{"id":18456,"date":"2013-03-18T17:46:04","date_gmt":"2013-03-18T21:46:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.raleighpublicrecord.org\/?p=18456"},"modified":"2013-03-18T17:46:04","modified_gmt":"2013-03-18T21:46:04","slug":"old-moves-new-politics-county-seeks-to-control-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/news\/2013\/03\/18\/old-moves-new-politics-county-seeks-to-control-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Old Moves, New Politics: County Seeks to Control Schools"},"content":{"rendered":"

A recent bid by the Wake County Commission to take over school site ownership and construction isn\u2019t new. In fact, the Commission has been trying to change the way schools are built since at least 2002.<\/p>\n

But for the first time in a decade, it appears that the state legislature has the right political makeup to turn the idea into law.<\/p>\n

To the majority of Commissioners in Wake County, it just makes fiscal sense.<\/p>\n

The Wake County Commission has the power to levy taxes. So why can\u2019t they spend that money on school construction, leaving the Board of Education free to take care of administrative issues?<\/p>\n

To the majority of Wake County School Board members, it doesn\u2019t make any sense at all.<\/p>\n

The checks and balances of having one body raise taxes and the other spend works, and works well, they say. So why can\u2019t the board continue building schools for the almost 150,000 students in the district?<\/p>\n

And as both sides argue their case, they must also work together to get a school bond on the ballot in time for the fall elections.<\/p>\n

Commissioners Want Accountability<\/strong>
\nCommissioners included the proposed the change in their most recent legislative agenda<\/a>.<\/p>\n

State Senator Neal Hunt <\/a>(R) of Raleigh introduced the bill promoting the county ownership of school sites<\/a> on March 7. He did not return repeated emails or phone calls for comment.<\/p>\n

Currently, the Commission has taxing authority and works with the school board to write bond referenda that are sent to voters for approval. When a new site needs to be built, or an existing building needs repairs, the board asks the Commissioners for money to fund the project.<\/p>\n

Wake County Commissioner Tony Gurley said this system is not financially efficient. And, he said, the idea of transferring ownership of school sites and construction from the school board to the county has been floating around for as long as he\u2019s been a Commissioner \u2014 since 2002.<\/p>\n

\"Joe<\/a>

Karen Tam <\/p>

Joe Bryan and Tony Gurley. Photo by Karen Tam.<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cI was chairman of the Board of Commissioners when we passed the 2006 school bond,\u201d Gurley said. \u201cI have seen many instances where the County Commissioners are much more fiscally responsible and better stewards of the taxpayers\u2019 money than the school board.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gurley said one example of such irresponsibility is the Board of Education\u2019s unwillingness to specify exactly where funds go after they have been successfully requested from the county.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat shows you that there\u2019s something going on with their budget,\u201d he said. \u201cThey\u2019re reserving the ability to divert the money from maintenance into some other part of their budget. Once they get the money, they no longer have to account for it. They\u2019re allowed to divert it into other areas and not seek anyone\u2019s approval.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gurley said because the Commission introduces bonds to be voted on, it is more directly accountable to the public.<\/p>\n

Commissioner Joe Bryan also likes the idea. He said transferring the duties of school construction away from the board will shake up what has become a stagnated system.<\/p>\n

He pointed to the acquisition of the land for the future West Apex High School as an area where the Commission could have possibly gotten a better deal for the site than the school board did.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is the best way to protect the taxpayers?\u201d Bryan said. \u201cTo give the county an option to change the way things are done. And so the Board of Education isn\u2019t always the Board of Construction.\u201d<\/p>\n

School Board: System Not Broken<\/strong>
\nCommissioner arguments aren’t holding water with board members and their supporters.
\n

\"Christine<\/a>

Karen Tam <\/p>

Christine Kushner<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n

School construction is a major part of the education process, with school design and placement akin to a teacher setting up a classroom to his specifications before the year starts, said Christine Kushner, vice-chair of the Board of Education.<\/p>\n

\u201cI see this as a solution looking for a problem,\u201d Kushner said. \u201cThere\u2019s no problem, so there\u2019s no need in my mind to alter the way schools are being built in Wake County.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chair Keith Sutton agreed.<\/p>\n

\"Keith<\/a>

Karen Tam <\/p>

Keith Sutton<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cWe have a proven track record, and a successful track record of maintaining ownership of the school buildings,\u201d Sutton said. \u201cWe have won a number of awards<\/a> for our facility design, construction and energy savings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Learn More: How sites are selected by WCPSS<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Sutton also expressed concern about the minutiae of school upkeep. If a window is broken, he said, they would get it fixed as soon as possible, rather than asking the Commission every time.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat process could become pretty lengthy or timely, if meeting once a month or twice a month and you have to wait until the next meeting to get approval to replace a fixture, add a door, add modulars, or what have you,\u201d Sutton said.<\/p>\n

In response, Bryan said that he would like to see the day-to-day upkeep of the schools remain as it is now, with the Board of Education handling routine maintenance requests, or managed by the Commissioners like any other county building.<\/p>\n

Special Situation<\/strong>
\nAbout 90 percent of school boards in the U.S. do not rely upon another local government for their local funds, according to Leanne Winner, director of governmental relations for the North Carolina School Boards Association.<\/p>\n

She said there are two important reasons to keep school construction in the hands of the school board: student assignment, including where and what kind of schools to build, and the programmatic side, which determines what type of school and what kind of programs you can offer at that school.<\/p>\n

\u201cSchool construction is an extremely specialized area,\u201d Winner said. \u201cWe have requirements based upon the federal IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act<\/a>) requirements. If you\u2019re going to have students there that might have audiology issues, there might have to be specifications for wiring, things like that. There\u2019s a whole host of issues and those are extremely different than ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act<\/a>) issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

She also said schools with, pre-K classrooms have to be designed differently, due to the younger age of the children and, in light of the Newtown school shooting and other public tragedies, school safety.<\/p>\n

One argument that has floated around for the last decade or more is that the move will make the county’s finances look balanced.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe County Commissioners say that it would help them to align the assets with the liabilities, but that point has not proven to be a true or accurate one,\u201d Sutton said.<\/p>\n

According to governmental accounting regulations<\/a>, governments must report all assets and liabilities on the same page. But since the Commissioners must grant the money to another body, they accept the liability. The new assets \u2014 constructed or updated school facilities \u2014 are counted on the school board\u2019s records, not the county\u2019s. This gives the appearance that the county is in a deficit.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe spent a great deal of time at that juncture with the local government commission and the treasurer\u2019s office talking to the three bonding agencies in New York,\u201d Winner said. \u201cThey assured us that they understood that North Carolina was in a unique situation where the asset was on the school system\u2019s books and the debt was on the county\u2019s books and that they would realize that when they were looking at the bonding documents, and it would not affect our bond ratings.\u201d<\/p>\n

The county has maintained<\/a> a pristine AAA rating for decades, Gurley said, so while it would be nice to have balanced-looking books, it is not one of the main reasons the issue of ownership has come up time and again.<\/p>\n

\u201cAn accounting function is not the reason we\u2019re doing this,\u201d he said. \u201cWe\u2019re doing this because we will be more responsible with the taxpayers money, and it\u2019s good policy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Going Forward in 2013<\/strong>
\nIn the midst of this tumult, the two bodies are working together to try and produce a school bond referendum for the fall 2013 election.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve been very concerned that it does color our discussions of a very needed capital bond, because the county does have a responsibility to build and maintain schools,\u201d Kushner said.<\/p>\n

She also said the county\u2019s responsibility for funding and passing bonds is the cheapest and most effective way to raise money for the schools. Sutton agreed, and said having the bodies do discrete jobs but work toward a common goal is a benefit.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn my opinion, that\u2019s an intentional separation of power that was put in place by the General Assembly,\u201d Sutton said.<\/p>\n

But to the majority of Commissioners, the old system can\u2019t keep up with the needs of a growing county. And for Commissioners like Gurley and Bryan, who have served the county for many years, the uproar over the proposal is confusing.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve been bringing this up for the last six years or more, with support from the Wake Ed Partnership and the (Raleigh) Chamber of Commerce,\u201d Gurley said. \u201cThis has been an ongoing process, and they\u2019re all so new, they don\u2019t know the history. For them to claim this is a surprise is naive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite the history behind the proposal, both groups agree there was a lack of dialogue about the transfer before it was introduced as an agenda item.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe leadership of chair and vice chair of the board of commissioners and chair and vice chair of the school board routinely get together, and that was never raised as an issue, so that was disappointing to see that on their legislative agenda,\u201d Kushner said.<\/p>\n

Bryan said he would have liked a transition to take place first through negotiation, but that the current law stipulates how boards of education and counties interact with regard to school buildings.<\/p>\n

\u201cPresumably, if the bill passes, I\u2019d like to see a friendly, negotiated merger,\u201d he said.\u00a0 \u201cWhat we will get is a true partnership,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat we have now, it\u2019s not really a true partnership.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A recent bid by the Wake County Commission to take over school site ownership and construction isn\u2019t new. In fact, the Commission has been trying to change the way schools are built since at least 2002. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24056,"featured_media":16528,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[34,15,23,55],"tags":[64,411],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18456"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24056"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18456\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16528"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}