Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Randolph County board hears employees’ appeals as district seeks $2.9M in savings
Summary
At multi-night personnel hearings, dozens of Randolph County Schools employees — including Title I teachers, social workers and Communities In Schools coordinators — appealed recommended transfers and terminations the district says are needed to address a projected $2.9 million budget shortfall tied to uncertain grant funding.
The Randolph County Board of Education held a long public session of personnel hearings after administrators proposed transfers and terminations intended to close a projected $2.9 million budget gap.
Dr. Dilley opened the hearings by reminding board members, staff and the public that West Virginia law requires a balanced budget and warned a failure to meet obligations could trigger a Department of Education review. He said proposed reductions would produce about $2,100,000 toward the district’s $2,900,000 projected shortfall and that staffing changes were driven by enrollment and grant‑funding uncertainty.
Why it matters: Board members must weigh fiscal responsibility against the potential impact on services for students. Administration said it hopes state grant clarity after the legislative session and that federal funding remains uncertain; if funding returns, the district will ask the board to rescind reductions.
Across more than a dozen hearings, employees described the work behind positions slated for transfer or termination and urged the board to delay or reverse recommendations. Deborah White, a 29‑year employee facing termination, said she was “rift” rather than transferred and asked the board to check the official seniority postings and multi‑classification records before voting. An administrator responded that multi‑classification hire records and how a job was posted determine seniority in multiple areas.
Employees and their representatives repeatedly pushed for clearer written commitments from state or federal agencies before the board finalizes cuts. At one presentation staff described the district’s fund 61 accounting and told the board that the packet showed 92 positions under fund 61 with 51 funded by federal source code 3; the presenter calculated $1,306,898.80 in salaries tied to a subset of those lines.
Several hearings centered on social‑emotional and family‑engagement roles. Social workers and family and community engagement specialists said their daily duties include home visits, crisis intervention, referrals to community services, and coordination of programs such as Healthy Grandfamilies and Communities in Schools (CIS). “Our number one priority should be the education of our children,” said one family engagement specialist, who urged the board to “remember that behind every number on a spreadsheet is a student.”
A major theme was Title I: dozens of Title I teachers, reading specialists and parents urged the board not to abolish Title I positions or to postpone any vote until the board has final figures from the state. Teachers presented examples of students who improved attendance and reading levels after targeted interventions and warned that replacing interventionists with academic coaches would not restore daily one‑on‑one instruction.
Administration emphasized uncertainty: officials said the district has several staffing scenarios depending on final funding levels and that if federal funds are restored they would present rescission requests to the board. Several speakers pointed to emails from state and federal officials indicating Title I formula funds are typically formula driven and not immediately at risk; administration said the district has seen optimistic statements but no binding written commitments.
What’s next: The board adjourned and will reconvene to consider the superintendent’s personnel recommendations. If funding is restored in writing, the district said it will bring rescission requests to the board for consideration.
Quotes: “Operating a deficit is simply not an option,” Dr. Dilley told attendees. “These decisions are not a reflection of the merit, dedication, or impact of the individuals affected,” he added. “If we continue cutting positions, we are not just losing employees,” one social worker said. “We are losing young, dedicated educators who have chosen to live and work here.”
Outcome/next steps: No final votes on personnel were recorded during the hearing; the board scheduled continuation and a vote is expected at a future meeting.
