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 1 · column 5 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
By Gerald Ochs
Rappahannock News Special Writer
In a move that appeared more symbolic than substantive, the school board last night defied the will of the attending public and moved to reduce the salary increases for administrators proposed in the superintendent’s budget. Speaker after speaker decried the motion to shave what was estimated to be from $7,000 to $18,000 from the budget by dropping step increases that were designed to bring Rappahannock school administrator salaries in line with state averages but, despite ample opportunity, the board declined to consider alternatives.
E-mails and phone calls alerting Rappahannock residents to the possibility of budget cutting at Tuesday night’s school board meeting brought out a respectable <yowd apd forced a venue change from the school board offices to the high ^school auditorium.
Nearly thirty attended, land those who spoke were unanimous in their opposition to any cost-cpjStting that would impact upon school ^taff pay.
Superintendent Dr. Da*id Gangel appeared surprised by tbe motion forwarded by Jackson District member Rebecca Cordani and seconded by Stonewall-Hawthqtme representative Franklin Warner to “keejiiadnunistrator salaries] at one stdjjp increase this year” and he Offered to find another non-salary sourca for budget cuts. At this point in the discussion, the motion was interpreted as the elimination of the proposed 2.5 percent increase as well as the multiple step increases that were promised by last year’s board to make administrator salaries regionally competitive, and he characterized such a move as “punitive.” After his pronouncement, Ms. Cordani modified her motion to restore the 2.5 percent increase, but to maintain the elimination of all but one step of the multiple step increase.
The amended motion was seconded by Hampton’s Rose Ann Sharp, and the vote for the cut was three in favor and one opposed (Chair Rosa Crocker) and with Mr. Warner responding to the call by variously answering “here” and “present.” Mr. Warner’s vote was taken as an abstention.
After the vote Dr. Gangel asked for a clarification, and that request led to apparent board confusion and, ultimately, a second motion by Mrs. Sharp to “adopt the salary scale on page 46 of the budget and stick with one step increase.” The motion was seconded by Ms. Crocker and after much additional discussion was unanimously adopted.
The public rejects cuts
After board approval of the salary increase-cutting motion, the public
See BOARD, Page A8
90.1%