Easy Come, Easy Go: RPS’ FY2025 Budget (Pt 1)
The Board adopted a budget last week. I promised myself I’d tell you all about it a month ago.. but these budget talks were suuuuuper boring.
Hardly anyone even showed up to the February 14th meeting! (Including me.) When Dawn Page arrived 30 minutes late, Kamras asked her if there was a traffic accident or something. I laugh-yelled “Dude! It's Valentine’s Day!” at my screen and logged off to make heart shaped pizzas with my 3 year old instead.
I did watch the meeting eventually, but it was nice to feel like I could check out for a bit with a boring Board at the wheel.
A boring Board shows up prepared.
A boring Board is a cooperative, policy-focused Board.
A boring Board makes progress, not splashy headlines.
A boring Board passes their budget on time, rejecting stall tactics and misinformation about the superintendent's (not at all) hidden budget book.
There’s a lot of budget-content to sift through, so I’m going to break it up into (at least) two blog posts.
Today, we talk about:
“What gets Budgeted Gets Done”
Sticker Shock
Then come back later to learn about two critical investments:
The 200-day calendar pilot (R200)
Teacher Retention
“What’s in the Budget Gets Done”
That’s what Amelia Vaughn told the Board this fall when she/the city offered to analyze RPS spending as part of a “fiscal mapping” exercise designed to ensure the two governing bodies were working cooperatively to fund all kid’s needs. (Dr. Harris-Muhammed said no because she didn’t want an outside body looking into RPS. Her colleagues decided to participate in this Children’s Budget project anyway.)
The gist of Vaughn’s catchy tagline is, very simply, that government can only act to meet the needs of their community when they commit funding towards a solution.
That’s what RPS’ budget season is all about. The superintendent’s cabinet take turns explaining a need, and the School Board decides whether or not to fund it. Before we talk about what the administration asked for, here’s some context to help you have an idea of scale:
RPS’ total budget last year was $383 million (City + State + Federal)
The City’s contribution was $221 million, $21 million more than the year before
The City’s contribution usually grows when the economy does, and usually only by another $10-15 million per year
The budget discussion below is basically how can we spend that extra money to meet our student’s most pressing needs.
The Academic office wants to address the division’s literacy crisis. They ask for $1.98M to hire 20 additional “reading specialists trained in [the] Science of Reading” to improve the quality of reading instruction across the division. (Using researched-based methods should not be controversial, but it very-sadly is.)
They also want to bring the Richmond Alternative School in-house. RAS (“razz”) supports secondary students “who have behavior concerns/infractions at their home school.” Currently, this work is outsourced to Camelot Education, a company that “provides 17 staff members who support student referrals, behavior and academics.” But Camelot uses a different curriculum than the rest of the division and doesn’t offer all the same courses, which has made it hard for students to transition back to their zoned school. The academic team asks for $1M to staff the Alternative School themselves - including hiring a dedicated art and music teacher, which now-Councilwoman Nicole Jones would love, but Mariah White (their school representative) doesn’t, for some reason.
The Academic team is also asking for $1.5M to expand the 200-day calendar pilot program - but we’ll talk more about this in Part II, because they have identified an alternate funding source for this.
The Talent Office wants $2.65M for Collective Bargaining (CBA) commitments, and $16.85M for staff raises (anywhere from 2.5% to 22%). There was a specific focus on raising salaries for employees who did not receive them last year, since city funding could only cover teacher’s CBA in FY2024. (That’s why you see so many 0% raises in the 2024 column below)
Teacher salaries are now 35.3% higher than in FY2018, and will hit 40% in FY2026.
The Wellness Office wants $1.9M to hire additional counselors and support specialists, plus funding for a bunch of un-sexy stuff like printing SCORE booklets and replacing Care and Safety Associates’ (CSA) old, worn uniforms.
The Engagement Office would like to add two bilingual family liaisons and attendance incentives. Their total ask is $215,000, which is shocking, considering how frequently the Board (White, Dr. HM) describe them as bloated and wasteful.
The Operations Office wants to hire an electrician and an Assistant Facilities Director to oversee $3.3M in building “repair and maintenance“ supplies and contracts, and $16M in capital improvements (CIP). (Reminder: CIP is for large-scale maintenance projects like new roofs, HVAC replacements, and electrical/alarm upgrades.) There’s also a thorny $72,000 to add trailer classrooms to address overcrowding at Reid Elementary, which prompts another ‘we have lots of vacant seats in other RPS schools’ lecture from Jonathan Young.
The Board rejects the recommended Assistant Facilities Director new hire, which is notable because this position is described as somebody who could both perform the safety audit some Board members insist we need. This position would also double the staff dedicated to addressing the REA’s concerns about building safety and compliance:
“This role would respond to building issues; inspect buildings, equipment, and premises for hazards and violations of safety codes and regulations... The position is part of a long-term vision for the team to allow the Director of Facilities to focus on staff management and development, CBA needs, safety plans, budgetary needs, regulatory audits, and quality control implementation for the division.” (Emphasis mine)
This seems like a perfectly logical investment to me; especially as a response to the Council of Great City Schools’ 2018 audit finding that there is “…a lack of accountability to ensure that safety issues at district sites that require repair are promptly remedied.”
Instead, the Board limits the Chief Operating Officer to hiring additional tradesmen. They decide to fund three new electrical and HVAC positions instead, despite knowing there are 3 already-budgeted-for trades positions that have been sitting vacant for months.
The Board also takes issue with the Operations department’s reliance on staffing vendor ABM to providing coverage for 24 persistent custodial vacancies in “six schools that are incredibly challenging to staff.” Admin says ABM has been “overwhelmingly positive” to work with, keeping these schools clean while the talent office struggles hire folks in-house, but the Board severs that contract anyway. (I’m unclear on how these schools will remain clean in the meantime.) They brand this as a “pro-worker” decision, since in-house custodial staff receive employee benefits; but it’s more accurate to call this “worker-neutral” - because the staffing vendor provides full employee benefits as well.
Some custodial positions have remained vacant since June, 2023
All in, RPS’ FY 2025 budget asks the City for a $41M increase over last year’s funding: $25M for operational expenses + $16M for capital improvements.
It does not include $25M to install sprinklers in RPS schools that predate them, nor does it include a living wage (apx $20-$22/hr) for all the employees who passionately advocated for themselves all budget season.
Unfortunately, sources indicate the city is only prepared to increase RPS’s budget by something closer to $18M this year because, as Mariah White reminds us, city employees are also collectively bargaining for better pay, and the city must budget accordingly.
That $23M gap between RPS’ ask and the city’s rumored payout means we should expect significant budget cuts in the coming months.
Sticker Shock
We talked about revenue - the money coming into the division - so let’s take a second to talk about all the unexpected money going out.
RPS got hit with two big whopper-bills to pay in the last couple months.
The first is for the 3rd party investigation of the June 6th graduation at the Altria theater.
Dr. Shonda Harris-Muhammed passionately advocated for this $22,000 investigation because “the information provided to the School Board by the superintendent… is questionable - ie, I did not see all students wanded” when they went through the graduates entrance of the Altria theater.
It was seconded by Kenya Gibson, who said the Police Chief’s insistence that there were no guns in the theater “[did] not give [her] a lot of confidence.” She believes the investigation will uncover what she describes as a sort of Administration/RPD coverup:
“The administration has given no indication that they have any interest in confirming that the guns were not in the theater. They’ve given no indication that there’s any possibility that it happened. In fact, we’ve been told with certainty that Amari Pollard did not have a gun inside the building, which to me defies some logic considering that this happened right after the event… Why would he not bring the gun? You know what I’m saying? Like, ok, so he had a gun, then he ran into it - and he saw it - and then he ran to his car - and then he came back out? Like, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, you cannot rule out the possibility that he brought a gun into the theater. The rumor mill is real, and I have been told that if you were to have looked at [surveillance video of] Shawn Jackson entering the building that it was clear that Shawn Jackson had a gun when he went into the side door.”
As it turns out, Shawn Jackson (victim) was unarmed. His step father, his friends, and Amari Pollard (shooter) all left the graduation early, retrieved guns from their cars, and returned to Monroe Park to gather with recent graduates. (These details came out this week in Pollard’s criminal trial.)
Even Pollard, who is argued self defense, said “that he didn’t see Shawn with a gun."
Dr. HM was right though - no student was “wanded” with hand-held metal detectors. That’s because door security guards were using stationary (walk-through) metal detectors instead, which is exactly what the Superintendent told her in his initial report:
“In the morning, Richmond Community students were check with metal detector wands as they entered the building. To accommodate Huguenot’s larger class, a walk-through metal detector was added for the afternoon ceremony.” Kamras’ Incident Report, Pg 3
Unfortunately, Sands Anderson spent so much time investigating these red herrings and conspiracy theories that they missed their original deadline and went “well beyond the 50 [hour] mark” conducting 30 interviews and reviewing some 140 documents.
We see in interview transcripts that Sands Anderson communicated these overages throughout the process, indicating that they’re being pulled “all over the place” with requests that are outside of the scope of the investigation they were hired to conduct.
The investigation that was expected to take 50 hours ended up taking 231 hours, and costing a whopping $86,523.50.
Part of the bill (18+ hours) was because the Richmond School Board got sued for following Sands Anderson’s assurance that the report was exempt from FOIA laws, and so needed the law firm to help participate in their legal defense.
Sands Anderson isn’t the Board’s only legal bill, though. RPS now has to pay their own legal counsel (Haney Pinyowattanachip PLLC) for reviewing the FOIA case, as well as paying all the local medias’ court costs for bringing the case in the first place.
The Board’s insurance company, VACORP, will cover some of these fees. The Board has “general liability coverage” that funds their legal defense costs, settlements, or judgments that may arise from lawsuits or claims brought against the school division.
Which brings us to the Board’s second surprise bill: VACORP is jacking up the cost of RPS’ insurance.
They’re increasing the cost of that general liability coverage by $73,000. I suspect this is in no-small-part because RPS has the kind of School Board that spends $86,523.50 on an investigation to find evidence of their administration’s negligence, then fight hard to serve that damaging evidence to the public, despite their attorney’s objections and attempts to educate their clients about “legal ramifications and insurance-related issues that could arise from the release of the report.” RTD
Ignoring legal advice has been a long-time habit of this School Board.
This fall, Gibson (seconded by Young) repeatedly introduced a couple of “inflammatory” resolutions the REA wrote to address mold and fire safety. Their legal counsel publicly opposed these motions, and “recommended redrafting the proposals 'to address the board's [facility] concerns in a way that does not concede liability unnecessarily.” (VPM)
The Board’s prior attorney (Ms Lilly) was always trying to protect the Board from themselves this way:
On multiple occasions (2021, 2023) she warned the Board that they were violating procurement law, and opening themselves up to lawsuits (“protests”) that accuse the Board of awarding contracts based on bias, not merit. (Ie. corruption/favoritism.)
She told the Board they were increasing the risks of wrongful termination lawsuits after White/Young/Gibson endorsed a “problematic” motion that gave themselves de facto control over hiring, firing, and disciplinary decisions
She urged the Board to reject the REA/VEA’s 2021 collective bargaining resolution that violated FOIA (transparency) laws and state regulations governing employee discipline.
My guess is that VACORP has seen this pattern of Board members supporting bullish motions that violate state law, and decided to pass the financial risk of resulting lawsuits onto Richmond taxpayers.
Speaking of risky business…
VACORP is increasing their fee to insure RPS properties by $153,000. This is partially because they’re paying a lot of money ($12.4M) to replace Fox Elementary; but it’s also because they’re constantly confronted with headlines that reflect the facility department’s “extreme neglect:”
“Richmond teachers voice concerns about "visible mold" growing in classrooms” AXIOS
“Most Richmond schools failed fire inspections at start of school year with 190 violations: 'There's no words'” CBS6
Now, many (not all!) of these concerns were overblown.
There was a problem with an HVAC unit causing “airborne fungal amplification” in Boushall in September, which was serviced and remediated accordingly; but there were also cases of staff misidentifying mildew and water-stains on ceiling tiles from sweating pipes. Mold experts repeatedly found that our buildings were “safe for occupancy,” and advised the Board in November that their $150,000 mold response - including conducting separate air tests in every room - was “overkill.” This was confirmed weeks later when an inspection by the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry “did not reveal any conditions which we consider a violation of the [occupational safety and health] standards,” either.
And there were certainly fire violations - “however, none would have prevented the opening of those affected schools.” (Chief of Fire, Melvin Carter) Most were things like “missing ceiling tiles” and the “improper use of electrical cords” with a few cases of Christmas light classroom decor and burnt-out lightbulbs peppered in here and there. You know, the sort “violations of safety codes and regulations” that Dana Fox told us an Assistant Facilities Director would proactively look for and address on a regular basis.
Nevertheless, “perception is reality” - and the media spotlight on these issues have had a damaging effect on the division’s reputation, and our insurance premiums.
There are other surprise fees, too, like a $35,000 in “excess liability coverage” just in case they max out and of these other policies.
In all, VACORP’s total FY2025 price hike is $456,000, far exceeding the $100,000 jump the administration was expecting.
Alright! That’s enough for today. Later this week, we investigate two of the division's most critical investments: R200, and teacher retention. See you then!