Meeting Schedule, Agendas and Minutes
August 9, 2004 Minutes
Task Force members in attendance were Chairman William W. Wilkins, Vice-Chairman Jim Hyre, Ted Adams, Barbara Byrd Bennett, Susan Bodary, John Brandt, Fred Church, Walt Davis, Paolo DeMaria, Matt Filipic, Christine Hansen, Russ Harris, Representative Jim Hoops, Senator Jeff Jacobson, Thomas W. Johnson, Jim Mahoney, Dick Maxwell, Tom Mooney, Dan Navin, Senator C.J. Prentiss, Barbara Shaner, Barbara Sprague, Richard Stoff, David Varda, Scott Williams, Dennis Woods, Tom Zaino and Susan Tave Zelman.
Presentation:
- Blue Ribbon Task Force Presentation (PDF*, 152 KB)
-William W. Wilkins, Chair
-James Hyre, Vice Chair
The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:05 a.m.
Chairman Wilkins stated that the Funding for Success Committee would hold two more meetings as a separate committee. After its September 7th meeting the Funding for Success Committee will hold joint meetings with the Revenue and Taxation Committee. These will essentially be Task Force meetings, since all Task Force members are now assigned to one of these committees. Mr. Wilkins observed that the Task Force is examining long-term solutions to very difficult problems. He added that we need to come up with four dates during September and October. He mentioned as possible dates September 16th, September 30th, October 14th and October 28th, which are all Thursdays. We will contact Task Force members to establish firm dates for these meetings.
Mr. Wilkins reminded members that the purpose of the morning session was to hear reports from the Funding for Success and Revenue and Taxation committees. The afternoon session is reserved for a discussion of the policy implications of the committees' work. Mr. Wilkins called on Mr. Navin, the Vice Chair of the Revenue and Taxation Committee, to update the Task Force on the work of this committee. Mr. Wilkins noted that committee Chairman Chuck Gossett was very ill.
Mr. Navin began his presentation by crediting Chairman Gossett as being one of the main reasons the Revenue and Taxation Committee has been able to accomplish as much as it has.
Mr. Navin's PowerPoint presentation is available on the Task Force's website at http://www.blueribbontaskforce.ohio.gov. These minutes include only additional comments or questions from the Task Force members.
Senator Jacobson asked what will happen to the Task Force's proposal when it is completed. He believes that it would be extremely difficult to get the General Assembly or Ohio's voters to accept growing property taxes, even with a cap. Senator Jacobson opined that the need for this would probably differ depending on the specific school district. He asked whether the Revenue and Taxation Committee considered dealing with the issue of growing millage as a local rather than a statewide decision.
Mr. Navin replied that the committee did discuss that possibility. However, the feeling of the members was that it was important to require uniform local tax effort among school districts, and not to have many different inside millage rates and many different charge-off millage amounts among school districts The idea is that all districts are guaranteed adequate resources plus some automatic growth in exchange for uniform local tax effort. Mr. Navin added that the committee did consider options for school districts to "buy into" the state plan; if they did not agree to participate in the state's system they could not complain later about phantom revenue because they had their chance at a solution.
Mr. Church added that, during the afternoon discussion, he can show Senator Jacobson that the combination of having all school districts benefiting from 22 growing mills in conjunction with rolling back the 22 growing mills on a statewide basis actually causes the system to function in a way that is close to the goal described by Senator Jacobson. The local property tax growth in this system applies to where the problem occurs.
Senator Jacobson answered that his question was not about which way would work better. Rather, would it have a better chance of passing if it were a local decision rather than a statewide one? Do we want to take an all-or-nothing chance on it if there is merit here?
Senator Prentiss noted that she represents five or six school districts, all of which are going on the ballot for additional local funding. She asked how the proposal for 22 growing mills would affect the current system's over-reliance on property taxes. How would this proposal impact school funding equity?
Mr. Navin replied that the complaint heard most commonly by the Revenue and Taxation committee was the excess of ballot issues. The committee heard this from the spectrum of interested parties. Defeat of levies distracts educators from their primary duties, divides communities, and causes confusion because of a lack of knowledge of the system. Matching the inside levy to the charge-off really was a direct solution to one of the major issues that school people have identified.
Senator Prentiss does not understand how this proposal addresses the issue of funding equity. She is concerned that the funds that school districts are requesting are survival dollars, not expansion dollars. Even with this proposal, schools would still have to go back to the ballot.
Mr. Navin responded that the proposal to allow limited growth on 22 mills does not address the issue of equity. The Revenue and Taxation Committee's proposal would generate approximately $300 million in annual state savings that could now be targeted to school districts in ways recommended by the Funding for Success Committee. These savings could be redirected to benefit low-wealth school districts.
Senator Jacobson asked if the proposal generates $300 million in new money. Reducing the charge-off on real property from 23 to 22 mills costs the state an additional $200 million. Is there a net tax increase of $500 million, with $200 million of this being distributed to school districts in additional state aid? Mr. Church answered that lowering the charge-off on real property from 23 to 22 mills and increasing the charge-off on tangible property from 23 to 40 mills is not a tax increase. Increasing the tangible charge-off to 40 mills would reduce state payments to affected districts by more than $500 million annually. Reducing the charge-off on real property from 23 to 22 mills would increase state payments by approximately $200 million annually, for a net reduction in state funding liability of about $300 million ($500 million reduction less a $200 million increase).
Senator Jacobson asked whether his understanding of the proposal is correct, that there would be school districts that would lose $500 million a year in state funding. Mr. Church answered that a number of other decisions about such things as categorical funding would affect whether the school districts that had net charge-off increases actually lost state funding. If they did, then there would need to be a hold harmless for at least some amount of time to buffer the impact of the proposed change on affected school districts. He added that there are a lot of parameters that could be changed that would also affect the actual impact.
Mr. Mooney opined that the answer depends totally on the adequacy figure. Making the tax effort more uniform is good and there must be growth. Allowing growth is the only way to get rid of the endless levies. However, if the adequacy number is too low the growth loses its importance. Senator Prentiss agreed with Mr. Mooney, adding that she does not see any additional revenue resulting from this proposal. Mr. Zaino added that the Revenue and Taxation Committee cannot propose additional revenues until they know what the target is.
Mr. Maxwell noted that uniform growth in property tax revenues will help districts because it does not depend on the taxpayers' willingness to pass levies. At least it is growth for everyone.
Senator Jacobson iterated that part of the proposal is to reset the floor and the charge-off to 22 mills. He observed that this would require a tax increase in some school districts, which would bring initial opposition from the voters, even if they had reduced ballot frequency in the long run. He also stated that the redistribution from the higher tangible charge-off millage would cause unhappiness in some school districts.
Mr. Wilkins thanked the members for all the great questions. He noted that there would be more time for questions during the afternoon's session. Mr. Wilkins then called on Matt Filipic to update the Task Force on the work of the Funding for Success Committee.
Mr. Filipic summarized the work of the Funding for Success Committee. His PowerPoint presentation is available on the Task Force's website at http://www.blueribbontaskforce.ohio.gov. These minutes include only additional comments or questions from the Task Force members. After Mr. Filipic updated the Task Force on the committee's progress to date, he turned to committee vice chair Dick Maxwell for his observations.
Mr. Maxwell stated that the Funding for Success Committee is dealing with problems in determining the amount of money that should be spent on children. He added that everyone is focusing on what the base cost number should be, noting that the committee does not have one. Mr. Maxwell suggested that the Funding for Success Committee should use the analysis of the spending patterns of the excellent and effective gap aid districts as the basis for the beginning of a base cost discussion. How are these districts spending their limited resources and where does the committee feel that more resources are necessary?
Regarding poverty, Mr. Maxwell said that we need to determine whether the appropriate indicator is the wealth of the school district or the concentration of children living in poverty. He argued that any additions (enhancements) to the base cost should be tied to the foundation amount so that they grow at the same rate as the foundation level. Mr. Maxwell noted further that the committee needs to talk about how categorical programs are weighted. Funding for limited-English proficient (LEP) instruction currently is not in the formula but should have a weight. Mr. Maxwell opined that the final base cost number is not as important as determining what should be in the base cost, what are legitimate enhancements to that base and how much do they cost.
Dr. Byrd-Bennett observed that she has struggled with the notion of enhancements. For urban and rural school districts, "enhancements" may not actually be enhancements. Data-driven instruction and professional development are not enhancements. Arts in education is not an enhancement.
Dr. Byrd-Bennett added that the staff's poverty research has been interesting. It appears that the amount of money you get to deal with poverty might not have much of a relationship to your success. Cleveland is not successful, but it has made big improvements. The district needs appropriate funding so that it can continue to be successful. It is not about just pumping more money into the system. It relates to expenditures being focused on what needs to be done, which needs to be tied to accountability, including tracking systems that follow the money. This is not a city or state issue, but a national issue.
Mr. Mooney believes that he understands where the Funding for Success Committee is going on enhancements. He does not understand where the committee is going with the base cost question. He likes an inputs-based approach and helping children from a poverty background. However, he thinks that the base cost should fund things that are assumed to be part of a basic education, but may not be there anymore. Mr. Mooney feels that most people are willing to fund guidance counselors, libraries staffed with knowledgeable librarians, social workers, sports programs and similar functions. He opined that these things are always at risk or do not even exist in some school districts. Mr. Mooney does not understand what the gap aid school districts, that are spending minimal amounts of money, have to do with an inputs based approach.
Mr. Filipic replied that the approach used by the Funding for Success Committee was to use the gap aid districts to help members understand the inputs that we were currently buying at the base cost, so that we could have a discussion. We started with a number, which, by itself, does not really mean much to the committee or to the voters. We asked staff to analyze the spending patterns of the excellent or effective gap aid school districts that, by definition, were spending near the base cost amount. We asked staff to focus their attention on the gap aid districts that were relatively successful, since they were examples that we would more want to emulate, rather than ones that have not been successful. We looked at such things as average teacher salary and class size. What could we say about spending at this level? We understood from the beginning that we might disagree on how much additional state resources we should invest in changing that base-cost number, rather than targeting additional money for specific items such as those that address the needs of children living in poverty. We have never concluded that we were satisfied with the spending levels of the effective or excellent gap aid districts. We have concluded that all school districts should receive additional funds for data-based decision making, but that discussion is ongoing. Mr. Filipic iterated his belief that there is a more serious problem with a subset of school districts that must address the needs of large concentrations of economically disadvantaged children, but we cannot address their problems if we spend all of our money on raising the basic aid amount.
Senator Jacobson added that when the committee examined what was being purchased with the base cost, it included things like art, music, and physical education teachers. It was actually ahead or right on the recommended standard. Senator Jacobson agrees that "enhancement" is not the right word to describe such things as data-based decision making, but he believes that differing environments should be a good basis for different funding levels. He agrees with Mr. Filipic that the committee's focus has been on what additional things are needed for children of poverty.
Senator Jacobson continued that the committee needs to create a school funding system that will not collapse under its own weight, as well as focus funding on those school districts that have particularly difficult challenges to overcome. He opined that many costs of school districts have been decided not based on what the "real" or "right" cost is, but the cost that has been bargained. What the committee is saying is that we are willing to fund the following number of teachers at the following average salary. It is then up to school districts to decide how they are going to deploy that money to achieve the desired results. The committee needs to focus on things that are beyond the control of the school district such as the type of students that they must educate. If a school district wants to have more teachers or pay them more than the input-driven model supports, that is a local decision that they must fund locally.
After a break for lunch, the Task Force focused on the policy implications of the work of the two committees
Mr. DeMaria began the discussion by noting that, whenever he discusses school funding with superintendents, he can always get them to tell him what is wrong with specific areas of funding. He added that their eyes glaze over when he attempts to engage them in a conversation on base cost. Mr. DeMaria observed that the base cost amount is being spent right now in areas where we do not appropriately fund things. For example, special education weights are funded at 90%, but 100% of the bills have to be paid, so the base cost fills the hole. If pupil transportation expenses are greater than the formula computes, the school district pays the difference. Base cost is being eroded, so no one knows what base cost actually pays for, or could pay for.
Ms. Shaner added that phantom revenue has to be covered by those dollars as well. She noted that she has observed the sessions of the Funding for Success Committee and agrees that analyzing the expenditures of gap aid school districts is an acceptable place to begin. It makes sense to look at what the gap aid districts are buying with these minimal spending levels. However, Ms Shaner is concerned that only 25% of gap aid districts are either effective or excellent, which is not good.
Senator Jacobson answered that, hypothetically, let us assume that money solves all problems. He interjected that he does not believe this, but, for purposes of discussion, let us assume that it does. The fact that you have the money is not sufficient. That only 25% of gap aid school districts are successful is not the issue. The real issue is, what is the other 75% of gap aid school districts doing differently and why are they not successful spending similar amounts of money. Senator Jacobson noted that he is not saying the level of funds spent by the gap aid districts is an appropriate amount, but looking at them shows us a successful allocation of these levels of funds. He added that there is no purpose served in analyzing how an unsuccessful school district is distributing its resources.
Senator Jacobson continued that one can argue that $5,000 per student is not enough, or that a class size of 20 is not small enough. We also could disagree about other elements of the gap aid school districts' spending. What this analysis does give us is a place to begin the discussion. If we would choose to look at a school district that spends more than the gap aid districts, how could we determine how much less they could have spent and still be successful? We are attempting to determine how much spending is necessary to be successful. What we have found is that these gap aid school districts are achieving success at the amounts they are spending. We can still recommend a lot more funding than these districts are spending, but they are successful.
Dr. Byrd-Bennett suggested that spending any amount of dollars without monitoring and tracking will not work. She does not understand what a "basic" child is. Dr. Byrd-Bennett believes that some children need more money than others, depending on the context. Cleveland is almost an outlier. When you start as far behind as we did, it will take us a while to be successful. The Funding for Success Committee was just trying to get some information so that we could make informed decisions. We have more work to do, but we have built a foundation that we can build on. Building a school funding system that recognizes the needs of all children is very, very complicated, but this fact does not negate what we have done so far. We need to get by the "woe is me" syndrome and begin fixing things.
Dr. Zelman observed that No Child Left Behind does exist. It costs more to educate some children than others. In addition, it costs more to educate poor children in districts that have high incidences of poverty overall than it does to educate poor children in districts where there is a low incidence of poverty.
Mr. Mahoney opined that the road from failure to success is progress. Does it cost more to get good than to stay good? He believes that it does. There are a lot of things that have to be paid for while you work on becoming successful. We should be more prescriptive with school districts that are performing poorly, since it is not money that makes the difference, but how you spend the money.
Mr. Harris stated that the Funding for Success Committee had a chance to talk about standards of opportunity, but did not do that. We could have determined what learning opportunities should be available to every child in the state. We do not have a fair school funding system. There are great opportunities for some children, but very few for others. Ohio is rated 46th in terms of school funding equity because of our reliance on property taxes. That fact relates directly to the learning opportunities of our children. Georgia makes foreign language instruction available to all their children, but that does not happen much in Ohio.
Mr. Harris continued that the 112 gap aid school districts spent their money in a similar fashion, and yet 80% of them did not meet state standards. We cannot use their spending levels to represent an adequate funding level because that amount does not equal success. Mr. Harris noted that what bothers him the most about the gap aid school district analysis is that it does not tell us what the needs are in Ohio. How many children need intervention? How many teachers need different kinds of professional development? How many children are failing the proficiency tests? We need measures of need.
Mr. Woods noted that student intervention is required by state and federal law, so it must be included in base cost. If the state does not include intervention costs in the base, we have just transferred this mandate to the local taxpayer. He believes that the Funding for Success Committee needs to do more work in developing recommendations for intervention funding for all school districts. Mr. Woods suggested that the committee could pursue a model that would provide some fixed intervention amount for all students and additional funding for economically disadvantaged children.
Representative Hoops opined that phantom revenue is an issue that the Task Force can and needs to correct. He also believes that the Task Force should examine the impact of current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) on property tax burdens. Even if the Task Force recommends 22 growing mills, there is still a tax burden shift between residential and agricultural property taxpayers that puts school districts in the middle. Representative Hoops also noted that there are additional costs and other issues related to moving to an annual update process.
Mr. Maxwell expressed strong support for solving the phantom revenue problem. He believes that this issue creates more problems than any other funding component. Most superintendents are running levies too often because the formula works against them. If we do not address phantom revenue first, we are not solving the problem. Mr. Maxwell supported Representative Hoop's suggestion that the Task Force look at the impact of CAUV. He added that there is a huge shift in the tax burden every time we reappraise residential and agricultural land. Agricultural land is reappraised based on the cost of agricultural commodities, not on its market value.
Senator Jacobson observed that it took a while for him to get there, but he agrees with some of what Mr. Maxwell stated. He disagrees with Mr. Harris's assertion that you can hire an expert who can give you a base cost dollar amount. We do have some school districts whose revenues do not keep pace with their expenditures. We do a bad job of controlling expenditures, mainly because there are no negative consequences for having a bad collective bargaining agreement. Even if the district runs out of money, the contract is still binding. A school district then has to cut everything else that is not in the contract.
Senator Jacobson added that we have real issues on the spending side. Maybe there should be negative consequences for those who agree to labor contracts that are not funded. On the revenue side, phantom revenue puts pressure on some kinds of school districts. Senator Jacobson added that the Task Force needs to deal with this issue in some manner. However, he does not believe the Task Force should bank entirely on this one approach, since asking the General Assembly and voters to approve a constitutional amendment might not pass. He suggested that the Task Force could do something on a school-district-by-school-district basis and sell it district by district. If a statewide approach is the Task Force's only recommendation in this area we might end up with nothing.
Senator Prentiss expressed her concern with the direction of the discussion. It seems to be based on what kind of dollars are coming into the state today. She thought that the charge to the Task Force was to fix the school funding system. It appears that we are going to create something that addresses the here and now; not something that lasts. What is the problem with costing out smaller class sizes? We can then say that this is the direction the state is going. If we say to Dr. Byrd-Bennett that it is important to have data-based decision making, we need to do it within the context of collective bargaining in her district; otherwise, you only fund a fraction of what is needed.
Mr. Mahoney noted that, when we talk about standards, we mean high standards. In the 1980s we talked about minimum standards. Low performance is not a sin; low expectations are. We do have an opportunity to change what the future could look like. We should be looking at the ideal.
Mr. DeMaria agreed with Senator Prentiss. He observed that the beauty of the Commission on Student Success was that we knew that we could not implement the commission's recommendations overnight. The recommendations built excitement. The same thing was true with the Commission for Teaching Success. Mr. DeMaria added that every superintendent he speaks to says that preschool is a great investment. It is really expensive, but that should not deter us. We should paint a vision for the future and not stop because we see that the next budget is going to be very difficult.
Senator Jacobson responded that we talk about phasing in increased funding. The bill comes due eventually. The one thing that is really clear is that in the long run the state budget is not going to get significantly better. Economic growth will remain low or mediocre for some time. It would be wonderful to give children every possible thing that might help them. However, the Supreme Court did not say that we should give every child everything that they could possibly need. We have to say what can we accomplish and recommend what needs to be accomplished. We can and should improve the stability and predictability of the current school funding system. Also, we should identify the problems that cannot be addressed by the current allocation of resources. We need to be reasonable and realistic in how we go about this.
Mr. Harris stated that everyone saw what happened with the levies earlier this month. The last thing we need is stability and reliability. If you are in a bad way, you do not want it to continue. Education is a civil right in this state. These are children's rights; yet some have them and some do not. We are talking about meeting the basic tenets of Ohio's constitution, which should not be based on where you live. One of the proposals that we have discussed is data-based decision making. Since we have not looked at the need, we might have a huge number of teachers without computers who can not use data to make decisions.
Mr. Harris opined that the people of Ohio are going to be a little suspicious of a constitutional amendment that defines "effective mill". If we are going to amend the constitution, we need to do it the best way we can. Some states have made education a fundamental right. We should make education a fundamental right in Ohio. We should also recommend a meaningful tax shift. Mr. Harris believes that property taxes are too high in Ohio. He recommended a drastic reduction in property taxes along the lines of Michigan's reform. He urged the Task Force not to endorse a trivial constitutional amendment.
Dr. Byrd-Bennett stated that it was her understanding that part of the Task Force's charge was to examine the problem, and look at immediate as well as transitional plans for how Ohio should fund its schools. There should be a strategic transitional plan. No one is asking for unrealistic things for education. We need agreement on what it is we are seeking.
Mr. Filipic noted that he has been trying to identify the problem, since we cannot recommend a solution until we know what we are attempting to fix. Last year the Task Force heard a presentation from the Legislative Service Commission that showed that Ohio's spending per student increased quite a bit over the past decade or so. The problem is not that we are spending a lot less than everyone else in the nation. If that were true, the answer would be easy; spend more. However, Ohio's spending per pupil is very near to the national average. However, we do have serious problems.
Mr. Filipic opined that there is a great amount of chaos within our educational system. The better way to think about local property taxes is to put it in two pots. Pot one is the part that goes for basic funding. The second pot is the amount of property tax revenue that is provided past the minimum. That amount quickly evaporates because of the way that our property tax law interacts with our funding formula. This creates a lot of instability in the system. So the school district returns to voters to restore the eroding second pot. However, voters believe that the levy is new money, not a replacement. The second problem is that we have different rates of success in our kids not because of money spent, but because of children's backgrounds when they come to our schools. We were told by a national expert that Ohio is considered a model when it comes to funding poverty children, but the lower rates of success in districts that serve poor children tells us that we need to do more. Therefore, we need to do something about the property taxes on the margin, as well as meet the needs of children who live in poverty, rather than spread the money across the board.
Mr. Zaino stated that property taxes in Ohio are not high in general, compared to other states. He suggested that voters did not approve many in the recent round of levies because it is the only time they can vote on a tax, and they voted with their pocketbooks. Mr. Zaino opined that the tax reduction provisions in Ohio are broken. More than half of all school districts receive full inflationary growth because they are at the 20-mill floor. The Revenue and Taxation Committee's recommended change would actually limit that growth and reinvigorate the spirit of Ohio's tax reduction provisions. He added that Michigan is not a model for Ohio, as the situation in Michigan was very different when their reform was undertaken. Michigan had much higher property taxes than Ohio, and a relatively low sales tax. Michigan decreased its property taxes so that they are now roughly in line with Ohio's property taxes, and with the national average. Michigan increased its sales tax to 6%, but that is equal to where Ohio's combined state and local sales tax was before the current temporary one cent increase. In short, Michigan changed in order to be more like Ohio, so their change cannot serve as a model.
Dr. Zelman suggested that we need to look at Ohio in relationship to the rest of the nation. We have 27 states in litigation. The school funding system in this country is broken and needs to be fixed. Poor countries in Eastern Europe fund preschool from age three on. They do not have any money, but they find it for education.
Mr. Varda observed that the Task Force has tried to think creatively about ways to improve Ohio's school funding system. One of the things about "standards of opportunity" that has bothered him is that it relates to buying a service the same way that we have always done it. The importance is that, say, you have a library, but you do not necessarily have to have a highly skilled librarian in the building to provide sufficient library services. We should look beyond how we have traditionally educated our children in Ohio.
Mr. Varda continued that, if Georgia teaches foreign languages in elementary school, that means you cannot do other things with that money. In my district, educators believe that it would be better to spend resources on things other than foreign languages for elementary students
Mr. Adams noted that the policy drivers that are guiding the Revenue and Taxation Committee are, first, that all taxes are local, meaning that taxpayers pay for education whether the money is designated as state money or local money. Second, there are two holes in this boat. The second hole is the lack of a rudder. To pile more money into a broken system is not going to help. We need to better manage the money we have now before we add to it.
Representative Hoops stated that there are other issues. Community schools and open enrollment are necessary, but funding for them needs improvement. Electronic schools and the loss of students need to be addressed. In the National Governors' Association meeting in Seattle, there were presentations that showed that in the next decade there will be a lot of baby boomers retiring and the U.S. population greater than 65 years of age will increase from 13% to 20%. As a result, there will be less interest in schools and large homes, and more interest in transportation, shopping and health care. We need to think about that when considering using property tax levies to fund education. With regard to limitations on property tax growth, the only way that our tax reduction system will ever limit property taxes in such a way that individual taxpayers approve is to have each house have its own tax reduction factors.
Mr. Hyre observed that the Task Force's discussion has been very meaningful. He suggested that the Funding for Success Committee needs to present its conclusions and recommendations in a more concrete manner. He added that there are many unresolved issues. Mr. Hyre opined that the Task Force needs to focus on the big picture. He also stressed the importance of attendance, saying that if members miss meetings the issues are going to remain pretty fuzzy.
Mr. Wilkins stated that staff has taken detailed minutes and we take what you said seriously. We are completing a timeline in concert with the committee chairs and vice chairs, which should be available soon. We have to be done by the end of November if we want our recommendations to be considered for inclusion in the Governor's budget recommendations. Some recommendations could be fed to the Office of Budget and Management before then, so they can be worked in.
Mr. Wilkins continued that the Task Force leadership and staff are exploring the possibility of focus groups and polling before the final report is issued. He urged Task Force members not to become disheartened due to differing points of view. Mr. Wilkins is certain that every Task Force member's priority is still doing what is best for the children, even if we have different opinions on how that is done. He reminded members that the work is not done in November when the final report is issued. The issuance of the report is really the beginning. Mr. Wilkins closed the meeting by thanking all members for participating. He adjourned the meeting at approximately 2:00 p.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
