Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
board to stay within its appropriation.
“I don’t think we’re talking about that big of a building program,” Reeve responded, adding that during consideration of budget cuts was not the proper time to discuss capital improvements.
Chinese Arithmetic
‘‘What we’re doing is playing Chinese arithmetic,” maintained Robert Eastham, criticizing budget cuts that revolve around shifting Title I and cafctria benefits from the regular budget. "It's wrong because we have a combined budget. Now we’re trying to unravel it and say that Title I and cafeteria workers are not school employees. . . We’ve actually made no cuts at all. To say that it’s ‘flow through’ and off this budget is patently not acceptable. It is not kosher!”
Miller emphasized that the supervisors gave the school board an appropriation of $2,189,486 rather than demand that $89,100 be cut from the 1981*82 budget. “If we work within that appropriation, it should be acceptable.”
Bloomer explained again that the reductions in social security, life insurance, retirement and hospitalization are primarily the result of benefits for Title I employees mistakenly counted twice.
Going back to the MillerReeve plan, Eastham said that its cuts come from everywhere but personnel related items. He said he wished there was a way to absorb the supervisors’ reduction without antagonizing teachers but insisted that once payment of hospitalization premiums is approved, "it’s there forever. . . It causes a totally unacceptable percentage increase. . . We can turn and we can
74.7%