UPDATED! Fox C-6 Pay Scales and Raises Explained by Fox CFO

ARTICLE UPDATED at 6:00PM with information provided by Fox CFO John Brazeal

This evening, I received an email from Fox CFO John Brazeal informing me that my original article was inaccurate. Mr. Brazeal provided the following explanation so I could correct my inaccuracies informing me that I had been fooled by vocabulary word choices.

Thank you to Mr. Brazeal for providing the following detailed explanation as to how our district's pay scales work and what is currently being done to align our district's pay scale as our school district moves forward.

"There are 2 types of pay increases: (1) step increases, meaning moving up one step on the pay scale, and (2) cost-of-living increases, meaning adjusting all the wage or salary amounts on the pay scale.

The complaint of the person that sent you the email is not that she didn’t receive a step increase in pay rate, but rather that a cost-of-living adjustment was not applied to the pay schedule so that classified employees would receive both a step increase along with a cost-of-living increase. And yes, I did state that cost-of-living adjustment to the pay schedules are unlikely as long as there is no growth in district revenue. It was stated that eligible employees would continue to receive step increases. 

You should know that all employee groups are treated in similar fashion. For 2016-2017, none of the pay plans or pay schedules for any employee groups received a cost-of-living adjustment. In other words, the same pay schedules for 2015-2016 were renewed for 2016-2017 with the exception of a few changes, such as a decrease in the range for certain administrative positions and an increase in the pay range for school nurses. With the same pay plans in place, the following procedures applied to step increase movements for 2016-2017: 

Teachers that are not at top-of-scale on the teacher pay schedule will receive a step increase in pay in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% for 2016-2017. Teachers at the top-of-scale or above the top-of-scale on the teacher pay schedule will not have an increase in pay. 

Classified staff that are not at top-of-scale on the classified pay schedule will receive a step increase in pay. The classified staff within the first 15 steps of the schedule will receive an increase in pay ranging between 2.2% and 3.2%. Classified staff within the last 10 steps of the schedule will receive pay increases in the range of 0.5%. Classified staff at the top-of-scale or above the top-of-scale on the classified pay schedule will not have an increase in pay. 

Administrators that are within the first half of the pay range for their position received a 2.0% increase in pay. Administrators that are within the second half of the pay range for their position received a 1.0% increase in pay. Administrators that are at the top-of-scale or above the top-of-scale of the pay range for their position will not receive an increase in pay."

[Original Article Below Posted]
Concerns were brought to the attention of the school board, local news stations, the Leader, myself and JeffCo Penknife over the weekend via email regarding pay freezes for classified staff at Fox C-6.

Classified employees were told that they would not see a cost of living raise until the district gains back its integrity with the community at which that time the district would ask for tax money from the taxpayers to then be able to reward classified employees with a cost of living raise.

Facing a pay freeze and and increasing health insurance costs has been a concern for our district's classified employees (bus drivers, food service, maintenance workers, aides, etc.).

The concern from the employee / taxpayer to the Fox C-6 Board of Education was the fact that the Fox C-6 Board of Education voted to approve raises for administrators at the February 16, 2016 school board meeting for the 2016-2017 school year while classified employees (who make the lowest wages) in the district are on a pay freeze.

The board meeting agenda item 7.1 Administrator Contracts from the February 16, 2016 school board meeting has the 2016-2017 Administrator Salaries listed in the Administrator Modifications PDF document for the school board to approve.

From a transparency standpoint, the Administrator Modifications report that was provided to the school board and the public did not include the 2015-2016 administrator salaries. The Administrator Modifications report only listed the new salaries that become effective on July 1, 2016.

In the past, I recall seeing salary modifications reports provided to the school board that listed current salary and the new salary. It certainly makes it much easier to compare the amount of raises being given.

You can view the BoardDocs Agenda Item 7. 1 for Administrator Contracts from the February 16, 2016 BOE meeting and the Administrator Salary Modifications report using the links below.

BoardDocs - Agenda Item 7.1 - Administrator Contracts

BoardDocs - 2016-2017 Administrator Modifications

Do You Trust Your School Superintendent and School Board?

Why would our school district superintendent tell me after the August 30, 2011 Board of Education meeting, "You know that we don't have a person that's just in charge of the website. We put our money in the classroom." when the district already employs a full time Web Designer who has been working for the school district for 7 years? This was in response to a request to the school board to post financial and board meeting packet and board member contact information onto the district website like they do at other school districts. Instead, I was told how the district puts its money into the classroom and not the website like other districts do. However, it appears now that she is planning on putting our money into the football fields and not as much into the classroom. Please note that the district does in fact have a full time Web Designer who was contracted to make $44,731 for the 2011-2012 school year. She could have just told me the truth but decided not to. This wasn't the first time I had been provided false or misleading information and wasn't the last and in doing so she destroys her credibility.

Our district seems to have a significant problem when school board members and administrators ignore requests for information or requests to post information such as board packets on the district website like they do in other districts. Not providing the information gives the appearance that our district is trying to hide things from the public. It certainly brings into question why the district never published the estimated cost of items for the $18.5 Million dollar bond issue.

So why didn't the district ever publish the budget for the items they wished to purchase with the Bond Issue money until I made a request for the budget on Monday July 16, 2012 which was then emailed to me and published on the website on Wednesday July 18, 2012?

How the school district plans to spend your taxpayer dollars should be of great interest to those in our school district. There are certainly repair needs within the district. The Election Ballot is written quite deceptively in regards to what is really happening with the $3.3 Million dollars being invested into what the election ballot lists as "converting the existing athletic facilities into multipurpose facilities."

What academic benefit is gained in spending $1.5 Million dollars to install artificial turf on the football fields and then another $1 Million dollars to replace the already rubberized tracks and the remaining $800,000 on bleachers?

I think our superintendent and school board is hoping to sneak the artificial turf in under the radar by not mentioning it on the ballot. Most people that I have spoken with had no idea that the school district was planning on installing artificial turf. One parent told me she was not going to pay for artificial turf when her son's middle school doesn't have enough books for his class to go around so they had to share books. She asked why they needed artificial turf? I said that is a really good question but that it was most likely because several other schools in the area recently installed artificial turf so our coaches want it too.

I emailed the school board secretary and the school board over two weeks ago requesting the cost analysis that was provided to the school board in justifying the cost of installing and maintaining artificial turf verses natural grass and how long the artificial turf would last before needing to be replaced. My questions were forwarded to Mr. Crutchley on July 16 but I have not received a response to those questions as of August 2, 2012 even after emailing another request. Most people I have spoken with seem to think that those are valid questions and that the school board should be asking those questions before spending that much in taxpayer dollars. You as taxpayers should be highly concerned because artificial turf typically only lasts around 8 to 10 years before needing to be replaced according to the industry. Additionally, there is quite a bit of maintenance cost as well. Not to mention the fact that artificial turf can reach temperatures of 140 degrees Fahrenheit according to a 2008 National Institutes of Health report. So, that means the district will be needing to spend another large sum of money when we are only half way into paying off the Bond Issue which would be extended to 2032.

So, should you be concerned with how the district plans on using the largest portion of the $18.5 million dollar bond issue?  The estimated costs for the bond issue items from the district website totals to less than $16 Million dollars. What is the extra $2.5 Million dollars going to be used for?

I certainly hope that you VOTE NO on the $18.5 Million dollar bond issue!

IT IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHEN CHOOSING BETWEEN ARTIFICIAL TURF AND SCHOOL BOOKS!

Why You Should Vote NO on Fox C-6's $18.5 Million Dollar Bond Issue!

There are a number of reasons that you as taxpayers in the Fox C-6 School District should VOTE NO on the proposed $18.5 Million Dollar Bond Issue on August 7, 2012.  It's not just about the FACT that you WILL PAY MORE IN TAXES even though the school district touts this as a No Tax Increase Bond Issue.  You should cast a NO VOTE on the Bond Issue, unless you are interested in purchasing artificial turf that will only last for half the length of time that the Bond Issue is being extended to.   The district is asking that you extend the debt service to 2032 rather than retiring it in 2022. YES. YOU WILL PAY MORE TAXES!

This is not just about the taxes.  It is about what the school district wants to do with the money and how the school board has rubber stamped their approval on it. Or did they?  The Cost Estimates for the Bond Issue items were not included in the monthly board meeting packet information that is sent to school board members each month or at least not the copy of the board meeting packets that I have been provided by the board secretary which should be the same. They are supposed to be the same as the copy that is kept on file at the Central Office for the public to review anytime during regular office hours according to board policies.

Please review some of the reasons that I feel warrant a NO VOTE on the August 7, 2012 Fox C-6 Bond Issue Vote.

SOME REASONS TO VOTE NO ON THE AUGUST 7, 2012 FOX C-6 BOND ISSUE:

• The school district never published the Bond Issue Budget until I requested a copy via email and asked the district to publish it on the district website.
• The Bond Issue Budget was never published in the Board of Education (BOE) monthly meeting information packets for the board members to review and approve.  The only item regarding the Bond Issue in the BOE information packets was the Bond Issue Ballot which was approved at the May 2012 BOE meeting.  Why was the Bond Issue Budget not provided to the board members in their monthly information packet?  Or, was the packet I received different from the copy that the BOE was sent?  It should be the same.  The date the PDF file was generated was 04/12/2012.
• The Bond Issue Budget LISTS LESS THAN $16 Million Dollars of Upgrades, Repairs and Purchases.  What will the other $2.5 Million Dollars not earmarked be used for? 
• The coaches want Artificial Turf on the two high school football fields at the cost of $1.5 Million Dollars for both high school football fields.  Industry estimates that Artificial Turf has a typical life span of 10 to 12 years.  Washington University was recently featured in a June 2012 STLTODAY.COM article where the university recently replaced their artificial turf after only 8 years.  You the taxpayer are being asked to extend the current Bond for another 10 years.  The bond will not be retired until 2032 and the school district will have to replace the artificial turf again half way into the bond.  Maybe the extra $2.5 Million dollars of buffer in the bond issue can be used to defray the replacement cost.
• Did the school board ask what the cost of maintenance was for an Artificial Turf Field verses the Natural Grass Field?  There were no budget documents in the Board of Education (BOE) packets for the Bond Issue Budget or for Cost Comparisons.  I suggest that you ask your board members if they performed any cost analysis.  I have asked but have not received a response.
• The BOE has been asked repeatedly to publish the monthly board information packets on the district website so the community and district patrons and parents can be more informed about what is happening in the district as well as issues being considered. This would also allow others to review the expenditures and decisions being made by the school board. However, to date the District has refused to publish this information. When I gave Wentzville school district as an example of one of many school districts that publishes this information on their websites PRIOR to BOE meetings as it is public record, I was told by our superintendent that our district does not have a full time person maintaining our website like they do in other districts and that we put our money into the classroom.  However, her statement regarding our district not having a Full Time person to maintain the district website appears to be FALSE.  The 2011-2012 school year Classified Central Office Staff listed in the August 30, 2011 BOE information packets lists a Full Time Web Designer making $44,731 who has been working for the district for 7 years.  It is responses like that from school leaders that causes concerns about the honesty and integrity of our school leadership?  The staff roster included the Full Time Web Designer, four system support specialists, a PC Tech as well as a Systems Support Supervisor that makes $66,434.  So, it does appear that we have several IT staff working for our district now as well.
• The BOE and the superintendent do not want you to be informed citizens and will either ignore your questions or have our superintendent respond which may be riddled with misleading or false information in an attempt to keep you from obtaining the information you are seeking. For example, at the March 2012 BOE meeting, our superintendent stated that our school district's Board Policies, Regulations and Forms had been completely overhauled and would be posted on the district website for both staff and the public to review and make recommendations to before the school board adopts the new documents. One week after the BOE meeting, I emailed the current board president and the board secretary asking where I could download the Policies, Regulations and Forms from the website.  I received a response from our superintendent informing me that, "Drafts of Board meeting minutes are not for public view (policy 0405).  Only board minutes that have been approved by the board are made public, which you can obtain on the website. You can view the March 20 meeting minutes upon approval of the April board meeting.  It usually takes a week or two, so please be patient."  I also made a request for a Draft copy of the March 20, 2012 school board meeting minutes to see what was documented regarding the posting of the board policies and regulations.  I responded to our superintendent with her exact words from my audio recording of the BOE meeting in which she stated, "We are finally ready for the forms and manuals and policies to be reviewed.  This would be an overhaul of all of the school district policies. They will be placed, I believe tomorrow night, Debby, on the website? And, sent out to staff or we will have a place that staff can log into. We’re not sure if we can send that big of documents for download. And we’re going to leave them up until June so that staff can make recommendations and the public can make recommendations.  Then we’ll bring those recommendations back and my guess is....”  My email response to the superintendent that included her quote from the BOE meeting was followed by another email from our superintendent informing me that, "Hello Rich! Debby will gather all of this information and shoot it to you electronically today. Please let us know if it all doesn't transmit."  I received a draft copy of the updated board policies and regulations, a "draft" copy of the March 20, 2012 BOE meeting minutes as well as copies of the BOE meeting information packets dating back to April 2010. My request for the BOE meeting information packets was finally being fulfilled FREE of charge because the school district purchased tablet computers for all of the administrators and board members to use during BOE meetings to read and review the information packets starting at the December 2011 meeting. This meant that our district documents were definitely available in electronic form. My previous requests have always resulted in the district informing me that there would be a $0.10 per page fee for the documents I requested.  Missouri Sunshine Law requires that electronic documents be made available to the public for free if they exist in electronic format and the state of Missouri encourages government entities to keep documents in electronic format.
• BUS MAINTENANCE EXPENSES - This is an issue that perplexes me after reviewing the check registers contained in the board packets.  Each month, the district pays somewhere between $40,000 and $57,000 for what is documented as bus maintenance and supplies.  On average it works out to about $50,000 per month for bus maintenance and supplies.  This figure seems high and many people that I have spoken with have also considered that to be a pretty expensive maintenance cost.  The cost of a new 71 passenger bus was recently quoted for around $73,000 and a 26 passenger bus at around $43,000 to the district.  Our district has around 100 school buses and from board meeting minutes our school buses log around 1.2 to 1.3 million miles per year which would work out to around 12,000 to 13,000 miles per year on each bus.  I'm still doing more research on this expense as it just seems a bit out of the ordinary. At first I thought that this monthly expense might include fuel, but then I found line items in our check register for fuel costs which typically has entries for $24,000 and $10,000 per month from two different suppliers.

I will add more information over the next several days regarding reasons why you should be questioning both your superintendent and your board of education members over the happenings in our school district.  It is not always the picture perfect school of excellence that is being portrayed. It's just good to know that you CAN do something about it and work to make improvements in your community. When you elect your board members to the school board, you are asking them to represent you, the citizens of our community. That is what "local control" is all about. However, if board members ignore your questions or defer them to your superintendent, you are not being represented very well and it would appear that it is time for some new leadership and oversight for our school district.

I am encouraging you to VOTE NO on the upcoming Bond Issue on August 7, 2012. The proposed $18.5 Million dollar Bond Issue might have been something to consider had it ONLY been slated for upkeep and repairs of buildings and technology and DID NOT include $1.5 Million Dollars in artificial turf and another $1 Million Dollars in track replacement costs. The Middle Schools could use bleachers for their outside fields. However, with the highest amount of estimated expenses going towards improvements of the football fields and replacement of the tracks that are not that old and are much better than the straight blacktop that I ran on, I am suggesting that you VOTE NO ON THE BOND ISSUE.

Please visit the school district website at:www.fox.k12.mo.us and look for the Bond Issue Budget on the on the right hand side of the home page listed under (Bond Issue Capital Projects (with Estimated Costs)). I would post a link to the PDF document, but our district still insists on using SessionID values which are unique to your web browser session to generate links to documents posted on the district website, therefore you cannot email a direct link to a document to another person or even open the same link in a different flavor browser on your same computer. I have asked to have this changed as well. Generating links dynamically documents keeps the documents from being found by search engines as well as making it impossible to directly share information with others.

Email Your School Board Members
Please contact your board members to see what they have to say about things. You won't be able to find their individual email addresses on the district website. I have requested several times that board members have individual email addresses or phone numbers listed on the website as they do in other school districts and have been told that they are not on the district website.

I have a feeling that our superintendent does not want the public speaking with our school board members outside of the 3 minutes of Public Comment time at the beginning of BOE meetings. You can always try sending an email to the generic schoolboard@fox.k12.mo.us, but it goes directly to the board secretary and not the school board. The board secretary is also the superintendent's secretary, so you can probably guess where your email will end up going even if it is a school board matter.