Sheridan School Board names Haynes

district superintendent

By Melody Moorehouse

A 25-year employee of the Sheridan School District was named its next superintendent for the 2008-2009 academic year by the Sheridan School Board during its regular monthly meeting held last week on June 2 at 6:30 p.m. in the 1913 Administration Building.

Brenda Haynes, the district’s current assistant superintendent for the Division of Learning, was selected unanimously by the board from a pool of 13 candidates who had applied for the position. Three of those applicants were from the Sheridan School District. She is replacing Superintendent Scott Spainhour who has accepted the position of superintendent for the Greenbrier School District after three years with Sheridan Schools.

Haynes has 30 years experience in the field of education and 25 of those years have been with the Sheridan School District. She will begin her official duties on July 1, 2008, the beginning of the district’s fiscal year, and will become the school system’s 17^th superintendent since 1912.

In other information requiring board action, Spainhour said the district’s overall ending budget is holding at $2.8-$2.9 million. The school system began the year with approximately $2.1 million and is projected to conclude its fiscal year at $2.2 million; therefore, the district would potentially have approximately $600,000 more in revenue than projected due to tight monitoring and state legislative action. Spainhour noted the board should consider utilizing the revenue because whatever the ending balance is for the school year that same figure will be required by the state to be met the following school year. He noted there were several financial variables this year and possibly next year that impact the budget. The district is also required to maintain funds for operation during the summer months and the beginning of the school year until state and federal monies are received. He then presented a list of five recommendations to the board regarding options for the year’s additional revenue involving primarily an additional end-of-the-year staff bonus as discussed in May and the district’s building fund.

Last month the board approved $300 in additional funds to the certified salary schedule as required by the state in the Educational Trust Fund for the upcoming year as well as a similar adjustment based on percentage to the classified salary schedule. The certified and classified schedule increase approved in May totaled approximately $171,000.  The board discussed the feasibility of additional funds for teachers and staff but opted to wait until the June meeting for the latest end-of-the-year projections. The district’s fiscal year concludes on June 30.

Spainhour’s recommendations on Monday night ranged from placing all the additional revenue into teacher and staff bonuses to putting all the revenue into the district’s building fund and three options in between that would designate varying amounts for both bonuses and building. The district is being required by the state to expand the East End Intermediate School campus by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year to accommodate the growing number of students at the facility. A final completion date of Aug. 3, 2009 has been established for the building. Patrons in the district struck down a millage request to provide funds for construction within the Sheridan School District and the board was tasked further to find a funding solution. Board members voted in April to issue second lien bonds to build the 9,700 square foot expansion that is estimated to cost $1.75 million. State officials involved in the distribution of partnership funding for education projects have tentatively agreed to contribute $849,000 toward the construction. Any prior partnership commitments to the district for construction were made null with the defeat of the millage request. State officials have also indicated the formula by which the state determines partnership monies will be impacted each year by changes at the local level affecting the local wealth index and the availability of state funds and will be somewhat less than when the state’s partnership project with school districts was first established.

The board then entered into an agonized discussion, and often debate, concerning where to designate the district’s revenue to balance out the year. Spainhour noted his recommendations were a one-time action and would not be carried over into the 2008-2009 budget. Funds to staff would be distributed as a bonus and not applied to the salary schedule requiring a contract adjustment, which would allow bookkeepers to issue payment before the end of the fiscal year.

Board member Byron Hicks opened the board dialogue noting he would like to designate a smaller amount to staff members in the amount of $220,000 with the remainder to the building fund. Board member Jeff Lisenbey asked if the district could take its budget down to the previous $2.1 million and Spainhour replied “as long as you don’t dip into your reserve and bottom line.” Lisenbey then stated he would prefer to designate the higher amount to teachers and staff members. Hicks commented he did not disagree that staff members were not deserving of the funds but with the current building project and others on the horizon “I feel we need it there [in the building fund].”

Board President Jody Spann interjected he was not comfortable with either proposal. He said the district had just completed a second lien bond to have available funds and noted the school system has also been impacted by higher fuel and utility costs. He said he could not envision borrowing money to pay for the EEI construction if the district could end the year with potential funds to apply toward that project.

“I’m leaning toward a building fund so you’ve still got it [the funds] if you need it,” he said. Hicks asked if the current 2007-2008 budget included any funds toward the building. Spann said “no, it was wrapped up in a millage.”

Spainhour added the reason the district’s revenue was higher than projected was due to changes enacted in the recent legislative session, primarily changes in student growth funding and the “98 percent collection” adjustment. He said as far as the district’s actual revenue projection for the year “we’re real close.” He added the district would be wise to delegate the additional income in its 2007-2008 budget as opposed to carrying over a larger amount that would then be required to be met the next year.

“So we’re in kinda a ‘catch 22’,” Spann then commented.

Lisenbey said he would rather distribute $300,000-$400,000 toward the staff with the remainder to a building fund. He then asked if he remembered correctly the board and superintendent had previously discussed other options to help cut expenses to improve the budget. Spainhour said yes that some staff positions were being absorbed and not refilled that would save the district funds, noting that the area of curriculum is “operating very efficient.” He said the district is trying to recoup funds for the construction by eliminating positions and curtailing the extra curricular activities of students.

Spann said he is “still not comfortable” and that there is no guarantee that the legislature will continue the “98 percent collection act” and if the state were to discontinue it the district would lose “collections of half a million or more.”

Hicks agreed. He said the district was presented a way to pay for a large portion of the EEI expansion construction through the additional revenue and he reiterated his opinion that the majority of the funds should go to the building fund.

Lisenbey said he agreed the district has obligations, but added “that building is not going to educate one child, but teachers will.” He stated he would rather distribute a higher amount to the staff.

Board member Gart Pitts said while he agreed the staff deserves more money the district patrons “told us we’ve got to go somewhere else” for funds besides a millage, which translates into a tighter budget and harsher decisions.

“…They deserve it but we’ve still got to pay the bills,” he stated, adding that the majority of the district’s budget is obligated to salaries.

“Let me be the first to say teachers deserve it, but Gart’s right, we’ve got to pay the bills,” Spann quipped. “I’m just a little bit afraid guys.”

Hicks asked if the decision could be tabled until the district obtains the bids for the EEI building and Spainhour noted the board would need to meet again briefly on June 11 to approve the bond resolution for the sale of the second lien bonds on June 11. Hicks asked if the issue could be discussed at the special meeting. Spainhour said he could “run a tape on everything outstanding and get a good projection” for the ending balance, but if the district leaves the ending balance “high you can’t turn around next year because you’ve established a new baseline.”

Hicks looked again at the recommendations and said if $220,000 is designated to staff that it would distribute a bonus totaling $400 to classified teachers and $200 to certified staff.

Lisenbey said he understands what the board is trying to do as far as the decisions that must be made, but noted he “got enough calls” last month after the staff only received the minimum mandated increase in pay. He likened it to “feeding scraps to the teachers.” He said he would be willing to wait until the special meeting to make a decision if it means the district would have more financial information.

Spainhour said the projection to end the year at $2.8-$2.9 million is accurate and that by June 11 the district should have its final report from the state and all the data it needs to project revenue for the 2008-2009 year.

Lisenbey said if the budget stays about the same next year as it has this year and the district absorbs the staff positions that are not refilled and fuel costs stabilize without increasing it would be feasible the district could again end the year with additional funds. Spainhour said the “big issue” would be to have enough funds to operate the months of June, July, August and into September on its own without state and federal funding.

“If we take it all the way down to $2.1 million the district will have to borrow money [to start the school year],” Spainhour said. “The reason we didn’t have to this year is we were able to obtain a post-dated warrant and by the time it was due the state funds were coming in.”

Board member Michael Mosley inquired what information would be available by June 11 to impact the board’s decision that was not available during the current board session. He said he agreed the staff should receive additional funds but could see the need to set aside monies for construction. He asked if the bids for the EEI building would be ready by June 11 and Spainhour said final bids would not be ready until the district was into its 2008-2009 year. Mosley indicated if additional information would not be available the board should go ahead and make a decision as it would only be continuing its present debate.

Spainhour said the district would have a general idea of revenue for the upcoming year by June 11 but the final budget for 2008-2009 is generally not submitted and approved by the state until around Sept. 1 because it could not be accurately computed until all personnel is hired for the school year. He noted a teacher’s pay and position on the salary schedule is influenced by his or her years of experience.

“As we vote for this we need to remember we still have more needs – a fine arts center at Sheridan Middle School and a library at East End Elementary. We need to be rolling as much money as we can into the building fund,” Hicks remarked.

Mosley said considering that reminder he wouldn’t recommend the board vote for an amount any higher than $220,000 for the staff.

In final discussion, Spann cited unforeseen increases in the district’s utility and fuel expenses during the 2007-2008 year and said the rise in those expenses were likely to continue. He said the district’s fuel costs exceeded projections for two months this year resulting in an additional $120,000 in diesel and gas. He said if the prices continue on their current pattern and do not drop the district would be paying $300,000-$400,000 more in fuel costs than in recent years.

The board then voted 5-1 (Spann) to distribute a bonus of $400 to certified staff and $200 to classified staff totaling $220,000. The remainder would be moved to a building fund.

The Sheridan School District currently employs 325 certified staff and 200 support (classified) staff. Most of those employees are full time. Some cafeteria workers and custodians only work part time in those duties, but many of them also work additional hours as bus drivers.

Concerning other action, the board approved modifications to student handbooks for 2008-2009 including clarifications and typographical errors, as well as changes to the Sheridan Elementary School’s policy on field trips, the use of cough drops and over-the-counter medications, and the dress code at Sheridan Middle School. According to the change in the field trip policy, the addition stated that parents are welcome to attend field trips with their children, however, space may be limited due to the nature of the event or activity (i.e. ticketed events). Parents are encouraged to sign up early for field trips.

The policy regarding the “not permitted” use of alcoholic beverages, drugs and counterfeit drugs noted that any student involved in transmitting, passing, distributing or selling alcohol, narcotic drug, hallucinogenic drug, amphetamine, barbiturate, marijuana, over the counter drug, prescription drug, or other controlled substance or counterfeit substance purported to be a controlled substance, or beverage containing alcohol or intoxicant of any kind shall be suspended and will be subject to expulsion. Law enforcement officials shall be informed, and parents will be required to meet with school officials. In addition, according to the policy, any prescription medications and over-the-counter medications are required to be left in the nurse’s office. Students are not allowed to share any medications or over-the-counter medications. Spainhour noted earlier the issue of over-the-counter medications arose after some students were discovered to be distributing over-the-counter medications to other students who were taking them in large doses to try and create a “high.”

The board last month had discussed a request that students at SMS not be allowed to wear “flip flop” shoes to school because some students may not be able to walk in them in an expedient manner from classroom to classroom as several students have classes outside the main building. After an earlier debate of limiting footwear, Spainhour said the issue had been removed from the proposed changes to the campus’ handbook and would not be included in the 2008-2009 policies.

Hicks also questioned if all proms in the district are sponsored by the school. Spainhour replied only the senior high prom. The district eliminated a “junior high” prom several years ago due to concerns regarding the financial burden on parents. Spainhour said many parents decided they wanted the “prom” or dance to continue and rent facilities from the district to host a school dance, but the event is not school sponsored. He said the parents are responsible for all the planning and actions involved in the dance. Hicks said he would like to re-visit the issue in the future.

Spainhour then provided to the board a request made by Dwight Simpson, director of Support Services, for permission to sell two school vehicles to the highest bidders. Spainhour said the vehicles have high mileage and require additional maintenance and should be removed from the district’s inventory and insurance policy. The vehicles involved in the request are a 1989 GMC pickup (truck #19) and a 1990 Ford van (truck #8). The vehicles would be sold as is and the buyer would have 10 days from the date of sale to remove the vehicles. The board granted permission to advertise the vehicles for bid.

The superintendent informed the board that the district’s committee formed for the purpose of selecting a Construction Manager for the eight-classroom addition at East End Intermediate School has reviewed eight applicants and narrowed the selection down to two candidates – East-Harding Construction and Wilkins Construction Co. The members of the committee include Spainhour, Simpson, Hicks, Haynes, and the district’s architect, Jack See from the Little Rock firm of Wittenberg, Delony & Davidson, Inc.

After the in-depth interviews conducted prior to the board meeting, Spainhour said the committee was recommending the district negotiate with the company of East-Harding Construction of Little Rock. He noted the committee was impressed with the company and had the opportunity to meet several persons and supervisors who would be involved in the project. He said they had a good safety plan for working around students during the upcoming school year and would provide a secure environment. The company would also provide weekly meetings with district officials to monitor to the expansion of the campus and has an extensive background across the state regarding the management of construction sites. Spainhour said East-Harding representatives also estimated the classroom additions could be completed within eight months, which would allow the district to meet its state-required time schedule.

Hicks added the company has worked under strict conditions and has indicated it has strict standards regarding such concerns as the use of tobacco and alcohol products and foul language around children. He said representatives are willing to work for the district to obtain the best price possible for the project. Hicks said both companies were certainly capable of completing the expansion, but that East-Harding Construction fared better in the most recent interview and can provide cost-related figures to the district within 10 days. He added the company would be “our eyes and ears on a daily basis.” Lisenbey inquired how the district would be assured it is receiving the best possible price for the project. Hicks replied the company would obtain at least three competitive bids that can be reviewed by the board. Lisenbey then asked if the district would be obligated to East-Harding Construction if negotiations and an acceptable fee could not be reached. The board was informed that if a successful agreement could not be achieved with East-Harding the district would be free to move on to the next acceptable candidate for negotiations as Construction Manager. Spann asked how long the district would be tied to a contract and Spainhour replied the agreement would be limited to the advertised project. The board then voted to authorize the superintendent to negotiate with East-Harding as the district’s Construction Manager for the EEI addition.

Earlier in the meeting, the financial report for May was endorsed as provided by the superintendent after the board examined the district’s check registry, activity fund and supporting documents. The school reported a beginning balance of $15,431,428.26 in the total operating fund as of the end of May before final adjusting entries. Revenue of $2,457,545.54 was received for the month of May with expenditures of $947,846.23. The ending balance was posted as $16,937,541.93 prior to adjustments that include the teacher salary, debt service, federal grants and food service funds. The current status of the salary fund is -$12,823,261.05. Balances in other major funds include debt service fund, - $1,128,053.50; federal grants fund, $425,433.36; and food service fund, -$66,659.05. The adjusted total ending balance for the month was posted as $3,345,001.69.

The district has expended approximately 90 percent of its operating budget for the year and Spainhour said the district’s financial projection for the year “is still good.” He also addressed a question raised last month by Spann concerning the status of the school’s Pepsi Co. scholarship fund. The district has set aside $177,000 in a certificate of deposit and the interest from those funds generate several senior scholarships. Spainhour said the CD is drawing a 3.1 percent interest rate and is generating $5,000 per year in funds for the student scholarships. This year the district distributed nine scholarships of $500 each for a total of $4,500. Spann indicated he was satisfied that the initial deposit would continue to provide scholarship funds.

In the “celebrate successes” segment, Beverly Bragg, a second grade teacher at Sheridan Elementary School, provided photographs, a sample of student writings and an overview related to the second grade students’ projects on the life cycle. She said the Grant County Extension Service also cooperated in a project that helped provide an incubator and two chicken eggs for each of the nine second grade classrooms. She said the students faithfully watched the eggs until the chicks were hatched and have continued to monitor their care. The students have also studied the lifecycles of frogs and plants.