Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
The Jefferson County School Board last week took the first tentative steps on the road to reclaiming the schools in 2022, provided that all goes according to plan.
On Monday evening, July 12, the school board approved three personnel actions that School Superintendent Eydie Tricquet recommended.
The three-part action involved changing the status of Adult Education Services Coordinator Theresa Sterling from part time to full time, with a salary not to exceed $49,500; reclassifying the title of Ramona Kinsey from Executive Assistant to Executive Secretary II, with no accompanying salary increase at present; and hiring Taryn Bellflower as an administrative assistant with a salary not to exceed $45,000.
Interestingly, because the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has financial oversight of the Jefferson School District due to its unique and peculiar situation (the only district in the state to be state controlled), Tricquet had to run her recommendations past the agency before submitting them to the local board.
In his written response, FDOE Commissioner Richard Corcoran approved all three requests with one exception. He did not approve the salary increase for Kinsey, asking first for a description of the additional duties that she would be performing.
That said, the local board went along with the superintendent’s recommendation with a 4-0 (Chairman Charles Boland was not present).
Corcoran also in his letter approved the purchase of two desktop computers and three docking laptops, the first for the “contracted instructors and Somerset’s Management Information System (MIS) director when working from the district,” and the second for Tricquet and her support staff.
In preparation for the expected transition in 2022, Tricquet shared with the board an organizational chart dating from 2013. She noted, however, that moving forward, the district would not be able to hire the same level of personnel as previously, given the lower student population and resulting lower funding.
“I’ve started to streamline,” Tricquet said, referring to the 2013 chart. “I don’t think that we can support this many positions… Everyone will have to wear multiple hats. We won’t be able to fill this (administration) building as before.”
She presented the board with an abbreviated chart showing two positions that she was proposing for eventual integration into the greater organizational chart in preparation for district’s take-back of the schools.
One position was for director of operations, under which would be transportation, food services, finance, human resources, school safety, facilities maintenance and management information system (MIS).
The other position was for director of academics, under which would be exceptional student education, student services, instructional services, early childhood and pre-K, adult education and career technical.
Tricquet focused on finding a person for the director of operations position, saying that she was qualified to fill the position of director of academics for the time being.
Here the discussion got a little muddled in terms of the exact intent going forward.
The confusion stemmed from the proposed formation of two committees, one to be made up of board member-appointed citizens and the other of board members themselves.
The confusion arose because the discussion of the two committees often overlapped, making it difficult to know which committee exactly was being discussed and the exact nature of its function.
That said, it appeared that the intent was for the citizens committee to help formulate and vet the transition plan, so that when it was made public, everyone would be onboard – parents and citizens included. The goal, as School Member Shirley Washington expressed it, was to get community input and involvement upfront.
“I think everyone needs to be involved and have input,” Washington said. “If we just throw it out there (transition plan), we’re going to have a lot of disagreement. We want to have something that looks professional and meaningful.”
Everyone seemed to be onboard in terms of this committee’s purpose.
The nature of second committee, however, was not so clearly established. The intent of this committee, which Washington specifically proposed, was to assist in the selection of director of operations.
And here is where things got a little muddled.
By state law, school boards set policy and create positions, and superintendents run school administrations and recommend the hires, a point underscored by School Board Attorney Tom Reeves.
Washington’s suggestion was for formation of a committee composed of the superintendent and x number of board members – herself included – to vet the applicants for director of operations and recommend a pick to the board.
She was trying to think outside the box, Washington said.
“It would be best if we had a committee hiring these people so we can check their credentials and the committee would make the decision to recommend,” she said. “So that it can’t be said that the superintendent hired someone from a certain part and we had no input.”
School Board Member Bill Brumfield, himself a former superintendent and who had moments earlier expressed the need to trust and support the superintendent, questioned if the board wasn’t infringing on the latter’s authority.
“Just so we don’t try to take it away and make the decision, because she makes the recommendation,” Brumfield said.
Tricquet said she had no problem with the proposal, just so long as everyone was on the same page and understood the rules upfront. What she found frustrating, she said, was to get so far along in the process and then come before the board and have everything go back to square one.
“I want to know the board’s expectations,” she said. “I need guidance. I don’t want to get here with a recommendation and then it goes out the window. From Somerset to everyone in this room, everybody has a different idea. It’s frustrating because I think we’re going forward and then we’re changing things. The FDOE is looking for our guidance and direction.”
It was never made clear, however, what would happen if Tricquet wasn’t in accord with the selection committee’s choice. It will remain to be seen how this issue is clarified going forward. Historically, the issue of turf between the school board and the Superintendent has been an abiding one here, notwithstanding the dictates of state law.
In other related information, Tricquet informed the board that she had met with the FDOE and was proceeding with the transition with the understanding that Somerset didn’t want to remain here when its contract expired in 2022. But she had not yet received formal word of this intent, she said.
“It’s my understanding that Somerset doesn’t want to come back,” Tricquet said. “But they said that’s between them and the FDOE. It’s Somerset’s understanding that the contract will ultimately be left up to the FDOE.”
Asked about a response to the board’s recent letter to Somerset asking that the latter clearly state if it planned to leave at the end of its contract, Tricquet said that so far there had been no response.
Finally, she informed the board that she had invited the FDOE to the board’s Aug. 9 meeting and said it was her hope that one or more representatives from the agency would attend the session.