Linn R-2 board members at their June 15 meeting approved an increase of $300 to the base for teachers, moving it to $32,300 for the 2020-21 school year.

Superintendent Dena Smith recommended the increase to the base salary for certified employees, partially due to the increase in insurance costs.

“I’m hoping to offset that a little bit by putting a little bit on the base,” she said. “It also keeps us competitive with area schools.”

With a $500 increase per step previously approved, Smith said the total raise should be about $800 per employee, but some may get a little more if they earned an advanced degree or took college courses.

Board member Dr. Shawn Strong asked what the total cost would be to the district for this increase.

“Is the 2020-21 budget balanced at this point or is it still negative?” Dr. Strong asked.

“It is not,” Smith replied. “It’s still negative.”

“But you’ve got a plan to get it balanced?” Dr. Strong asked.

Smith said the current budget plan has the district deficit spending approximately $50,000.

“I have been very conservative on revenues, and built in cushions on expenditures,” she added. “However, having sat in on four different webinars regarding budgets for next year, and two conference calls with the governor, no one can tell us what’s going to happen with our money, and how the economy is going to rebound.”

Smith said she has been in contact with current and former superintendents and spoken to administrators in larger and smaller districts to get a feel for how they are setting their numbers, because the district has to determine its state adequacy target, Prop C and classroom trust figures.

“All of those figures will determine the overall budget, and I have tried to underestimate those numbers in the hopes they come in higher,” Smith said.

On the expense side, she said the district will have eliminated next year 3.5 positions, of which, salaries for two of them totaling approximately $56,124 are still in the budget. 

“If I remove those two positions from the budget, it will be a balanced budget,” said Smith. “I just hate to guarantee you it will be a balanced budget not knowing what the revenues are going to do.”

Smith in response to Dr. Strong said next year the district is anticipating a loss of $275,000 in revenues. This year, with the governor’s announcement that he was cutting $131 million from public education, Smith said the current fiscal year will likely be worse, with an estimated $375,000 in state funding. Because positions were not eliminated for this year, Smith said the district will deficit spend, but some of that will be regained next year in local and county revenues, along with decreased expenses.

“One of the things about having good fund balances is you have something for rainy days,” said Smith. “It’s raining.”

Last year, the district ended 2018-19 with fund balances of about 43%, and the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, will provide final fund balance information for 2019-20. Smith estimates R-2 will end 2020-21 with fund balances of about 36%, which is well above the recommended balance of 20%.

“So adding $300 to the base, is that going to hurt us this year?” Board member Tye DeCramer asked. “Can we do that and still be okay?”

Smith explained that the budget includes the addition of the base increase, and once the two unfilled positions are removed, the budget will be balanced.

“I’m not trying to take away from our teachers,” DeCramer said.

“I know what you’re saying,” Smith replied, adding no one expected Gov. Parson to make the cuts he did. “Actually, my bigger concern is this fiscal year instead of next. I think we’ll be okay next fiscal year. This fiscal year we’re going to take a hit.”

“So what do you know that I don’t know?” Dr. Strong asked. “We know next year is going to be worse for higher ed than this year.”

“I cut positions,” Smith replied.

“So it’s not state funding you’re looking at because it’s going to be cut more,” Dr. Strong said. “Did you budget for a $275,000 cut?”

Smith said that is included in her budget.

“I need to become more familiar with your budget because I would think your budget would be worse next year,” Dr. Strong said. “I’m not used to giving a raise when you haven’t balanced the budget. That would make me really nervous.”

Smith said without solid fund balances, and the belief the district could withstand a year or two of deficit spending, she would likewise be concerned.

“But based on the budget we have created, I believe we can give the raise and still have healthy fund balances,” Smith noted.

Resident Hope Gerdes asked if board members had considered that area businesses and the state of Missouri have frozen all pay raises and hiring for the next year.

No one responded, but DeCramer asked one more time for confirmation that once the two positions are eliminated from the budget, the $50,000 shortfall will be covered, to which Smith replied in the affirmative.

“That is taking into account what we have been told to guesstimate for revenues next year,” Smith said.

This year, the state adequacy target should have reached $6,375 per weighted Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Smith said it hit that mark for a short time but then dropped to $6,310.

For next year, Smith said she budgeted the lower amount. “What they have told us is that they do believe we will get back up to $6,375,” said Smith. “But you don’t start at $6,375, even in a non-economically challenged time.”

Smith added she projected the state adequacy target at $6,310 for the entire year, though it’s likely to go up as the year goes on.

The same scenario is true of the Prop C sales tax, which this year was set at $1,049 per ADA; Smith set the upcoming budget at $975. Classroom trust was at $619 this year, and Smith set the rate at $606 for the coming year. Both of these rates for 2020-21 have been put in place for the entire year, which means if they are increased, the district will see a benefit.

“I’m all for paying teachers more, I just hope the budget is balanced,” said Dr. Strong.

Smith explained that she had not removed the two positions because they opened up after she had prepared budget documents for the board.

Resident Carol Branson asked when it was discussed to eliminate those positions, adding that is an open-session topic.

Niederhelm reminded visitors that the open forum portion of the meeting had ended, and called for a vote, which was unanimous.

* In other business, a preliminary budget was adopted with estimated revenues of $6,762,024 and expenditures of $6,687,948.

This budget anticipates local revenues of $3,525,792, county revenues of $486,659, state funds of $2,191,972, and federal revenues of $557,602.

Dr. Strong said he would feel more comfortable approving a preliminary budget with the removal of the two positions as outlined by Smith, who said she was unable to make the adjustment on the fly.

DeCramer suggested a budget workshop be held to go through the numbers, considering the current economic difficulties faced by the district.

An updated budget will be presented at the July meeting, at which time, board members anticipate approving amendments.

* Board members tabled until next month an amendment to the 2019-20 budget to actual figures as of June 30.

* Linn R-2 received a preliminary allocation of $80,786 in Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding. Of this amount, approximately $16,604.24 must be set aside for non-public schools, meaning St. George. That leaves approximately $64,181.76 for use by Linn R-2.

“We have to use those funds for costs related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Smith. “We have to spend the money first, and they reimburse us.”

The highest priority among the criteria for these funds is to make sure students have access to virtual instruction in the event of a future shutdown.

After speaking with staff and administrators, along with feedback from discussions held during the previous shutdown, Smith recommended the district purchase 290 Chrome Books, which would allow a unit for each student in grades 7-12.

“We can do this with a three-year lease-to-own option,” said Smith, noting the annual cost would be $24,808.44, which would leave some money in place for additional expenses this year.

Smith said she would rather not purchase the computers outright and use up all the CARES funding at once, since there may be other needs to consider. During the previous shutdown, Smith said some students did not have internet access.

“We can give them a Chrome Book, but if they don’t have internet at their house, it doesn’t do them a whole lot of good,” Smith said.

One option is to purchase hot spots, which could be placed at various points around the district to allow students access to the internet.

CARES funding must be expended by September of 2022, so there is time to handle other issues, which is why Smith wants to hold back some of the funding.

“I just hate to spend it all at one time not knowing what we’ll need,” said Smith.

Currently, there are approximately 50 Chrome Books that will remain at the high school, and another 50 that can be refurbished and used by students in the lower grades.

* A final reading was held for board policy 0410 due to the transition next year to a four-day school week. Policy 0410 currently holds that board meetings be held on the third Monday of every month. The revised policy, if approved, will change the meeting date to the third Tuesday of every month since school will not be in session on Mondays.

Related regulations 4320 and 4322 were also read for the final time; both revisions call for a reduction in leave time for employees since school will only be in session four days per week.

* A five-year Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) was approved as submitted. Smith said the document is subject to change as the board identifies needs.

* Bills were approved for payment in the amount of $1,042,709.73. The school has a checking and investment balance of $3,336,742.99, including investments of $460,226.02 through Mid America Bank.

* Handbook changes were reviewed by the board.

RESPONSE TO LAST MONTH’S OPEN FORUM

A big topic presented last month during the open forum was the decision to move to a four-day week in the 2020-21 school year.

Niederhelm said discussions were held in open session between August and December of 2019.

“At no time, did anyone ask to speak to the board about any issues during the public comment portion of our meetings,” said Niederhelm.

The survey included many topics, and 405 community responses were received, Niederhelm said, along with 224 student and 57 staff returns for a total of 686 total responses.

A draft calendar was released in November of 2019 for public comment, and Niederhelm said 14 individuals contacted the district with input. Of these, only four were opposed to the change.

In addition to community surveys, 30 schools that have a four-day week were surveyed, with 20 responses. 

“All of them indicated that going to a four-day school week has been very positive for faculty, staff, and most importantly, students,” said Niederhelm. “They indicated they have seen an increase in productivity of their students during the four-day school week. They feel their students are more energetic about learning and actually accomplish more in four days than they did in five. They felt morale was better for everyone, and there was less exhaustion seen toward the middle and end of the school year.”

Annual Performance Report (APR) scores at the schools which responded were also reviewed, and it was found there was no significant difference in scores.

As for the survey itself, Niederhelm said the administrative office can supply details.

Citing a need to be competitive with surrounding districts with salary and benefits, one of the questions on the community survey asked patrons if they would support a four-day week.

Among community members, 71.5% of respondents indicated they are in favor of the four-day week.

In the staff survey, 80% were in favor of the shortened week. Students in fifth and sixth grade were not as interested in the four-day week, with just 59.5% in favor. The positive view of the shorter week rose with each grade, with 69.9% of seventh-graders, and 79.9% of sophomores showing support.

All told, the survey results indicated 69% supported the change.

It was cited last month that the only reason for the change was teacher retention, and it was suggested that teachers are lazy. Niederhelm read an email written by Smith in response to this position, which noted that in her 20 years of education experience, she has seen that teachers are dedicated individuals who often work many hours for which they are not paid to make meaningful educational opportunities for students.

Among the plans to ease concerns is the expansion of the weekend care package to include enough food for three days. Smith’s email indicated there will be donations to help accomplish this goal.

Regarding parents who work five days a week, Smith said that of the 20 schools which responded to the aforementioned survey, child care was an initial concern but it ended up not being a problem. With the number of high school students, faculty and staff that were out of school on Mondays, parents were able to find affordable child care.

Smith’s email went on to say that she believed this was the best course of action for the school district, and that a lot of things went into making the decision.

With fewer teachers nationwide, there is a shortage, so paying more to retain them was a consideration of the four-day week, according to Smith’s email.

Without a tax levy increase, Linn R-2 cannot afford to pay what districts such as Jefferson City and Blair Oaks pay their teachers.

A four-day week was a way to make the district more attractive to teachers, and Smith noted that there are teachers who live in Linn but work at Belle because that district has a four-day week.

“We hope going to a four-day week will help us recruit and retain quality teachers for our kids during a time when teachers are in short supply,” Smith said in her email.

Hope Gerdes asked if there had been any consideration for a 12-month school year with extended breaks for teachers and students, to which Niederhelm said no.

Carol Branson began to ask a question but was cut off. Niederhelm said the public forum portion the meeting was over, and this was not a town hall meeting, citing a large agenda to complete.

Regarding gifted education, it was suggested last month that Smith had not thought about the program in her budget. Smith responded that it was an oversight, which has now been corrected.

Football was another issue brought up last month. Niederhelm told the crowd that discussions about starting a football program began in May of 2018. A committee was formed at that time in December of that year to discuss needs. Open-session discussions followed in the ensuing months through September of 2019. Board members were also invited to attend other meetings outside the regular meetings to discuss various topics related to the football program.

Niederhelm said that previous superintendents and Smith, along with athletic directors, felt that football was not a fiscally responsible decision for the school at the time, and the measure fell by a 4-2 vote with one abstention in September of 2019.

Bids were questioned as well. “All bids are provided to the board, and are available in the superintendent’s office,” said Niederhelm, adding that all bids are discussed and awarded in open session.”

A copy of winning bids may be obtained by requesting them in writing through the superintendent’s office.

Restructuring of the administrative team, and the addition of a new Director of Student Services position was discussed at the January board meeting, Niederhelm said, when the job description was approved. The job was filled in February, and Niederhelm this was not a new position, but merely a restructuring of the assistant principal’s position to add different duties.

Niederhelm noted that in regard to the sixth-grade move, Superintendent Smith was not with the school district at that time, but the administrative team began discussing the move after Christmas of that year.

“They began preparing students for the move in March,” said Niederhelm. “This was not a board decision. If the administrative team felt this was the best move, they have the ability to move classes around. The only thing the board had to do was approve the change to make the elementary a K-6 campus and the high school a 7-12 campus.”

BRANSON ADDRESSES CONCERNS

After speaking to the board at the May 18 regular meeting, Carol Branson provided additional comments supporting the concerns regarding the ongoing lack of transparency in the school district, all of which are based on documented meeting minutes as found on the Linn R-2 website. 

“First, I have to state that I am in no way faulting Elaine Deeken or her job performance as the official recorder of your minutes,” said Branson. “I am certain Elaine is performing this task as directed by her superior, who I’m assuming is the current superintendent. Please do not take my comments as a critique or judgment of Elaine’s job performance.”

Branson further areas of concern regarding the infamous “football turned four-day week” survey, which also contained a wide array of topics and questions such as requesting input on facility additions or improvements as the district moves forward in short and long-range planning, suggestions regarding the addition or upgrades of instructional resources and the willingness of the survey participants to support a tax levy increase.  

“I would like to point out that in your Sept. 16, 2019 minutes, it’s documented that Michael Fible ‘presented the survey results for athletics,’ and ‘Dena Smith presented the survey results for a four-day school week. I’m assuming the results on the other survey topics were also presented at this meeting; however, there are no specific results from any of the topics documented in your minutes,” Branson said. “I believe all the topics covered in this survey are important areas of concern for our school and are all deserving of careful and deliberate consideration, both in terms of ‘right now’ as well as into the future. Therefore, I’m proposing this wide-ranging survey as the perfect springboard toward the creation of a citizens’ advisory committee to serve in a planning and visionary capacity looking toward the future plans and goals for our school district. In suggesting this committee, I am also volunteering to serve as a committee member.”

Branson noted that on March 23, the board held a closed session for the purpose of addressing a personnel and a student issue. 

“According to the school website, you went directly into closed session at this meeting,” Branson said. “Also, per the school website, no open session meeting was held in March, just the closed session on March 23. This brings into question how and when you approved the payment of March bills if there was no open session, which is where payment of bills is typically approved? Why was there no regular open session meeting in March? Then in April, according to your April minutes, you approved ‘Regular Open Session minutes dated February 20 and Regular Open Session minutes dated March 23,’ when the only meeting you had in March was the closed one on March 23. This appears to indicate you approved minutes from an open meeting that was never held! Interestingly enough, according to the district’s financial information on the website, the March bills were paid as usual, apparently without being officially approved.

“Also, according to the minutes from your April meeting, a bid was awarded on a motion by Dennis Gravedoni to approve the audit bid of Gerding, Korte and Chitwood for the 2019-20 and 2021-22 audit years,” Branson continued. “However, not only are there no comparison bids documented in the April minutes, there is also no documented amount of the winning bid. How much did you agree to pay for this service? Fortunately, Neal Johnson did a good job of informing the patrons by including this monetary information in his article covering the April meeting. However, the relevant point here is that Neal’s articles in the Unterrified Democrat are not the official documentation of the school’s records. Your minutes are the official record for that information, and they are incomplete when this kind of pertinent information is omitted.”

Regarding the newly created position of Director of Student Services, to which Elementary Principal Lorie Winslow was appointed in February, as she mentioned at the May meeting, Branson noted “There was never a record of prior discussion in any open-session minutes regarding the need, creation or cost of this position when it magically appeared in February. And now, with the termination of Mrs. Winslow, what has happened to this position? Has it magically disappeared just as it magically appeared? With no discussion by the board? How is it appropriate for the superintendent or anyone else besides you, the school board, to arbitrarily create and/or dismiss a reported $80,000 administrative position with no documented discussion or input from the school’s governing body?

“Another issue of extreme concern is your decision to interview Sam Niederhelm as a possible appointee to fulfill the time remaining in Neil Loethen’s position on the board. The issue is not specifically with Sam. The issue is that Sam was defeated in the June 2 election; therefore, the issue would be the same with any one of you who was defeated by the voters and then the very next week selected as a possible candidate to be re-appointed to the board, especially when you had other well qualified candidates who had applied in a timely manner. Your decision in this regard appears to be an ‘in your face’ blatant disregard in making even a semblance of an effort to serve the stakeholders of this district and to listen to the majority voice of the voters.

“Now, you can sit there and judge me and think, ‘Who is she and who does she think she is to question our decision making processes? She isn’t a lawyer and she has no legal background to support her statements or her questions.’ And, you are correct in that observation. However, I will tell you this: I can read and I can do research and I can comprehend the documentation that is required of you to be made available to the public. I am a stakeholder of this school district. I am a registered voter here, have owned property and paid property taxes to this school district for many, many years. These are the most basic qualifications I must fulfill in order to have the right to ask questions about all areas regarding the operations and decisions in this school district. I know for a fact that I, along with several others in the community have recently reached out via emails, texts and phone calls to the superintendent and most of the board members. Few, if any of us, have even received an acknowledgment or response of any kind to our efforts in trying to communicate with you. This, in and of itself, violates your own policies as stated in Policy 1450 and 1460 addressing the need for community involvement in decision making, and again adds to the perception of a lack of transparency on the part of the superintendent and the school board. I have grandchildren who will be attending school here before I know it. Because of this, I implore you to do your very best in providing them the best educational opportunities available. If it takes scrutiny and a watchful eye on the part of people like me to accomplish this goal, then so be it. Please keep in mind, I’m not even asking you to be open about items clearly defined as closed session topics. I’m simply asking you to follow the guidelines of the Missouri Sunshine Law. You are accountable to the stakeholders of this school district to be as transparent as possible. They have elected you to be good stewards of not only their tax money, but more importantly, their most precious possessions … their children. It’s the children whose best interests must be considered first, foremost and always in every decision you make regarding the operation of this school district. I urge you to sincerely ask yourself two questions before you make any and all decisions regarding our school: ‘How can we best be accountable to the people? and then the most pertinent question of all, ‘What is best for the kids?’”

REPORTS

Smith told the board that summer school is off to a great start, with 317 students enrolled. 

New protocols implemented are working well and the faculty and staff are doing a fantastic job, Smith noted.

“Mrs. Williams has done a great job of organizing and running summer school this year and she and her staff deserve a huge thank you for their work on summer school during an unprecedented pandemic,” Smith said.

* Custodians are making great progress, with all of the classrooms in the elementary completed. They will come back and do hallways, offices and commons areas when summer school is completed. All of the middle school classrooms are also completed. There are only four classrooms in the high school left to be completed, as well as the agriculture and art building. Once they finish the classrooms and Ag/art building, they will start on hallways and offices in the high school and middle school. Since they are ahead of schedule, if they finish ahead of time, Smith said the custodial crew is going to work on cleaning out some storage areas. 

Central office staff members are diligently working to close out the year. “We still have some glitches with our new software company, but we are hoping to resolve those in the very near future,” Smith said.

* The stage curtain has been replaced and Smith said she is very happy to have that finished. 

* Completed 2019-20 facility goals include repair/replacement of the parking lot, installation of new intercom system, extension of gutters on the field house and canopy, repair of the track drainage issue, replacement of lighting in the gym with LED units, and lease of new custodial equipment. The addition of electrical capacity to the outdoor concession stands is scheduled for this summer.

In his report, High School Principal Tim Bower congratulated co-valedictorians Rachel Keilholz, Hannah Koenigsfeld and Andrew Voss, and salutatorian Nicole Deeken.

* There were 103 students on the “A” Honor Roll and 127 students on the “B” Honor Roll.

* Among this year’s 52 graduates, Bower noted that 19 planned to attend a four-year college, 18 will attend a two-year school, one will attend a specialty school, one has joined them military, one is a foreign-exchange student and two are undecided.

* A total of 36 graduates have earned the A+ Scholarship with 17 planning to use it, and 10 have earned a college prep certificate.

* Bower told the board he appreciates their support. “I want to thank each and every one of you,” he said. “Three years ago you bestowed upon me probably the greatest thing that can ever happen to someone who graduated from Linn High School.”

Bower returned from college to teach at Linn, and his two children graduated from LHS as well. All told, he has been with the R-2 school district for 24 years.

“It has been such an honor that you guys thought I could be the educational leader for the middle and high school, and I will always treasure that,” said Bower. “I appreciate your confidence in me.”

Bower also thanked staff and administrators for their hard work.

* A retirement celebration is planned for June 25 for Bower, Bonnie Kliethermes and Kathy Muenks.