By Wilbur Nisly, Tonia Bloom, Dan Wolsky, Jennifer Channer, Kathi Harder-Brouwer, Ginny Hoffman and Adam Sangster, Trustees of the Corvallis School District
Several op-ed pieces and letters to the editor have appeared in local newspapers recently expressing support for Corvallis teachers and emphasizing the importance of the education of the community’s children. We couldn’t agree more. It is both gratifying and encouraging to read of the strong appreciation the writers have for the teaching profession and specifically for the outstanding Corvallis teaching staff. As trustees of the school district, parents, and community members we are grateful every day for the skill, care, and creativity the staff brings to the work of helping students to learn. We thank the authors of the op-eds for highlighting this.
Nevertheless, the letters and opinion pieces have contained a few misconceptions that we would like to address here.
One misconception has to do with the school district’s general fund operating reserve, which one writer believes is excessive and could be used to supplement the budget and, therefore, fund higher raises for employees. In actuality the purpose of the operating reserve, as authorized by state law (MCA 20-9-104), is to ensure that a district has cash to meet payroll and other financial obligations during the period between the July1 start of the fiscal year and the time later in the fall when property taxes for schools are collected and disbursed. Under certain very limited circumstances a district may access reserve funds to address unforeseen or emergency situations. However, the funds may not be used to enlarge the general fund budget, which is determined by a formula set forth in state statute. All school districts must have an operating reserve and the Corvallis School District’s reserve is well below the upper limit allowed for such funds.
The writers also seem to labor under the misconception that the Corvallis teaching staff has not received increases in compensation. In fact, over the past seven years (since the 2009-10 school year) compensation for teachers has been increased by more than $1 million, for an average annual increase of approximately 3.75%. During the same period increases to the school district’s general fund budget totaled only $224,994. These increases in compensation during a time when budgets rose far more slowly than the rate of inflation (and in one year even declined) are a reflection of the district’s commitment to prioritizing paying its teaching staff as much as possible given budget realities. And, indeed, other district needs have suffered as a result of this commitment.
We agree that these increases in pay may not seem adequate to many teachers. It is true that on some measures Corvallis salaries do not compare favorably with those in other similarly sized districts. This fact is not a result of lack of will, but is a reflection of the financial resources available to the Corvallis School District. By two key measures (total budget per certified staff and total budget per student) Corvallis is at the bottom of the pack among Class A districts, as well as compared to other valley schools of all sizes. The amount of a district’s budget is set by the state funding formula and can only be increased through voter approved local tax levies. Unfortunately, a levy request put before Corvallis voters last spring was not approved.
Although one of the editorial writers believes the school district failed to adequately inform voters about the proposed levy last spring, the reality is that extensive efforts were undertaken. Two informational mailings were sent to all voters and households. Information was posted on the district’s website, including a calculator for figuring the cost. Informational meetings for staff were held at all three schools. Four public meetings were advertised and took place. School district representatives visited with local community groups to answer questions about the levy and were interviewed on radio and for newspaper articles. There are some limitations regarding what a school district can do. State law does not permit school districts to expend funds for non-informational activities, such as signs or flyers urging a yes vote. Direct advocacy can only be undertaken by citizens and community groups.
There is no doubt that the loss of the $440,000 the levy would have provided to this year’s budget has been a factor in the prolonged contract negotiations between the school district and the teachers’ union. Nevertheless, both parties have been able to agree on some major contract language issues and the district has been able to put an offer on the table that would exceed the 3.75% average salary increase of the past seven years. We are as dismayed as the teachers and the community that a settlement is taking so long and look forward to the successful completion of negotiations at the next meeting in December. In the meantime, we thank the community for the support you have expressed for our staff and students.