Do this. No, do this. The ever-changing standoff between Floyd supervisors and the school board

For the third straight month, Floyd County Supervisors rejected the school board budget and sent it back for more tweaking.

The Supervisors Tuesday rescinded their transfer of $125,000 in May from the administrative budget to other categories with instructions to use the money to fund a one-percent, across-the-board raise for all system employees. The school board authorized the raise but cut six positions in the administrative area with the claim that the supervisors’ actions force the staff reductions.

So supervisors restored the administrative cuts but they still want the school board to give the one percent raise and they also want the six staff positions preserved.

The supervisors passed two resolutions Tuesday. The first included recommendations for both the raise and restoring the eliminated positions. Then — shortly before adjourning at the end of a long day — they removed the recommendation for restoring the staff cuts but the desire is still implied.

The school board has until June 21 to submit a new budget.  More details in my story in today’s Floyd Press.

© 2004-2022 Blue Ridge Muse

7 thoughts on “Do this. No, do this. The ever-changing standoff between Floyd supervisors and the school board”

  1. Doug,

    I did not introduced a RESOLUTION to ban smoking. I merely read a statement about a ban to be considered and give it some thought for the other supervisors. Your article in The Press left out a very important reason for the ban and that was safety. Discarded cigarette butts are a safety (fire) hazard. If you had read all of my statement and remember the cigarette butts and the can I showed you filled with cigarette packs in a bucket near the tank (which could catch fire) under the back porch would be just one example. Why not publish a picture of the hundreds of cigarette butts around the fuel tank to illustrate the point. I noticed you had almost all negative comments of two other supervisors about a ban. I am beginning to think those two supervisors have the “ear” of the The Floyd Press and the The Roanoke Times.

    Have a good day

  2. Fred:

    My mistake in calling your request for consideration of an ordinance banning smoking on all county property a resolution. I’ll correct it in next week’s paper and add your additional thoughts on the safety issue. I wrote five stories from Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting. Four are in this week’s paper and the fifth — the trails proposal — will be in next week’s edition. In addition, there will be another story on next Tuesday’s budget session. A lot of news came out of last Tuesday’s supervisors meeting and we had to prioritize.

  3. So, according to The Roanoke Times, now the school board has approved another revised budget. The new one will keep on the attendance director (Bill Gardner) as well as an administrative secretary and part-time nurse.
    The budget for the attendance services has increased by $4,431 – from a total $14,192 (2010-11) to $18,623 for 2011-2012. How is this possible w/ all the cuts?

    • This position is a part-time position and thus is paid based on the number of days worked. Last year the person worked more days than anticipated and thus had to be paid more. The money could be taken from other areas last year but needed to be included in admin. this year due to transparency issues and categorical budgeting. Also, if the money is anticipated to be spent, shouldn’t it be budgeted for?

      • Check the monthly financial reports. This position’s was stable for several months, then inflated in May & June I think. Is this normal? I’m not at all picking on this one area, just viewing it as an example of inconsistency.

        • Actually it would make perfect sense for it to increase at that time because he probably would not have exceeded his annual days til the close of the school year and therefore would necessitate the increase then.

      • Nice spin on budgets. If it’s a fee for service agreement based on need, where did the extra money come from last time around? I’m guessing the new budget number for this allocation came from what was spent last year.

        Don’t most part time positions have limitations regarding hours per year? Is there a contract for this job or is it an independent contractor arrangement?

        I’ve seen this type of nonsense before. Any amount of money allocated to the budget for anything MUST be spent so the department can ask for more in the next budget. Someone did a great job to exceed the minimum standard by growing that amount by a double digit percentage while enrollment is down and everything else crumbles.

Comments are closed.

© 2021 Blue Ridge Muse