Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
POSTED: THURSDAY, JULY 1ST 2004 AT 4:00AM
State paid $190,000 to settle earlier sex harassment suit
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The sexual harassment lawsuit pending against state parole board member Gene Walker isn't the first time he's been named in such a case. The Associated Press has learned that the state quietly paid $190,000 a dozen years ago to settle the first lawsuit in which Walker was accused of sexually harassing a secretary.
The payment has never been identified as such in a state budget or audit, but following inquiries by The AP, the Legislative Fiscal Office and the state auditor confirmed the money was paid through a budget category labeled "other operating funds" of the state Senate in 1993.
The earlier lawsuit was filed when Walker was a powerful state senator. The state paid to settle allegations that he and two legislative colleagues sexually harassed a secretary in the state Senate.
An even bigger payout potentially is at stake in the current lawsuit against Walker, which was filed by a former parole board secretary. Plaintiff's lawyers have told the state's risk managers they believe their claim is worth $1 million to $3 million in damages.
Walker, who helps decide when murderers, sex offenders, and other felons are released from prison, declined a request for an interview. He referred questions through a parole board spokeswoman to his state-paid attorney, Bruce Edenfield.
Edenfield said Walker "vehemently" denies wrongdoing in either case and is "vigorously defending" himself.
Appointed by former Gov. Roy Barnes to the five-person Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker's term expires in 2006. He previously headed the Department of Juvenile Justice and before that, from 1985 through 1992, he was a member of the state Senate.
As a senator, Walker was the Democratic whip and chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee during the 1991-1992 redistricting effort.
In 1989, Jacqueline Livingston filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that while a secretary for the state Senate she was sexually and verbally abused by then-Sens. Hildred Shumake, David Scott and Walker.
The complaint escalated to a federal civil lawsuit in 1992, and was settled a year later.
Shumake died in 2002. Scott is now serving in Congress. His press aide, Rob Griner, said Scott had no comment on the matter.
In the settlement, the state agreed to remove adverse performance evaluations from the woman's file and pay compensatory damages of $190,000 but did not admit fault.
Mike Bowers, the state's attorney general at the time, said this week he could not remember specifically why he recommended a settlement.
Generally, he said, he would recommend such a step when he was "worried about the risk if we went forward with the litigation, and the best economic decision the state could make was to avoid the cost, avoid the risk and get out of it. That's fairly standard."
Kelly Timmons, an assistant law professor at Georgia State University who handled sexual harassment cases in private practice, said settlements are common in such cases to avoid the cost of extended litigation, and don't constitute proof of the validity of the charges.
"Even if the defendant and the defense attorney don't think the plaintiff has a very strong case, it's very common for these to settle for nuisance value," she said.
But she added, "The fact that it settled for $190,000 suggests that the state was concerned enough to offer six figures, which is more than nuisance value."
The latest case was filed in 2002 in Fulton County State Court by Patricia Alexander, who claims that soon after she went to work for Walker at the parole board he "began making sexual innuendo and suggestive comments."
The lawsuit claims the comments included "using sexually oriented and obscene language, commenting on the sexual activities and sexual preferences of other men and women, discussing his own sexual preferences, making inappropriate displays of affection and making offensive remarks concerning plaintiff's anatomy and the anatomy of other women."
Lawyers are taking depositions from those involved.
Some believe the state's financial risk could be heightened if the case goes to trial and attorneys for the secretary can introduce evidence of the previous accusation.
"Certainly, the state would want any evidence of this previous charge and the settlement excluded from evidence, saying it wasn't relevant and was unduly prejudicial," Timmons said. "Certainly the plaintiff will try to get evidence of this in, asserting that it represents a pattern of behavior that the state was aware of."
The secretary's attorneys almost certainly "would argue that keeping someone with this kind of pattern of behavior indicates more fault on the part of the state, which should be relevant in the damage determination," she said.
Associated Categories: State News
State paid $190,000 to settle earlier sex harassment suit
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The sexual harassment lawsuit pending against state parole board member Gene Walker isn't the first time he's been named in such a case. The Associated Press has learned that the state quietly paid $190,000 a dozen years ago to settle the first lawsuit in which Walker was accused of sexually harassing a secretary.
The payment has never been identified as such in a state budget or audit, but following inquiries by The AP, the Legislative Fiscal Office and the state auditor confirmed the money was paid through a budget category labeled "other operating funds" of the state Senate in 1993.
The earlier lawsuit was filed when Walker was a powerful state senator. The state paid to settle allegations that he and two legislative colleagues sexually harassed a secretary in the state Senate.
An even bigger payout potentially is at stake in the current lawsuit against Walker, which was filed by a former parole board secretary. Plaintiff's lawyers have told the state's risk managers they believe their claim is worth $1 million to $3 million in damages.
Walker, who helps decide when murderers, sex offenders, and other felons are released from prison, declined a request for an interview. He referred questions through a parole board spokeswoman to his state-paid attorney, Bruce Edenfield.
Edenfield said Walker "vehemently" denies wrongdoing in either case and is "vigorously defending" himself.
Appointed by former Gov. Roy Barnes to the five-person Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker's term expires in 2006. He previously headed the Department of Juvenile Justice and before that, from 1985 through 1992, he was a member of the state Senate.
As a senator, Walker was the Democratic whip and chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee during the 1991-1992 redistricting effort.
In 1989, Jacqueline Livingston filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that while a secretary for the state Senate she was sexually and verbally abused by then-Sens. Hildred Shumake, David Scott and Walker.
The complaint escalated to a federal civil lawsuit in 1992, and was settled a year later.
Shumake died in 2002. Scott is now serving in Congress. His press aide, Rob Griner, said Scott had no comment on the matter.
In the settlement, the state agreed to remove adverse performance evaluations from the woman's file and pay compensatory damages of $190,000 but did not admit fault.
Mike Bowers, the state's attorney general at the time, said this week he could not remember specifically why he recommended a settlement.
Generally, he said, he would recommend such a step when he was "worried about the risk if we went forward with the litigation, and the best economic decision the state could make was to avoid the cost, avoid the risk and get out of it. That's fairly standard."
Kelly Timmons, an assistant law professor at Georgia State University who handled sexual harassment cases in private practice, said settlements are common in such cases to avoid the cost of extended litigation, and don't constitute proof of the validity of the charges.
"Even if the defendant and the defense attorney don't think the plaintiff has a very strong case, it's very common for these to settle for nuisance value," she said.
But she added, "The fact that it settled for $190,000 suggests that the state was concerned enough to offer six figures, which is more than nuisance value."
The latest case was filed in 2002 in Fulton County State Court by Patricia Alexander, who claims that soon after she went to work for Walker at the parole board he "began making sexual innuendo and suggestive comments."
The lawsuit claims the comments included "using sexually oriented and obscene language, commenting on the sexual activities and sexual preferences of other men and women, discussing his own sexual preferences, making inappropriate displays of affection and making offensive remarks concerning plaintiff's anatomy and the anatomy of other women."
Lawyers are taking depositions from those involved.
Some believe the state's financial risk could be heightened if the case goes to trial and attorneys for the secretary can introduce evidence of the previous accusation.
"Certainly, the state would want any evidence of this previous charge and the settlement excluded from evidence, saying it wasn't relevant and was unduly prejudicial," Timmons said. "Certainly the plaintiff will try to get evidence of this in, asserting that it represents a pattern of behavior that the state was aware of."
The secretary's attorneys almost certainly "would argue that keeping someone with this kind of pattern of behavior indicates more fault on the part of the state, which should be relevant in the damage determination," she said.
Associated Categories: State News
POSTED: THURSDAY, JULY 1ST 2004 AT 4:00AM
State paid $190,000 to settle earlier sex harassment suit
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The sexual harassment lawsuit pending against state parole board member Gene Walker isn't the first time he's been named in such a case. The Associated Press has learned that the state quietly paid $190,000 a dozen years ago to settle the first lawsuit in which Walker was accused of sexually harassing a secretary.
The payment has never been identified as such in a state budget or audit, but following inquiries by The AP, the Legislative Fiscal Office and the state auditor confirmed the money was paid through a budget category labeled "other operating funds" of the state Senate in 1993.
The earlier lawsuit was filed when Walker was a powerful state senator. The state paid to settle allegations that he and two legislative colleagues sexually harassed a secretary in the state Senate.
An even bigger payout potentially is at stake in the current lawsuit against Walker, which was filed by a former parole board secretary. Plaintiff's lawyers have told the state's risk managers they believe their claim is worth $1 million to $3 million in damages.
Walker, who helps decide when murderers, sex offenders, and other felons are released from prison, declined a request for an interview. He referred questions through a parole board spokeswoman to his state-paid attorney, Bruce Edenfield.
Edenfield said Walker "vehemently" denies wrongdoing in either case and is "vigorously defending" himself.
Appointed by former Gov. Roy Barnes to the five-person Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker's term expires in 2006. He previously headed the Department of Juvenile Justice and before that, from 1985 through 1992, he was a member of the state Senate.
As a senator, Walker was the Democratic whip and chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee during the 1991-1992 redistricting effort.
In 1989, Jacqueline Livingston filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that while a secretary for the state Senate she was sexually and verbally abused by then-Sens. Hildred Shumake, David Scott and Walker.
The complaint escalated to a federal civil lawsuit in 1992, and was settled a year later.
Shumake died in 2002. Scott is now serving in Congress. His press aide, Rob Griner, said Scott had no comment on the matter.
In the settlement, the state agreed to remove adverse performance evaluations from the woman's file and pay compensatory damages of $190,000 but did not admit fault.
Mike Bowers, the state's attorney general at the time, said this week he could not remember specifically why he recommended a settlement.
Generally, he said, he would recommend such a step when he was "worried about the risk if we went forward with the litigation, and the best economic decision the state could make was to avoid the cost, avoid the risk and get out of it. That's fairly standard."
Kelly Timmons, an assistant law professor at Georgia State University who handled sexual harassment cases in private practice, said settlements are common in such cases to avoid the cost of extended litigation, and don't constitute proof of the validity of the charges.
"Even if the defendant and the defense attorney don't think the plaintiff has a very strong case, it's very common for these to settle for nuisance value," she said.
But she added, "The fact that it settled for $190,000 suggests that the state was concerned enough to offer six figures, which is more than nuisance value."
The latest case was filed in 2002 in Fulton County State Court by Patricia Alexander, who claims that soon after she went to work for Walker at the parole board he "began making sexual innuendo and suggestive comments."
The lawsuit claims the comments included "using sexually oriented and obscene language, commenting on the sexual activities and sexual preferences of other men and women, discussing his own sexual preferences, making inappropriate displays of affection and making offensive remarks concerning plaintiff's anatomy and the anatomy of other women."
Lawyers are taking depositions from those involved.
Some believe the state's financial risk could be heightened if the case goes to trial and attorneys for the secretary can introduce evidence of the previous accusation.
"Certainly, the state would want any evidence of this previous charge and the settlement excluded from evidence, saying it wasn't relevant and was unduly prejudicial," Timmons said. "Certainly the plaintiff will try to get evidence of this in, asserting that it represents a pattern of behavior that the state was aware of."
The secretary's attorneys almost certainly "would argue that keeping someone with this kind of pattern of behavior indicates more fault on the part of the state, which should be relevant in the damage determination," she said.
Associated Categories: State News
State paid $190,000 to settle earlier sex harassment suit
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The sexual harassment lawsuit pending against state parole board member Gene Walker isn't the first time he's been named in such a case. The Associated Press has learned that the state quietly paid $190,000 a dozen years ago to settle the first lawsuit in which Walker was accused of sexually harassing a secretary.
The payment has never been identified as such in a state budget or audit, but following inquiries by The AP, the Legislative Fiscal Office and the state auditor confirmed the money was paid through a budget category labeled "other operating funds" of the state Senate in 1993.
The earlier lawsuit was filed when Walker was a powerful state senator. The state paid to settle allegations that he and two legislative colleagues sexually harassed a secretary in the state Senate.
An even bigger payout potentially is at stake in the current lawsuit against Walker, which was filed by a former parole board secretary. Plaintiff's lawyers have told the state's risk managers they believe their claim is worth $1 million to $3 million in damages.
Walker, who helps decide when murderers, sex offenders, and other felons are released from prison, declined a request for an interview. He referred questions through a parole board spokeswoman to his state-paid attorney, Bruce Edenfield.
Edenfield said Walker "vehemently" denies wrongdoing in either case and is "vigorously defending" himself.
Appointed by former Gov. Roy Barnes to the five-person Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker's term expires in 2006. He previously headed the Department of Juvenile Justice and before that, from 1985 through 1992, he was a member of the state Senate.
As a senator, Walker was the Democratic whip and chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee during the 1991-1992 redistricting effort.
In 1989, Jacqueline Livingston filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that while a secretary for the state Senate she was sexually and verbally abused by then-Sens. Hildred Shumake, David Scott and Walker.
The complaint escalated to a federal civil lawsuit in 1992, and was settled a year later.
Shumake died in 2002. Scott is now serving in Congress. His press aide, Rob Griner, said Scott had no comment on the matter.
In the settlement, the state agreed to remove adverse performance evaluations from the woman's file and pay compensatory damages of $190,000 but did not admit fault.
Mike Bowers, the state's attorney general at the time, said this week he could not remember specifically why he recommended a settlement.
Generally, he said, he would recommend such a step when he was "worried about the risk if we went forward with the litigation, and the best economic decision the state could make was to avoid the cost, avoid the risk and get out of it. That's fairly standard."
Kelly Timmons, an assistant law professor at Georgia State University who handled sexual harassment cases in private practice, said settlements are common in such cases to avoid the cost of extended litigation, and don't constitute proof of the validity of the charges.
"Even if the defendant and the defense attorney don't think the plaintiff has a very strong case, it's very common for these to settle for nuisance value," she said.
But she added, "The fact that it settled for $190,000 suggests that the state was concerned enough to offer six figures, which is more than nuisance value."
The latest case was filed in 2002 in Fulton County State Court by Patricia Alexander, who claims that soon after she went to work for Walker at the parole board he "began making sexual innuendo and suggestive comments."
The lawsuit claims the comments included "using sexually oriented and obscene language, commenting on the sexual activities and sexual preferences of other men and women, discussing his own sexual preferences, making inappropriate displays of affection and making offensive remarks concerning plaintiff's anatomy and the anatomy of other women."
Lawyers are taking depositions from those involved.
Some believe the state's financial risk could be heightened if the case goes to trial and attorneys for the secretary can introduce evidence of the previous accusation.
"Certainly, the state would want any evidence of this previous charge and the settlement excluded from evidence, saying it wasn't relevant and was unduly prejudicial," Timmons said. "Certainly the plaintiff will try to get evidence of this in, asserting that it represents a pattern of behavior that the state was aware of."
The secretary's attorneys almost certainly "would argue that keeping someone with this kind of pattern of behavior indicates more fault on the part of the state, which should be relevant in the damage determination," she said.
Associated Categories: State News
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
How are School Systems' Funded According to the Georgia School Council Institute
The Basics of Georgia School Finance
Public school finance is a topic usually left to “experts” because its complexity is enough to make most people wave a white flag of surrender. Yet it is important that more people understand the process. Why? First, finance drives policy. Smaller class sizes, merit teacher compensation, tutoring programs, advanced placement classes, etc. are all policy ideas for school improvement that are dependent on funding. One cannot effectively advocate for policies without knowing the financial impact. Second, public schools are financed through taxes – property tax, income tax, and sales tax. Tax reform efforts immediately collide with public education reform efforts since tax relief decreases available revenue. Changes in the economy can also drastically affect the amount of funds available for education. Third, an educated, skilled workforce is key to economic development.
This section explains the basics of how schools are financed in Georgia, how that compares to other states, and issues raised by the funding process.
School Funding Made Simple “The provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation.” (Georgia Constitution 8-1-1)
In 2007, there are 1,589,839 students in our public schools. Each one is entitled to and deserves an adequate education. In Georgia, the adequacy of a student’s education often depends upon his or her zip code. Due to the failure of Congress to fully fund federal programs, funding cuts at the state level, and constitutional limits on local taxation, even the most affluent zip codes are struggling to keep up with the escalating obligations mandated by state law and No Child Left Behind. A basic knowledge of school funding is necessary to understand our current fiscal situation.
Public schools in Georgia receive a combination of federal, state and local funds to pay for the education of public school students. Sources of School Funding in Georgia FY 200651%8%41%StateFederalLocal
Federal Funding
Federal Funds are tied to specific programs for historically at-risk students:
IDEA Special Education
ESEA (Title I) Poverty
ELL English Language Learners
Federal funds for certain programs like special education and ELL are based on the number of students who meet the eligibility criteria of the specific program. Funding for Title I is based upon census data.
State Funding
The majority of State Funds are provided to operate public schools and are calculated using the following Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula:
(1) QBE “Earnings” + (2) Categorical Grants + (3) Equalization
(State funds provided to build public schools - capital outlay - are not addressed in this document.)
(1) QBE “Earnings” = (Direct & Indirect Instructional Costs) – (5 Mill Share)
Direct Instructional Costs reflect the cost of putting a teacher in every classroom based upon the grade of the student (K, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, or 9-12), any special program in which the student is enrolled (EIP, special education, gifted, remedial, alternative, middle school, ESOL, or vocational lab), and the teacher:pupil funding ratio.
This weighted formula counts each individual student for each segment of the day. The benchmark weight of 1.00 is assigned to a student in grades 9-12 who attends regular classes and receives no special services – the “least expensive” student to educate. All other students receive a higher weight. The resulting weight for each student is known as the “Full Time Equivalent” (FTE) count. The FTE count used in the QBE formula is always higher than the number of actual students. The teacher cost used in the formula is based on the state salary scale, including benefits (but not Social Security).
Indirect Instructional Costs include funding for central administration and school administration, facilities maintenance and operations (M&O), media centers, staff development and 20 additional days of instruction. These costs are calculated based on system size, school size or student population.
Note: Referring to Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs as QBE “earnings” leads local systems to erroneously believe that this is the amount of money they have earned and are entitled to receive. It is more accurate to think of QBE formula earnings as “gross” earnings, because, just like income, one does not receive the gross amount, only the net amount. The “net” earnings a local school system receives deducts the local 5 mill share and, when required, additional state cuts (“austerity reductions”).
“Authority is granted to county and area boards of education to establish and maintain public schools within their limits.” (Georgia Constitution 8-5-1)
Local systems are permitted to levy property taxes for the purpose of funding local public schools. “Millage” refers to the rate of the property tax levied. The millage rate is defined as “local tax revenues divided by the assessed valuation divided by 1000.” School systems may not levy more than 20 “Mills” (with a few exceptions) without voter approval. In addition to levying property taxes for the operation of their schools, local systems may also use bonds and SPLOSTS (sales tax) to finance school construction if approved by the voters. This paper is only addressing operational budgets. The funding of school construction - capital outlay - is a topic for another day.
The “5 Mill Share” in the QBE formula refers to the portion of the Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs that the state expects local systems to pay with locally raised funds. Currently, the state requires local systems to pay an amount equal to 5 Mills of property tax generated within their taxing authority. By law, the amount of money represented by the 5 Mills statewide cannot exceed 20 percent of the total QBE formula earnings (Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs).
Funds that are raised through locally levied property taxes, including the 5 Mill Share, do not leave the school system and are not sent to the state or to other school systems. (Bonds and SPLOSTS raised locally also are kept locally.) The 5 Mill Share is simply the amount of the local funding “obligation” the state requires each system to pay.
Additional local funding raised from levying additional mills are used at the discretion of the local system for:
• Additional teachers/smaller classes
• Salary supplements
• Paraprofessionals
• Additional programs (e.g., SAT prep)
• Extracurricular activities
• Athletics
• Technology
Local systems also use local funds for underfunded categorical grants (such as transportation and M&O) and for unfunded portions of QBE (such as Social Security).
(2) Categorical Grants
Local systems receive additional funding in the form of “categorical grants.” These grants include funds for transportation, sparsity and low incidence special education students. In FY 2008, this amount was $171,578,524. Funding for school nurses is not a categorical grant but a separate line item in the budget. In FY 2008, funding for nurses was shifted from the tobacco settlement funds to the general revenue fund. Funding for this item has remained at $30 million since the program began.
(3) Equalization
QBE earnings are intended to provide for an adequate education. Equalization is an attempt to address equity. The concept of equalization is related to the concept of the 5 Mill Share, discussed above. Because all counties are not created equal in terms of property tax wealth, they cannot raise the same amounts of money from local property taxes. The state provides additional funding to these counties according to a formula that compares the relative property tax wealth of all counties in the state. Systems at or below the 75% level can receive equalization funding in proportion to the amount of mills they levy beyond 5 mills. (The Equalization formula was changed in 2001 to reduce the participation level from 90% to 75% and to include all mills above the first 5. In the past only the mills between 5 and 8.25 were considered, thus creating a disincentive for local systems to raise their own millage rates.) In FY 2008, this amount was $458,323,775. All figures are taken from the state allotment sheets which are available at www.gadoe.org.
In FY 2008, the amount of state funds that local systems will receive:
QBE Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs $8,160,615,559
Less 5 Mill Share -1,543,476,458
QBE “Formula Earnings” $6,617,139,101
Less FY 2008 “Austerity” Cuts - 142,959,810
QBE Net “Formula Earnings” $6,474,179,291
Plus Categorical Grants + 171,578,524
Plus Equalization + 458,323,775
Total State Funds $7,104,081,590
Cuts To The Formula
The QBE formula was created in 1985. Over the years, various “adjustments” have been made. Sometimes the adjustments are made within the formula, and sometimes a percentage or amount is cut across the board. Since the economic downturn of 2002, adjustments to the formula have resulted in a cut to state funding from the level of 2002. For example, in FY 2003, the funding for maintenance and operations was cut $2 per FTE. This resulted in $2.9 million less in QBE earnings that year. The formula has not yet been returned to the 2002 amount. Media materials were cut by 50% in the 2003 budget also. Portions of this were added back in 2007 and 2008, but the formula still funds $4.41 less per FTE than in 2002.
It is estimated that cuts taken within the formula in prior years resulted in about a $40 million shortfall in the FY 2008 QBE earnings. An additional “across the board” cut has been taken annually since 2003. It has been referred to in various ways, but whether it is an austerity reduction or formula adjustment it has resulted in a total cut of $1.4 billion to the QBE earnings in that six year period.
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
How does Georgia’s school funding compare to the rest of the nation?
Nationwide, states provided 47%, locals 44%, and federal 9%. There is quite a variation across the nation, however. See the table below for the latest figures available nationally. The figures in the table are from the U.S. Census Annual Survey of Local Government Finances. The Census Survey shows a lower amount being funded by the state of Georgia than the Georgia Department of Education records indicate.
How Schools Were Funded 2004-2005
StatesLocalStateFederalStatesLocalStateFederalU. S. 43.9479.1Missouri47.6448.4Alabama33.555.211.3Montana40.14514.9Alaska26.154.918.9Nebraska58.531.110.5Arizona43.644.412Nevada33.49.27.4Arkansas13.275.611.3New Hampshire55.239.25.6California30.15811.9New Jersey53.941.94.2Colorado50.143.16.9New Mexico13.470.516.1Connecticut57.637.25.2New York48.943.97.2Delaware27.464.87.7North Carolina31.95810.1Dist. Of Columbia84.9015.1North Dakota4736.916.1Florida47.142.810Ohio49.842.97.3Georgia46.843.89.3Oklahoma36.249.913.9Hawaii2.267.410.4Oregon414910Idaho32.3571.7Pennsylvania56.235.68.1Illinois57.234.18.7Rhode Island52.839.57.7Indiana47.945.96.2South Carolina45.144.810.1Iowa45.8468.2South Dakota49.833.416.8Kansas35.755.98.5Tennessee44.743.711.6Kentucky30.857.311.9Texas54.534.610.9Louisiana39.246.714.1Utah35.354.41.3Maine5140.18.9Vermont5.287.27.6Maryland55.537.76.8Virginia52.440.76.9Massachusetts51.842.25.9Washington3061.38.7Michigan31.66.18.3West Virginia28.159.712.2Minnesota24.269.66.2Wisconsin43.550.56Mississippi30.953.915.2Wyoming38.851.89.4Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2004-05 Annual Survey of Local Government
Finances
Since the 2000-2001 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances, the state share of public school funding has increased in only eight states. The national average has dropped 3 percentage points. The local share has, however, increased in 28 states. Increased federal funding due to the No Child Left Behind Act has led to an increase in the federal share of public school funding in all 50 states in this time period.
Revised 2007 5
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
Where Does The Money Go? 2006 Expenditures by Function in Georgia69%8%10%5%8%InstructionMaintenance &OperationsAdministrationTransportationSupport Services
How have expenditures per FTE changed over time? $0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000InstructionM &
OAdmin.Trans.Support19962006
Note: In all charts, “administration” is the total of school and general administration; “support” is the total of pupil and staff services. All figures are from the 2006 expenditure reports unless noted otherwise.
Revised 2007 6
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
Revised 2007 7
Adequacy: How much is enough?
There are two major components to adequacy:
• What is an adequate education in terms of standards, teachers and curriculum?
• What is the appropriate funding level to provide that?
Through the A+ Education Reform Act of 2000 and No Child Left Behind we have begun to define education in terms of expectations, standards, aligned assessments, teacher qualifications, and curriculum. What funding level is needed to achieve what has been put into law? How much should the state pay? Georgia is not alone in struggling with the question of adequacy. Other states have faced court battles over this. A New York Appeals court ruled in 2002 that providing an education commonly attained by eighth or ninth grade met its constitutional requirement. A North Carolina court, however, seemed to require more of their school system. That court ruled that the state had not provided a “sound and fundamental education” to students not performing on grade level. That court also emphasized that the right is to a basic education, not a prep school education. Do we define adequacy through inputs or do we test for adequacy through output (student achievement)?
Several models have been developed to address adequate funding. A base level of funding has to be set that would fund a school with students of average characteristics. Then adjustments have to be made for different types of students through student weights or categorical programs.
Successful Schools Model
Ohio, Mississippi, and Illinois have tried this approach. The premise is to look at spending in schools or districts that are performing well. The average per-pupil cost is derived from those schools. In those states the model districts have been suburban or rural, white, and low poverty. This funding model has no mechanism for adding resources for students of other characteristics.
Professional Judgment Model
Oregon, Maine, and Wyoming have tried this model. A panel of experts – teachers, administrators, and school finance consultants—first identify resources needed to establish model schools for students to achieve state standards. The base funding level is the cost of providing that. It can be adjusted for student characteristics. A criticism of this model is that it is usually very expensive because the panel members tend to select high-level resources. Maryland has developed a hybrid approach that combines these two approaches.
Evidence-based Model
In this model the state bases the funding of the poorest districts on the average spending of the wealthiest districts. The purpose is to create a funding level that allows the district to implement research-based reform models with appropriate professional development for teachers and computer technology for students. New Jersey uses this model, and Kentucky and Arkansas are considering it.
Equity: Will all students receive a quality education?
Equity should not be confused with equality. Equity is a consideration of how resources are distributed. The discussion usually centers around the property wealth of a school district. There is a wide variation in the value of a mill across Georgia. A mill in one school district may be worth less than $50,000, but in another district be valued at over $18 million. School districts with a mill of high value can fund much more from local funds than a district where the mill has a low value. When state funds are cut, high-wealth districts have the means to replace the funds. When categories such as instructional materials are underfunded by the state, high wealth districts can buy what their students need. Low wealth districts can not. Those conditions create the argument that resources are inequitable. A number of states have been sued over this issue, including Georgia where the lawsuit is pending.
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
Revised 2007 9
Public school finance is a topic usually left to “experts” because its complexity is enough to make most people wave a white flag of surrender. Yet it is important that more people understand the process. Why? First, finance drives policy. Smaller class sizes, merit teacher compensation, tutoring programs, advanced placement classes, etc. are all policy ideas for school improvement that are dependent on funding. One cannot effectively advocate for policies without knowing the financial impact. Second, public schools are financed through taxes – property tax, income tax, and sales tax. Tax reform efforts immediately collide with public education reform efforts since tax relief decreases available revenue. Changes in the economy can also drastically affect the amount of funds available for education. Third, an educated, skilled workforce is key to economic development.
This section explains the basics of how schools are financed in Georgia, how that compares to other states, and issues raised by the funding process.
School Funding Made Simple “The provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation.” (Georgia Constitution 8-1-1)
In 2007, there are 1,589,839 students in our public schools. Each one is entitled to and deserves an adequate education. In Georgia, the adequacy of a student’s education often depends upon his or her zip code. Due to the failure of Congress to fully fund federal programs, funding cuts at the state level, and constitutional limits on local taxation, even the most affluent zip codes are struggling to keep up with the escalating obligations mandated by state law and No Child Left Behind. A basic knowledge of school funding is necessary to understand our current fiscal situation.
Public schools in Georgia receive a combination of federal, state and local funds to pay for the education of public school students. Sources of School Funding in Georgia FY 200651%8%41%StateFederalLocal
Federal Funding
Federal Funds are tied to specific programs for historically at-risk students:
IDEA Special Education
ESEA (Title I) Poverty
ELL English Language Learners
Federal funds for certain programs like special education and ELL are based on the number of students who meet the eligibility criteria of the specific program. Funding for Title I is based upon census data.
State Funding
The majority of State Funds are provided to operate public schools and are calculated using the following Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula:
(1) QBE “Earnings” + (2) Categorical Grants + (3) Equalization
(State funds provided to build public schools - capital outlay - are not addressed in this document.)
(1) QBE “Earnings” = (Direct & Indirect Instructional Costs) – (5 Mill Share)
Direct Instructional Costs reflect the cost of putting a teacher in every classroom based upon the grade of the student (K, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, or 9-12), any special program in which the student is enrolled (EIP, special education, gifted, remedial, alternative, middle school, ESOL, or vocational lab), and the teacher:pupil funding ratio.
This weighted formula counts each individual student for each segment of the day. The benchmark weight of 1.00 is assigned to a student in grades 9-12 who attends regular classes and receives no special services – the “least expensive” student to educate. All other students receive a higher weight. The resulting weight for each student is known as the “Full Time Equivalent” (FTE) count. The FTE count used in the QBE formula is always higher than the number of actual students. The teacher cost used in the formula is based on the state salary scale, including benefits (but not Social Security).
Indirect Instructional Costs include funding for central administration and school administration, facilities maintenance and operations (M&O), media centers, staff development and 20 additional days of instruction. These costs are calculated based on system size, school size or student population.
Note: Referring to Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs as QBE “earnings” leads local systems to erroneously believe that this is the amount of money they have earned and are entitled to receive. It is more accurate to think of QBE formula earnings as “gross” earnings, because, just like income, one does not receive the gross amount, only the net amount. The “net” earnings a local school system receives deducts the local 5 mill share and, when required, additional state cuts (“austerity reductions”).
“Authority is granted to county and area boards of education to establish and maintain public schools within their limits.” (Georgia Constitution 8-5-1)
Local systems are permitted to levy property taxes for the purpose of funding local public schools. “Millage” refers to the rate of the property tax levied. The millage rate is defined as “local tax revenues divided by the assessed valuation divided by 1000.” School systems may not levy more than 20 “Mills” (with a few exceptions) without voter approval. In addition to levying property taxes for the operation of their schools, local systems may also use bonds and SPLOSTS (sales tax) to finance school construction if approved by the voters. This paper is only addressing operational budgets. The funding of school construction - capital outlay - is a topic for another day.
The “5 Mill Share” in the QBE formula refers to the portion of the Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs that the state expects local systems to pay with locally raised funds. Currently, the state requires local systems to pay an amount equal to 5 Mills of property tax generated within their taxing authority. By law, the amount of money represented by the 5 Mills statewide cannot exceed 20 percent of the total QBE formula earnings (Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs).
Funds that are raised through locally levied property taxes, including the 5 Mill Share, do not leave the school system and are not sent to the state or to other school systems. (Bonds and SPLOSTS raised locally also are kept locally.) The 5 Mill Share is simply the amount of the local funding “obligation” the state requires each system to pay.
Additional local funding raised from levying additional mills are used at the discretion of the local system for:
• Additional teachers/smaller classes
• Salary supplements
• Paraprofessionals
• Additional programs (e.g., SAT prep)
• Extracurricular activities
• Athletics
• Technology
Local systems also use local funds for underfunded categorical grants (such as transportation and M&O) and for unfunded portions of QBE (such as Social Security).
(2) Categorical Grants
Local systems receive additional funding in the form of “categorical grants.” These grants include funds for transportation, sparsity and low incidence special education students. In FY 2008, this amount was $171,578,524. Funding for school nurses is not a categorical grant but a separate line item in the budget. In FY 2008, funding for nurses was shifted from the tobacco settlement funds to the general revenue fund. Funding for this item has remained at $30 million since the program began.
(3) Equalization
QBE earnings are intended to provide for an adequate education. Equalization is an attempt to address equity. The concept of equalization is related to the concept of the 5 Mill Share, discussed above. Because all counties are not created equal in terms of property tax wealth, they cannot raise the same amounts of money from local property taxes. The state provides additional funding to these counties according to a formula that compares the relative property tax wealth of all counties in the state. Systems at or below the 75% level can receive equalization funding in proportion to the amount of mills they levy beyond 5 mills. (The Equalization formula was changed in 2001 to reduce the participation level from 90% to 75% and to include all mills above the first 5. In the past only the mills between 5 and 8.25 were considered, thus creating a disincentive for local systems to raise their own millage rates.) In FY 2008, this amount was $458,323,775. All figures are taken from the state allotment sheets which are available at www.gadoe.org.
In FY 2008, the amount of state funds that local systems will receive:
QBE Direct and Indirect Instructional Costs $8,160,615,559
Less 5 Mill Share -1,543,476,458
QBE “Formula Earnings” $6,617,139,101
Less FY 2008 “Austerity” Cuts - 142,959,810
QBE Net “Formula Earnings” $6,474,179,291
Plus Categorical Grants + 171,578,524
Plus Equalization + 458,323,775
Total State Funds $7,104,081,590
Cuts To The Formula
The QBE formula was created in 1985. Over the years, various “adjustments” have been made. Sometimes the adjustments are made within the formula, and sometimes a percentage or amount is cut across the board. Since the economic downturn of 2002, adjustments to the formula have resulted in a cut to state funding from the level of 2002. For example, in FY 2003, the funding for maintenance and operations was cut $2 per FTE. This resulted in $2.9 million less in QBE earnings that year. The formula has not yet been returned to the 2002 amount. Media materials were cut by 50% in the 2003 budget also. Portions of this were added back in 2007 and 2008, but the formula still funds $4.41 less per FTE than in 2002.
It is estimated that cuts taken within the formula in prior years resulted in about a $40 million shortfall in the FY 2008 QBE earnings. An additional “across the board” cut has been taken annually since 2003. It has been referred to in various ways, but whether it is an austerity reduction or formula adjustment it has resulted in a total cut of $1.4 billion to the QBE earnings in that six year period.
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
How does Georgia’s school funding compare to the rest of the nation?
Nationwide, states provided 47%, locals 44%, and federal 9%. There is quite a variation across the nation, however. See the table below for the latest figures available nationally. The figures in the table are from the U.S. Census Annual Survey of Local Government Finances. The Census Survey shows a lower amount being funded by the state of Georgia than the Georgia Department of Education records indicate.
How Schools Were Funded 2004-2005
StatesLocalStateFederalStatesLocalStateFederalU. S. 43.9479.1Missouri47.6448.4Alabama33.555.211.3Montana40.14514.9Alaska26.154.918.9Nebraska58.531.110.5Arizona43.644.412Nevada33.49.27.4Arkansas13.275.611.3New Hampshire55.239.25.6California30.15811.9New Jersey53.941.94.2Colorado50.143.16.9New Mexico13.470.516.1Connecticut57.637.25.2New York48.943.97.2Delaware27.464.87.7North Carolina31.95810.1Dist. Of Columbia84.9015.1North Dakota4736.916.1Florida47.142.810Ohio49.842.97.3Georgia46.843.89.3Oklahoma36.249.913.9Hawaii2.267.410.4Oregon414910Idaho32.3571.7Pennsylvania56.235.68.1Illinois57.234.18.7Rhode Island52.839.57.7Indiana47.945.96.2South Carolina45.144.810.1Iowa45.8468.2South Dakota49.833.416.8Kansas35.755.98.5Tennessee44.743.711.6Kentucky30.857.311.9Texas54.534.610.9Louisiana39.246.714.1Utah35.354.41.3Maine5140.18.9Vermont5.287.27.6Maryland55.537.76.8Virginia52.440.76.9Massachusetts51.842.25.9Washington3061.38.7Michigan31.66.18.3West Virginia28.159.712.2Minnesota24.269.66.2Wisconsin43.550.56Mississippi30.953.915.2Wyoming38.851.89.4Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2004-05 Annual Survey of Local Government
Finances
Since the 2000-2001 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances, the state share of public school funding has increased in only eight states. The national average has dropped 3 percentage points. The local share has, however, increased in 28 states. Increased federal funding due to the No Child Left Behind Act has led to an increase in the federal share of public school funding in all 50 states in this time period.
Revised 2007 5
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
Where Does The Money Go? 2006 Expenditures by Function in Georgia69%8%10%5%8%InstructionMaintenance &OperationsAdministrationTransportationSupport Services
How have expenditures per FTE changed over time? $0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000InstructionM &
OAdmin.Trans.Support19962006
Note: In all charts, “administration” is the total of school and general administration; “support” is the total of pupil and staff services. All figures are from the 2006 expenditure reports unless noted otherwise.
Revised 2007 6
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
Revised 2007 7
Adequacy: How much is enough?
There are two major components to adequacy:
• What is an adequate education in terms of standards, teachers and curriculum?
• What is the appropriate funding level to provide that?
Through the A+ Education Reform Act of 2000 and No Child Left Behind we have begun to define education in terms of expectations, standards, aligned assessments, teacher qualifications, and curriculum. What funding level is needed to achieve what has been put into law? How much should the state pay? Georgia is not alone in struggling with the question of adequacy. Other states have faced court battles over this. A New York Appeals court ruled in 2002 that providing an education commonly attained by eighth or ninth grade met its constitutional requirement. A North Carolina court, however, seemed to require more of their school system. That court ruled that the state had not provided a “sound and fundamental education” to students not performing on grade level. That court also emphasized that the right is to a basic education, not a prep school education. Do we define adequacy through inputs or do we test for adequacy through output (student achievement)?
Several models have been developed to address adequate funding. A base level of funding has to be set that would fund a school with students of average characteristics. Then adjustments have to be made for different types of students through student weights or categorical programs.
Successful Schools Model
Ohio, Mississippi, and Illinois have tried this approach. The premise is to look at spending in schools or districts that are performing well. The average per-pupil cost is derived from those schools. In those states the model districts have been suburban or rural, white, and low poverty. This funding model has no mechanism for adding resources for students of other characteristics.
Professional Judgment Model
Oregon, Maine, and Wyoming have tried this model. A panel of experts – teachers, administrators, and school finance consultants—first identify resources needed to establish model schools for students to achieve state standards. The base funding level is the cost of providing that. It can be adjusted for student characteristics. A criticism of this model is that it is usually very expensive because the panel members tend to select high-level resources. Maryland has developed a hybrid approach that combines these two approaches.
Evidence-based Model
In this model the state bases the funding of the poorest districts on the average spending of the wealthiest districts. The purpose is to create a funding level that allows the district to implement research-based reform models with appropriate professional development for teachers and computer technology for students. New Jersey uses this model, and Kentucky and Arkansas are considering it.
Equity: Will all students receive a quality education?
Equity should not be confused with equality. Equity is a consideration of how resources are distributed. The discussion usually centers around the property wealth of a school district. There is a wide variation in the value of a mill across Georgia. A mill in one school district may be worth less than $50,000, but in another district be valued at over $18 million. School districts with a mill of high value can fund much more from local funds than a district where the mill has a low value. When state funds are cut, high-wealth districts have the means to replace the funds. When categories such as instructional materials are underfunded by the state, high wealth districts can buy what their students need. Low wealth districts can not. Those conditions create the argument that resources are inequitable. A number of states have been sued over this issue, including Georgia where the lawsuit is pending.
Georgia School Council Institute www.GeorgiaEducation.org
Revised 2007 9
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Let's Not Forget!
News
Sembler abatement deferred, Walker recuses himself
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
DeKalb Development Authority Chair Dr. Eugene Walker recuses himself from the vote of the Authority last Thursday, and leaves the room in an effort to remove himself from any controversy. Crier photo: Rebecca Chase Williams
By Rebecca Chase Williams
For The Crier
State Rep. Mike Jacobs’ (R-north DeKalb) “status” on his Facebook page said, “Mike Jacobs likes it when the taxpayers win, and hopes it’s not too soon to say things have changed for the better in DeKalb.”
It was his way of summing up a week of surprises and startling announcements as the DeKalb Development Authority postponed voting on the controversial $52 million, 20-year, 100 percent tax break proposed by Sembler’s Town Brookhaven project.
The 52-acre mixed-use project is located on Peachtree Road next to Oglethorpe University.
The surprises started last Wednesday when the DeKalb Board of Education filed an injunction and lawsuit to stop the Development Authority from voting on the tax break that would potentially take away future revenues from the school system. The same day, five members of the DeKalb Board of Commissioners signed a resolution saying it “opposes the proposed economic development incentives for the project at this time” and would challenge the incentives if passed without the endorsement of the commissioners. Then the DeKalb Ethics Commission notified Development Authority Chairman Dr. Eugene Walker that he was under investigation for a potential conflict of interest after accepting $18,000 in campaign contributions from Sembler Company employees.
Thursday’s crowded Development Authority meeting opened with the surprise announcement from Dr. Walker saying that “Gene Walker doesn’t need to be the focus” and so “with a heavy heart and an abundance of caution, I’m going to recuse myself.”
With that, he left the room.
The Development Authority then heard the results of the independent analysis of the proposed Sembler tax abatement performed by Dick Layton of Wachovia Bank. The analysis agreed with Sembler’s numbers that the project could potentially provide a net benefit to the county of $119 million but Layton pointed out that “abating all taxes constitute a break from traditional policy.”
Layton cautioned that the proposal, “may not require county approval, but clearly there should be intergovernmental cooperation.”
As if on cue, Development Authority director, Maria Mullins read a letter from DeKalb Chief Executive Burrell Ellis recommending that the Authority “not approve a 100 percent tax abatement inconsistent with existing policy.” Ellis asked that the county’s Department of Economic Development immediately develop an incentive policy that “takes into consideration best practices and current market conditions.”
Ellis’s memo came as a surprise to both county commissioners and those at the authority meeting.
“”My jaw dropped when I read Burrell Ellis’ memo,” said Jacobs.
County Commissioner Jeff Rader presented the resolution from the board of commissioners adding that he too “looks forward to a more fully articulated development policy.”
Authority members, who are not required to have the consent of either the board of commissioners or board of education then voted unanimously to defer any action on the Sembler proposal until a new policy could be developed.
State Rep. Mike Jacobs called it a “win for the people” and said it ended up being the public outcry that carried the day.
The lawsuit filed by the DeKalb Board of Education is still to be resolved. The injunction was not granted, but according to school board member Paul Womack, the lawsuit is moving forward with the board challenging, “the constitutionality of this body to divert funds without consulting the board of education.”
Womack said the board estimated the Sembler proposal could cost the school district $1.2 million a year, and that a majority of the school board backed DeKalb School Superintendent Crawford Lewis’s decision to file a lawsuit.
“The superintendent did the right thing for the right reason,” said Womack.
In the meantime, Sembler’s president Jeff Fuqua said the Town Brookhaven project, “will be built at some level” but that his company “will come back with a different proposal.” He added that the 10-year, partial tax break already granted by the authority is “not sufficient.”
Womack said that if Sembler asks a more lucrative deal, the board “will oppose that.”
Sembler abatement deferred, Walker recuses himself
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
DeKalb Development Authority Chair Dr. Eugene Walker recuses himself from the vote of the Authority last Thursday, and leaves the room in an effort to remove himself from any controversy. Crier photo: Rebecca Chase Williams
By Rebecca Chase Williams
For The Crier
State Rep. Mike Jacobs’ (R-north DeKalb) “status” on his Facebook page said, “Mike Jacobs likes it when the taxpayers win, and hopes it’s not too soon to say things have changed for the better in DeKalb.”
It was his way of summing up a week of surprises and startling announcements as the DeKalb Development Authority postponed voting on the controversial $52 million, 20-year, 100 percent tax break proposed by Sembler’s Town Brookhaven project.
The 52-acre mixed-use project is located on Peachtree Road next to Oglethorpe University.
The surprises started last Wednesday when the DeKalb Board of Education filed an injunction and lawsuit to stop the Development Authority from voting on the tax break that would potentially take away future revenues from the school system. The same day, five members of the DeKalb Board of Commissioners signed a resolution saying it “opposes the proposed economic development incentives for the project at this time” and would challenge the incentives if passed without the endorsement of the commissioners. Then the DeKalb Ethics Commission notified Development Authority Chairman Dr. Eugene Walker that he was under investigation for a potential conflict of interest after accepting $18,000 in campaign contributions from Sembler Company employees.
Thursday’s crowded Development Authority meeting opened with the surprise announcement from Dr. Walker saying that “Gene Walker doesn’t need to be the focus” and so “with a heavy heart and an abundance of caution, I’m going to recuse myself.”
With that, he left the room.
The Development Authority then heard the results of the independent analysis of the proposed Sembler tax abatement performed by Dick Layton of Wachovia Bank. The analysis agreed with Sembler’s numbers that the project could potentially provide a net benefit to the county of $119 million but Layton pointed out that “abating all taxes constitute a break from traditional policy.”
Layton cautioned that the proposal, “may not require county approval, but clearly there should be intergovernmental cooperation.”
As if on cue, Development Authority director, Maria Mullins read a letter from DeKalb Chief Executive Burrell Ellis recommending that the Authority “not approve a 100 percent tax abatement inconsistent with existing policy.” Ellis asked that the county’s Department of Economic Development immediately develop an incentive policy that “takes into consideration best practices and current market conditions.”
Ellis’s memo came as a surprise to both county commissioners and those at the authority meeting.
“”My jaw dropped when I read Burrell Ellis’ memo,” said Jacobs.
County Commissioner Jeff Rader presented the resolution from the board of commissioners adding that he too “looks forward to a more fully articulated development policy.”
Authority members, who are not required to have the consent of either the board of commissioners or board of education then voted unanimously to defer any action on the Sembler proposal until a new policy could be developed.
State Rep. Mike Jacobs called it a “win for the people” and said it ended up being the public outcry that carried the day.
The lawsuit filed by the DeKalb Board of Education is still to be resolved. The injunction was not granted, but according to school board member Paul Womack, the lawsuit is moving forward with the board challenging, “the constitutionality of this body to divert funds without consulting the board of education.”
Womack said the board estimated the Sembler proposal could cost the school district $1.2 million a year, and that a majority of the school board backed DeKalb School Superintendent Crawford Lewis’s decision to file a lawsuit.
“The superintendent did the right thing for the right reason,” said Womack.
In the meantime, Sembler’s president Jeff Fuqua said the Town Brookhaven project, “will be built at some level” but that his company “will come back with a different proposal.” He added that the 10-year, partial tax break already granted by the authority is “not sufficient.”
Womack said that if Sembler asks a more lucrative deal, the board “will oppose that.”
Friday, October 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)