I have spent the last week reconciling the FCBOE Grand Strategic 5-year plan against the audited financial results of the last 3 years.

The picture isn't pretty, folks.

The FCBOE has painted itself into a grim financial corner, yet seems to be in denial with regard to their options.

How did we get there?

The seeds of rot were first planted in the year 2000 by former Board Comptroller Jim Stephens. He engineered a bond issue with a payback period of nine years, which Claude Pacquin detailed the folly of doing elsewhere on this site. It cannot be emphasized how badly this poor decision crippled the Board's financial flexibility for the years 2001 through 2010. Short of doing the unthinkable (defaulting on school bonds), this fiasco severely limits the options available to a cash-strapped board.

The second major problem occurred in 2003, when the board splurged and indulged a high-risk, high-reward scheme to maximize school capacity beyond established growth patterns. Thus, two essentially unneeded elementary schools were built along with the infamous Bennett's Mill Middle School (the "school to nowhere").

The board had one last chance to rectify their overindulgence in mid-2007 and cancel the construction of at least one of the schools, but instead blindly forged ahead rather than admit a mistake had been made.

In 2005, Peachtree City was essentially built out, and the great growth engine that allowed the school board to bury past budgeting mistakes since the late 1970s sputtered and cooled off. Yet the board, along with school administrators, refused to accept reality. The first year of declining enrollment was an "aberration", the second year was the result of "kicking out Clayton freeloaders"....they always had an excuse.

They didn't even bother to try to come up with an excuse this year.

We're in the start of a new period in our school system's history, with an aging population and fewer students entering the kindergarten and primary grades.

Yet we built two new elementary schools...and we staffed them.

So where do we go from here?

"Cut administrative costs!"

Okay, I'm game. The optimal span of control for a senior manager is 5 to 7 people. Dr. Decotis has 2 direct reports and one indirect report: The comptroller and the Deputy super, with the PR flack as indirect.

The Deputy Super has 3 direct reports: the assistant super for instruction, the assistant super for operations and the construction supervisor.

My solution? Fire the Deputy super and the PR person and the construction supervisor. Reorg so that Decotis now has the comptroller and two assitant supers...then promote someone in technology to be the Chief Technology Officer for the school system, with the rank of assistant superintendent. I'll explain why in a moment.

We have approximately 200 secretaries and clerks on the school payroll, many people feel that is "too many". I used to feel that way, as well.

I did some research though, and asked questions of a number of people. What I found was surprising:

There is NO cohesive information technology plan in this county. There is a technology "wish list" that has no rhyme or reason and one that is subject to good ole fashion politicking.

Technology projects in this school system fester like weeds. Let me give you an example. John Doe finds a cool product that would increase his school department's productivity 300%. A No-brainer, right?

Wrong. John gets funding, and his department's productivity is increased. BUT, there was no cost-benefit analysis done and now a clerk must be hired to input and maintain student records independently of John's department. Then someone discovers John's cool system and wants to interface to it...but it wasn't designed for interfacing. Solution? Hire a consultant to write an interface! That 300% productivity gain has evaporated due to clerical costs, overhead and outside consulting costs.

Multiply that by several hundred departments and the costs become astronomical.

Look at the so-called "strategic" plan for some of these projects. One project is to re-write the entire FCBOE website in "php code". Why? Because PHP is a hotter technology and the propeller-heads want to learn it. Best use of our tax dollars? Hell no.

According to the "strategic" document, better communication is the overall number one priority in the county, even higher than having successful students. Dubious priorities aside, it's worth noting that most of the major IT projects of the last 5 years have been shiny gee-whiz ain't it cool projects that look good but the underlying technology rots.

The biggest offender in the schools horribly antiquated email system. Improving it is the lowest priority on the school's Tech wish list ("better communications" be damned) and the techies readily admit it hosted on ancient hardware. How bad is it? Board member Janet Smola has openly made fun of it, and says she will not use it for correspondence as she finds it "unreliable".

Overall, the lack of technology cohesion means that Fayette county has had to hire a small army of clerks and secretaries to "work harder, not smarter". Thinning their ranks may improve the bottom line in the short term, but would have a significant adverse effect in the long run.

So where CAN we cut?

The FCBOE gets significant funding from the state for the vast majority of positions. They will not fund Fayette's excess positions, however.

Where are our "surplus"/excess positions?

1. Parapros. We pay for 3/4 of them entirely from local taxes, The state pays for half of the remaining 1/4.

2. Music instruction. It would appear that the state has said if you want to fund a music teacher and/or an orchestra teacher...do it yourself. (I'd hate to see us cut here).

3. Elementary school teachers. I cannot seem to get a definitive number here, but anectdotally it would appear that we have a padded payroll in some if not all elementary schools. While we may WANT to have four 1st grade teachers teaching 13 students apiece, the state allows for larger class sizes of 18 to 20 teachers. We could conceivably have 3 teachers teaching 17 students. I know it's not politically correct to suggest reducing "front line" staff, but this is where the bulk of the savings can occur.

Right now, the board is content to realize "savings" through attrition, and this is a rather haphazard way of saving money.

Something has to change.