|
OBSERVATIONS
July 30, 2020 |
 |
 Wingate Lassiter |
Copious amounts of COVID-19 funds,
but schools could use some flexibility
Stephen Britt, the newly employed chief financial officer for Johnston County Public Schools, gave the Board of Education a report last week on federal and state aid either received or in the works to help cover unanticipated expenses resulting from the coronavirus pandemic.
The numbers are impressive: A total of $13,313,865 has been allotted to Johnston's school system as of July 21, including $7,463,405 from the federal CARES Act and an emergency state allocation of $1,472,409. And there's more "TBD" (to be determined), Mr. Britt noted.
That's the good news. Not so good are restrictions on putting some of that money to use "outside the box."
"It's like juggling with one hand tied behind our back," Mr. Britt told the board.
A particularly bothersome example is keeping school-bus drivers employed when fewer students than normal return to campuses as the new school year begins next month.
State restrictions will not allow the county to pay those drivers for duties beyond the transporting of students, Mr. Britt said. He indicated their working hours could be extended to near-normal levels this fall if the system could pay them for extra duties like delivering meals and laptops and WiFi devices to students required to continue their schooling at home.
That funding flexibility was allowed after schools were shut down in March, but that flexibility has since expired, Mr. Britt confirmed.
"It really stifles the innovation, and this is a year we really need more innovation," Mr. Britt said of the state's strict rules on how funds may be spent.
What makes the bus-driver issue especially pressing is the school system's recent difficulty in recruiting and retaining more full-time drivers to cut down on its use of teacher assistants and other support personnel to fill in the gaps.
Is there relief in sight from the N.C. General Assembly or the State Board of Education? Based on recent conversations with other systems' leaders by Johnston's Board Chairman Todd Sutton, we're not alone in hoping that there is.
A READER'S OPINION
Thin evidence, no
enforcement for wearing masks
To The Editor:
I read with interest your July 23 observation comparing resistance to seat-belt laws with resistance to mask mandates. I respectfully disagree with your observation.
You stated that there was opposition despite overwhelming evidence that wearing a seat belt saved lives. In light of that evidence, our State Legislature debated and defined legislation for wearing a seat belt and drafted specific penalties for non-compliance.
Currently, however, there is not enough adequate evidence or confirmed data to support any random mandates for wearing masks. The supporting data and guidance has been inconsistent, challenged on multiple levels, and is constantly changing as new data comes forth. Reporting methods are inconsistent, predictive models have been proven incorrect, and even defining a "case" of COVID-19 is ever in flux.
Due to this constant chaos and indecisiveness, medical experts cannot agree on the effectiveness of masks. Contamination experts, on the other hand, tend to support face shields instead as they protect not only the nose and mouth but eyes and ears as well.
Even Governor Cooper's Executive Order 147 was vague enough and lacked any method of enforcement to the point that many local police departments elected not to even try to enforce this mandate. The only provision for "enforcement" was to threaten businesses with fines should they not force their customers to wear a mask.
If businesses require a mask and their customers elect not to comply with that requirement, they merely need to suggest a medical condition that precludes the wearing of a mask. The business's only recourse at that point to avoid a fine is to request law-enforcement escort the offender off premises for "trespassing."
The business also has to contend with the Americans With Disabilities Act and HIPAA laws should they contest customer resistance. These loopholes make this mandate virtually unenforceable at any level.
If wearing a mask is as necessary as this mandate implies, Governor Cooper should have mandated that the State Legislature immediately take up discussion and debate on legislation that would give him true power to implement mask laws and provide adequate enforcement measures for law enforcement. Absent that, this is little more than a request for compliance.
---DWIGHT ERICKSON, Smithfield
To The Editor:
I read with interest your July 23 observation comparing resistance to seat-belt laws with resistance to mask mandates. I respectfully disagree with your observation.
You stated that there was opposition despite overwhelming evidence that wearing a seat belt saved lives. In light of that evidence, our State Legislature debated and defined legislation for wearing a seat belt and drafted specific penalties for non-compliance.
Currently, however, there is not enough adequate evidence or confirmed data to support any random mandates for wearing masks. The supporting data and guidance has been inconsistent, challenged on multiple levels, and is constantly changing as new data comes forth. Reporting methods are inconsistent, predictive models have been proven incorrect, and even defining a "case" of COVID-19 is ever in flux.
Due to this constant chaos and indecisiveness, medical experts cannot agree on the effectiveness of masks. Contamination experts, on the other hand, tend to support face shields instead as they protect not only the nose and mouth but eyes and ears as well.
Even Governor Cooper's Executive Order 147 was vague enough and lacked any method of enforcement to the point that many local police departments elected not to even try to enforce this mandate. The only provision for "enforcement" was to threaten businesses with fines should they not force their customers to wear a mask.
If businesses require a mask and their customers elect not to comply with that requirement, they merely need to suggest a medical condition that precludes the wearing of a mask. The business's only recourse at that point to avoid a fine is to request law-enforcement escort the offender off premises for "trespassing."
The business also has to contend with the Americans With Disabilities Act and HIPAA laws should they contest customer resistance. These loopholes make this mandate virtually unenforceable at any level.
If wearing a mask is as necessary as this mandate implies, Governor Cooper should have mandated that the State Legislature immediately take up discussion and debate on legislation that would give him true power to implement mask laws and provide adequate enforcement measures for law enforcement. Absent that, this is little more than a request for compliance.
---DWIGHT ERICKSON, Smithfield
Got a comment or a question?
If so, send an e-mail to editor@smithfieldweeklysun.com.
Or, if you prefer, mail a letter to P.O. Box 1363, Smithfield, N.C. 27577.
We'll confirm receipt of your correspondence and, if any or all of it is appropriate for publication, we'll ask your permission to print before we "go to press." If we publish your submission, all we will show is your name and place of residence. Neither your e-mail address nor your complete postal address will be shared with our readers or anyone else.
To make verification simpler, please sign up as a subscriber if you haven't already done so, using the online form below:
RETURN TO THE SMITHFIELD WEEKLY SUN FRONT PAGE