District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Knight, et al.,'s reply to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski districts' motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to fix time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for extension of time in which to file notice of appeal; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) program planning and budgeting tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.s~,\k~JdRr EASTERN OISiRICT ARK,\NSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----------PLRiN'PfFf1( DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL L-\ W FIR:.\1. for their Motion, state: 1. PACT, by and through Knight, et al. Intervenors, filed a Motion for Extension of Time until close of business on Monday, January 6, 1997, to file its Reply to the Response of PCSSD. 2. The data collection for the reply by PACT personnel was severely curtailed during the holidays as they only returned to work on the morning of January 6, 1997. The data collected by PACT did not arrive at its attorneys office untii the afternoon of January 6, i 997 and a proper reply is not possible prior to close of business. WHEREFORE, PACT prays that it be granted one additional day to file its Reply to the Response of PCS SD and be granted all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. c==>____,, ~ Richard W. Roache!! Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIR2v1 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on January 6, 1997 to the follo,,ing persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LC\l)SEY & JEi'IN"L\,.GS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ~ Richard W. Roachell FILED u S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 7 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA SAS ERK WESTERN DIVISIO JAMES W McCORMACK, CL l By: -----nioE:i:p,7_C' IL8ER=ii<K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~.'.: ~ 11 .'l~ ~~~~ ~- O!l!ce of Desegrngc.i1cn t,\onitonng DEFENDANTS I TERVENORS INTERVENORS KNIGHT. ET AL'S REPLY TO PCSSD RESPONSE TO MOTION In its Response to the PACT Intervenor's Motion and Brief, the PCSSD takes the ludicrous position that what PACT is requesting is that the Court approve any contract settlement with PCSSD because PCSSD would be increasing a budgeted line item without court approval contrary to the Intervenors prayer for relief. PCSSD also suggests that PACT's prayer " ... seems an invitation by PACT to the Court to resolve the contract dispute since any resolution which increases salaries must, according to PACT's request, have the approval of the Court in any event." PCSSD's allegations and conclusions are disingenious when PACT's Motion is read in its entirety. PACT neither wishes the Court to resolve the contract dispute between them nor wishes the Court to approve any contract settlement that may result in expenditures for increases in salary. PCSSD's tinkering with the wording of PACT's Motion and Brief inflames an already white-hot labor dispute between the parties and wastes taxpayers money in doing so. What PACT wants is clear: that PCSSD be restrained from fiddling with its budget in spending monies that could and should be appropriated to fund a salary increase and that PCSSD negotiate in good faith. EXHIBIT "D" In PCSSD's zeal to further heighten an already supercharged labor dispute in its district, it discusses virtually all of the items in the exhibit that PACT had attached to its Motion as Exhibit "D." It should be noted that in the briefof PACT, it addressed only the issue of a possible transfer of $100,000 in interest from the building fund. However, PCSSD goes to great lengths to try to discredit PACT by discussing that item as well as virtually every other item on Exhibit "D'' which were not contained or addressed in the subject matter of the motion or brief of PACT. In response, PACT feels the necessity to respond to the allegations of the district as it addressed other items in PACT's Exhibit "D." It should be noted that Exhibit "D" was created by PACT prior to this Court's - hearing on the district's Motion for Injunctive Relief. It was initially created for negotiating purposes only during the summer of 1996. PCSSD suggests that the transfer of $133,516.00 generated by the one mill technology millage would be unlawful under Arkansas Law. Hopefully, such is not the case as the district is well-versed in such transfers. It should be noted that the so-called one mill technology millage was not dedicated to math, science and technology on the ballot that was approved by the voters. It is true that the district advertised to the public that it would dedicate one mill of the proposed millage for technology if the millage was passed. However, what is technology is determined by the district itself since there are no parameters in the official ballot on which taxpayers voted. See attached Exhibit "A." What PACT proposed, however, was the transfer of$133,516.00 from the regular budget to 2 the technology mill. This was the total dollars identified by PACT from district records where the district had funded technology programs not from the technology fund but from its regular budget thereby giving more to the technology budget than was generated by the mill when the technology budget is not even fully budgeted for expenditures. This scenario occurred when the budget managers were permitted to overspend their allotted millage amounts and the district, instead of balancing the budget by transferring money from the technology millage reserve to the overspending, chose rather to transfer money to cover the o,erspending from its regular budget. All that PACT requested in its negotiations was that money be returned from the technology fund that was transferred from the district's regular budget. For instance, two substantial expenditures from the regular budget that could have been allocated from the technology mill reserves were the computer lab at Fuller Junior High which was funded from the regular budget and the upgrade of district computer labs which would also qualify for technology funds. PCSSD also faults PACT for suggesting that the district defer $1,165,076.00 in budgeting expenses for the first semester to the second semester and to use that amount to fund teacher raises. The district complains that it is not demonstrated or predicted where new revenue would come from to pay these bills during the second semester. However, as the district well knows, it has done this very thing in the recent past. In the 1993-94 school year, the district similarly deferred expenditures to settle and fund a pay raise in a dispute with PACT by submitting a budget proposal to its Board of Directors for approval which contained three days less work during the second semester. See Exhibit "B." Of course, with the district historically underestimating its revenues, the second semester was funded fully and the three days were restored to the school calendar. What the district finds to be irresponsible now but apparently found responsible only a few years ago is merely further 3 evidence of its unwillingness to settle its labor dispute with PACT and its willingness to create the risk that the labor dispute will boil over again. Next, PCS SD faults that part of Exhibit "D" to PACT's motion for representing that Act 917 requires $1,375,000.00 for funding to meet the requirements of the Act. Actually, the revised calculations by PACT are $1,262,752.00. PCSSD further represents that it would only require $117.00 to each beginning teacher salary and $298 to the contract of teachers holding a masters degree with two years experience to complete compliance with Act 917. If such a plan was the intent of the Act, there would be little dispute between the parties. However, PCS SD knows that the intent of Act 917 is not to destroy but to preserve the structure of the statutorily mandated salary schedule for teachers as it is incorporated into Article Xll  3 of the Master Contract. By not raising the base and failing to index a raise through the entire schedule to compensate teachers for - experience and education as provided by the district's plan, over 1,200 teachers would receive no raise whatsoever. Further, this Court did not rule on August 29 (sic) that PCS SD was not abiding by Act 91 7. The Act has not been challenged on the issues raised here. The Court only found that there was a probabilitv that the district was not in violation of Act 917 and that a waiver under the Act is also a possibility. With regard to PACT's projection of $500,000.00 in additional local revenue, the district's chief fiscal officer, who gave his affidavit with the district's response, stated during the first four days of the teacher strike that the $500,000.00 was his "fudge money" indicating how much he predicted the underestimation in local revenue. Stewart has since acknowledged his prior statement in mediation ordered by the Court. Again, this admission on the part of the district further 4 underscores the history of the dist1ict in underestimating local revenues. TITLE IX PACT's Exhibit "A" to its motion clearly shows that the district is willing and able to find funds for whatever it wants to do. There is no decree or order existing that binds PCSSD to fill additional coaching positions to comply with Title IX. In fact, the whole basis of the filling of the coaching positions was merely an internal memorandum suggesting that it be done. The memorandum itself is confusing and apparently contradictory. It should be noted that in the second paragraph of the memorandum, the recommendation is "If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a (sic) athletic season, the assistant coach allocation \\'ill be implemented for the following school year." Therefore it appears that the memorandum suggests filling the positions would begin in the I 997-98 school year. However. in the last paragraph of the memorandum, the allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000.00 for the 1996-97 school year. What occurred here was based on an internal recommendation that the district increase spending (recurring expenditures with nonrecurring revenues) which was not budgeted and apparently was deemed by the administration and the board to be more important than using the funds at the present time to contribute to a settlement of its labor dispute with PACT. This is the very kind of conduct by the administration and board of PCS SD that contributes to the current state of affairs with its teachers: that is, historically, the district finds a way to generate or divert revenues for programs or things that it deems it needs. To make matters worse, these are not even all Title IX positions. In fact, PACT has asked the board how many of the positions are Title IX and there has been no response as yet. 5 EXHIBIT "B" Whine as it will that the August 27, 1996, budget is still the official budget of the district, the shifting sands of dollars coming into the district and being expended by the district changes with each and every monthly report. Certainly, a budget may be corrected or modified. However, to represent to its board that daily changes in expenditures and projected revenues somehow obviate the necessity for a budget which has been approved by the Court is folly. In effect, the district juggles its numbers each and every month by board approval of its Financial Report which modifies the budget even though the Court does not receive it. PACT wonders whether these monthly financial revised budgets and board approval of them are also under evaluation by the ODM as being consistent with sound fiscal practices. In an attempt to clarify the intent of PACT's Exhibit "B" to its brief filed on December 10, 1996, a separate summary of"budget amounts" for each of three funds is attached hereto as Exhibits "C," "D" and "E." Each month, PCS SD generates Financial Reports. In each one of these reports, there is a column labeled "budget." This column reflects the amount budgeted for each object within each function, as well as the total for each function within each of the three funds. Each of the attached summaries, while not specifically generated by PCSSD, do contain the function totals taken directly from all five of the monthly Financial Reports, which have been generated and provided by PCSSD. These summaries provide evidence that PCSSD does in fact change board-approved amounts. In the affidavit of Dr. Stewart attached to the PCSSD Response to Motion, it was stated: (1.) The board-approved budget amounts were entered into the computer in early September, and 6 (2.) to date, no changes have been made in the board-approved budget. If these two statements were true, then the budget amounts in the 9/30/96 Financial Report should reflect the same amounts as those approved by the School Board on August 27, 1996, since 9/30 is the date after the "early September" date that Dr. Stewart referred to as the time at which amow1ts were entered into the computer. Furthermore, the subsequent Financial Reports (dated 10/31/96 and 11 /30/96) should also contain the exact budget amounts as those of9/30/96-. However, this is not the case. Changes can be seen in the Teachers ' Salary Fund (Fund 1000) in 18 different functions (1105 , 1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1170, 1191, 1220, 1320, 1330. 1350. 1360, 1370, 1390, 1910, 2122. 2222, and 2410) and in 15 different functions (1105, 1120. 1 130. 1140, 1150. 1160, 1170, 1240, 2514, 2620, 2630, 2640, 2710, 2720 and 2740) in the Operating Fund (Fund 2000). In the Desegregation Fund (Fund 2900), it is interesting to note that no changes whatsoever - can be seen in function totals. The fact that all functions reflect the exact same budget amount since 9/30/96 proves that PCSSD can stick to the approved budget when it so chooses. After all, a budget is just that - an overall plan that should not constantly change due to daily changes in expenditures and revenues. Furthermore, because the official budget addresses the entire plan, including function totals, when a change is made in any function, a change has been made in the official budget approved by the board and submitted to the Court, on August 27, 1996. In his affidavit, Dr. Stewart further stated that "The district has never taken the position that approving the Financial Report constituted a change in the budget." If that be the case, just what are board members doing when they approve such a report and why do they have to approve a Financial Report at all, especially one with budget amounts varying from the Court-approved budget? It would seem more logical that the budget amounts in each Financial Report should coincide with the 7 budget amounts approved by the board on August 27, 1996. However, as shown in the summaries, these amounts are not always the same. Therefore, each time the board approves a Financial Report that has different budget amounts, they are, in effect, voting to change the official budget that they approved and submitted to the Court on August 27, 1996. JACKSONVILLE SCHOOLS The money for the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Schools, which will go on line in the 1997-98 school year, was not and is not a part of the budget approved by this court. Additional funds are being spent in preparation for the implementation of the reconfiguration outside the court approved budget, money that could be channeled into a contract settlement with the district's teachers. In fact, the district admits that certain expenditures for substitutes, supplies, materials and training are being spent during this current fiscal year. "Reconfiguration" until late August of 1997 is a shallow statement without the expenditures of money in preparation for "reconfiguration" which constitutes discretionary spending by the district of money that could be used to help settle the contract dispute between the parties. The district in its response to PACT's motion informs the Court that "impact aid" from the federal government is forecast to be sharply curtailed and reduced compared to last year leaving the district with a forecast of a negative ending balance. In fact, as time will show, the district will end its fiscal year with a positive balance and it will do so whether or not it settles its contract dispute with PACT. This settlement depends on the district focusing and redoubling its efforts to bargain in good faith and find the money, as it surely can do, to settle the dispute and not to engage in its game of smoke and mirrors to deny its teachers the much deserved raise as intended by Act 917. If 8 ;:'j T 1 l. I 1 r r I I : : . ," :.e - - ~ ' OO,cl / ~ DEP - r:F ECL~rt~ I OFFICIAL BAU.OT l SPECIAL ELECTION  ' P.UUSKJ COUNTY SPECtAIJSCMOOL OISTPJCT !PULASKI COUNT, ARKANSAS I Mays,1, INS'fflJC'nONI TO VOTDa: VOtt on meaure by plld~ .,, x- In the tqu.N ~ !M ffleU\ltt sltl'I lfOA or AGAINST. ; - . --- ~-  ' -- I I I "A,:'  Jt.:L. 2 2 zs,z "'-c.. . . . .  .. ! i. ' --~01- ~ E 8 I X f r c 6 I E ~E,  VAUGHN HCQUARY, HAIY LOVI!i WILLIAMS, AND tin HOL.!il:S. COUNTY aOARD o, !LICTION COMHISSIONDS, WITXIN AHn FOR PULABK:t COUNTY, AJUUNSAS, DO l'IND AND JIEQJ\" C?RTU''Y ffE POLLOWt~ usuirs or Tit 1992 PULASll COUN'tY SP!ClAL SCHOOL DIST1'ICT. ILECTIOH HiLD IH TX! VA.RIOOS rRECI~C1'S OP POLAS~I COUNTY FpR THE MEASURI SPIClFiiU HlllSIH: i SPCUHt.AO.OSJLC I TCUO:U NTY SPEC UL SCJ{OL DIS11tICT PROPOSZll 43, 9 KILL I FOR ----~--------------------------------------11  20 VOTES AOAINST ---------------------------------- !117 VOTtS 1-J,.1._,,,, ~Ii .. re, I .J ... ,l. , I ; OF SAID BOA.JU) TRI! JL1L 2 ~ 1992 !raHriio l/.1, J.1y  Program Analysis For The Def et Ing Three Days From Pulaski County Special School District 1993-94 Schoof Year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pulaski County Special School Dls~SSO) budget ror the 1993.94 flscaJ year is proiected to hav an ending deficit of $1,789,099.  Ar1<ansas Slate law provides that a school d1'tria cannot deficit spend. Fur111ermore, the Federal District Court has directed the PCSSD Board 10 maJ<e the nece~ provisions to submit a balanced budQet. On& way to accompllst'l lhls rs to delete three days from the 19939 sehool year. BACK GR OUN O ~~ ~ ;~; O'/ G:-n--.P'f:,.. The PCSSD spent more money lhan It received (non-recurring revenue durt ht 199293 school year by $1,190.178. Toe endlnQ 0;1ance for the 199.2-93 school year was :3, However, ~00.000 01 the $403.590 was money saved throuQtl the eany retirement incentive program. This money, placao in the Compensatory EdUcatJon TruS't Fund. wlU be invested and is not avaaao1e. Therefore, the ac:tlJal ndl~ balance tNt is availaola to b& spent for Iha 1993-94 sehoot year Is only $3,590. The cost ot the one-half percent raise for all ecrc,loyeu Implemented after July 1, 1993, II $32S,0"2. The eost tor the pay scale step inc:..ase for au eligible 1mploytt1 cos~ a;>p1"0xlmately $800,000. The cost tor lnitlal materiats and equipment for the MUls High School Specialty Program It $300,000. Tht Olst,1e:t wu required to shift elementary assimnt prtncipais from tl'le Chapter I budget to tl'lt OISU'id OJ)eraUng budQet at a cost of $250,000. The cost for lmptememtno the Economic Education Specialty Program it Baker Elementary school ls $60,000. A new board policy requil'ln9 drug lt~ng of bus drivers ccsts $20,000. The total of these new expenses for 1993-94 ls $2,9~.220. In spite of the ract tl'lat focal revenue Increased by ~.305,S55. prfma,uy as a result of the new 6 mill tax. the Joss ot $959,846 in state and federal revenue caused the Olstnct to have only $1.1S9.121 in new available revenue over the expenses of 199293. These racu place the District In the position .t profectlnQ a ($1,789.099) deflol for the 1993-~ school year. PROBLEM 0EFfNITION To develop a balanced budget th, PCSSO -'dminlstratlon and Board had to txplore varlc,us ways lo rtduce expenditures. AU areas of budgeted excenses had to be examined u i,otent1al blJdQet arts In an effort to reduce expenditures by approximately S2,000.000 tor the 1993.94 school year. Slgniffcant ntdUctlons were made in oper;tlcns costs ($510.000} and In debt cests ($200,000). The decision was ffnaHy rNde to delete mree student interadlon days In order to save approximately S1 .soo.900. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The altematlves that were considered were: (1) ReductlOn ot salaries of all personnel (2) Elimination of programs not required by edUcatlon standards or !ht desegregatiOn plan (3) Reouction in lorce ot personnel not required by education $tandards or the dese9regatlon plan. To reduce salaries of all personnel would viol.le At1(a~ Slate Law 6-17-1501 "'The Teacher Fu - Dismissal Act of 1963." Subchapter 6-17-1506 provides that "(a) Every contract ot emptoyment made ti 1311 betwon a teacttet and the board of directors of a scl'lool district shall be renewed in wrttl~ on the same terms and for the same salary, unless Increased or decreased by law. for the nex1 school year succeeding the date ot termination tlxed therein. which renewal may be made by an endo~ement on the existing contract lnS11t1ment. unless by May 1 of the contract year. the teacher is notified by the school superintenderlt that the superlntendenl Is recommendlnc;, that the teacher's contract not be renewed: Since the May t deadline had passed, ~ was determined that vfolatlon of this statute could lead to lengthy nugatlon and much expense in legal fees. The penalty tor Ignoring this law was an "Unknown. Furthermore. employees would resent woc1<ing a full contract year for less than their contracted salary. Elimination of programs not required by education standards or the des~regatlon plan was considered. However. while programs such as athletics and some other extracunieular programs might be considered as popular budget cuts by some people. it was decided rriat these programs are at least lndirectty (if not directly) a part of the desegr~atlon plari. The court. in Its order of August 3, , 992. directed the reinstatement of the position, Director of Athletics and Physical Education, which had been eliminated earlier. Furthermore. tt,ese programs. withOut a doubt. pmmc,te desagre(Jatton within our schoots and throughout society. Reduction In force of personnel not reqvlred by education staridards or the desegr99ation plan was attempted tn the spring of 1992. The Court. In Its order of August 3. 1992. ordered the reinstatement of approximately eleven supervisory posillons because it was determined tnat to cut these )obs would be detrlmental 10 the desegregation program. Two other positions (Aulstant Superintendents) were voluntarily restored by the Board because the Importance of these posrtlons in the organi2atlon was rruch more s~ntttcam than the amount saved by the cut. Very little consideration was ~lven to cunlnQ seNtce Jobs such as custodians. maJrnenance personnel. mechanics. etc. Significant budget cut.s Implemented since 1984 reduced the number of these persoMel to the minimum necessary to operate an eNecttve sctiool district. AECOMMENOATIONS The PCSSO Board of Education recommends that approximately $2.000.000 in expenditures be reduced from tM 1993-9 budQet by reduction of operation costs of approximately $510,000. reduction in debt costs by approximately $200,000. and by deleting tl'lree studenr interaC11on days at a savings of approximately $1.500.000. It is believed that it is far more educatlonally sound and less disruptive to eliminate these days at trie end of the sctiool year rather tt'lan at the beglnnll'IQ of the school year. The Dtstnc1 recognizes that parents need as much time as possible to prepare for a shOrtened school year. It would not be fair. at this Jate date. to shOrten school at the beginning of tt,e year. OBJECTIVES The objectives are to produce a balanced buctQet by reducing expendttures In such a way as to have the least Impact on the delivery of Instruction to the students of PCSSD, to avoid len9thy and controversial litigation. to provide &QUity amo1i9 employee groups, and to assure the Cour1 that the District is making a good faith effort to manage itS finances in a 11!Sponslble way. IMPACT ANALYSIS The Impact of deleting $510,000 from operation costs and $200.000 from debt service wrll nave llttre tan<.;1ible effect on tne instn;ctlonal program ol the District. Deleting three student interaction days at a savings of $1.500,000 wlll Impact Instruction. but the Instructional supervisors do not believe that ,t w,11 have a measurable effect. The penalty tor v1olat1no State Education Standard Chapter. V, Section A., which requires 178 student Interaction days will be a citation rrom 111e State Education Oepanment. Violation of the same standard for two consecutive years presents the poss1b1llty of consolidation by the Slate Board of Education. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The only atterna1lve available at this time Is to ask citizens to allow the Dlslrtct to restructure ~s bonded debt wfthOut raising their taxes. This question is on the ballot of the September, ,993 school election. Should the citizens allow restructuring of the bonded debt, current year debt payments can be stl'\Jctured to set aside $1,500,000 In savings to help offset the !oss of desegregation settlement funds and an addHlonal savings of approximately $1,800,000 can be realized by pushing those currently scheduled payments Into future years. This could eliminate the posstblllty of deleting any student Interaction days from the 1993-94 schQQI year. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Forces supporting this approach to balancing the budget ~lleve that the daletlon ot student interaction days will have less n99atlve effect on student Instruction and the desegre<jatlon plan than other attematlves considered. While there Is a state law whlcl'I prohibits a dlstl'fc:r frcm deficit spending, there is a State Law (~M3-620) which provides authonty for a school district bOard of directors to ctose sehool early . and cease paying the teachers ror the remall'lder or the t1scaI year. This approach which provides a imown penalty ls less likely to be litlgated than violatl~ a law with an 4unkrc>wT, penalty. Forces against this approach are employees whO do r.ct want their salartes to be neQatfvely affected and parents who are concerned that their children will suffer educatlonally. IMPLEMENTATION FLAN The PCSSO Board of Educs1lon adopted the 1993-94 budget which provided for deletion of three student Interaction days at a special school board mcetl~ on July 27, 1993. Thls action Is contingent on Court approval. The proposal has already received considerable media attention without any appreciable opposition from patrons. However, students. employees. and parents will be nofl11ed of the possibility of the deletion of the fast three days of the school year so that summer plans can be considered. Should it be unnecessary to delete all three days. constituents will be notified at the eartlest time possible. Every effort will be made lo curtail expenditures durt~ the schOol year in an effort to prevent deletion of any school days. Furthermore, a strategic plan has been Implemented to encourage patrons lo approve the restructuring of the Dfstnct's Indebtedness. The District is considering ways to atfect employee salaries by withholdln9 pay in incremems rather than withholdtng for all three days during the fast pay period. SUMMARY OF "BUDGET AMOUNTS" 19')6 - 19'J7 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORTS FUND 1000 TEACHER SALARY FUl\.ro 1100 11115 Ill( Jl}f_l 113<) 114' ! 150 IIC,O 1170 1191 121n 12! I 12:!I! !240 12(,(l 1:10 l2S5 1121) l~_~I !.""'1) U5o u~_; ])C,(l 1370 1390 13~.1 15' , 19JfJ 1930 2111 2122 1142 21.:;o ::211 1212 2222 :!321 :!411) :!4~ 2501 ::(;JO 27!0 2i:,, 2PO C.\(,1 DE3CR!PTION Rc-g P@Jw'Elcm-SccooJa,y Pre-School Ku~ortro Elrnicntary Middle ' Jr 1-hgh lhgh School AthletJcs Stu.Jient Aci.J\ilic:. Sununc, School ROTC llincrMt lnstrucuon HClUlCOO<Jlld instruct.,oo Rc,nun;eRoon, Sp,<:1al Class - I l 0 Scparat~ Day- Pnvat~ Rcs,dcntiaJ Day  !'nVaJA: Ex1,oJl Year Ml.si & D1stt1bu11Vc Ed Bu<u,es I Oilin: Om,p Heald,('=, Trade & lndu_-:mal Trad< Ins  SL:ill Trauung llomc Economics CMCCI Ori~oo Special Needs Th Prep ReadJn% Gtlted& TalrntC'd English  Sond L.~ Super AUm I Social Wed: Couns<"lulg J's,,clJologicol Tcruni; 1'1,\-.,cal  Occupauooal Tncr-apy Super lmprovc lnstruc s-,, ln.,t i Curr SJX'('1ahru Schon! L1bmy Ct.lice  Super Lit Otlicc - Pnnc,pal Asst F'n.oc 1pal Ollicc Super Du.sl.Dess Set\ ices Super Op/ M..mteoance Super Studcot T ran,poct lntnrmat1on Servi~ Sta:t!SCMcn l-r1 ( .her LEAS In Stau: !'L").1) 1000 TOT.\L --- ---DAmor- fl:-.A:-;,-L-\L REPORT-------- 07/~l:1 ~ OS/31f.\G 09'3(;'1)(; 10.'JJ "),I., V ~" -~"'11~1 ~5St.1_,;.,.~f'K1 l-t217.7J;i.,-, ).!~17.'-.CI' IJ:I '.'.':i'>).),.J 13(l -1::.&-'6 (l() 14S.SIOOO iSI.4::? 00 IJ~. 77 I IY! ~..a9o,;-:. \)0 ~32.1 :4 (>.,_, J11~,.,,n1_(1 -Y..14."~'{') J.,.<_~!-4.00 ~:S.i II 00 lS.ti5$ l lt--.~_--:,c.; ,,fl l-'.':' ~~71111 ..,J  -~ ,, ._1 7" 7, "l,lf !(I :,~s.7r:.-: ((1 :G9.53S 00 ~--: 7:7('1 ,. ,l~- l i{H)'I 1.12 11:2 , .J ~A J_'7-l22h(I :_!.;r_:.,ll'O 211.81800 77i l(;Sr,J l ,i.W ... ll1.a) -:.u,, c,~, , 11:1 1,4_.., ,.77 1(1 !<1~ __ 111 2.n,,:.~: 1)1) :!_!)').;_::?.(>') s:.c1 7 oo l~:.87<. 00 ,.., 1,j-! ().j '.'k ..:;:_J ((i j~(J ,..t..t ( (t .1~ .......... 1(1 0 47.()()()()() 2. 7-1~_985 (~) 12.952.~'>t-l( 5,8'56,!:>43 (<J ~.0'.)2.~I 5.00 454,7S8 00 157,709.00 117,920.00 126.806 00 205,304 0(1 512.415 ((J 4,1)44,520 ((I 809,639 \l() 152,87:.00 691.19:00 611 00 187.7(1lf ,,, O<H.1.J71(1 J(1.'(l(!IICI $4~\.:!(1'." 1i,:_1 f) Gss.:--t:.oo 161.66] 00 21G.567.00 n 42.17f<)\/ 1.128.Jc,~ f J ,;;:,.,,.,..;2.1.(1 l41J.1l'lYl 2.212.534 00 239.653 00 641.7]100 t~,9.294 (f.) 979,<.\71<, 1,4~5. ~5 1.1) 1'18.3~2 "' 2.14J.2fl7 ll() 2.:n.153 _00 86,2-1:.00 147.80700 ;1.-1w,,, 1,0,cn...9_11 201.387((1 3Jl)"<~ ult 51.710.451.00 L'C 0 .J71Ul{_(I 2. 11\$; ,;,.,, 11,.-, 12.0 . n.~r-.., 1_{1 5,86'1""1 1'-l;_ t I lj/JC)~.'I' ,,-, -154.'8~ 1)(1 157.709 00 11--:.9:0((1 12(1)1fJn1_1tJ 2(1'.'.1.;..;.1)0 :'-i~  l:'C-1 4.1.~_,:!(!\_)(I 8tY1r-,_l)(K' '-~ 11 i {)., i~ l1,:h n, JS].'.,._ ,J 00 2lt. :.1.J7(,.) IJ 1.1'.2~ ,,-,~ < ll j 'n.-~I }.Ul. 11,; ,-11, z.;1:. ~34 ('() :39.~<300 t,<,S- __  IJ, 979 :"-471)11 1.4~~.-l':- ,,. !fJ~. ': 11! :_141 ~!11' 1_1f S6.:5: 00 147.S(J700 57_,-,,,; ~JJ ':.i.;i' , ~ . ~ ~ ~9.l 87.tG9.00 0 ~.23:!50 ~ 77),.~l_t(J(.) 12,'lf').314 5{1 5.S4l.~3.f)(J ~.Ol(l.951.88 -154,71!8.00 157,70') 00 179.9'".f.)94 12s.1,2 (() 2<15.,94 00 512.-115 ()) 4/1\',)--1_~:(, 00 SO'