EBR board proposing changes to travel rules

The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board is considering changes in its travel rules that would treat School Board members more favorably than other employees.

The proposed changes include allowing board members a higher per diem rate for meals while traveling and reimbursing board members, based on the board-approved mileage rate, for the cost of driving to School Board meetings from work or home.

The per diem for the 11 School Board members would increase from the current range of $40 to $55, in keeping with IRS per diem guidelines, to the higher range of $46 to $65 that is used by state employees.

This daily allowance covers the cost of meals eaten when board members travel, primarily to in-state and out-of-state conferences.

The change in reimbursement for travel to board meetings travel would treat board members differently from other school system employees.

Employees can get reimbursed for mileage on their personal vehicles only for approved travel undertaken after they arrive at their school or work site.

The School Board is set to consider the proposed changes when it meets Nov. 15.

The changes would revise an employee travel policy that the board approved six months ago. The board voted 8-1 May 17 in favor of the new travel policy, with two board members abstaining.

The most significant change was that all employees can now receive a flat daily per diem for meals rather than having to submit original receipts. The revised policy mostly served to treat School Board members no differently than other school system employees.

On Nov. 1, meeting as a “committee of the whole,” where all 11 members are present, the board unanimously recommended the latest changes, which affect only board members.

The agenda for the Nov. 1 meeting listed an item for “discussion/consideration of revisions” to the school system’s travel policy, but no specific information on the suggested revisions was made available in either printed or online versions of the agenda in advance of the vote.

When the item came up, School Board Vice President Tarvald Smith made a motion to approve the item without describing what he was proposing.

The Advocate interrupted the meeting to ask board members to explain what they were voting on, and School Board President Barbara Freiberg identified the areas of change as the per diem paid to board members and whether board members could get reimbursed for travel to School Board meetings from their homes or work.

Superintendent Taylor, who started work in mid-June, a month after the travel policy was adopted, described the proposed changes as “clarifications” he is making to the travel policy after hearing concerns from board members.

Taylor said in a later interview that he views board members, who are considered part-time employees, as different from regular employees.

“School Board members are not staff,” Taylor said.

One controversial change in the travel policy approved in May barred the school system from reimbursing employees who travel from home to work to comply with IRS regulations on the subject. In years past, the board has reimbursed board members for travel from home to School Board meetings.

Taylor said in an Oct. 2 memo that he proposed the changes in reimbursement policies after hearing from School Board members that they should have had a board member serve on the eight-member internal committee that suggested the revised travel rules approved in May.

“There is a serious lack of trust on the part of some board members with respect to how this matter was handled by staff,” Taylor wrote. “I do not think anything productive can come from having the staff revise the travel guidelines.”

Taylor’s memo mirrors comments made in the past by board member Vereta Lee. Lee complained in April that the travel rule rewrite that the board approved the following month had been “sabotaged” by the school system’s accounting department.

“I don’t know why you think this money belongs to you,” she said. “It belongs to the taxpayers. It’s not doing right by the employees of this district.”

Lee has been the most outspoken defender of travel by School Board member travel and unapologetic user of the privilege.

An Advocate review in November 2010 found Lee had spent about $32,000, which was more, than any other School Board member during her time serving on the board.

The board in spring 2011 limited individual board members’ travel to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

Comments

1) Comment by phil - 09/11/2012

That much per diem for meals alone is ridiculous anyway I think. Sounds like they can eat a cheap breakfast and lunch and have a $5 hamburger meal at night and charge the full per diem rate and pocket the difference. How about just allow a direct expense reimbursement up to a maximum of the $55 limit. Then they can still eat well and not make a profit off of taxpayer's money. Otherwise just give them a set per diem per day for ALL expenses and let them stay in cheap motels to break even, like a lot of people who travel do. Been there, done that. I think taxpayers are getting the short end of the stick again.

2) Comment by NCC-1764 - 09/11/2012

Just about every area of the school system has been cut in some form or fashion except the board member's travel budget. Now an increase is wanted by the board? Is the EBR School System in a budget crisis/emergency or not? According to the above article the total travel budget is $55,000.00. That amount could keep a classroom teacher, librarian, or teacher aids in a classroom/school for one year. When will our 'elected leaders' lead by example during this time of 'crisis'? VERY disappointing.

3) Comment by joey.esposito - 08/11/2012

Point is not the motion or clarification of same, it is the fact that, as Noel points out, members are double-dipping, which is at least morally wrong and at best theft of public funds for services and goods not received.

4) Comment by Bouncer - 08/11/2012

A bit of barnyard wisdom applies here: You just can't keep the hogs away from the trough.

5) Comment by Tarvald Smith - 08/11/2012

I just received and listened to the audio and read the actual minutes from the November 1st meeting. I WAS CORRECT! No motion was made by me, I only clarified the procedural aspect of the substitute motion which was passed to the full board's concent adgena. I have spoken to Mr. Lussier who assures me he will make the correction after he listens to the audio. I still intend to pull this item at the November 15th meeting for discussion and clarification.

6) Comment by Traveler - 08/11/2012

Mr. Smith, I'm SO glad that you clarified what transpired! Thanks!

7) Comment by concernedandangry - 08/11/2012

So glad that Mr. Hammett chimed in. He was the one board who could always be counted on to put the people first, not himself. He lost. What's wrong with this picture? I think he actually had the students best interest in mind. Oh, wait a minute...he's an educator, Imagine that! A selfless board member. This whole thing is absolutely amazing to me and the fact that it is published in the paper, the board meetings and the adgendas are posted on www.ebrschools.org, and very few people seemed concerned; but yet want to complain when these types of decisions passes. Teachers are the worst. When will they understand that as long as they sit back and "take it" bad things will continue to come their way. I get it, because I am one of you, but I turn around to see know backing me up. When is enough enough. Oh, and did I mention about the huge increase in health insurance effective January 1, 2013. No pay raises in 3 years, more out of pocket expenses for employees........it goes on and on and on. Thank goodness term limits passed!

8) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 08/11/2012

The amazing thing is that Vereta Lee, et al, have consistently focused on ways to increase their income from the school system. It is a FACT that many school board members, myself included, have been taken to dinners by different groups of people while at conferences. For me, it was not a problem, as I carefully ensured that the limits for meals donated by others was adhered to, and since I never charged the school system for my meals anyway, I didn't, of course, then ask the district to pay for the meals. The main reason why the board policy for meals was changed (initially by and for the school board members) after I left the School Board (yes, after being soundly defeated) was that some school board members knew they could then draw full per diem even though many of their meals were provided by groups and individuals, and they could then profit from the taxpayers who paid them for meals they never paid for. I fought continuously to ensure that our work for the citizens of Baton Rouge was service, not profit. I hope the public comes out for the next meeting and does not let this self-serving change for the school board stand!

9) Comment by Tarvald Smith - 08/11/2012

Thank you Traveler for your acurate comments about this being out of character for me, as it would. The truth of the matter is I DID NOT make such a motion as Mr. Lussier has incorrectly reported in the article. I ran this particular meeting and explained what the motion was and that it would be fowarded to the consent agenda at the regular board meeting. I will have the record and a recording of who made the motion and who seconded it at the November 15th board meeting for Mr. Lussier. I can assure the public that this item will be pulled and I will personally ask staff to review it at the meeting, afterwards I will more than likely vote against it if contains any language about payment from home to any in town school board function. I would ask that Mr. Lussier review the tape and record of the November 1st meeting and publish a correction at the appropriate time as he got this wrong regarding my involvement.

10) Comment by WhoCares - 08/11/2012

What a scumbag move by Smith. 30,000 dollars!!!! WTF. Do school board members get the legacy health benefit for life?

11) Comment by concernedandangry - 08/11/2012

It's amazing to me that no one says anything about this. Here we are in the 3rd year of massive budget cuts, reduction in force, no pay raises in 3 years, new superintendent and his posse making 6 figure salaries, spending mega millions on the renovation of a school, and talking about tearing down a school just to rebuild it. How is any of this helping our students? How will increasing the travel pay for school board members help the students? Is it just me, or have we lost focus here? Aren't we in the business of educating children? It is even more amazing to me that the school board can find money for all of these things, but they can't pay the very people who are directly educating the children. Do you think they have an adgenda? HMMMMMM!

12) Comment by tradewinns - 08/11/2012

paying them for their travel from home to work? the irs allows this? everyone travels from home to work (those who work) i've never seen the spot on the 1040 where you deduct it. and a per diem should never be allowed. you should be reimbursed for your actual cost, that way the public can see how highly you think of yourself on other's money. if you eat meat loaf at home, don't eat steak on the taxpayer. ALSO, there is extremely few reasons for a board member to travel for SB reasons anyway. a phone call can provide all the info you need to understand why/how something was proposed, implimented and actual performance. there's nothing to see, move on.

13) Comment by spqr - 08/11/2012

The school system ignore teachers who have not had a step increase in three years and thinks this idea is appropriate. Taylor, we are watching you. As for Ms. Lee, $32,000 would assist in police on campuses to deal with trespassers and violence.

14) Comment by Traveler - 08/11/2012

It was unworthy and out-of-character for Tarvald Smith to move that the Board vote on the proposal without specifying to the assembly the content of the proposal. Good for The Advocate reporter who called him on this! It would seem that Mr. Smith did not want the public to be made aware of the proposed increase in travel allowance for Board members.