Management Structures

Transcription

1 Summary The Sarasota County School District is using 8 of 14 of the Best Practices in. Especially noteworthy is the progress the district has made in assigning school principals the authority they need to improve student achievement, the district s efforts with regard to community involvement, the district s willingness to pursue new sources of revenue, and the accuracy of the district s enrollment projections. The school board and the superintendent have also established a constructive working relationship and work together effectively to serve the Sarasota community. To use the remaining best practice standards and ensure the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of its management structures, the district should establish formal procedures governing the interactions of the superintendent, district administrators, and the board attorney and should also establish a formal process for evaluating the board attorney on an annual basis and their legal costs periodically. In addition, the district should evaluate its organizational structure and develop a schedule and process for reviewing organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices on a regular basis. The district should also take steps to strengthen its approach to strategic planning for instructional activities and continue its efforts to establish a strategic planning process for the Business Services Division. While revising its strategic planning process, the district should also strengthen the link between its instructional and non-instructional priorities and should take steps to ensure its financial plans and budgets reflect an appropriate balance between instructional and non-instructional priorities. Background The Sarasota County School District s management structure has a standard hierarchical structure, with a five-member, policy-setting board elected by the general public and a superintendent, appointed by the board, who oversees the district s management and administration. Each board member is elected to serve a four year term. Two members are elected at the time of the presidential general election, and three are elected at the time of the gubernatorial general election. Of the current five board members, only one is serving a second four year term. Two members came on the board in 2000 (one was elected and one was appointed by the governor) and two were elected in Exhibit 2-1 shows the length of time board members have served. Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-1

2 Exhibit 2-1 Only One Board Member Has Been Elected to More Than One Term Board Member Tenure Carol Todd Elected for first term in 1998, reelected in 2002, up for reelection in 2006 John Lewis Appointed to first term in 2000, elected to complete term in 2002, up for reelection in 2004 Frank Kovach Elected for first term in 2000, up for reelection in 2004 Laura Benson Elected for first term in 2002, up for reelection in 2006 Kathy Kleinlein Elected for first term in 2002, up for reelection in 2006 Source: Sarasota County School District. The current superintendent, Wilma Hamilton, first came to the district in 1984 and served as principal of the Pine View School for three years. Prior to being appointed superintendent in 2000, she also served as the director, exceptional student education, program development; executive director of secondary schools; executive director, student achievement: curriculum, instruction and assessment; and assistant superintendent, student achievement, school administration, curriculum and instruction. Before joining the Sarasota County School District, Ms. Hamilton served as the coordinator, gifted and talented education for School District Six in Greeley, Colorado and served as an assistant professor, special education at the University of Northern Colorado. Ms. Hamilton holds a bachelor s degree from Miami University (Oxford, Ohio), a B.A.E. degree in Special Education from Florida Atlantic University, and an M.A., degree from Florida Atlantic University. The superintendent is responsible for the administration of the entire school system and also serves as the secretary and executive officer of the school board. As Exhibit 2-2 shows, the superintendent has two key administrators reporting directly to her an associate superintendent, instructional support services and an associate superintendent business operations. In addition, a supervisor of communication and community relations reports to the superintendent. 2-2 Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

3 Exhibit 2-2 The Sarasota County School District s Organizational Structure Is Divided into Two Principle Functions Superintendent Supervisor Communication and Community Relations PALS Cable Television Associate Superintendent Instructional Support Services Curriculum and Instruction Student Accountability and Information Services Workforce Development, Applied Technology and Community Education Grants Budget Source: Sarasota County School District. Associate Superintendent Business Operations Facilities Services Food and Nutrition Services Financial Services Transportation Human Resources and Labor Relations Construction Services Materials Management As Exhibit 2-3 illustrates, the district s revenues declined somewhat over the past three fiscal years. General fund revenues increased during this period (by more than $13 million) while capital projects fund revenues decreased by slightly less than $28 million. Exhibit 2-3 The Sarasota County School District s Budget Has Fluctuated Over the Past Three Years Fiscal Year Revenue General Fund $206,040,045 $216,989,607 $219,872,840 Debt Services Fund 1,813,744 1,854,140 1,797,162 Capital Projects Fund 100,125,203 69,267,518 72,148,834 Food Services Fund 10,487,188 11,396,601 11,962,010 School Internal Funds 9,137,942 9,473,879 9,344,527 Special Revenue Funds 10,529,798 12,283,111 15,872,074 Other Revenue 3,976,047 3,134,012 2,703,442 Total Revenue $342,109,967 $324,398,868 $333,700,889 Source: Sarasota County School District, Finances: A Historical Summary ( Through ). Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-3

4 Activities of particular interest Over the years the district has had a number of independent assessments of its management and operations performed. Most recently the district contracted with an outside consulting firm SchoolMatch to conduct a review. (In addition, Deloitte Touche did a study in 1986 and in 1994 the Florida School Board Association conducted a review of administrative positions.) The SchoolMatch reports, while providing valuable recommendations, generally did not include a detailed review of business operations. In addition, work done by the volunteer Financial Advisory Committee to the school board, while not representing a detailed review of business practices, offered helpful suggestions for saving money. One operational suggestion that was made was to explore ways that the district could work with Sarasota County and other local jurisdictions to provide services on a shared services basis. A committee consisting of representatives of the various local government entities has been established to explore this concept and this committee has been meeting regularly. 2-4 Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

5 Conclusion and Recommendations Summary of Conclusions for Best Practices Practice Area Board and Superintendent Roles and Responsibilities Organization, Staffing and Resource Allocation Planning and Budgeting Community Involvement Best Practice Using Best Practice? Page No. 1. The roles and responsibilities of the board and superintendent have been clearly delineated, and board members and the superintendent have policies to ensure that they have effective working relationships. Yes The board and superintendent have procedures to ensure that board meetings are efficient and effective. Yes The board and superintendent have established written policies and procedures that are routinely updated to ensure that they are relevant and complete. No The district routinely obtains legal services to advise it about policy and reduce the risk of lawsuits. It also takes steps to ensure that its legal costs are reasonable. No The district s organizational structure has clearly defined units and lines of authority that minimize administrative costs. No The district periodically reviews its administrative staffing and makes changes to eliminate unnecessary positions and improve operating efficiency. No The superintendent and school board exercise effective oversight of the district s financial resources. Yes The district has clearly assigned school principals the authority they need to effectively manage their schools while adhering to districtwide policies and procedures. Yes The district has a multi-year strategic plan with annual goals and measurable objectives based on identified needs, projected enrollment, and revenues. No The district has a system to accurately project enrollment. Yes The district links its financial plans and budgets to its annual priorities in the strategic plan and its goals and objectives, and district resources are focused towards achieving those goals and objectives. No When necessary, the district considers options to increase revenue. Yes The district actively involves parents and guardians in the district s decision making and activities. Yes The district actively involves business partners and community organizations in the district s decision making and activities. Yes 2-28 Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-5

6 BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Best Practice 1: Using The roles and responsibilities of the board and superintendent have been clearly delineated, and board members and the superintendent have policies to ensure that they have effective working relationships but the board should be evaluating its performance. To be effective, school districts must have a constructive, trusting relationship between their school boards and superintendents. This relationship is jeopardized most often when the parties do not understand or fail to adhere to their distinct roles in the educational process. Thus, districts should have mechanisms in place to maintain a distinct separation of roles and responsibilities between the school board and superintendent. In the most simple of terms, the school board should be the policymaking entity in the district, and the superintendent should have the primary responsibility for implementing these policies during the course of his/her daily administration of the district. School board members should not be directing daily operations and should address operational concerns through the superintendent. The superintendent should not make broad, districtwide policies without the approval of the board. A district may use both formal and informal mechanisms to ensure that each entity adheres to its proper roles and responsibilities. At a minimum, the district (regardless of size) should have policies in place that comply with state statutes regarding these roles and responsibilities. In the Sarasota County School District, the roles and responsibilities of the board and superintendent have been clearly delineated, and board members and the superintendent have established practices to ensure effective working relationships. In particular, the district has done a good job of developing written policies that clearly delineate the responsibilities of the board and the superintendent. (A survey of board members conducted as part of this engagement indicates that these responsibilities are understood and adhered to by board members.) Board members also understand and adhere to informal practices the district has established to govern how board members access district staff and direct staff to adhere to these procedures. The district also does a good job of making sure that new board members are aware of their duties and responsibilities. Not only do all board members receive an orientation when first elected but candidates for election to the board also receive training. (The district also demonstrates a commitment to the ongoing training of board members.) Effective procedures for handling items with the potential to become controversial are well established and effective. In one area relating to this best practice, however, the district s performance can improve. While the district should be commended for the process it has established for evaluating the performance of the superintendent, a similar process for assessing the board s performance has not been established. Establishing a process for evaluating the board s performance is not a new idea for the district. Indeed, over the years, the benefits of establishing a process for evaluating the board s performance have been discussed. 2-6 Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

7 We recommend that the district establish a process for the board to conduct a self-assessment of its performance once a year. This process should not be structured to focus on the performance of individual board members. Rather, it should focus on whether the board as a whole has worked effectively in providing the overall guidance and direction needed for the district to achieve its objectives. One way to structure this assessment would be for the board to set expectations for its performance at the beginning of the year. At a specified point before the year s end, each board member could individually rate the board s performance against those expectations. The results of this individual assessment could then be used to facilitate a discussion of the board s overall performance and how, as appropriate, it can improve. Best Practice 2: Using The board and superintendent have procedures to ensure that board meetings are efficient and effective but citizen participation and agenda item information could be improved. The primary goal of all school board meetings should be to come to a decision on the majority of policy issues presented during a particular meeting. To meet this best practice, the school board and superintendent should have formal and informal mechanisms in place to ensure that board meetings run efficiently and effectively, and to ensure all policy discussions and decisions are open and accessible to the public. Board meetings that consistently last longer than the time allotted are usually a telling sign that appropriate mechanisms are not in place, or are ineffective. Board members should not have to ask staff frequently for more information on agenda items, or ask for clarifications of the materials provided. More importantly, regardless of how well board meetings are run, board members and the superintendent should ensure that meetings are accessible and open to the public at large. For example, meetings should be located in large population concentrations at times that are not in conflict with the work hours of the majority of the public (e.g., board meetings should usually begin after 6:00 p.m.). If possible, board meetings should be broadcast live, or taped for later broadcast, on local public access television channels. The Sarasota County School District has implemented a number of effective practices to ensure that the public can participate in and observe board meetings and that the time spent in board meetings is productive. Board meetings, which are held twice a month on Tuesdays, are scheduled at times convenient for most citizens of Sarasota County who want to attend in person. One meeting a month is held at 6:30 p.m. (so people who work during the day can attend) and the second meeting of the month is held at 3:00 p.m. (so people who do not want to leave home at night can attend). In addition, the meetings are broadcast by cable television at various times during the week so that people who cannot attend the meetings in person can observe them. To ensure the time spent in meetings is productive, both for the board members and members of the public, the district makes effective use of consent agendas and ensures that meeting materials are shared with board members sufficiently in advance of the meeting (the Friday before the Tuesday meeting) to allow these materials to be thoroughly reviewed. In addition, the district makes effective use of workshops and work sessions to allow board members to hold preliminary discussions of items with each other and with staff. This process allows the most substantive issues relating to an item to be the focus of the discussion during board meetings. The district should consider one additional step to support efforts to ensure that a thorough and productive discussion of major items is presented at board meetings. At present, the level and type of information board members receive relating to major agenda items is inconsistent. While board members are generally satisfied with the information they receive, a review of the information board members received relating to a number of major items the Charter District Plan, the proposed contract with CEP Sarasota, Inc. to provide an alternative education for low performing and disruptive students, the approval of a resolution to call an election for a millage increase, and a proposal to place a moratorium on new charter Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-7

8 school applications indicates that the level and quality of information board members receive in writing varies considerably. We recommend that the district establish a consistent expectation with regard to what information board members receive relating to major agenda items and how that information is presented. This information should typically include: The reason for the recommended action on the item How the action will be accomplished What the desired results are What alternatives have been considered What resources will be needed Who will be affected and whether they have been advised of and given opportunity for input on the proposed action How the proposed action will affect students and parents What policy of law may apply to the item Whether the item complies with, duplicates, modifies, or affects existing policies or procedures Whether a new policy is needed to implement the proposed action What the time frame is for implementing and completing the proposed action Who will evaluate the proposed action and how it will be evaluated While in an ideal world this information would be provided for all agenda items, establishing such an expectation would create an unreasonable burden on staff. However, providing this level of information for items that the board chair after discussions with the superintendent deem to be major would be beneficial. Best Practice 3: Not Using The board and superintendent have established written policies that are routinely updated by legal counsel to ensure that they are relevant and complete but access to procedures and review by legal counsel could be improved. To meet this best practice, school districts must have relevant and complete policies in order to remain in compliance with federal and state laws. Up-to-date districtwide procedures, when coupled with appropriate policies, ensure that activities are carried out in an efficient and effective manner. Appropriate procedures also ensure that staff and students are treated equally and consistently when applying board policies. The larger the district or the more decentralized its administration, the more important the overarching set of extensive policies and procedures. All districts should have, at a minimum, written board policies that are consistent with the Florida Statutes. Most districts should also have detailed written policies pertaining to specific areas like pupil progression, transportation, and services for Exceptional Student Education (ESE) populations. Districts also should have procedures to ensure that these policies are implemented consistently within administrative units, grade levels, and among schools. Finally, districtwide policies and procedures should be readily accessible by staff, students and their guardians, and the general public. 2-8 Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

9 The Sarasota County School District policies are current and widely available both to district staff and to the public. The district posts its policies (and many of its procedures) on the district s website. In addition, the district contracts with an outside firm Educational Management Consultant Services, Inc. to update its policies, as necessary, on an annual basis. Educational Management Consultant Services was also retained to ensure that district policies do not cover procedural matters. (Where appropriate, however, district policies do reference the procedures that have been established to implement the policy.) The district also trains staff on key procedures both during orientation sessions for new employees and through refresher training that is provided to existing employees. Although the district ensures that its policies are current and readily available to staff, the district is not using this best practice because improvement is needed in ensuring procedures are up-to-date and accessible to all staff. While procedures in some areas are posted on the district s website, most are only available through individual departments. In addition, the district has not established procedures for all administrative activities (although procedures for a number of administrative operations e.g., employee recruiting and hiring and suspensions and dismissal have been established). Finally, while the district requires the board attorney to review all proposed policy revisions to ensure that they comply with state requirements, he does not currently review all procedures. The district should strengthen its efforts to establish and disseminate procedures in all areas. In particular, administrative procedures should be summarized in a single document. Action Plan 2-1 sets out the steps necessary to implement this recommendation. Action Plan 2-1 We recommend that the district strengthen its efforts to establish and disseminate procedures and that administrative procedures be summarized in a single document. Action Needed Step 1. Identify the administrative procedures that have been established by individual district departments. Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. Step 6. Who Is Responsible Board Attorney, Associate Superintendents Time Frame December 31, 2004 Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. Review these procedures and determine where procedures are not current or lack sufficient specificity. Revise administrative procedures using the existing approaches; however, modify these approaches to ensure a review by the Board Attorney prior to the procedures being reviewed by the superintendent, the superintendent s cabinet and the school board. Develop and provide training on any new administrative procedure or for any procedure that has been significantly modified. Post the updated administrative procedures on the district s website. Post the procedures for individual departments on the website as well. Best Practice 4: Not Using The district routinely obtains legal services to advise it about policy and reduce the risk of lawsuits; however the process for evaluating legal services can be strengthened. School boards should have appropriate, responsive legal counsel. Legal services should be comprehensive, providing input on district policies, personnel issues, and advice to ensure that the district complies with federal and state legal requirements. Legal services should support the board, its individual members, the superintendent and district staff. In smaller districts, legal services are more likely to be contracted out, while the largest districts may have several in-house attorneys as well as contracted Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-9

10 attorneys. As small districts grow in size, they should periodically evaluate whether hiring a full-time, inhouse attorney would be more cost-effective for the districts. Regardless of the district s size, legal expenditures (including hourly rates, retainer fees and total annual expenditures) should be evaluated for accuracy and appropriateness. The Sarasota County School District employs a private law firm to advise the school board, review policies, to represent the district in litigation, and to represent the district in labor negotiations. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the firm provides high quality legal counsel to the district. Indeed, the fact that the district has used the same law firm since 1986 through the tenure of five superintendents and many board members (of whom only three are needed to dismiss the firm) speaks to the district s satisfaction with its current legal counsel. While the district s primary law firm handles the predominance of the district s legal matters, the firm makes effective use of outside legal counsel when specialized expertise is needed. Other outside law firms are currently used to address FCC related issues, copyright issues, real estate issues, bond issues and to develop an eagle management plan. The district does not fully use this best practice in part because relationships with the district and the attorney have not been adequately formalized. For example, while informal procedures governing board access to the attorney are in place, are understood by board members and are considered effective, formal procedures governing how the board (or individual board members) confers with the board attorney have not been established. In addition, while the board attorney meets with the superintendent on a weekly basis, formal guidelines for the board attorney s overall interactions with the superintendent have not been established. (Establishing such guidelines would be helpful because while the superintendent appropriately seeks legal counsel from the board attorney, the board attorney reports directly to the board. The possibility exists that on an individual matter the superintendent may need counsel independent of that provided to the board. In such a situation, clearly defined procedures governing the superintendent s access to legal counsel would be extremely helpful.) Finally, no formal procedures have been established to determine when other staff should have access to the attorney. An expectation has been established, however, that only department heads can directly consult with the board attorney without prior approval. (Per board policy, however, any school board member or employee who is sued for any action arising out of or in the course of employment by the district will be provided legal counsel.) The district should establish formal procedures to govern the interactions of the superintendent, district administrators and staff with the board attorney. Action Plan 2-2 sets out the steps necessary to establish formal procedures governing the interactions of the superintendent, district administrators and staff with the board attorney. Action Plan 2-2 We recommend that the district establish formal procedures governing the interactions of the superintendent, district administrators and staff with the board attorney. Action Needed Step 1. Categorize the types of legal assistance provided by the board attorney. Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. Who Is Responsible Board Attorney, Associate Superintendents Time Frame June 30, 2004 Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. For each type of legal assistance, determine who (e.g., board members, the superintendent, department heads, other district staff) typically require the assistance. Make an overall assessment (high, medium, low) of the typical costs associated with providing legal assistance of each type. For each category of legal assistance consider the extent to which conflict of interest issues might arise. Use the information developed in the previous steps to establish formal procedures governing the interactions of the superintendent, district administrators, and staff with the board attorney Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

11 The district would also benefit from performing a more rigorous assessment of the services provided by the board attorney each year. At present, a formal annual evaluation of the board attorney is not performed and no formal evaluation of legal costs has been conducted by the district. (As Exhibit 2-4 shows, a range of approaches to providing legal services are provided in Sarasota and its peer districts and legal costs vary considerably. The fact that Sarasota s legal expenditures are higher than all but one of the peer districts should not be construed to mean that the district spends too much on legal expenditures or that the other districts spend too little. A wide variety of factors affect the legal expenditures that will be incurred by a district.) However, given this variation in legal expenditures (and the fact that many factors affect what legal expenditures are appropriate) establishing a process to ensure that the value of the services provide by the board attorney (and outside counsel) justify the cost would be worthwhile. 1 Exhibit 2-4 Legal Fees for the Sarasota County School District and Peer Districts Vary Considerably Fiscal Year Sarasota Charlotte Martin Santa Rosa Manatee Leon Staff or Contract Attorney Contract Contract In-House Contract Contract Contract Total Legal Fees $438,967 $154,515 $239,061 $40,666 $460,614 $417,952 Annual Retainer Fee $36,000 None N/A n/a None $41,000 Hourly Rate $162 1 $125 N/A n/a $135 $165 1 Average billing rate for services provided in Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. The district should establish a formal process for evaluating the board attorney on an annual basis. Action Plan 2-3 sets out the steps necessary to develop a formal process for evaluating the board attorney. In addition, every three to five years the district should perform an assessment of legal fees. As part of this assessment, the hourly rate charged by the existing board attorney should be assessed based both on comparisons with other districts and based on an assessment of the local market for legal services. Given existing budget constraints, the district should examine staff workload and priorities, and if at all possible, conduct this assessment in-house. However, if the district determines that it cannot effectively conduct its own assessment it may choose to retain a third-party firm with legal expertise to perform an the assessment. We estimate that contracting with a third-party firm would cost the district $15,000 over three years. (This estimate assumes that the third-party assessment of legal fees could be conducted in 150 hours an average cost per hour of $100.) Action Plan 2-3 We recommend that the district establish a formal process for evaluating the board attorney on an annual basis and assessing legal fees every three to five years. Action Needed Step 1. Develop and implement an annual evaluation process for the board attorney. Step 2. Step 3. Who Is Responsible Board Chair, Superintendent Time Frame June 30, 2004 Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. Establish a schedule every three to five years depending on the needs of the district to conduct a review of legal fees. The district should annually monitor its total legal costs and, if legal costs show an unusual increase, the district should investigate the cause of this increase. 1 Please note that because the district pays a higher hourly rate for legal services than at least one of the comparison districts should not be construed by itself to mean the hourly rate the district pays for legal services is excessive. In some cases, paying a higher hourly rate for services can be cost-effective when viewed from the perspective of the value of services provided. In other cases, however, employing a firm that charges a comparatively high hourly rate simply increases costs without creating the value that justifies the higher fees. Moreover, market conditions can vary dramatically from community to community and these factors, in turn, can affect the hourly rate charged for legal services. Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-11

12 ORGANIZATION, STAFFING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION Best Practice 5: Not Using The district s organizational structure has clearly defined units and lines of authority that minimize administrative costs. However the development of a process to review the organizational structure on a regular basis is needed. A school district s organizational structure should enable the effective and efficient delivery of support services to the schools, teachers, and students. In general, school districts should organize their administration so that similar support services are grouped together and lines of authority are clear to staff and the general public. In addition, school districts should minimize administrative staff, especially at the district level. There is no one-size-fits-all district organizational structure, although there are several common administrative structures employed by school districts statewide. Smaller districts are more likely to have a simple hierarchical structure with all administrative units reporting directly to the superintendent and ultimately to the board. Larger districts may group their administrative units by distinct functions [i.e., school operations; instructional support services (curriculum, evaluation); business support services (finance, budgeting, MIS); operational support (food services, transportation, safety and security)]. Irrespective of organizational structure, staff and the general public should be able to clearly understand who is responsible for what in the district. For the most part, the Sarasota County School District has established an effective organizational structure. The structure is streamlined and the overlap among organizational units has been minimized. 2 In addition, the structure does not have excessive organizational layers and the responsibilities of key administrators are well defined. The district also does an extremely good job of ensuring that organizational charts are current. Indeed, whenever a new position within the district is established, an updated organizational chart is provided to the board. The district s current organizational structure has supported its primary goal improving student achievement. Assigning direct control of the budget function to the associate superintendent instructional support services has helped to ensure sufficient financial resources have been allocated to support efforts to improve instruction. Likewise, having the information services function report to the associate superintendent instructional support services has facilitated efforts to develop the technology and information infrastructure the district has used so successfully to improve student performance. However, the district does not regularly review its organizational structure and, as a result, its organizational structure may no longer be effective or appropriate for the district s needs. The district could improve its organizational structure and use this best practice by implementing several changes. First, the district could establish a more independent information systems function. The current organizational structure has been more effective integrating technology into the district s instructional programs than its non-instructional activities. The district should have the executive director of student accountability and information services report directly to the superintendent (see Exhibit 2-6 at the end of this section). Under the proposed organizational structure, the need to use information systems and technology to improve non-instructional performance will likely be easier. Reorganizing the district s Student Accountability and Information Services could benefit the district in a number of ways. In particular, the re-organized student accountability function would have additional organizational status for the assessment of student performance. By having the Student Accountability 2 For the purposes of this analysis an overlapping function is defined as one where two or more units have responsibility for the same function or activity and where roles in performing the function or activity have not been adequately defined Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

13 and Information Services Division report directly to the superintendent, the superintendent will be able to ensure that this unit better focuses on addressing district needs and priorities. This reporting relationship could improve consistency in the use of technology to control costs and enhance effectiveness and the needs of schools to directly control the technology resources that affect their instructional program. The suggested structure could also enhance the accountability function and coordination of technology-related activities such as standardizing technology acquisitions (for more information about this issue, see Chapter 5 Administrative and Instructional Technology). The second organizational change the district should evaluate is the placement of the budget function. As noted, the current organizational location has facilitated efforts to ensure that district resources have been available to support instructional improvement. However, because the budget function is not only responsible for resource allocation but also for budget compliance and monitoring, from an internal control perspective having the budget function report directly to one of the district s largest users of financial resources is somewhat problematic. Among the options the district should consider to address this issue is having the budget function report to the associate superintendent/chief financial officer, a more traditional placement, where the function could be more closely linked with other financial activities (see Exhibit 2-5). Another option would be to have the function report directly to the superintendent (however, for this alternative to be viable the role of the function should be expanded to included district wide planning). In addition, leaving the current placement of the function unchanged is a viable alternative as long as procedures are established to ensure that the function s compliance and budget management functions are appropriately independent. Exhibit 2-5 Suggested Organizational Structure: Student Accountability and Information Services Unit Would Report Directly to the Superintendent; Budget Function Reports to Associate Superintendent Business Operations Superintendent Communication and Community Relations PALS Cable Television Associate Superintendent Instructional Support Services Curriculum and Instruction Workforce Development, Applied Technology and Community Education Grants Instructional Technology Associate Superintendent Business Operations Executive Director Facilities Services Student Accountability and Food and Nutrition Services Financial Services Information Services Transportation Human Resources and Information Services Labor Relations Technology Implementation Construction Services Student Placement Materials Management Student Projections Budget Choice Local Governmental Cooperation Student Assessment and Program Evaluation Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-13

14 Implementing the recommended organizational structure will create a number of benefits. First, the Information Service Division reports directly to the superintendent in the recommended structure. The superintendent will therefore be positioned to ensure that this unit focuses on addressing overall district needs and priorities and that both instructional and non-instructional needs are met. This independent reporting relationship will also facilitate a constructive dialogue about the need for consistency in the use of technology (to control costs and enhance effectiveness) and the needs of schools to directly control the technology resources that affect their instructional program. In addition, in the suggested structure the accountability function reports independently of instructional operations and coordination of technology related activities will be enhanced. The district should evaluate its organizational structure. Action Plan 2-4 sets out the steps needed to implement this recommendation. Action Plan 2-4 We recommend that the district evaluate its current organizational structure. Action Needed Step 1. Review the organizational suggestions presented in this chapter and assess their merits. Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. Who Is Responsible Superintendent Time Frame January 1, 2004 Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. Evaluate the organizational placement of the budget, student accountability and the information services functions. If the organizational placement of the budget function is not changed, develop procedures to ensure the independence of the budget compliance function. Clarify roles and responsibilities and reporting relationships in the approved structure. Seek board approval for the revised organizational structure. The district does not, however, do a good job of communicating its use of contract employees. Such employees are not included in district organization charts and are not included in summaries of administrative staffing. Consequently, it is difficult for the district to obtain an accurate snapshot of its actual staffing levels. Without explicitly including contract employees (on an FTE basis) in its staffing and budget summaries, decision makers (as well as interested members of the public) cannot accurately understand the total capacity that is available to perform a specific problem or to address a specific need. The district should revise it staffing summaries to include an indication of the number of contract employees (on an FTE basis) assigned to a given unit. Action Plan 2-5 sets out the steps needed to update existing staffing rosters and to establish a process for tracking contracted staffing on an ongoing basis Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

15 Action Plan 2-5 We recommend that the district include the number of contract employees assigned to a given unit on staffing rosters and staffing summaries. Action Needed Step 1. Require each department manager to develop a list of the contract employees that are currently employed on a full-time or part-time basis in their unit. 1 Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. For each function or activity performed by these contract employees determine the full-time equivalent (FTE) capacity that is currently employed. 2 Update staffing rosters to indicate the number of FTE contract employees currently employed. Establish a procedure for updating staffing rosters when new contract employees are hired (or the contracts of existing employees are not renewed). Require that information on contract employees be included in staffing summaries provided to the board. Who Is Responsible Associate Superintendent Business Operations Time Frame June 30, For the purposes of this analysis contract employees should include both individual contractors and the employees of firms with which the district contracts to provide services; however, contract employees who are used on an intermittent basis or for modest amounts of time (less than.25 FTE) can be excluded from this analysis. 2 Some contract employees may be year-round employees who work on a part-time basis. Other contract employees may be seasonal workers who work full time during a specified period of the year but are not employed at other times of the year. Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. The district would also benefit from conducting a systematic review of its business practices and organizational structure on a regular basis. To the district s credit, it contracted with an outside consulting firm to review selected areas. The report, however, while providing valuable recommendations, did not include a detailed review of business practices and operations. In addition, work done by the volunteer Financial Advisory Committee, while offering helpful suggestions for saving money, does not purport to be a detailed review of business practices. The need for the district to conduct a comprehensive review of business practices and organizational structure from time to time is reflected, in part, by the fact that in some areas spans of control in the district are too broad. At the time this study was initiated in October 2002 spans of control for supervisors were excessively broad in a number of areas including custodial services, human resources, and food services. At a minimum, a thorough review of organizational structure and business practices would identify such problems and develop recommendations to address them. It should be noted that instructional support division currently reviews each of its major programs on a regular basis (typically once every two years). While the primary focus of this recommendation is to extend this effective practice to the non-instructional areas, the scope of the reviews currently conducted in the instructional area should be evaluated to ensure these reviews incorporate an assessment of business practices, organizational structure and administrative staffing. The district should develop a schedule and process for reviewing organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices for all of its core functions on a regular basis. Action Plan 2-6 sets out the steps necessary to do so. Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-15

16 Action Plan 2-6 We recommend that the district develop a schedule and process for reviewing organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices on a regular basis. Action Needed Step 1. Review the scope of the reviews currently conducted of instructional functions to ensure they assess organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices. Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. Step 6. Step 7. Step 8. Step 9. Articulate the objectives of the recommended reviews of organizational structure, administrative staffing, and business practices for non-instructional functions. Establish a framework for conducting reviews of organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices to ensure a consistent approach is taken when conducting reviews of all district departments. Develop strategies and approaches to communicate the results of organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practice reviews to the board, district staff, and the community. Select one department and test the framework to conduct a review of organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices. Communicate the results of this initial review. Modify the framework and communications approaches based on the results of this review. Develop a schedule for completing reviews of organizational structure, administrative staffing, and business practices for all departments every four years. Include in this schedule a review, at least once every four to five years, of the district s overall organizational structure, administrative staffing and business practices. Who Is Responsible Associate Superintendent Business Operations Time Frame June 30, 2004 Source: Berkshire Advisors, Inc. Best Practice 6: Not Using District staff reductions have been based on budgetary expediency and not systematic reviews. The district does periodically review its administrative staffing and makes changes to eliminate unnecessary positions and improve operating efficiency. Well-run school districts are lean administratively and maximize funds available to support their primary mission, educating students. To accomplish this, school district staffing should promote efficiency and effectiveness while minimizing administration, especially at the district level. Low administrative to instructional staff ratios generally indicate that resources are being concentrated in the classroom, the main objective of most school boards and the state. However, districts must balance the goal of minimizing administration with the fact that some support services provided at the district level are more cost-effective than multiple site-based staff. The Sarasota County School District has reduced administrative staffing levels to the point where based on comparative data its ratio of administrators to non-administrators is among the lowest in the state. A comparison of administrative expenditures completed in February 2002, for example, found that the Sarasota County School District has the lowest percentage of administrative expenditures of any school district in Florida. In addition, a comparison of total administrators per student revealed that the ratio of administrators to students in the district one administrator for every students was the sixth lowest in the state Berkshire Advisors, Inc.

17 While the district is to be commended for its diligence in keeping administrative staffing low, these efforts have primarily been taken in response to budgetary needs rather than as part of an ongoing effort to improve operating efficiency. Moreover, as discussed in section five, in a number of areas (e.g., food services, custodial, and human resources) operating efficiency has been compromised because administrative staffing levels have been cut too deeply. A more comprehensive and systematic review of administrative staffing levels is needed to ensure that the district achieves an appropriate balance between the need to keep costs low and the need to provide adequate oversight over district operations. Implementing Action Plan 2-6, presented in the previous section, will also address the issues relating to administrative staffing presented in this section. Best Practice 7: Using The superintendent and school board exercise effective oversight of the district s financial resources. The school board and superintendent must have a clear and up-to-date understanding of the financial condition of their district in order to exercise effective oversight. To meet this best practice, board members should be able to understand the fiscal effects of their decisions, both short- and long-term. When fiscal problems arise, the district should be able to react quickly in a manner that prevents significant disruption of school operations. In general, financial reports and budget information should be clear and useful to board members and the general public. These documents should not require extensive explanation by district staff or the superintendent. Financial information should be updated and presented to the board on a regular basis, and all agenda items that have an impact on the budget should include detailed explanations of these effects. Sarasota County school board members and the superintendent take a number of appropriate steps to ensure they exercise effective oversight of the district s financial resources. In particular, the district is proactive in ensuring that board members receive training and understand school district budgeting and finance. To this end, when they are first elected to the board, board members meet with the budget and finance directors to receive an overview of financial issues. On the job training is also provided at budget workshops that cover financial matters. In addition, to facilitate understanding of the budget document, an executive summary is prepared that highlights key budgetary issues. Board members also indicate that they find the budget to be presented in an easy-to-read, understandable format. The district also does a good job of providing board members with an historical context for the current year s budget. To this end the district has prepared a document Finances: A Historical Summary Through that summarizes district revenues and expenditures for the past eleven years. Moreover, to ensure board members have a sound understanding of the short- and long-range fiscal implications of budget amendments, workshops are held to discuss the amendments and the amendments themselves are presented in a concise and understandable manner. Changes or concerns about the district s financial condition are also reported to the board in a timely manner. When a significant budgetary shortfall exists (for example, a state funding shortfall that has an adverse affect on the district) staff work with the board to communicate the implications of the shortfall and propose alternative approaches to addressing the shortfall. In some cases, the activities proposed are drastic. In the school year, for example, district contracts were frozen and employees did not receive the regular step increases. More recently, class sizes have been increased due to budgetary shortfalls at the state levels. Although the district is using this best practice, as previously discussed, the district has not systematically evaluated opportunities to improve management structures, increase efficiency and effectiveness and reduce costs although the district has consulted with an outside consulting firm SchoolMatch to review selected areas and work done by the volunteer Financial Advisory Committee has offered helpful suggestions for savings money. Action Plan 2-6 presented in the previous section, addresses the need for Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 2-17