Budget cuts

Gibbs Magnet School PTA 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 324-2490 'Working Together for a Better Future received May 25, 1993 JUN 3 '3 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Federal Court P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas OliiCS of Desegregation Moiwcnng 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The patrons of the Gibbs International Magnet School very concerned about the proposed elimination of the computer lab attendant position from our school. are Since our teachers do not have time to assume the responsibilities of the computer lab, this decision could result in an inferior program in which our children might not receive the full benefits of the lab. The computer lab attendant is the heart of our computer progreun. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position. At a recent meeting, several of our patrons wanted to show their support by signing a petition urging the Little Rock School Board to reject the proposal, your information. A copy is attached for Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Willie J. les Co-Pres iaent Attachment Annette Thomas-Jones Co-President Wright 7993 judge Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs Intenaationat Magw< urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districts proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. , / // -^d-kjLay< JMWk C^C^C lat the pe / -7/'. tk / d c, I Sil ?\ 1aj~^ r (X\aA$s.4jrCi ^2Zz2 L/'7\J.^'k ' dub/ ,- ut^ ahA^ j2p2DE54 'J^^g-TUr Cdcbczl7> -XH-Jk-" -- A-k fe Ax' / Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of 6ibb lateniational MagneC Schaol, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. c :iCi. .4- I ,1 r C' /< t A- 1 fX / MJU, -"P-' F 2. ~n.Lj^^ ( "r fzt,46^S<(y nK:: 'i ,7 Petition to the Little Rock School Board SI y\/e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs In^ai'natiawai Magnet School, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly tr without-a computer lab attendant. i n 64<.z^ <1 O/iAPetition to the Little Rock School Board y^/Q, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs International Magnet Scbool, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districr's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. .I f.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States Oistrict Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LftHe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 16, 1993 Mr. Willie Jones and Ms. Annette Thomas-Jones, Co-Presidents Gibbs PTA Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Annette and Willie, I hope you both remember me. I taught kindergarten at Franklin when your older daughter was in Louise Carpenters room, about ten years ago. Of course, I also remember Annette from the AEA, during years I was active in the LRCTA. I recently received a copy of the letter you sent Ann Brown and she asked me to respond to your concerns regarding the elimination of the computer lab attendant position at Gibbs. I realize this response may not reach you until the opening of school, since the above is the school address. I sincerely regret the delay. Any budget cuts the district recommends for the magnet schools must be made in consultation with the Magnet Review Committee (MRC). Im sure you remember the attempt to eliminate Gibbs music teacher last year, and the later reversal of that decision. This years proposed budget reduction will also be given close scrutiny by the court and. Im sure, the MRC. A budget hearing is scheduled for early July and the eliminated positions will be discussed. We appreciate receiving your input and the attached petition from other concerned patrons. Thank you for taking the time to speak out. Sincerely, Melissa Ripling Guldin Associate Monitor122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO
FROM: SUBJEC July 29, 1993 A Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD ^m<ala :T.^- 93-9 Daggett, Community Education 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community As I explained over the phone, we Education 93-94 budget. have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, X wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut programs if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalSeptember 28, 1993 SUSAN JRBCEIVso SEP 3 0 1933 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 us. district judge Dear Judge Wright: This letter expresses the sentiments of nurrierous LRSD employees..Even'though'we feel it would be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. package: 1, Twelve month administrators received the following 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience - 20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience - 25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days
because, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three or- TUE 11'27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX in luiyyibbib four days onehalf percent. for most of them to recoup the other one and we strongly feel^ administrators LRSD employees and bears a copletely district, costly granted to 12 month . __4 ^,4 of that the package unfair to the 1 total lack of equity. . for the _ district, m good remainder of the It is also wellbeing -- conscience, grant such a , monetarily speaking - How can this benefit to these financial administrators. investigate this package Please . fAirfip.^s and finfinc J:ilS S indebted to you for your i.l intel and question pubHcly the a rtftr.ision, of such decision. this matter. Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESRECEIVED FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 8 ^993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 1 S1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL H. BRENTS, CLERK By: CEPTeLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER During a budget hearing on July 8, 1993, representations were made by certain members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to the effect that they understood the financial peril of the district. specifically an anticipated $11,000,000 deficit despite a budget that was technically balanced, and that the board would take steps to deal with the problem. It was suggested by one member that the board would need to know by Christmas 199 3 what budget cuts to make in order to address this problem. In addition. there was a discussion concerning the board having to approve $25,000 line item budget transfers before such transfers were made. A partial transcript of the budget hearing during which these representations were made is attached hereto. Because it is not clear if the board has begun to consider specific budget cuts or if it is in fact approving $25,000 line item budget transfers, the Court hereby orders the board to file with the Court a report on how they are being more involved in the 3 0 2 0budgeting process, how they are preparing themselves to make specific budget decisions, how their approval is being sought and received, and which specific line item budget transfers the board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August 1993. This report must be filed with the Court on or before December 3, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED this /6 day of November 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR^zCT J JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/a) FRCP ON lANCE Wl WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP BY -2-NOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 p.02 but I just wanted to point out that what was submitted, and, of course, it s not July 30th yet - THE WITNESS
I understand. a THE COURT
- what was submitted was not what the Court had in mind, and I do think that it would be very beneficial if you talk to the monitors, specifically to Mr. Mooney, and flesh this out MR. MALONE: Right. THE COURT: - as to what we meant. MR. MALONE: And - and, your Honor, but we have, in fact, had some of those conversations and well continue to have those, and thats what were planning to do when we meet with them and talk with them next week is to continue that dialogue regarding an action plan and the budgetary process and what it should be. THE COURT
I know that Dr. Bernd also indicated last summer that he was going to include the board in these budget decisions to a greater extent than they had been. In other words, in the budget process to a greater extent than the board had been included previously. What action has been taken on that front? Is there now a policy in place so that the board considers certain budgetary actions as part of this process other than just approving the whole document? MR. MALONE: Your Honor, I wouldnt say that there is a policy. leant speak to that, but I do know that the outline contains certain things that will occur or proposals about what will occur in terms of cabinet work session and board work sestons and how that will be worked Into the process. And, also, in the discussions weve had regarding the budgetary process in general, theres some ideas about how that process ought to work. Some of these things as the Court noted that there are some stipulations at one of the board meetings about certain things being on hold until certain business cases were presented to the board. I think that is the start of of the board involvement in the entire process, and I think thats some - all of what will be worked out in March, THE COURT: All right. MR. MALONE: Mr. Milhollen had some comment. THE WITNESS: There - there was one policy that was was instituted recently, and I - I cant quote it exactly, but it has to do witli when budget managers want to have funds transferred between budgets, and there is now a dollar limit thats been set that exceeds that dollar limit, and I believe it's $25,000. It must come before the board and be approved before the transfer can be effected. So, that is one policy change that - that has been made, THE COURT
All right. I dont have any of the board members on tlic stand right now, but Mr. Jackson has been very kind about offering what he remembers. And 1 know that Mr. Jackson Is an accountant. Mr. Jackson, how do you see this problem of the current budget being balanced with funds that are nonrencwable and with having expenses that are recurring? Do you have any professional opinion on that or a particular concern? MR. JACKSON: I - Ive got a lot of concerns and I think Ive expressed diose concerns publicly and privately in our meetings. And Mr. Riggs has continually pointed out that the budget that we have this next year whereas it reflects a balanced budget, inNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 truth, is $11 million worth of deficit spending. And I think these programs going forward you asked him, Mr. MilhoUcn, what would you do if you put - I believe no mills but with cuts. If you look at his five mills with cuts, he simply adds position program cuts and starting in 94-95 of 4 million, and it increases up to 10 million in 98-99. Essentially, what 1 think with no mills and cuts for 1990 - for 1994-95, you have to have $15 million in cuts. In *95-96, another 16 or $17 million in cuts. But I think I think my position is that there has to be cuts and - and substantial cuts, made and, you know, we can we can spend the next three weeks in court here talking about each of these little 100,000, $200,000 line item cuts that have been made or that are proposed to be made if you want to establish a record, but it it, quite frankly, is not going to solve the problem. THE COURT: Right. MR. JACKSON: And - and so, you know, what - what I think is a better use of our time and a better use of this staffs time is that they be over at 810 West Markham figuring out what these programs are and where we can make these cuts. I think one of the things - one of the actions we took at our last board meeting, and that had to do with the labor contracts in terms of getting board involvement, is that that the board insisted that those persons responsible for the labor contract get witli the board, that we have both private as well as - as a group sessions looking at what we see in those contracts that needs to be changed, and there has to be some changes made. You cannot continue under the status quo. Now, having said all that, I -1 think it is unrealistic for the district to think - and this is my personal opinion - unrealistic for the district to think that we will be able to accomplish all of this simply with cuts. We will have to ask for a millage increase. But I dont think that the district or this commun the district and the people that support this district are capable of selling that millage increase until we, in fact, make some cuts and some serious cuts and establish some degree of accountability. THE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate everything youve said. I do wish that I could recess this and send you all away to make your own budget cut decisions. I feel that under the mandate from the Eighth Circuit I have to monitor what you are doing. Another problem I have is that Dr. Bernd did promise a year ago that he was going to do these things, and they have not been done, and, meanwhile, you have been receiving the desegregation money from the state, the settlement money, and it is being spent. And as a result, I feel that I cannot give you any slack any more. He was a new superintendent and he made these representations and I gave him time to what he said he was going to do, and he was not able or did not or some otherwise just didnt accomplish it. And so, now, here we are a year later, and without a permanent superintendent. And I appreciate the boards concern and tlte recognition of the seriousness of this problem. And I do hope that you are able to get together and I hope you will listen to the advice that Mr. Mooney gives you. I hope the board would be willing to sit down wth him and listen to some of his constructive suggestions to get you out of this hole. Il will take some working together, j^d I know that if the board does it on its own, the community will be much more receptive to it than if the Court has to do it. And thats what ought to happen.NOV- 5-93 fRI 14:50 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 1 regret that were tn this lawsuit. I wish we didnt have to have it, but the constitution requires that these schools be desegregated and the Eighth Circuit has said that they are not. Theyre not up to constitutional standards yet and the Plan will make them that way if you follow it. , And so, thats why were here. And, of course, the ultimate beneficiaries are the school children, I hope. Thats what we want, quality educational for all of our children. And so, we will make every effort to comply with this Plan and to squeeze this budget where it can be. But I appreciate your remarks. And, Mr. Riggs, do you have any that you might like to make to the Court at this time? MR. RIGGS: Well, I - the question, your Honor, and the whole issue is going to come down to this is is really political courage. The board knows it you know, I mean, by state law, we got to cut unless we go into receivership. Either you take us in or we go in through one of the chapters. I tliink Mr, Milhollens analysis is fairly accurate from what - what Ive seen today and what Mr. Mooney and Mr. Morgan and I have discussed at length. So, it it really is going to come down to a - you know, this year, theres a paper balance, but its $11 million deficit. Next year, theres going to be an actual deficit. The question is does the board have the political courage to do something about it. If they dont, well, we could close the schools early, you take us over, we go into receivership. That's really what It comes down to. Now, along those lines where where Mr. Mooney is going to be of great value is - is the process. Were going to have to have this process developed over - and - and implemented, like, as quickly as we can so that by - in my opinion, by December, by Christmas, wc know what budget cuts that have to be made next year and have to be made over the next two or three years, and whether - as Mr. Jackson says, whether were going to have to have a millage increase, which I believe hes right. We re going to have to do it. And hes right about were not going to be able to sell them unless we can get our house in order. So, thats where where Mx. Mooney and Mr. Morgan both are going to, in my opinion, help the district to get the process and the procedures on line and going. Now, its up to the board co hold the administrators accountable for that process. If anything where weve been lax, we havent done a good job. Obviously, youre up here talking about what Dr. Bernd has promised over the last year and, you know, in my opinion, one of the reasons ho aint here today in that chair is because he made promises and didnt do anything about it. He decided to leave on his own, but he could easily have left because of some other reasons, some of them being that - that he was making promises wc knew he wasnt going to keep to the Court and to us. So, if we - if we get the process developed, if we implement that process and if we have the political courage to to take the bullet to bite the bullet and do those things, cut the programs that may be programs that patrons like but dont have anything to do with desegregation, thats going to be up to us. And if we cant do it, then Im sure as Ive said before, were going to have to put the keys on the table and somebody else is going to have to lock up and turn off the lights. THE COURT: Well, I might add, once you have a superintendent in place andNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:51 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 once you have thia budget process ongoing and the Desegregation Plan audit in place and working and administrators in place who are answerable to the board, then the Court will not require the presence of the board at these hearings. But I have felt that there has been a vacuum in this district as to who's accountable and whos responsible, a leadership vacuum, and that is why the ult^ate people - you are ultimately responsible, the board members, and thats why youve had to be here and thats why you will continue to have to come until this thing gets in order. But I do appreciate your attention to this and your wilhngness to face up to these hard decisions that must be made, and I do hope the board does have that poll deal courage you refer to because that is what the community will accept is your political courage. A community is very reluctant to accept whatever a federal judge does, and 1 know that. But I will do it. It is my job. And if necessary, I will do it. I dont want to. MR. RIGGS: Well, I guess a lot of it - THE COURT: And- , . MR. RIGGS: - your Honor, too. gets back to the community putting pressure on the board to have the courage to do the right thing, and - and Its my opinion is that the community needs to put that pressure on this board to get our house in order or the community loses the right to to guide their ship and THE COURT: Thats correct, MR. RIGGS: - then thats when you have to step in and - and guide the ship. THE COURT: That is correct. And the community did not elect me and they cant take me out of office and I am answerable to the constitution and to this country. But federal judges are never popular. They are always resented. I understand why, and I dont want to play that role of running your district. I want you to run it and I want you to make these veiy difficult decisions that you must make, and I dont want to tell you precisely each one. Those are your decisions, but theyre going to be very hard ones. MR. RIG GS: Y oure right. THE COURT: And I appreciate your being here today. I only wanted to ask him one more question. Are you going to be the planner for this? I havent looked at this. Is he the chief planner at this point, Mr. Milhollen? THE WITNESS'. Im not sure thats been determined yet. THE COURT
Oh. MR. MALONE: No, and thats - and thats - THE COURT: All right. , MR, MALONE: And thats what we were saying, with the state we re in, there were going to be - once those cabinet discussions are held and - and t^e place, some decisions can be made at that point as to who the the go-to person will be. THE COURT: All right. MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton. Im sorry. You and Ms. Gee are both welcome to say anything you - MR. HAMILTON: Right. I thought maybe one of us would be next. I certainly wanted to have some comments. THE COURT: Well, those two have been more eager to talk, and so that s the reason. I didnt want to pick on people. So, go ahead, Mr. Hamilton.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: "The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations." I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and Judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. 1 also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown LRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 & 1993 (J i-* if I Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Lntite 3Scfe PTA Comcill D 0 FF5 2 A 1995 February 20, 1995 iJiciGiOi.nq Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September. 1994. in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or. at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 per day. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered
therefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, MU Debbie Glasgi Glasgow, President(y Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName - A L y/iU/ Little Rock PTA Council DATE
liM '^5' School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone /-^ryf A^AUsyPh {^20 '^nrck'^iAr/ I'i'iz ? cQ. / K 2. TU ao r 1 : > c r i' 1 y <1, !\.lli-: T I3l( /Csa rl rk '1 <)/.. OTu^az-- A? -VA^ S , 3L ICv1UL4/l l\ ft X ^f. n /UcC\^U C6Ur,c3 po.y 77 -'lA,.. i /\ I f 21 6 (3 }yidjc ) 'I I J 3 0 ') '> C- 'h
flCOName CjLivv/yixZ ~Wy>d^ 1 't Little Rock PTA Council DATE=_a^^/y^,//7, /ggs School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone id ^'fWiV^ki S^'AfNS____ ______ V\a5> '(1 CL^r^l Q'Dgc^ m^- lx ^A^CA I jL.^ \ .d (^1 /I A W-^P -----Vc^A -^"/u b I xt V. 9dzxi C ~7 <9 3^0 Kuh b/Q- L. r2 6 (Muisl (1/- 2i^ L^r- I < I7^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1390-96 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION {DRAFT 2} 02:-22-35 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 BUDGET 1995-96 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 [depository INTEREST iREVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES IMISC. AND RENTS !interest on INVESTMENTS [ATHLETIC RECEIPTS I L TOTALl ' REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES [county GENERAL ! SEVERANCE TAX I [ REVENUE - ST A TE SOURCES iMFPA______________________ jSETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION WORKERS COMPENSATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND TOTAL [TOTAL REVENUEQPgflATHHe: 118,998 I 317,646 I 120,412 I 317,978 I 141,376 I 91,322 ?5,823,6S6 73,971 I 16,232 [ 90,203 j ! 22.037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 46,472,6I 28,585 95,588 613,166 737.339 103,123,807 38,196,979 21,081,833 ' 4,250,186 ' 140,858 241,476 224,667 I 406,878 ! 354,446 I 100,857 64,998,180 73,419 i 15,350 [ 88,769 39,701,855 22,220,949 4,293,380 145,690 360,734 245,162 574,918 208,519 37,005 67,838 212 73,428 18,031 91,459 27,264,460 i 25,275,221 8.637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 0 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 0 48,670,884 45,101,764. 9,385 129,428 394,675 503,365 1,036,853 114,794,488 40,866 171,006 ______0 458,905 670,777 113,702,212 39,625,387 22,011,928 5,666,289 146,379 333,970 182,353 I 194,465 I 265,622 j 38,600,327 21,420,949 4,802,692 145,000 325,000 ' 180,000 ' 220,892 ' 322,232 I 40,330,355 I 41,330,355 21,420,949 i 21,742,264 i 4,802,692 ! 4,700,000 i 154,473 i 368,6527 157,385 220,892 335,000 74,416 102,005 80,000 I 155,000 ' 385,000
139,000 ' 230,000 [ 375,000 : 85,000 : 68
SQ3
809 66,119
O97 67,870-398 63
T41
619 I I 73,210 I 17,749 I 90,959 73,419 18,000 91.419 24,710,980 I 26,162,235 8,094,112 I 6,042,591 ________0 i 1,600,000 0 ! 1,382,418 1,282,804 263,992 3,198 3,553,095 517,260 2,720,581 792,081 0 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,198 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 797,893 367.319 43,320,521 45,252,162 108,747 18,000 -126,747 100,000 i 18,000 i I 26,156,074 i 26,526,188 , 6,042,591 i 1,600,000 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 6,984 3,788,805 543,922 2,764,143 790,466 367.319 44,958,795 29,969 1,228,696 _______0 348,725 1,607,390 38,000 500,000 900,000 716,116 2.154,116^ 113,519,679 jl 13,616,794 38,000 500,000 900,000 685.103 2,123,103 115,079,043 3,829,942 0 i 0 j 1,100,000 I 1,444,499 i 235,000 j 7,000 I 3,850,000 ! 580,435 [ 2,800,000 I 808,523 j 375,000 I 41,556.587 30,000 500,000 250,000 685,103 i 1,465,103 1 jl2iS3^r i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1^-96 REVENUE ANO expenditure PROJ ECTION (DR AFT 2) O2-22-9S ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 /REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET 1995-96 I CHAPTER I jCHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER I TOTAL i revenue-magnet SCHOOLS ISTATE'LOCAL I TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE I EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS ^PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE [contingency RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES total OPERAT)NGXPa<SESiS EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS total expenses INCREASE (DECREASE) IN fund BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL : 2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4,557,572 12,571,785 12,571,786 120.253.16* 3,275,099 ' 224 423 558.810 I 1,164,511 i 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,221,200 4,286,192 122,666 624,024 ' 1,230,084 I 4,299,095 177,262 628.560 1.003.005 I 5,222,843 6,313,98 6,262,966 6,107,922 I j i 13,887,841 13.887,841 133.905,170 65,192,947 I 73,191,21-3 8,032,967 10,457,140 3,613,450 3.628,473 5,036,791 6,646,769 0 iia2iSQ8.537-
4,190.920 12.571.785 119,371,242 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 13,089,529 I 13,301.449 13.0^.629 13.301,449 i33
i{^^' 133iog4
a94^ 14.236.418 14.236.418 133.961.134 11S.Q79.043 i 112,281,309 : 71,912,128
75,079,647 1 73 .341,-179 8,992,742 i 9,908,175 _________________ 9,305,313 I 10,338.888 jj00,718 I 9,534,751 I 11,369.363 i I.3i7nqn.3 4.010.761 2.973,788 3,959,731 I 2,954.394 5,402,198 7,950,100 0 5,076,338 9,554,535 T13
:J07i46ai _________0 714,896 TT2
S29
Q0iS?:< 3,420,371 1,704,608 ' 4,537,917 ' 8,903,285 0 I T14.320,SO4i 5.132.152 5,922.798 6.688.267 13.887,841 1,777,714 552,490 634,844 643,181 2,321,867 13.089.529 131,641,33g 1,464,395 643.181 2,321,867 1,034,369 3,395,074 TTg^SS*^ 2,9^,0481- 4,429,443 13.301.449 134.310,220 (1,226,126) 1.034,369 4.985,188 609,068 4,184,363 4,793.431 74.566,029 76,619.818 i 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 0 10,422,322 12,000,000 3,000,000 2,600,000 I 10,361,349 12,300,000 . 3,300,000 j 2.900,000 i 5,200,000 I 5,900.000 ' 8,533,631 0 8,532,296 1,000,000 116i807.3J7 :
116i^1,982 121,413,465 ( 6.711.620 14.236.418 137.755^55^ 116,321,982 121,413,465 (3.794,221) (1,242,939) (9,132,156) I i 609.068 4.184.363 609,068 609,068 4,184,363 I 2,941,424 5.370 993,840 i ^210T^ 609.068 2.941,424 609,068 ! (6,190,732)1B5022802 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures As a result of my phone conversation this morning with you and Ms. Brown, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some information on the list of ideas entitled Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiative through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people 1 regularly work with in the district are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the district does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives
information I find useful in planning for the fijture. With the submission of the districts final budget in August, 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. In the joint LRSD/ODM staff meeting on November 22, 1994, we discussed the budget cycle and specifically shortfall strategies. During the discussion of shortfall strategies, I mentioned I had a long list of ideas. Since no one responded, I detected no interest. On December 20, 1994, Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves and offer our assistance. During that meeting, I mentioned the list of ideas, and Fred said he would like to see it. Attachment A is a copy of the document I sent Fred on January 6, 1995. During small talk at the beginning of a budget meeting on February 3, 1995, Fred acknowledged he had received the list, and said the district had already thought of some of the items. The district had the list. Another thing of importance. The list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I, were I in your shoes, would seriously research as a possible strategy. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize the point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. If you read Attachment A, you will note that statement on each and every page. If you ask, I am confident Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness will confirm I made essentially the same qualifier when they asked for the list. Keeping ideas secret has no value to me. I will share my thoughts with anyone willing to listen. Fred asked, and I shared them. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness asked, and I shared them. Had you asked, I would have shared them with you. I have been trying to share my ideas with the LRSD for two years
some have listened and some have not. However, getting people to listen gets harder with each passing month. If you want any of my ideas, ask and I will share them with you. If you want me to give them to you first, hire me. Copy to: Ann BrownB4112803 1/5/95 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. * School Closings. \ Outsourcing transportation. \ 11/7 Board Work Session. CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 11/7 Board Work Session. * Outsourcing other. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Delivery of Nursing Services. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staff Development. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Clerical Support. * 11/7 Board Work Session. IRC - Staffing/Use. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Federal Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. * 11/7 Board Work Session. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Facilities Usage. * Academic Incentive Grants. * 11/7 Board Work Session. I i 11/7 Board Work Session. ATTAtHHeMT 13. Student Assessment. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 14. Vocational Education Delivery. 11/7 Board Work Session. 15. Four-Year Old Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 16. HIPPY. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 17. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 18. Contract Lengths. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 19. Community Education. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 20. Millagoe Election. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 21. Spending Freeze. * 11/7 Board Work Session. MOONEYS ADDITIONAL LIST OF POSSIBLE SAVINGS * Performance based pay * * * * * * * * * * Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll
problems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze
freeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes J * * * * * * Car allowance. Cellular phones. Vacation days policy revision. Review sick leave policy. Cafeteria plan
better education and selling. Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM Initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance. * Incentive program for accident free driving. * Six period day. * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization. Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoff/RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing
transportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, all support services in bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PCs. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Building rentals. 9 * Sell vacant properties. * Trash compactor
COMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the A APT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * * Ask Union to give some contract back. Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. S~ 4-' l!JLi^ !? *7^^ n * : " '*r TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 OKlcs ot Desegrsgalicn Mon
March 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHIT DRFN 'T / / fjB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown-7-- SSGEsV 'iQ-. LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MAR 5 1995 FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY P.ARESjTS O^segregaKca March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly yvritten and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled vith inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the AREA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out if this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. How dare the district ^^g^st that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. J a'MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run costhenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll
problems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze
freeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over S35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan
better education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance
preferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving
both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 20* * * * * * Flatten administrative organization
remove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofE'RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing
transportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.
use Westside as chip. * Approvach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building
consolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor
COMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. 21* Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA fonnula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 22B5030702 MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is the most recent version of a spreadsheet which I developed to help track budget actions. I am just now working the bugs out of it, so let me know if you have any recommendations. This tracking tool will be updated only when actions occur. Copy to: Ann BrownSheet! Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction In Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC___ BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A A M M M Y M D M M M M M M GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSheetl $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 $ $ Y YY N NY 170,000.00 669,900.00 Y Y ! 1 Y N Page 3 Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 182,783.90 Y Y I 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 607,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 750,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N $ 849,282.00 $ 11,027,350.08 $ $ $ 10,178,068.08 $ Page 4B5031301 MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of March 10, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of this week or first of next week. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost^enefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll
problems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze
freeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan
better education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance
preferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving
both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 21* * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization
remove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofEZRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing
transportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.
use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building
consolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor
COMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. 22* Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 23BO3I5O3 Date: March 15, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which I have been keeping. It is up to date as of March 13, 1995. I have yet to include the Proposed Budget information, but will do so late next week. When I get that done, I will send you an update. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to
Ann BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School_________________ Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park______ Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC iBC ^BC BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M M M A, M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NINCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl ' 9 DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 Y Y Y $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 Y y I $ $ $ 125,268.00 185,828.18 N $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 I N N Y Y N Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ $ 798,696.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 $ 10,652,976.18 $ 9,854,280.18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,449,656.18 6,970,960.18 Page 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NB5032301 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney li^ Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of March 23, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl LRSD PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FNAME: LREEBC01 REVISED: 3/22/95 ITEM SEQ# PROGRAM NAME METHOD PLAN MOD INCR COST DECR COST B/C REC A/D/M PLAN MOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 14 3 227 23 233 24 230 33 Academic Progress Inc Grants 231 Family Life/New Futures 2 [^FourVea r^3ldProgmm 2Q1 213 Guidance Services 215 Health Services/Nursing Services 1 HIPPY 15 McClellan Community School 13 New Futures 226 222 223 224 ____79 ____78 251225 5 203 21 EE/BC EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE EE___ EE EE___ EE EE EE iEE jEE EE___ SEE Y N Y N Y Y N Page 1 $ 445,000.00 $ 28,943.00 $ 175,000.00 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y D Y M M N Y Y Y Y Kzi: X Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Y M M M D M N N Y Y NSheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)_________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park___________ Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SBC___ [bc tec BC tec BC SS SS SS SS SS SS o o o N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943,00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSr INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl * DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y j $ $ $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 130,000.00 626,848.00 Page 3 N I N N Y Y NSheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y 1 $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,447,597.00 6,968,901.00 Page 4 N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 DATE : ^/cl7S TO: PAT Cree' TAK it FROM: Bit-L HgPAfgy NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET MESSAGE: AS pec>cf^sTeD. iS Tf/e- LAresr i/siIs/oaP, TT X CAA Se- At/Y AeiJ>. FeeL FP.ee To cacl.. X X Kt k: X X Kt Kt P.Ol DATE START RECEIVER APR- 6 13:35 5692476 TRANSACTION REPORT APR- 6-95 THU 13:38 TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 2'28" 4 SEND OK X X X X X X X XMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosPbenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll
problems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze
freeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan
better education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost
third party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance
preferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving
both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 24* * * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization
remove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing
transportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.
use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building
consolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor
COMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. 25* Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 26MAY- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 C.'-6 CF 335 03 , Dear Sir
I am writing as a concerned citizen of the Little Rock area, the personnel matters that have faced LRSD in the last months, have been taxing to me, and the friends who are employed in the district. The tremendous amount of stress and uncertainty imposed upon the districts employees is absolutely ridiculous. Listed below you will find some additional factors to consider for budget cuts: 1. 2. 3. Why do they project budget cuts just before the students take the test? (the teachers, supervisors, and directors are usually stressed and the FEELINGS carry over to the students in the classroom.) They want to pay Worthen Bank the money instead of bring the TEST SCORES UP. Did the Superintendent, Special Asst, to the Supt,, Assoc. Superintendent of Desegregation, Director of Human Resources, and Planning Research and Evaluation Directors take a cut in days, or give the district 5 or 10 thousand dollars from their salaries to balance the budget? The reason the Incentive Schools are not operation effectively is because of the incompetent,insensitive,unqualified instructional leaders who are trying to educate the urban Afro-American student, the principals are at Mitchell, Franklin, and Rockefeller Incentive Schools. Don't allow them to continue to DAMAGE the Afro-American students, place them in a west Little Rock school,my- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 SO they won't corrupt the inner city students in the Little Rock Area. 4. 5. The GANGS are infested in the schools because of the tremendous amount of HATE exhibited by the teachers who are only in the teaching profession in the LRSD area to obtain a pay check. So much hate is exhibited from the principals and teachers that the students join gangs, to feel human and the ability to have some self worth.(a lot of teachers come from small town outside of Little Rock, but stay in the system to obtain the monetary benefits.) Why are the Afro-American directors and supervisors the first ones to be eliminated, or to cut the extra personnel in their departments
while the European-Americans maintain their departments, and are allowed to add additional personnel QUIETLY. These are some important factors to consider when you go to court concerning the LRSD Desegregation Case, and why so many of the ideas in the case have not worked. The LRSD Administration office is INFESTED with Institutional Racism, until this FACTOR is eliminated LRSD will never integrate, or effectively educate the students in the Little Rock area. ^aa ^^acx d . 3 MAY 3 1995 Oifice of Desegregaiioii Moniioring PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE CUTS Legal Services (Staff Attorney and Secretary) Deputy Superintendent $ 88,520 VACANT (2) $ 93,969 E, Matthis Associate to the Deputy Gifted & Talented Coordinator $ 12,>1,33 S. Ingram $ 52,671 D, Rynders HIPPY Coordinators (2) Plant Services (EPA or Construction Mgr.) Instructional Technology (was D. Omfleet 1993-94) $ 48,118 A. Roper J. Richardson $ 49,127 $ 42,056 VACANT Supervisor of Math (was J. Trowell 1993-94) $ 55,942 VACANT Displaced Principals (2) $125,288 $628,130 POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDITIONS Administrative Program Supervision $228,130 Net Administrative Savings $400,000 Plant Services current^has these two positions funded, but one recently became vacant, and the other may become vacant The two positions will bo combined and the rcsponsifciliiieswili be employee. met by one CTrrcntJy has three schools with acting principals (King, Carver, Henderson), be filled nArmAnntIv fk,* 1Qe Q_1__1 permanently for the 1995-96 school year. which will A We have five principals who are considered'displaced," Three of these individuals will be reassigned as butldmeonnanak in IQOS-OA anri ____.-ii v. , ... *u uo i cjssignea as building principal in 1995-96 and two positions will be eliminated, which two people will be eliminated as principals at this time. It has not been determined THE BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS OR ON THE POSITIONS LISTED ABOVE, BUT ONLY ON THE ELIMINATION OF 5400,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES,B5O5O5O1 MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of May 5, 1995. The next revision is dependent on district budget action. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll
problems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze
freeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan
better education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost
third party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance
preferably non-monetary 28* Incentive program for accident free driving, both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization
remove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing
transportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H., use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Begin phased chartering of existing schools that volunteer. * Strong phased effort to site-based management 29* Building rentals. * Lease existing available building space rather than build new school buildings. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building
consolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor
COMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/S350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 30B5O5O5O2 Date: May 8, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of May 5, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 3^ 35 36 37~ 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 "59 60 61 Substitute Teacher 204 Voc Ed (non-deseg) 8 Voc Ed (deseg) Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport_____ Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education___________ Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center__________ Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency_____ Eliminate increments _____ Shorten year by 2 days EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC__ BC___ BC BC BC BC___ BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SS SS SS SS fes Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen |SS Reduction in Administrators O O O GROSS TOTALS NET POSITION N N $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 Page 2 N N Y Y A M N N I D D M M jy A M M A A M a M M Y M D M M pMMMD Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N NN Sheetl $ : ft " S INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 261,000.00 Y Y ACT $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y N N $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 Y N PB N N Y N N ACT $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626848.o6 Y PB N ACT Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 18,500.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 228,130.00 $ 688,326 00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 211,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 699,546.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 6,964,143.00 6,275,817.00 Page 4 N N Y Y I Y PB Y H N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N ACT N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N NB5080701 Date: August 7, 1995 To: Ann Brown From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures After the LRSD budget hearings on August 1-2, 1995, you requested that I put together information concerning the times I had contact with LRSD concerning the list known as the Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This memo contains the occasions on which I have some record. In addition to this listing, there were several other instances where staff or board members requested another copy which I provided without note. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiatives through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people I regularly work with in the LRSD are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the LRSD does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives, information I find useful in planning for the future. The brainstorming list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I have gathered from many sources. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize that point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. Also, keeping ideas secret has no value to me. The list is no good unless decision-makers think about it, and this memo will show they had ample opportunity to use these ideas. With the submission of the LRSDs final budget in August 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. I am about to close out the 94-95 fiscal year by adding the final budget information to the list. The brainstorming list is contained as the last section of the comprehensive document
LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY. This document was updated numerous times during the fiscal year, mainly after some significant budget action by the LRSD Board. Attachment A is the most recent version, dated 6/30/95. It will be updated one final time. NOTE: the items in bold print represent the two times I got direct feedback on the shortfall strategies. 8/4/94 I had lunch with John Riggs, and we discussed the budget and several shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. 8/16/94 11/22/94 12/20/95 1/6/95 2/3/95 2/3/95 2/24/95 2/24/95 2/28/95 2/28/95 3/6/95 3/7/95 3/13/95 I provided Mark Milhollen with the latest revision to my lists. In a joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting, I mentioned the brainstorming list which I was maintaining. I noted some research had already been done on some of the items, and that the list was pretty long. No one from LRSD responded
Hank Williams was present. Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves. During the meeting 1 mentioned the list of shortfall strategies, and volunteered a copy to Fred Smith. I sent Fred Smith an annotated copy of the brainstorming list, explaining the material. During a meeting with Mark Milhollen and Fred Smith, we discussed the shortfall strategies on the list. During a casual conversation at the beginning of a budget meeting, Fred Smith and I discussed the list. Fred Smith said the district had already thought of some of the items. I had breakfast with John Riggs. We discussed the budget and some of the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list, specifically health services. I provided him an updated copy of the brainstorming list. Ann Brown and I met with Judy Magness and Russ Mayo. We discussed budget matters, and specifically shortfall strategies and health services. I provided Magness an updated copy of the shortfall strategies. I was brought in on a phone call between Hank Williams and Ann Brown. Hank Williams was complaining that he was not given any of the shortfall strategy information. I pointed out the 11/22/94 staff meeting and the 1/6/95 copy provided Fred Smith. I said I would send him personal copies in the future. I sent a memorandum to Hank Williams providing him a copy of the brainstorming list, and explaining its history and purpose. This was in response to the phone call of 2/28/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/6/95. 1 sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which 1 used to track all shortfall strategies actually acted upon by LRSD. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/10/95.3/15/95 3/22/95 3/23/95 4/6/95 5/5/95 5/8/95 7/14/95 8/2/95 I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/13/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/22/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/23/95. I sent a facsimile copy of the brainstorming list, updated 4/3/95, to Pat Gee. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 5/595. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 5/5/95. Fred Smith, Mark Milhollen, and I met to discuss the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. Fred Smith had prepared a matrix showing some of the strategies down the left side, and obstacles across the top. Fred Smith did most of the talking, and I got the impression the purpose of the meeting was to show Bill Mooney why strategies were not undertaken. I hand delivered a copy of the brainstorming list, update 6/30/95, to Linda Pondexter in court.B4112802 06/30/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4 Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. * * * * * * Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken. * * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 2modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 2. Academic Support Program. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. 3. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. 4. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. 5. Pupil Transportation Services. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 3* 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations
return to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 4* 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3I22I9S Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services. 5* * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. * 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. * 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health * * * services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program 6* * cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY. * * * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 7* * * * * * * * * * * * 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee
the committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 13. Staff Development. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 814. Substitute Teachers. * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 15. Vocational Education. * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools
eliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 9 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut and savings. 16. Safety and Security. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. * 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional cost of $34,965. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration
improve staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 10* * * * * * * * * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe, from 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set at $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept. * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 11* * * * * * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up
around 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. * 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote * on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. 12* * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park * if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed * * * * * * budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 24. Elementary Music Teacher Staffing. * * * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 1325. Improving Student Transportation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.