I attended the School Board meeting last night. It was interesting and concerning.
The Public comments section was dominated by 5 speakers advocating for no changes to be made to the supplemental pension plan for teachers (ERFC), and 5 speakers denouncing the Policy 1450.6 which was revised in May 2015 to include 'gender identity' under the non-discrimination policy. Both advocacy groups were fact 'lite' but reliant on emotional appeals - it was good theater but didn't change any minds. The School Board then took up the issue of amending the ERFC pension plan - ostensibly to save money and put the plan on a more sustainable footing. The Plan is in distress as earnings on the fund and contributions from FCPS and employees have been insufficient to cover benefit payments for the last two years (and five of the past ten years). The 'debt' of the plan (its unfunded obligations) has risen from $493M two years ago to $830M at June 2016 (and even more today). FCPS will contribute almost $100M to the Plan next year. The Plan's fees are relatively high and its returns have been poor compared with peers. So, the Board members thought they should cut the benefits to save some money (they didn't discuss firing the management or changing investment managers or consolidating with the County plans as ways to save money...). In the end, after painful discussion, they chose a minimal path that will save an estimated $2.3M in the first year, $6.3M in the 'short-term' (undefined) and $16.1M in the 'long-term' (also undefined). Even with this adjustment, Plan outflows (benefit payments) are expected to exceed Plan inflows (employee and employer contributions) through 2025. It was evident that the School Board is under a great deal of stress and riven with some serious differences that are compromising its ability to be effective. The action re: ERFC was nothing less than timid, and perhaps even irresponsible, in that motions were debated at the dais with requests to Staff for "estimates" of the financial impacts. Ms. Derenak-Kaufax mentioned that a former School Board member had sent an email to the Board members admonishing them for being unprepared, noting the dissension and lamenting the disorganization of the Board in its Regular Meetings. This is the same criticism that Greg Cohen (one of the appointed citizen auditors) leveled against the Audit Committee when he resigned in protest in Dec 2016 over the problems with the Auditor General. There is also an unhealthy dissension between certain Board members and senior Staff. Ms. Schultz noted particular concerns with respect to the "Caring Culture" presentation on student and employee health/satisfaction etc., that Mr. Ramey (HR) and Ms. Lipp (Special Services Asst Supt) provided at the School Board Work Session on Monday. Ms. McLaughlin abstained from accepting that report in protest against Staff. Both Staff and the Board are stressed with the Superintendent search, an Auditor General opening to fill, the Budget shortfall and a lot more intensive scrutiny than usual. It will be instructive to see how they agree to address the $48M funding shortfall. Mr. Moon made clear that this will be largely 'on the backs' of the teachers, although it clearly will also involve increasing class sizes and imposing as many additional fees as they can. I don't know if there is sufficient unity and/or concern at the Board of Supervisors to initiate a substantive intervention on some of these issues (e.g. pensions, contracting, special ed, audit). There are some real cracks showing up - questionable contracts with the new employer of former Superintendent Garza, Special Ed spending that is far out of line with surrounding districts, an Audit function without an Auditor General with the authority to investigate broadly, and a pension that is inefficiently managed and requiring expenditures that are diverting resources from basic instruction programs. The fact that ERFC has effectively incurred $830M of 'debt' without any discussion or even explicit recognition, much less endorsement/approval, has got to be a wake up call to the Supervisors. The fact that FCPS is diverting almost $100M next year from its Operating Fund to ERFC must be of concern - both for the impact on hiring and retention (i.e. shift of the cost of compensation as between salary and benefits) as well as overall fiscal reputation. Ms. Corbett-Sanders has mentioned concerns with the 'reputational risk' to FCPS. It was evident that there is a concerning lack of coordination, comprehension, relevant information, and preparation among the Board members. The members with the longest tenure (Ms. Strauss and Mr. Moon) did not say very much but I got the impression they were not happy with the way the Board's business was being conducted. The fact that a former Board member has chastised the current Board suggests how significant these challenges are. Just as an aside - Mr. McElveen did absolutely nothing last night. He made no comments but simply played with his phone. His detachment was remarkable. There was some talk about "One Fairfax" and an effort to align pension benefits (and compensation more generally) with the County. Some members reject this but it seems that there is a lot of room for improvement and working with the County Supervisors, who have staff and resources and objectivity, might help the School Board improve their practices and shed non-core concerns (i.e. pensions) to allow for more focus on classroom instruction. |
12:39 Thank you for such an informative post. I've heard of all of these issues and am glad they are starting to be brought to light. |
Is OP @VAscorps1977 on Twitter? |
"Mr. Moon made clear that this will be largely 'on the backs' of the teachers, although it clearly will also involve increasing class sizes..."
Increasing class sizes also does nothing to ease the teachers' burden. |
OP here - I don't twitter (yet) ;=)
In thinking about this event some more, I was struck by the calls by several Board members for more engagement with 'stakeholders' in making policy changes - particularly to pensions. This is, to my mind, a good suggestion. But it was in stark contrast with the lack of citizen engagement ('stakeholders') over issue like the Policy 1450 and other 'diversity' proclamations. Before I get flamed, I should note that I am of the simple notion that appropriate behavior can be guided by the maxim to "Respect yourself and respect others". The fact that numerous protesters show up every two weeks to complain about Policy 1450 shows that the Board's actions in this regard were unsuccessful and I suggest that they move to conciliate with these members of the Community. It may not be possible to reach agreement but it would redound to the benefit of the Board to try. Teachers' burdens will only increase as more and more spending is diverted to special interests and the broad group of 'regular kids' is increasingly marginalized. Others have noted the decline in real spending (adjusted for inflation) for the 75% of the students who are not receiving ESOL or IEP Level 2 services. This is a real issue for our community as more and more people recognize that for many students FCPS is not special or exceptional. For ESOL and Special needs and even AAP, FCPS offers first rate services - but for the other 75% the increase in class sizes and the cuts in program funding (in inflation adjusted terms) are making Loudoun, Prince William and private alternatives look increasingly attractive. A loss of reputation will significantly reduce demand for housing and for businesses to locate here - but this is already happening - no population increase in Fairfax last year - office vacancy rates above 17% and rising, and the lowest proportion of additional Business and Professional Services jobs created vs. Loudoun and Arlington... At the same time, the Board of Supervisors seems to be reluctant to become involved. Yet they have deep professional staff support and the appropriate backgrounds and expertise to assist the School Board and relieve some of their burdens (particularly by consolidating the pension management with the existing three County plans). There is no reason for a School Board to be managing a pension. Chair Bulova has stated she is reluctant to intervene when we have an elected School Board. But the school system pays the salaries of teachers who take a year off to lead the teachers' associations (similar to unions) in advocacy to the Board. There is no similar representative of the citizens' interests at the Board. The Auditor General position is ineffective and, according to the appointed citizen auditor on the Audit Committee (who resigned in protest), the interim AG is unqualified. The pension plan has incurred $337M of 'debt' in the past two years without a referendum or even any explicit recognition that this is an additional County obligation (indirectly through the school system). So the pension plan has $830M of unfunded obligation that the citizens of Fairfax will have to fund - that's roughly $800 for every man, woman and child in Fairfax County - roughly approximating $3,200 per household. This is a real burden that the Board of Supervisors should be concerned about! As I noted in my earlier post, a former School Board member sent an email to current members chastising them for not managing the business of the Board. This is an indication of the seriousness of the situation and of the need for responsible intervention and good governance. |
Which former SB member? Is the email available for public reading? |
I love that guy on 47:20
https://youtu.be/y1vlTPJB4rI?t=46m42s I argeed when he said GO CAPS |
And, this is the problem. They did go forward with that policy without enough notice or input. The gentleman was correct when he said that some Board members notified the proponents of the policy. As I recall, no dissenters were able to speak because the slots were full by the time they learned of it.
I personally have mixed emotions about the policy--but, they drew more negative attention to the issue than had they just ignored it. This could have been handled case by case and situation by situation. They are creating problems rather than solving them. And, the budget issues and all the waste to vendors and consultants is obscene. That's where I would start. Let the schools conduct their own inservice. I was a teacher, and I learned far more from my fellow teachers than from outside consultants who were paid exorbitant fees for something we could have done far better in house. |
I'm not PP, but my guess is Steve Hunt or the Phil guy who is on Board of Supervisors. I doubt it would be Kathy or Abe. |
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/28/effort-to-remove-confederate-generals-name-from-va-school-exposed/#ixzz4ffPOTivI
Was this brought up at the meeting? Over $1million for name change? When are they going to sneak that through? |
I expect (but don't know for certain) that the name change decision is 'on hold' until the new Superintendent arrives and things quiet down a bit. There are some serious concerns to address in the meantime - budget shortfall; now about $27M as it appears that $15M from increasing class sizes will be endorsed - Superintendent selection - Auditor General selection - Contracting issues - pension issues...
However, it wouldn't surprise me to see the 'liberal activist' members of the Board utilize similar tactics to those employed with Policy 1450, the Board statement on diversity and the Meals Tax - namely, to rally partisan support and make motions without seeking or gaining broad consensus. The only thing that will slow them down is concerted, coordinated community activism. They respect voters. But you have to organize about 25,000 to balance the FCPS employees... |
I agree with that to a point, but I'd also get rid of most of instructional services. They were awful, as well, and most of them had no real qualifications for teacher training other than having been a teacher for a long time. Which, unfortunately, means they knew little more than anyone else, sometimes less. The best PD I ever had was when I went outside of the school district right to the experts - to conferences, to workshops put on by big names in education, and so on. Also, things my principal dug up money for were sometimes pretty good. But anything put on by the county or arranged by the county was almost always a total waste of time and money. |
Most of the bureaucrats at Gatehouse are totally worthless and just collecting paychecks. It would be much better to tell at least 75% of them to go back into classrooms and teach, or else retire. |
+100 |
What do you mean $15m from increasing class sizes will be endorsed? |