Auton's e-mail:

EDITOR'S NOTE : The following e-mail was sent by school trustee Lindley Auton to the news media and her fellow board members.

The budget committee has not met at all to discuss this proposed budget. I received my copy of the proposed budget on May 27, (packet postmarked May 25.) Prior to receiving the budget on May 27, I had asked several times when the budget committee would be meeting, as I do not call the meetings. Keep in mind that awards programs, recognitions, retirement parties and graduations were of importance during the days after our first receipt of the proposed budget on May 27. After careful study, I contacted the budget committee chairperson, Ola Copeland, on June 7, to request that the budget committee meet, prior to, or after the called board meeting, (to review stadium materials), on Monday, June 12. This would be most convenient for trustees since we would already be meeting. Ms. Copeland said that Ms. Greene denied her request, stating that we had had three weeks to review the proposed budget. I had the packet in my possession for 11 days at the time of my request. True study of the budget takes at least that long. Rubber Stamping is much less time consuming.

To let the taxpayers know, prior to the first and ONLY reading of the budget, that has not been reviewed by the budget committee, or the full board, there are some things you might want to know.

10 teachers positions, lost to attrition, were not filled in last year's budget. 14 will not be filled in this budget. No additional contingency teacher salaries are budgeted (only the usual 3.) Class sizes will definitely increase in the following schools:

Alma Elementary-grade 1

B.D. Lee Elementary-grade 2

Corinth Elementary-grade 1

Luther Vaughn Elementarygrade 2

Mary Bramlett Elementary-grade 5

What about our district goal in the Strategic Plan? What about students? What about education?

No nurses are funded in this budget. "Alternate Funding" takes all nurses out of our budget. Only 6.7 were funded in last year's budget. What about student safety? What about district liability?

Many teachers have expressed concern about the need for more qualified substitutes. That item has been REDUCED by $100,000.00. What about education? What about safety?

SASI Clerks are not being given additional days as requested by every single Elementary School Principal, although it would cost the district only about $50,000.00 to implement that needed change. But...

There is an increase in supplemental salaries to the tune of $374,000.00, without specification. Not sure what that is.

Why do we need more and more assistant principals at Gaffney Middle School, when one principal once manned the ship?

There is $17,860.00 added to the transportation budget for "hazardous mileage", which I think is a small price to pay to help protect children from the threat of accidents and predators. Children do not need to walk .2 mile to their homes. This is a different world than it was when that law was written. It's our job to keep kids safe. While this amount is being added to our budget, parents will be notified of state law regarding lawful stops and the elimination of this service will reduce costs. Huh? Add the expense, but remove the service? What about the safety of children?

And bus drivers tell me that they will be having to park their buses together rather than at their homes, where most of their routes originate. That slices a little off bus driver income and places buses at greater risk for multiple vandalism threat. These are the people who transport our most valuable commodity.

$155,000 is added to pay for new technology coaches. The Technology Plan calls for integrating technology by use of our science, math and reading coaches. Why technology coaches? How much have the coaches really...really helped students? Ask a principal. What about following the "plans" that we pay, Lord knows what, to formulate and implement? Why pay to develop plans if we aren't going to follow them?

There is a $69,090.00 increase, (as opposed to last year's decrease of $28,440.00), in "purchasing" in this budget. Hopefully that money can go to the classrooms, so that teachers can stop using their own money to purchase classroom supplies. How much of it will be spent to pay for friendly consultants, bogus studies and legal fees to assist in walking on that slippery slope of legality?

We see an increase of $10,000 for School Resource Officers in this budget, in addition to the matched grant amount of $17,543.00, totaling $207,543.00 in addition to the contribution from the Sheriff's Office, (Thanks!),of $17,543.00. Hopefully this is a true safety measure.

The superintendent informed the board of a decline in assessed value this budget year, but the budget actually shows an increase of $1,860,684.00 in assessed property values.

Fee in Lieu revenue has increased by $717,314.00 over last year.

Revenue from the Educational Finance Act has increased over the last three years by (per pupil) $209 in '04-'05, $438 in '05-'06, $ 77 in '06-'07.

That's a per pupil funding increase of $724.00. We have approximately 9300 students. Do the math. Over the last three years, we have seen a $6,733,200.00, (over $6.7 MILLION )increase just in EFA funding. Hmmmmm. Are you awake yet?

Don't forget about the millage increase (to 156) we property owners have been shouldering for the last few years. How much was that again? In dollar amount, about $3,000,000.00. That's three million each year in revenue that was not available before that tax hike. Want to see it happen again...and watch the dollars skip over the classroom? Keep electing trustees who allow budgets like these.

I asked my questions in private last year, and was assured, before a witness, that the expected corrections would be made. That did not happen. That's why I'm telling you about it BEFORE it passes this time.

We are also adding the use of Barnwell Funds, typically used for capital projects to pay for instructional program funding. Why do we even need to do that? Well...here's part of the reason.

Property insurance costs a little more each year due to the acquisition of new and improved facilities. There's more of that coming. Call me crazy, I thought improvements saved in insurance and utility costs. Projected utility costs are up by $146,100.00 over last year, after a $40,000.00 projected savings the previous year.

Here's the part that will interest you most. This is what I can decipher from previous budgets and this one:

Here are the approximate administrative increases (about 45 employees) 2002-2003---$49,752.00 2003-2004---$35,101.00 2004-2005---$165,000.00

2005-2006---$141,805.00

2006-2007---$84,716.00 proposed

Seriously confusing, but appears to figure with step AND index? The step increases were to eliminate confusion and create uniformity. Why are we still using grades, indexes, etc.?

There has been an employee taking those step increases illegally, but the board chooses to take no action regarding that matter. Did you know that even newly approved employees, who haven't worked a day yet, will receive the increases, if they were on the books at the time of this budget passing? Who knew? Plenty of people.

Approximate Classified Increases (about 323 employees) 2003-2004---0

2004-2005---0

2005-2006---4 % + step increase (to 22 yrs)

2006-2007---2.4 5+ step increase (to 22 yrs) proposed

Approximate Certified Increases (about 622 employees)

2003-2004---.6% + step increase ( to 10 yrs) + 2%

2004-2005---2.07 + step increase (to 22 yrs)+ 2%

2005-2006---same as previous year

2006-2007---2.54% + step increase

Increase for School Board Trustees (9 employees) 2002-2003---0 2003-2004---0 2004-2005---0 2005-2006---$9,117.00

2006-2007---0

The Board Contingency Fund is $164,700.00 for this year. It was $148,230.00 last year. We are paid $5,000.00 per trustee per year. That money shows as another line item under personnel. Why such an increase in contingency funding? Our printing is done "in-house" now. Our procurement department surely purchases our paper and ink in bulk quantities. Few trustees are interested enough, or are too busy, to travel to conferences and workshops.

One important question to consider:

When determining step increases:

If an employee has a BA degree and 5 yrs, earns MA degree and 10 more yrs, earns PhD ...

Is that employee paid as if he/she had a doctor's degree for all 15 years, or is he/she paid according to the actual degree held at the time of service? You are not going to like the answer.

We have a new method of classifying maintenance grades. Wonder if the employees who don't qualify for the grades, for which they are paid, will see a reduction or freeze in pay. Wonder if the ones who do will be compensated fairly.

These are just a few things for the taxpayers to ponder as we, brilliant trustees, go into our first and only reading to approve the School District budget for 2006-2007.

So, I've done my newspaper griping before the vote. I usually save it for the board room first, but I've already learned how much good that does. Lindley H. Auton

906 White Plains Road