Earlier this week all but one school board member voted in favor of using some $200,000 of the system’s just over $1 million fund balance to pay for repair or replacement of the roof, saying it was a matter that needed attention and an issue that needed resolving before some members depart from the board early next month.
Dr. Bill Starling cast the dissenting vote, citing use of fund balance money as one reason he couldn’t support the initiative.
We agree with Starling. Using fund balance money to pay for an item that, quite frankly, should be funded by county commissioners is an unwise move and a poor utilization of money often set aside for the unexpected expenditures that come along.
Fixing a roof is considered maintenance of plant, an item commissioners are obligated by law to handle and one the school board should have sought help with long before they raised their hands to pay for it themselves.
But this isn’t a commissioners problem either, since school board members haven’t approached the governing body about financing the needed roof. You can’t get what you don’t ask for, and apparently the school board has seen no need to make the request, opting, for some odd reason to merely handle it themselves.
It’s a classic case of having a knee-jerk reaction to a problem without thinking the resolution through.
The roof issue was raised over a week ago when board members were discussing requests to fund bleachers at Clinton High School and a driveway project at Sampson Middle.
Member Kathleen Squibb brought up the roof, noting that the board had designated it as a priority several years back although nothing had been done to repair it, and she urged her colleagues to support funding the project now.
It was discussed again Wednesday in a special called meeting, with chairman Dr. Carl Barr stressing the need to get something done under their watch and before some members, himself included, “rode off into the sunset.”
While there’s no question the Sunset gym roof needs repair or replacement, rushing to get it approved and funded now, obligating a new board to using fund balance, seems more about going out in a blaze of glory than thinking through the best way to handle the project.
Only Starling, who also leaves the board in July, was using good, common sense in his approach to the issue.
If board members move forward they are, as Starling said, setting a precedent, and one we don’t think they need to set.
Firstly, how can they use fund balance to pay for one serious issue and not do it again when another pressing request is facing them? What is fair for one project should be fair for another, but fund balance can only go around so many times.
And, secondly, if school officials are so willing to use fund balance, what message does that send to commissioners?
This board, despite its recent disagreements, has done a lot of good things for the school system, its employees and, most particularly, its staff during members’ tenure. They should be proud of their accomplishments, and we should all applaud and thank them for their service.
There’s no need for this group, as it is currently constituted, to make its last move a poor one. They should revisit the roof issue before new members take over, say it’s a priority if they so wish and then let the new board and new superintendent decide when it should be fixed and how it should be paid for.
Something here doesn't seem right.
I know that when the county shafted the school system in Duplin County, their school board turned to the courts for satisfaction. Then, lo and behold, the populous didn't like that approach either.
What if, now that there is a good degree of public attention on it, the city schools officials "request it," (money from the county to fix the gym roof)? Then, we can all see what the response is. In the meantime, the students at Sunset Avenue School can take their lumps. Is that a deal, or what?
How you gonna "rode off into the sunset" on "a vehicle that has failed?"
Go'on, Dr. Bill "the board" Starling, and exercise your FIDUCIARY responsibility, with your bad self! Kudos!
By the way, was it four (as was previously reported) or FIVE of the six-member board who supported funding the roof repair from the fund balance? If it was four (as was previously reported), WHO DID NOT VOTE? and why not? Everybody was pretty much accounted for in your previous coverage, except for Viser. Hmmm...