Reply to School Board Regular Meeting last night Thursday April 27th

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "School Board Regular Meeting last night Thursday April 27th"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics