Usually the agenda for the next school board meeting is posted by the end of the day on the Thursday before the Tuesday meeting. For the August 13th meeting, then, the agenda would have been posted on the school's website by 5:00PM on Thursday, August 8, 2019.
When that didn't happen, I watched for it today, Friday, August 9. And it didn't happen today, either.
This means, unless somebody works tonight or over the week-end (and let's hope they do not), the agenda will not be published until the day before the meeting, which will be Monday, August 12.
The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act requires that the agenda be posted 24 hours before the meeting.
Since the meeting will likely open at 5:30PM on Tuesday, August 13, you can expect the agenda to be published and posted no later than 5:30PM on Monday, August 12.
The first order of business is a motion to go into Executive Session, which often lasts at least one hour. The Executive Session is a closed meeting, not open to the public. After the Executive Session, the board members return to the main room and re-convene in open session.
The agenda for a meeting usually states the time for the re-convening of the open session.
See the agenda on the District's website, www.richland2.org
At the upper right, click on EXPLORE
Click on School Board
Click on AGENDA
Under Meetings, check the date of the Agenda and click on it
Click on View the Agenda
Scroll down through the Items on the Agenda
To see details, click on the Item.
If an attachment is available for the Item, click on it for details
Friday, August 9, 2019
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Quorums and Roll Calls
At the August 6, 2019 Special Called Board Meeting it was fortunate, in my opinion, that there were no votes on any items. Wait! There was a vote. And, had it been taken correctly, the meeting might never have gotten underway. [CORRECTION. (8/9/19) There was a vote on the Executive Session item "diploma petition". Mr. Manning's voice can be heard on the YouTube recording of the meeting, but I did not hear him in the meeting room - because the microphones do not amplify board members' voices in the room.]
The School Board has slots for seven members. According to Board Policy, a quorum is five.
In other words, if five board members don't show up, there is no official meeting.
At 5:30PM, when Board Chair Manning called the meeting to order, Trustee James Shadd was not in his chair.
Here's the problem.
Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes are not fully-qualified, duly-seated members of the board. In other words, their presence doesn't count - legally.
They took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, so that is like never taking it at all. After they filed their Statements of Economic Interest Reports on December 4, 2018 with the South Carolina Ethics Commission, each became eligible to take the oath of office and enter upon official responsibilities. McKie and Holmes have never taken the oath of office legally.
So McKie and Holmes are not legally on the Board.
The legally-seated board members who were present at 5:30PM were Manning, Caution-Parker, Elkins-Johnson and Agostini. Count - 1-2-3-4. One short of a quorum.
The next problem is that this Board never calls the roll. At the beginning of the (first) open session, whether a Regular or Special Called Meeting, the Secretary should call the roll and record who is present and who is not present. Then there is a motion to go to Executive Session and a vote.
Shadd was present after the executive session, when the open session resumed. His absence should have been noted at 5:30PM, and his presence recorded at 6:43PM, when the open session resumed. Picky? Sure, but correct.
In some states the vote for Executive Session must be by individual calling of names, not en masse by show of hands. Then the board exits to a private meeting room for the Executive Session.
When the board reconvenes in open session (after the Executive Session), another roll call should be taken, again recording who is present and who is not.
The Minutes of the board meetings do contain attendance. The Minutes are prepared by a staff employee and presumably carefully read and approved by the Board Secretary before they are submitted to the board for approval. I don't think I have ever heard a board member on Minutes or request a correction.
The Richland 2 School Board is a public body. When time permits, I'll do some digging to learn more this aspect of the S.C. Open Meetings Act.
Regarding the August 6 Executive Session, was the purpose of one item adequately described? The Agenda reads, "Item 2.1 A Contractual Matter Regarding the Superintendent's Evaluation". Is that enough, or should the agenda have stated the nature of the contractual matter to be discussed?
The Newberry County Council had a $13.000 lesson in July 2017, because it had failed to describe adequately the topic to be discussed in an executive session.
And two years before that, the North Augusta (S.C.) City Council found itself in the S.C. Supreme Court over "proposed contractual matter".
So was it enough in the 8/6/19 Richland 2 Agenda to say it pertains to the Superintendent's evaluation? Or should there have been a little more detail?
South Carolina has a very weak Open Meetings Act, when compared to the state of my previous residence.
The School Board has slots for seven members. According to Board Policy, a quorum is five.
In other words, if five board members don't show up, there is no official meeting.
At 5:30PM, when Board Chair Manning called the meeting to order, Trustee James Shadd was not in his chair.
Here's the problem.
Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes are not fully-qualified, duly-seated members of the board. In other words, their presence doesn't count - legally.
They took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, so that is like never taking it at all. After they filed their Statements of Economic Interest Reports on December 4, 2018 with the South Carolina Ethics Commission, each became eligible to take the oath of office and enter upon official responsibilities. McKie and Holmes have never taken the oath of office legally.
So McKie and Holmes are not legally on the Board.
The legally-seated board members who were present at 5:30PM were Manning, Caution-Parker, Elkins-Johnson and Agostini. Count - 1-2-3-4. One short of a quorum.
The next problem is that this Board never calls the roll. At the beginning of the (first) open session, whether a Regular or Special Called Meeting, the Secretary should call the roll and record who is present and who is not present. Then there is a motion to go to Executive Session and a vote.
Shadd was present after the executive session, when the open session resumed. His absence should have been noted at 5:30PM, and his presence recorded at 6:43PM, when the open session resumed. Picky? Sure, but correct.
In some states the vote for Executive Session must be by individual calling of names, not en masse by show of hands. Then the board exits to a private meeting room for the Executive Session.
When the board reconvenes in open session (after the Executive Session), another roll call should be taken, again recording who is present and who is not.
The Minutes of the board meetings do contain attendance. The Minutes are prepared by a staff employee and presumably carefully read and approved by the Board Secretary before they are submitted to the board for approval. I don't think I have ever heard a board member on Minutes or request a correction.
The Richland 2 School Board is a public body. When time permits, I'll do some digging to learn more this aspect of the S.C. Open Meetings Act.
Regarding the August 6 Executive Session, was the purpose of one item adequately described? The Agenda reads, "Item 2.1 A Contractual Matter Regarding the Superintendent's Evaluation". Is that enough, or should the agenda have stated the nature of the contractual matter to be discussed?
The Newberry County Council had a $13.000 lesson in July 2017, because it had failed to describe adequately the topic to be discussed in an executive session.
And two years before that, the North Augusta (S.C.) City Council found itself in the S.C. Supreme Court over "proposed contractual matter".
So was it enough in the 8/6/19 Richland 2 Agenda to say it pertains to the Superintendent's evaluation? Or should there have been a little more detail?
South Carolina has a very weak Open Meetings Act, when compared to the state of my previous residence.
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
Thank you for speaking into the microphones
A big shout-out to Supt. Baron Davis for speaking into his microphone at the Special Called Board Meeting last night. Thank you. You could be heard and understand in the meeting room.
Teresa Holmes also spoke into her microphone. Thank you!
Now, a word to the other board members. Do you know that, when you sit back from your microphone and/or do not speak directly into it, your voice is not amplified in the room? Yes, it is picked up for the recording that is later broadcast on YouTube, but your soft voices cannot be heard by all who are actually seated before you in the room.
It was very difficult to hear Dr. Elkins-Johnson, Mrs. Agostini and Mr. Shadd. Board Secretary Caution-Parker didn't utter a peep during the portion of the meeting I attended.
Perhaps a short training class for the board would be helpful. The District's sound man could conduct it and coach the board members on where to place the microphone when they are speaking. Let them practice moving the microphone to about 6" from their mouth and then speaking into it. If they need lessons in elocution, provide them. A teacher (with tenure) from the speech department could coach them on breathing and voice projection. In other words, stop mumbling, Raise your head and speak into the microphone.
Little of what was said at the podium by the two staff members who presented the report on the Conference Center use could not be heard. And much of what was presented about the Meal Debt could not be heard. Dr. Elkins and Mrs. Agostini asked many questions about the process for collection. After the board comments and questions went on and on, the Board Chair interrupted with a request to halt the discussion and move on to other business.
While it is the board's prerogative to ask questions, the responsibility for Meal Debt management and collection is on the Superintendent's desk, and Supt. Davis correctly said so. The board members should be careful not to appear to be micro-managing the collection process. I felt that many of the good comments about the process should have been directed to the superintendent, not to the staffers.
I left at 7:49PM, when the board began wading through the many policy revisions on the agenda. I guess it's always possible that they set a record by moving swiftly through the revisions on the Agenda.
Teresa Holmes also spoke into her microphone. Thank you!
Now, a word to the other board members. Do you know that, when you sit back from your microphone and/or do not speak directly into it, your voice is not amplified in the room? Yes, it is picked up for the recording that is later broadcast on YouTube, but your soft voices cannot be heard by all who are actually seated before you in the room.
It was very difficult to hear Dr. Elkins-Johnson, Mrs. Agostini and Mr. Shadd. Board Secretary Caution-Parker didn't utter a peep during the portion of the meeting I attended.
Perhaps a short training class for the board would be helpful. The District's sound man could conduct it and coach the board members on where to place the microphone when they are speaking. Let them practice moving the microphone to about 6" from their mouth and then speaking into it. If they need lessons in elocution, provide them. A teacher (with tenure) from the speech department could coach them on breathing and voice projection. In other words, stop mumbling, Raise your head and speak into the microphone.
Little of what was said at the podium by the two staff members who presented the report on the Conference Center use could not be heard. And much of what was presented about the Meal Debt could not be heard. Dr. Elkins and Mrs. Agostini asked many questions about the process for collection. After the board comments and questions went on and on, the Board Chair interrupted with a request to halt the discussion and move on to other business.
While it is the board's prerogative to ask questions, the responsibility for Meal Debt management and collection is on the Superintendent's desk, and Supt. Davis correctly said so. The board members should be careful not to appear to be micro-managing the collection process. I felt that many of the good comments about the process should have been directed to the superintendent, not to the staffers.
I left at 7:49PM, when the board began wading through the many policy revisions on the agenda. I guess it's always possible that they set a record by moving swiftly through the revisions on the Agenda.
Special Called Meeting - waste and disrespect
Last night the Richland 2 School Board held a Special Called Board Meeting. The scheduled starting time was 5:30PM, and the Agenda showed that the Board would immediately go into Executive (closed) Session. And that's what they did.
But first a word about the room set-up. Apparently the board expected little or no turn-out from an audience, and they had the "wagons circled", effectively shutting out the public. The tables were set up in a U-shape, with the board and superintendent at the top and staff seated along both sides. And a podium set up at the open end of the U.
At 5:30PM a row of chairs was lined up along one wall. Along the other wall? Enough food to feed a lot of people. The district apparently treats the board to dinner, in exchange for showing up at a Special Called Meeting. A few of the board members helped themselves to food before leaving the room for the Executive Session. At least some of the food may have been catered by McCallister's.
There were about 20 District 200 staff members in attendance at 5:30PM. Few of them ate, and they all cooled their heels until the board finally returned about 6:43PM. Assuming these staff members are paid over-time or receive compensatory time-off for this after-hours duty, their waiting time is totally wasted, just waiting for the board to return.
Staffers should be asked to show up by the time when they are actually needed. This is certainly no sooner than the beginning of the public (open) session after the Executive Session; it could even be 10-30 minutes after the open session begins, because other agenda items precede staff reports.
The meeting agenda is created by the Board Chair and the Superintendent. Did they just overlook establishing the starting time of the open session? Did they expect that the main item in the Executive Session (pertaining to the superintendent) might take only 5-10 minutes?
The Board demonstrated great disrespect for the public and for the staffers who had nothing to do for an hour and ten minutes.
Just before the open session began, additional chairs were set up at the back of the room, and shortly about eight teachers showed up. They got the premier seating, where they might have had a better chance of hearing what was said during the meeting. When the open session began, there was no mention of any Executive Sessions items needing a vote.
A noteworthy item missing from the Special Called Meeting was the Pledge of Allegiance. Why is a Special-Called Meeting different from a Regular Meeting? It should be in every way just the same as a Regular Meeting, as the Board is the official governing body of the District, including a Public Participation segment.
And a regular feature of a Special Called Meeting seems to be food. Maybe the district should allow anyone present to partake of the refreshments. It appeared that a good amount of the food was going to left over. What would happen if the public just walked over and helped themselves to the left-over food?
Better yet, why is the food set up in the public meeting room or served at all? Board members are paid well for attending meetings. They could eat before arriving.
But first a word about the room set-up. Apparently the board expected little or no turn-out from an audience, and they had the "wagons circled", effectively shutting out the public. The tables were set up in a U-shape, with the board and superintendent at the top and staff seated along both sides. And a podium set up at the open end of the U.
At 5:30PM a row of chairs was lined up along one wall. Along the other wall? Enough food to feed a lot of people. The district apparently treats the board to dinner, in exchange for showing up at a Special Called Meeting. A few of the board members helped themselves to food before leaving the room for the Executive Session. At least some of the food may have been catered by McCallister's.
There were about 20 District 200 staff members in attendance at 5:30PM. Few of them ate, and they all cooled their heels until the board finally returned about 6:43PM. Assuming these staff members are paid over-time or receive compensatory time-off for this after-hours duty, their waiting time is totally wasted, just waiting for the board to return.
Staffers should be asked to show up by the time when they are actually needed. This is certainly no sooner than the beginning of the public (open) session after the Executive Session; it could even be 10-30 minutes after the open session begins, because other agenda items precede staff reports.
The meeting agenda is created by the Board Chair and the Superintendent. Did they just overlook establishing the starting time of the open session? Did they expect that the main item in the Executive Session (pertaining to the superintendent) might take only 5-10 minutes?
The Board demonstrated great disrespect for the public and for the staffers who had nothing to do for an hour and ten minutes.
Just before the open session began, additional chairs were set up at the back of the room, and shortly about eight teachers showed up. They got the premier seating, where they might have had a better chance of hearing what was said during the meeting. When the open session began, there was no mention of any Executive Sessions items needing a vote.
A noteworthy item missing from the Special Called Meeting was the Pledge of Allegiance. Why is a Special-Called Meeting different from a Regular Meeting? It should be in every way just the same as a Regular Meeting, as the Board is the official governing body of the District, including a Public Participation segment.
And a regular feature of a Special Called Meeting seems to be food. Maybe the district should allow anyone present to partake of the refreshments. It appeared that a good amount of the food was going to left over. What would happen if the public just walked over and helped themselves to the left-over food?
Better yet, why is the food set up in the public meeting room or served at all? Board members are paid well for attending meetings. They could eat before arriving.
Meal Plan Debt - Part II
After hearing most of the discussion regarding the Meal Plan Debt at last night's Special Called Board Meeting, I may have figured out the answer to one of my questions about the amount of the debt. That question is the amount owed by families, when the balance is less than $100.
The Meal Plan Debt is almost $242,000. The Update indicates that the district is trying to collect $218,000 from full-pay families, not from families of students on free or reduced-price lunch plans.
Number of letters sent to full-pay families: 939
Number of letters returned: 93 (10%)
Numbers of letters presumed delivered: 826
Debit of full-pay families owing $100 or more: $218,000
Average debt/family: $ 232.16 ($218000/939)
Total Meal Plan Debt: $242,000
Full-pay families ($100 or more) $218,000
Full-pay families (Less than $100): $ 26,000*
* Collection attempt is limited to phone calls and email, not threatening letters
197 families have coughed up $9, 137 so far. That's a paltry average of $46.38 per payment.
If 197 families had paid just the minimum amount of $100 targeted for collection, then the district would have received $19,700.
The Update indicated that 742 accounts remain targeted for collection. That number is 197 (the number of payments received) less than the 939 total accounts.
Will the district attempt to collect the balance on account for which only a partial payment was received?
If you would like to view the presentation to the board on the Meal Plan Debt and the discussion, see the YouTube recording for the August 6, 2019 Special Called Board Meeting. Pull the counter forward to 31:20 and hang on!
I missed this from Chief Financial Officer Dr. Miley's word in the meeting, when he said (about parents of full-pay students), "Some of them owe more than $1,500."
The entire discussion was very good and should be viewed by every parent. If you have comments, please post them below and inform your board member.
The Meal Plan Debt is almost $242,000. The Update indicates that the district is trying to collect $218,000 from full-pay families, not from families of students on free or reduced-price lunch plans.
Number of letters sent to full-pay families: 939
Number of letters returned: 93 (10%)
Numbers of letters presumed delivered: 826
Debit of full-pay families owing $100 or more: $218,000
Average debt/family: $ 232.16 ($218000/939)
Total Meal Plan Debt: $242,000
Full-pay families ($100 or more) $218,000
Full-pay families (Less than $100): $ 26,000*
* Collection attempt is limited to phone calls and email, not threatening letters
197 families have coughed up $9, 137 so far. That's a paltry average of $46.38 per payment.
If 197 families had paid just the minimum amount of $100 targeted for collection, then the district would have received $19,700.
The Update indicated that 742 accounts remain targeted for collection. That number is 197 (the number of payments received) less than the 939 total accounts.
Will the district attempt to collect the balance on account for which only a partial payment was received?
If you would like to view the presentation to the board on the Meal Plan Debt and the discussion, see the YouTube recording for the August 6, 2019 Special Called Board Meeting. Pull the counter forward to 31:20 and hang on!
I missed this from Chief Financial Officer Dr. Miley's word in the meeting, when he said (about parents of full-pay students), "Some of them owe more than $1,500."
The entire discussion was very good and should be viewed by every parent. If you have comments, please post them below and inform your board member.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
The Voice on Judgment against McKie
The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County newspaper (print and online) published a thorough article about the recent judgment filed against Amelia McKie, who still sits on the board of Richland School District Two. Reporter Michael Smith's article is dated August 1, 2019 and details the $51.750 judgment and the reasons for it. Click on the link to read his article, or go to www.blythewoodonline.com, click on News, and scroll down to the August 1st article. You may need to click on Next at the bottom of the page, if the article is no longer on Page 1.
Smith also describes the late filing of McKie's Campaign Disclosure Form that was due July 10, 2019. The Report must be filed quarterly, and this is the second time in 2019 that McKie has been late. Smith's article said that he contacted McKie by phone message on July 18 and within an hour the Report appeared on the Ethics Commission website.
While not reported in his article, that tardiness cost McKie $100.00 in a civil fine by the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
McKie wrote to Smith, "My campaign disclosures were prepared in advance of July 10 and were ‘saved’ until the July 10th date."
Smith then reports what the Executive Director of the South Carolina Ethics Commission told him - that "McKie started the online application process on July 10, but didn’t complete it until Thursday [July 18]."
So who is telling the truth. My money is on the words of the Ethics Commission Executive Director.
When the whole ethics and fines snarl became a topic of public discussion at school board meetings at the beginning of 2019, McKie said she was taking responsibility for her mistakes, apologized, and said they wouldn't happen again.
She managed to file on time the Campaign Disclosure Report that was due on January 10, 2019.
Then she was late filing the Report due April 10, 2019 (filed on May 8) and she was late filing the Report that was due July 10 (filed July 18).
Aside from the unresolved questions surrounding the legitimacy of her participation on the board and that she served illegally as Board Chair from November 13, 2018 to June 30, 2019 and signed official bond documents as Board Chair in 2019), it is not rocket science to file the Campaign Disclosure Report online.
It's actually quite simple. She is reporting the same numbers as on previous reports. You open the form and plug in the numbers. Then you read each prompt and follow it. I suspect there is no secret language on the form. As with any other online online, a submission is not complete until the message is visible that so indicates.
How can you make decisions on the board of a billion-dollar school district, when you can't even submit a simple report on time?
Richland 2 has a Board Policy pertaining to compliance with reporting obligations.
The board is spending considerable time nitpicking board policies so that they can catch employees and students doing something wrong. What about enforcing the board policies when board members, or those pretending to be, are caught doing things wrong?
Of course, McKie could self-report her Board Policy violations.
I am reminded of the late Reuben Greenberg, the former Chief of Police in Charleton, S.C. When he was a rookie cop, he got into an accident while enroute to a call. In an article in Guideposts magazine years ago, he told the interviewer that the accident was his fault, so he wrote himself a ticket!
Smith also describes the late filing of McKie's Campaign Disclosure Form that was due July 10, 2019. The Report must be filed quarterly, and this is the second time in 2019 that McKie has been late. Smith's article said that he contacted McKie by phone message on July 18 and within an hour the Report appeared on the Ethics Commission website.
While not reported in his article, that tardiness cost McKie $100.00 in a civil fine by the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
McKie wrote to Smith, "My campaign disclosures were prepared in advance of July 10 and were ‘saved’ until the July 10th date."
Smith then reports what the Executive Director of the South Carolina Ethics Commission told him - that "McKie started the online application process on July 10, but didn’t complete it until Thursday [July 18]."
So who is telling the truth. My money is on the words of the Ethics Commission Executive Director.
When the whole ethics and fines snarl became a topic of public discussion at school board meetings at the beginning of 2019, McKie said she was taking responsibility for her mistakes, apologized, and said they wouldn't happen again.
She managed to file on time the Campaign Disclosure Report that was due on January 10, 2019.
Then she was late filing the Report due April 10, 2019 (filed on May 8) and she was late filing the Report that was due July 10 (filed July 18).
Aside from the unresolved questions surrounding the legitimacy of her participation on the board and that she served illegally as Board Chair from November 13, 2018 to June 30, 2019 and signed official bond documents as Board Chair in 2019), it is not rocket science to file the Campaign Disclosure Report online.
It's actually quite simple. She is reporting the same numbers as on previous reports. You open the form and plug in the numbers. Then you read each prompt and follow it. I suspect there is no secret language on the form. As with any other online online, a submission is not complete until the message is visible that so indicates.
How can you make decisions on the board of a billion-dollar school district, when you can't even submit a simple report on time?
Richland 2 has a Board Policy pertaining to compliance with reporting obligations.
The board is spending considerable time nitpicking board policies so that they can catch employees and students doing something wrong. What about enforcing the board policies when board members, or those pretending to be, are caught doing things wrong?
Of course, McKie could self-report her Board Policy violations.
I am reminded of the late Reuben Greenberg, the former Chief of Police in Charleton, S.C. When he was a rookie cop, he got into an accident while enroute to a call. In an article in Guideposts magazine years ago, he told the interviewer that the accident was his fault, so he wrote himself a ticket!
 |
| Reuben Greenberg (1943-2014) ©The Talon |
Monday, August 5, 2019
How high is student meal debt?
On the Agenda for tomorrow night's school board meeting (5:30PM, August 6, 2019) is Item 5.4, Update: Meal Debt.
An attachment to the Agenda, available for public viewing, shows that this debt is "almost $242,000". This makes one wonder just who was watching the store!!!
The district is trying to collect $218,000 from full-pay families. It is not a debt of free/reduced eligible families.
How does this debt approach almost one-quarter of a million dollars???
You can view the PowerPoint program through the Agenda or by clicking on this link.
I was first reminded of words spoken by the wise Yoda. "Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try." Don't "try" to collect the debt. Collect it!!!
The district sent letters to delinquent parents on June 27 and July 18, but apparently only to those owing $100 or more. NOTE: WHAT DID IT DO BEFORE JUNE 27???
The district mailed 939 letters; 10% were returned as undeliverable. $9,137 came in on 197 accounts, but the PowerPoint presentation doesn't indicate whether those were full or partial payments. Obviously, it was mostly partial payments, because the average payment was only $46.38. What about the rest???
A third letter is being mailed today The fourth letter will go out on August 16 and informs parents that the debt will be turned over to a collection agent.
Come on, folks. If a full-pay student keeps showing up for lunch with no money, why didn't the district take action long before the balance got close to $100.00?
What's the plan to collect from the rest of the deadbeats? How many accounts have balances of $99.99 or less?
Should the district hire a bill collector (cost?) or sic a polite, well-trained employee on these deadbeats? Or maybe hire a part-time employee to contact every one of the 939 debtors with the higher balances and those with smaller balances?
An attachment to the Agenda, available for public viewing, shows that this debt is "almost $242,000". This makes one wonder just who was watching the store!!!
The district is trying to collect $218,000 from full-pay families. It is not a debt of free/reduced eligible families.
How does this debt approach almost one-quarter of a million dollars???
You can view the PowerPoint program through the Agenda or by clicking on this link.
I was first reminded of words spoken by the wise Yoda. "Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try." Don't "try" to collect the debt. Collect it!!!
The district sent letters to delinquent parents on June 27 and July 18, but apparently only to those owing $100 or more. NOTE: WHAT DID IT DO BEFORE JUNE 27???
The district mailed 939 letters; 10% were returned as undeliverable. $9,137 came in on 197 accounts, but the PowerPoint presentation doesn't indicate whether those were full or partial payments. Obviously, it was mostly partial payments, because the average payment was only $46.38. What about the rest???
A third letter is being mailed today The fourth letter will go out on August 16 and informs parents that the debt will be turned over to a collection agent.
If 939 accounts owe $242,000, that's an average of $257.72 EACH. Some owe more; some owe less. All owe at least $100.00.
Only 23% (197/846) who got one of the first two letters sent any money at all.
Only 23% (197/846) who got one of the first two letters sent any money at all.
The average payment received from 197 respondents was only $46.38 ($9137/197).
Come on, folks. If a full-pay student keeps showing up for lunch with no money, why didn't the district take action long before the balance got close to $100.00?
What's the plan to collect from the rest of the deadbeats? How many accounts have balances of $99.99 or less?
Should the district hire a bill collector (cost?) or sic a polite, well-trained employee on these deadbeats? Or maybe hire a part-time employee to contact every one of the 939 debtors with the higher balances and those with smaller balances?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)