[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6552551,"mediaKeyId","5114318-61f00a985c1e51b0d7c8f2fbe811676e","parentId",5114318,"title","Cumberland County school board discusses budget draft, fund balance and capital-project priorities; no formal vote","audioSeconds",442,"startMs",2857000,"endMs",3299000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114318-61f00a985c1e51b0d7c8f2fbe811676e&start=2857&end=3299","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5114318-61f00a985c1e51b0d7c8f2fbe811676e/thumbnail_2857000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6552551/Tennessee/Cumberland-County-school-board-discusses-budget-draft-fund-balance-and-capital-project-priorities-no-formal-vote","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552551-c03f3f46556ca7860787016749db18ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159943&Signature=ieNsq3aoEjfCu6Ym4n5dn-sOCvNcVK803uIetfZOsWvjE~okW~dPeimWUCixGhaHWvvowtADfM7qu9VpDBPDRvxxqCq97Y3BZgBL6YpgwBXYtPQwPHSdVCsmcCaXFVUAnuMtyUzTCHbqDkUcFqhKShhqmLzrhuYoP3wMFoPIiMTkwz7MLSBdbibLNZe07raHjnqoFqxHOKtuz5fThOZjkCc-eXAeBnKSwZCEk5V51RbuHyIr43PgOT-Uvpg6oyMPBUUIpSOStbEBAHf7t84Aipk9jeTcMWVgfhwnWT8uukDCybgmC62CCgdftUaRd~fMZtT1kIEDCPwQQvseIaxF3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cumberland County Schools","date","2025-07-01T11:48:14Z","article","Board members reviewed the school district’s draft budget and capital project priorities and discussed returning with updated numbers after June 30 so the district can use actual fund-balance figures when finalizing recommendations for the county commission.

A staff member who manages budget materials told the board draft 2 contains roughly $4.7 million in cuts that were not present in draft 1 and recommended adding a column that shows the difference or balance by June 30, with an updated packet expected by July 7. The staff member also said the district has an engineering report from Uplands that ranks facilities needs and that many capital items listed are rated as high-need (4 or 5 on the vendor’s scale).

Members discussed whether to include an assumed $1.2–$2.0 million transfer into the fund balance or to treat any additional funds as contingent on what the county commission ultimately provides. One board member said the district should remove Baker’s Crossroads from a list of assets to be transferred unless the board decides otherwise. The board did not take a formal vote on those points during the meeting; the meeting record shows the budget conversation will continue and that staff will circulate updated materials in advance of the next review.

Board members also discussed logistics for distributing budget packets and the timing of public presentation. Staff said 25 printed copies had been distributed to county offices and that the board would email digital copies to members five days in advance of future meetings when possible. Several members urged clearer presentation of capital-project business cases so county commissioners understand the rationale behind requested funds.

No formal motions or votes on the budget were recorded during the session. Board members agreed to revisit budget figures after June 30 and to aim to present a clearer, consolidated packet to the county commission once year-end balances are known.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOE Special Called 6-25-25","oneSentenceSummary","Board members reviewed draft 2 of the operating and capital budgets, discussed waiting until after June 30 to finalize fund-balance figures, and referenced an engineering report that ranks capital needs; no formal vote was taken on budget changes at the meeting.","taxTitle","Cumberland County, School Districts, Tennessee","taxId",76410,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6552555,"Cumberland County Board approves four-year contract for director of schools, removes bonus language pending evaluation process",2520,176000,2696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114318-61f00a985c1e51b0d7c8f2fbe811676e&start=176&end=2696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5114318-61f00a985c1e51b0d7c8f2fbe811676e/thumbnail_176000.jpg","/articles/6552555/Tennessee/Cumberland-County-Board-approves-four-year-contract-for-director-of-schools-removes-bonus-language-pending-evaluation-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552555-70a23c608c191ebfa9c56a95a558396c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159943&Signature=Bg8ejB5ayarknfxMxmx8KWR~i6KIIfpGnut6lBPqUj9vVrRhcX59yvpWLc8LL1dfJTJ6JeEt6QWffO0oPM46~00gZII-5OH~YoIip8jH0xqgjgxwk~CVoHeCwRiqlwPWsjF3b3YPjaYV35VIZEuFitsWsVI4mrFAvl-sdxuDBOYrionlFEQzp0m7gWdPYZ-S7Er5VXWVudKlo87Suve8yqq9n8w9Y0jBAabIeM5SRdcz98~E8~w3X1OhnA-A1ihGLQV-xl349g5vIUXF5ATLaHd9aYNhQIffhUbD-DceZkMQZDLqaZtuPN9-fVVbhJIHtJyWfETqlC6D8D9c21WgVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cumberland County Board of Education members voted 5-2 to approve a four-year employment contract for Dr. Farley as director of schools, setting a base salary discussed at $135,000 and retaining a $600-per-month automobile allowance. The board also amended the contract to remove detailed bonus language and the sentence concerning a waiver of tenure rights, and moved the director’s first formal evaluation to June 2026.

The vote followed more than two hours of discussion during which board members debated term length, salary level, an automobile allowance, and whether to include a performance-based incentive in the contract. Proponents said a four-year term would provide stability; critics said a long guaranteed term without a fully developed evaluation process could reduce accountability.

Board member Mister Cole praised Dr. Farley’s work and urged approval: “I have full faith that doctor Farley will lead the school district in the direction it needs to go for the benefit of our children,” he said. Kevin Ross, who identified himself as a representative for Dr. Farley, told the board his principal client was “fine with all of those” amendments and suggested tying any future bonus to an approved evaluation process rather than leaving a bonus schedule in place now.

During the discussion the board agreed to strike a sentence in the contract’s transfer/tenure paragraph (item 19) that the attorney had recommended removing. The board amended the compensation section so that the contract retains language that the director “shall be entitled to a bonus for performance according to results of an annual evaluation,” but the board removed the composite-score wording and agreed the bonus would not take effect until the board and Dr. Farley agree on an evaluation process (the board set the first required evaluation to be administered in June 2026). The board also left the $600-per-month automobile allowance in place as a flat monthly payment in lieu of mileage reporting.

Several board members raised objections before the final vote. One member said a $125,000 starting salary would be more reasonable and questioned extending the term from 2½ years to four; another said the district already has an automobile/mileage policy and the director should follow the same standard as other employees. Supporters argued the $135,000 level was within regional averages for comparable districts and that a longer term encourages continuity after a period of frequent leadership turnover.

On the final roll call, Miss Sowell, Miss Nichols, Mister Cole, Miss Stout and Mister King voted yes; Mister Van Winkle and Miss Hale voted no. After the vote the board attorney said he would speak with Dr. Farley and have her return to the room to indicate acceptance or decline of the amended contract terms.

The contract had been reviewed in earlier drafts and the board made several on-the-floor edits before voting, including changing evaluation dates referenced in the contract and striking language the attorney recommended removing. Board members agreed to finalize bonus mechanics once an evaluation instrument is adopted.","The Cumberland County Board of Education voted 5-2 to approve a four-year contract for Dr. Farley as director of schools with a $135,000 base and a $600 monthly vehicle allowance; the board amended the contract to remove a specific incentive bonus clause and to tie any bonus to a future evaluation process to be defined by the board.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cumberland County school board discusses budget draft, fund balance and capital-project priorities; no formal vote

Cumberland County Board approves four-year contract for director of schools, removes bonus language pending evaluation process