Stacy Shaw
Gainesville District Board member Alyson A. Satterwhite
The Prince William School Board Chairman has denied accepting a $21 million grant from the board of county supervisors to help alleviate overcrowding in county schools. Gainesville school board representative Alyson Satterwhite shared on her
school board member Facebook page, Wednesday, that Prince William School Board Chairman At-large Ryan Sawyers and Vice Chairwoman Lilly Jessie have decided not to place the item on the agenda. This means the school board members could not even consider accepting county funds to alleviate overcrowding. Brentsville's acting school board member Shawn Brann asked that the supervisors'
$10.6 million to allow the school division to build the PRICE model be placed on the agenda. According to the supervisor's 5-3 majority vote, the school division would be able to build the larger, newer high school model without assuming any more than what the smaller, older model would cost. The supervisors' resolution also provided $10.6 millon to build new elementary schools on the eastern end or to renovate older schools. Funds for the elementary schools are contingent upon the approval of the PRICE model and the acceptance of the PRICE model grant. The 13th high school, while being built in the Brentsville District, would affect Ms. Satterwhite's district by helping to alleviate overcrowding in Battlefield and Stonewall Jackson high schools along with Patriot high school in the Brentsville District. Administrators for the school division said the PRICE model would accommodate 500 additional students that will be living in the area by 2021 at a smaller cost than building an annex or expanding the older prototype school. The chairman and vice chairwoman were able to deny Brann's request since school board regulation for placing items on the agenda, Policy 131, was changed as of Oct. 19 by a school board majority vote. No longer do school board members need approval from two other members to place an item on the agenda. Now, they specifically need the approval of the chairman and vice chairman, both of whom are opposed to the PRICE model in this case. During the discussion on the change to Policy 131, those who favored of it said it was meant for expedience. Satterwhite vehemently opposed the regulation change at the time as did Willie Deutsch of the Coles District. Brann also voted against it, fearing it would limit board members' participation in the legislative process. In a phone interview, Thursday evening, Satterwhite called Policy 131 "a nightmare" as it gives too much power to just two individuals on the board. Satterwhite said she tried to convince Sawyers and Jessie to add the agenda item, but they gave her a definitive "no." On her Facebook page, Satterwhite shared a letter from school board chairman Ryan Sawyers, who has opposed the school design in the past. In his letter, Sawyers laid out his opposition the funds due to the fact that they were not technically appropriations. He also said supervisors should not tell the school board how to spend school division money. Sawyers also are criticized the resolution for being unclear. He questioned whether the school division would really receive the money since a source of funding was not named. On her Facebook page, Satterwhite criticized Sawyers' stance, calling him out for refusing a gift of $21 million that would go far to alleviate overcrowding within the county's public schools. The building of the PRICE model has been rejected by the school board three times before, so perhaps Sawyers and Jessie not to want it to take up any more of the school board's time. However, those votes were always very close, and additional money was never part of the equation before. However, even beyond the issue of the high school model, Satterwhite had concerns that the amended policy 131 would prevent other important items from being placed on the agenda. While the supervisor's grant provided a test case for policy change, she said Sawyers and Jessie also rejected an action to give students off on inauguration day. In 2008, the former board, then controlled by Republicans, voted to allow the day off to allow students and families to witness the then historic election of President Barack Obama. As Northern Virginia families often attend presidential inaugurations, and as parents overwhelmingly for the day off in an online poll, Satterwhite said it is not a partisan issues. However, that agenda item was also denied. When Policy 131 was amended, Woodbridge school board member Loree Williams argued that there is another way to place items on the agenda. School board members could also go through the superintendent. However, while the superintendent has the ability to place items on the agenda, standard operating procedure has dictated that the superintendent only place administrative items on the agenda; school board members would usually work through the chairman. That was easier when they only needed the approval of other board members that did not have to be board leadership. These challenges follow a contentious year for the Prince William County School Board.
The following is the post Alyson Satterwhite shared that was the impetus for this article. It includes the letter she received from Chairman Sawyers: Last Friday, anticipating a vote on the motion before the BOCS, Mr. Shawn Brann asked for an item to be added to the agenda at the next PWC School Board meeting to act on any possible resolution from the BOCS. Our School Board Chairman has now replied (see below). He is not allowing the Acting Brentsville District School Board Member to have the item on the agenda. At this time, this resolution will not be heard by the School Board. According to the newly revised Policy 131, all agenda items must be approved by the Chairman AND Vice Chairman. The Chairman himself said last week during a discussion about changing the school naming policy, and as quoted in an
InsideNova.com article on December 1, 2016, "Ultimately, I just think we'll be taking some rights away from board members without a lot of heads up on that," Sawyers said. I would say in this case he is definitely taking away School Board Member rights, at least rights we had prior to the passage of the change in Policy 131. Basically, the Chairman and Vice Chairman are blocking a School Board vote on a $21.2M dollar gift from the Board of County Supervisors (and the taxpayers) to be used toward school construction to reduce our overcrowding. Why would any School Board give up an offer of an extra $21.2M for construction? I welcome your comments and sharing of this post. Below is the email School Board Members received today:
"Fellow Board Members, Yesterday, the Board of County Supervisors passed a resolution regarding the PRICE model for the 13th high school and eastern elementary schools. Putting aside the fact that they may be overstepping their legal authority there are several reasons that this item is not being added to the agenda for December 14th. Most importantly, resolutions are not appropriations. The school board can only spend money that we are appropriated and we are prohibited from spending tax dollars that we are not appropriated by local, state, or federal governments. While the official language of the resolution has not yet been sent to me by the Superintendent I did watch the entire debate live on TV yesterday and Vice Chairman Jessie was present at the meeting. Regardless of the final wording (which definitely isn't clear based on the conversation during their meeting and the haphazard way it was thrown together at the final minute) resolutions to do not equal appropriations to our school board. Should the Board of County Supervisors actually appropriate the funds to the school board then the Superintendent and his staff will bring to us a budget amendment proposal and we will engage in healthy debate and dialogue on the best way to use those funds. This would also give the Superintendent and his staff time to develop a detailed plan on our best options on how to allocate the funds for our school system. However, until the money is actually appropriated to the school board there simply aren't any funds for us to discuss on how to use as we see fit. We cannot use a resolution to pay our bills we can only use dollars appropriated us to pay our bills. Simply put, we can't spend money we don't have. As a reminder, the Board of County Supervisors doesn't have any line item authority over how the school board invests its appropriations. I have spoken with Vice Chairman Jessie about this issue and we are both in 100% agreement that if the appropriations are officially sent to the school board then we will be able to debate on the best way to use them in our school system for the education of our children. On personal note, my children are likely to attend the 13th high school being that it is only a mile from our home. My family and my neighbors have a high interest level in this discussion but that doesn't allow us to not follow proper procedure, law, and due diligence when it comes to fulfilling our oath as school board members. Ryan Sawyers Chairman Prince William County School Board rsawyers@pwcs.edu "
