Mr. Fisher asked if the process could be speeded considering the Work going on with site selection, and if there is a penalty clause in the contract. Mr. Agnor said there is no penalty clause. Mr. Fisher said there has been a problem of consultant reports dragging on in the past until the reports are not needed. Mr. Overstreet said he had a meeting ~ith KDA two weeks ago, At the meeting the urgency of the report was emphasized. Presently the consultant is assessing the condition of the buildings. He is not sure the Consultant understood that this report should include recommen- dations for priorities of improvements throughout the division. Mr. TuCker said the contract and RFP require the consultants to make those recommendations. The assessment of the first four schools has been completed. Mr. Way asked if there is a dollar amount for anything. Mr. Tucker said all of the studies have not been completed. A physical assessment was made of each school and a list of improvements that are needed. The staff has received a lot of verbal recommendations. The consultants were asked for recommendations on those four schools first and the problems outlined in the RFP. A memorandum has been received. The final report from the consultants will be a working memorandum that will be submitted to the School Facilities Committee. Mr. Bowie said he has seen nothing, although he has heard considerable comments concernin¢ Stone Robinson School. Mr. Tolbert said he is already finding out that many Board and staff members are going to be able to make reasonably good guesses as to how the normal projections are going in the schools and perhaps do a better job than the consultants. Mr. Fisher said it sounds like the consultants should not have been hired. Mr. Tolbert said the consultants may end up not doing as good a job as hoped. Mr. Fisher commented that the report may come so late that it will not make any difference. Agenda Item No. 2e. Health Insurance Coverage for Early Retirees. Mr. Overstreet said the issue of health insurance coverage is whether the incentive to retire early is lost if the benefit of health insurance coverage is not included. Mr. Fisher asked the current monthly cost for the employee group health coverage. Dr. Hastings said the cost is $688/year with the new October rates for all employees. There has been the concern of negative impact on the active group if retirees are allowed to remain on the group. Blue Cross feels that there will be a negative impact. Also, including early retirees in the active group is likely to cause the rates for the group to be raised. It would be very difficult to limit the active group to only the early retirees and not allow all retires to be covered at their own expense. A better alternative is to pay for single coverage for the early retirees in a similar health insurance plan in a state-wide group for retirees. Single coverage would be paid for the early retirees as an incentive. The supplement being paid as an incentive for early retirement would be completely wiped out by having to pay the single coverage of the group. Paying for coverage up to a five year period would be an incentive. Mr. Fisher asked whether the added expenditure for providing insurance would affect the expected savings from replacing the early retirees with employees at a lower salary step. Dr. Hastings said it is still possible that the plan would result in a net savings. There will be approximately $150 monthly as an early retirement supplement for most people. Mrs. Haden said she has been in favor of the early retirement plan from the beginning. She believes that if the plan costs a little bit, it will be extremely good for the school system. If all the incentives are taken away then no one will go for it. Mr. Tolbert noted that the plan is limited to five years. Mrs. Haden said this would provide a way for those who are no longer effective teachers to leave. Mr. Overstreet said he is concerned about the 638 September 25, 1985 (Adjourned from September 18, 1985) school division's control. It is not just automatic. Mr. Fisher asked what criteria is being used to decide, beyond the basic requirements. Mr. Overstreet said he has the authority to decide who can retire early. There might be a case where a teacher meets the criteria and it is decided not to let the teacher retire. Mr. Perkins said he has reservations about the Board of Supervisors having to approve and fund the early retirement policy each year. He does not know who will be on the Board several years from now. Dr. Hastings said Mr. Ray Jones suggested that a method of funding for a person's early retirement benefit could be done at the beginning of the retirement. Mr. Fisher commented that it does not take into account increased costs in insurance, etc. Mr. Jones said that is correct, possibly money will have to be reserved for increased costs. Mr. Taylor said insurance costs will escalate for every- one and if insurance is still being paid for the teachers in the system, it should be paid for the retiree. He agrees with Mrs. Haden that the plan is needed and that not providing the insurance coverage would destroy the incentive and make the plan ineffective. Agenda Item No. 2f. Information on Tenth Day Enrollment, Mr. Taylor said this item was discussed during the discussion of hiring certified staff. No further discussion was taken up. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said from the discussion of the Site Selection Committee it appears the School Board had not made it plain whether the intention is to have a single school to replace Murray and Meriwether Lewis. Mr. Tolbert said the School Board has not addressed the question of whether there shouldbe one or two schools in the Murray-Meriwether Lewis district. The Board, at its meeting on September 24, 1985, directed the Site Selection Committee to proceed as if the district will'have only one school which will leave options open for the School Board. Mr. Fisher said he feels it would be difficult to abandon Murray School. Mr. Tolbert said there may be other uses for Murray other than as an elementary school such as special education. It is not as clear a decision as'it appears to be on the surface. Mrs. Haden said the Site Selection Committee should go out into the area and look for a site large enough to build a 600-student school even if the school that is actually built is smaller. It would be foolish to go into that part of the County and purchase a site that was not large enough-for that sized school. Mr. Taylor said that basically has been accomplished. A little narrower guidelines have been established. Mr. Lindstrom said many people, including him, believe the School Board had made a commitment to build one school for the Murray and Meriwether Lewis population. He hopes that the whole issue is not going to be opened up again. Mr. Taylor said the School Board has to make that decision, but the School Board at its last meeting removed that consideration from the duties of'the Site Selection Committee. The School Board will haVe to get together within the next two months and make some hard decisions as to what it is seeking. Mr. Henley said he does not think it would have been included if there were not strong feelings about putting both school populations in the same school facility. Mr. Perkins said there are eleven and one-half more classrooms being used this year than used last year. With the additional teachers hired this year to make the elementary pupil- teacher ratio lower, more classrooms are in use. Schools which have approximately the same number of students have more rooms in use this year. It is possible that it will be necessary to reopen Greenwood Elementary. There was no further discussion at this time. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to October 2, 1985. At 6:00 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn to October 2, 1985 at 4:00 P.M for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke. ~ CHAIRMAN ~