Muscogee County School Board rejects tentative budget

For various reasons, a divided Muscogee County School Board rejected the tentative budget superintendent David Lewis’ administration presented during Monday evening’s called meeting.

The vote was 3-4. Voting yes were board chairman Rob Varner of District 5, vice chairwoman Pat Hugley Green of District 1 and Athavia “A.J.” Senior of District 3. Voting no were Kia Chambers, the nine-member board’s lone countywide representative, John Thomas of District 2, Mark Cantrell of District 6 and Frank Myers of District 8. Naomi Buckner of District 4 and Shannon Smallman of District 7 were absent.

The overall numbers in the proposed spending plan of $274,600,024 haven’t changed. It’s still an increase of 2.2 percent in expenses compared to this fiscal year. It still keeps the millage rate at 23.37, for the 20^th straight year. And it still projects raises for about 85 percent of the district’s staff — the first significant increase in the local pay supplement since at least the early 1990s, Lewis has said — including a 2 percent raise for certificated educators but not including employees with one year of experience or less.

But the difference Monday evening, and what ignited a heated debate, was how and when the numbers and their explanations were presented.

During the May 25 budget work session, Chambers led the board’s request for the administration to explain the increase or decrease “when we have large chunks of money.” Lewis promised such an explanation for variances of $50,000 or more.

Three weeks later, the 16-page document the administration distributed to board members Monday was its answer. Chambers thanked Theresa Thornton, the district’s chief financial officer, for the detailed information but said it arrived too late for her due diligence.

“I think it would be a disservice for me to vote to approve something I just received 15 minutes ago,” she said.

Green noted the only difference in the information was the added explanations; the numbers hadn’t changed, she said.

It’s not that she mistrusts the information, Chambers added, “but when you give me additional information, I like to read over it, and that might prompt additional questions. I don’t think anything fishy is going on.”

Thomas and Myers certainly do.

After the 30-minute presentation from Thornton, the board spent most of the next 30 minutes arguing over dueling documents. Thomas presented his eight-page analysis of the budget’s salaries, the proposed ones compared to this year.

The administration’s document shows proposed raises for teachers totaling $3.5 million, but Thomas’ analysis shows the proposed budget reducing teacher salaries by a total of $3.7 million. Thomas asked Thornton to explain the discrepancy.

Thornton called it a “misinterpretation” in Thomas’ analysis. “We did not change any information,” she said.

“I’m here to say you did change quite a bit of stuff,” said Thomas, an IRS agent.

“Let me explain budgeting to you, sir,” Thornton replied.

After further explanation from Thornton, Thomas concluded, “Something is fishy here. This is like a shell game, and I’m calling you on it.”

Varner interjected: “It’s disrespectful of people in this district to accuse them of fraud. … Please refrain from making such baseless charges against these professionals.”

Some in the audience applauded, Thomas apologized, and Varner continued.

Varner said Thomas should have shown “basic courtesy” by privately asking Thornton to explain the difference in their numbers instead of “trying to throw a gotcha moment in public.”

Thomas said he relied on the numbers the administration provided and he arranged them in a spreadsheet to make them easier to understand.

Myers reminded Varner last year’s budget process was the “first rodeo” for himself, Thomas and Chambers, who were elected in 2014, “and the actual numbers changed the night we were to vote on the actual budget without any notice to the board. That is undisputed. That breeds this mistrust. You might not like some of the words used, but John has an absolute right to call it a shell game. You used the word fraud. John is a grown man. He’s a duly elected board member, and he can have his say.”

Varner said Thomas insinuated fraud.

“Then it’s printed in the dang newspaper,” Varner added, “and the public is going to think something is wrong.”

Myers made a motion, seconded by Thomas, to table the vote on the tentative budget. The motion failed 2-5, with only Myers and Thomas voting for it. Chambers and Cantrell did, however, support them in voting against the original motion to adopt the tentative budget.

Myers said he made the motion because the administration didn’t include a raise of 3 percent for teachers, which Gov. Nathan Deal promised in January.

Lewis previously explained and reiterated Monday night that the district received $1.6 million for raises from the state. That amounts to less than 1 percent in salary increases, so his administration is proposing to more than double that amount, Lewis said.

State law requires the board to pass a budget before next fiscal year starts July 1. Monday’s called meeting was for tentative adoption. The final vote on the proposed budget is scheduled for the board’s next monthly meeting, June 20.

Thornton, however, told the Ledger-Enquirer after the meeting that board policy requires tentative adoption of the budget a week before the final vote. Lewis said he will confer with Varner and board attorney Greg Ellington but expects the June 20 vote to now be for tentative adoption and to have a called meeting a week later for final adoption.

Thornton said the state funding for the raises is based on district enrollment. “Most (districts) got about 1 percent,” she said.

Asked for his reaction to the board’s rejection of his administration’s tentative budget, Lewis said, “We have to have a budget, and we’ll have one before the end of this fiscal year.”

Asked whether he will present anything different in the budget at the next meeting, Lewis said, “I don’t plan to do so. At this point in time, that is the budget we’re presenting. We feel like it’s a very fiscally sound and prudent budget, and it meets all the parameters the board outlined at the retreat back in February. So we feel like we’ve accomplished what we were asked to do.”

Cantrell didn’t say during the meeting why he voted against tentative adoption of the proposed budget. His reasoning echoed Chambers when he told the L-E in a voicemail, “I don’t think there’d be a problem, but I want to make sure I read everything thoroughly before I vote on it.”

This story was originally published June 13, 2016 at 8:06 PM with the headline "Muscogee County School Board rejects tentative budget."