Search (148 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1969, Box 6

Box 6, Folder 1, Document 22

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_001_022.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 1, Document 22
  • Text: ), '/ SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION FOR EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN ATIANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Report of the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and Fulton County Georgia �LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY ~- L. Bardin, Chairman Thomas M. Miller Otis M. Jackson, Vice Chairman Mrs. A. L. Ritter W. Kenneth Stringer, Secretary & Treasurer Wallace H. Stewart Dr. R. H. Brisbane William M. Teem, III J. H. Cawthon Fred J. Turner Dr. Rufus E. Clement James White, Jr. Dr. James L. Miller, Jr. EX-OFFICIO Dr. John W. Letson Dr. Paul D. West Oby T. Brewer, Jr. W. L. Robinson Earl Landers Alan Kiepper STAFF Dr . Tr uman Pierce , Coordinator Dr. Curtis Henson, Recording Secretary �TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. x. XI. INTRODUCTION. .... ...... 1 WORK OF THE COMMISSION 2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 3 ADVANTAGES OF A SINGLE DISTRICT 5 DISADVANTAGES OF A SINGLE DISTRICT DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. NEXT STEPS. .... IMPORTANT QUESTIONS .... 16 .... ....... ...... AFTER THE REFERENDUM? 21 22 30 . 32 ................... 34 DEVELOPMENTS SINCE CREATION OF THE COMMISSION APPENDIX . 20 �SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION FOR EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN THE ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS INTRODUCTION The present generation is witnessing a revolution in education. Underlying causes of this revolution include social and economic changes of unparalleled speed and magnitude,- the development of an increasingly complex society and a rapidly accelerating accumulation of useful knowledge. The necessity for all persons to secure more education of higher quality than ever before and to continue the quest for learning throughout life becomes more apparent with each passing year. No useful role for the uneducated remains and the cost of ignorance is more than society can afford. Major characteristics of the educational revolution follow: enrolling children in school at an earlier age, extending the upper limits of formal schooling, providing education programs adapted to the cultural background of the student in order to equalize educational opportunity, an enormous increase in the kinds and amounts of instructional materials , in school use of a larger number and variety of specialists, technological advances which enhance the effectiveness of teaching, improvement in organization for teaching and improvement in the quality of teaching . Fast growing d:i.men~ sions of modern school systems include junior colleges, vocational-technical schools, early childhood education progr ams and adult education programs. Additions and improvements in schools are increasing greatly the cost of education. Upward trends in cost will continue into the indefinite future if schools are to meet the demands placed upon them by the public . �The revolution in education places a premium on wise, long-range planning by school districts. Because of population growth and diversity of educational need, metropolitan areas pose difficult educational problems which require much study. Careful, long-range plans for educational advancement are essential in these districts, as in others, if schools are not to suffer in the future. School personnel, members of boards of education and other citizens in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts are well aware of these conditions and are giving thought to the future advancement of education in the area. Such planning for the f uture was given official status by the General Assembly of Georgia in 1964 when it created the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and Fulton County. The Corrnnission was authorized, To study the desirability and feasibility of combining the school systems of Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County; to provide that said Corrnnission may draft a plan or plans for the combining of such school systems and submit same to members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties. WORK OF THE COMMISSION The tasks assigned by the General Assembly to the Corrnnission were complex and formidable. After considerable study, the Corrnnission adopted a plan which, if followed, would enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities. This plan was revised from time to time as the study progressed and as modifications which would improve the study were identified. The .work of the Corrnnission consisted of completing the steps described below. 1. A review of previous studies which gave attention to the same problems the Corrnnission was ask~d t o study. 2. A study of social, economic and educational trends in the met r opolitan area of Atlanta. - 2 �3. A study of developing educational needs and programs. 4. A study of the Atlanta and Fulton County schools with particular attention to finance. 5. An analysis of the educational reasons which support the creation of a single school district . 6. An analysis of the disadvantages of a single school district. 7. The identification and description of steps which would be necessary to create a single school district. 8. Tasks which would have to be completed in effecting a transition from the present districts to a single district. 9. Deciding on whether to recommend a single district. Throughout the entire course of the study the overriding concern of the Commission was to reach the decision that would serve the best interests of those who are to be educated in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts. The deliberations of the Commission and the information considered in these deliberations, relevant to the purposes of the study, are sununarized briefly in the following pages. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The char~e of the General Assembly to the Commission springs from a background which spans years of citizen concern for good schools in the Atlanta metropolitan area . During these years, several special studies of the metropolitan area have paid attention to the schools and their problems of advancement. The Local Government Commission of Fulton County recommended in 1950 a Greater Atlanta Development Pr ogram. - 3 - The report of the Commission included �reference to the schools and the possibility of merging the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts. The report took the position that, ultimately, merger was desirable, but not ·at that time because of differences in expenditure levels and in school programs of the two districts. The General Assembly created a Local Education Connnission in 1958 to study the two school systems and to submit a plan or plans for their improvement to members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties. This Connnission also sttrlied the question of merging the two school systems and concluded that while this would be desirable in the future, it was neither desirable nor practicable at that time. The Connnission recommended the creation of a Metropolitan School Development Council which would make it possible to achieve some of the advantages of consolidation. The proposed council was established and has become an effective instrument for carrying out joint programs of the two school systems. These programs include the Juvenile Court School, Educational Broadcasting, Public Information Services and In-Service Education. The Fulton County Board of Education appointed a study commission in 1963 to seek ways to overcome the financial crisis in which the Fulton County Schools found themselves because of a City of Atlanta annexation program. The annexation program was recommended by the Local Government Connnission in 1950 and was carried out in the early fifties. As a result of this program, 72 percent of the taxable wealth of the Fulton County School District and nearly 50 per cent of its s tudents were annexed by Atlanta. The repor t of this Connnission also took the position that the school districts should undert ake merger when fea sible and recommended t hat steps be taken to determine what would be invol ved in bringing about a singl e district. - 4 - �All studies, since 1950, which have concerned themselves with education in Atlanta and Fulton County have given serious consideration to the creation of a single school district in place of the two existing districts. These studies have taken the position that consolidation should be undertaken when feasible. The two districts, meanwhile, have grown closer together in levels of financial support and in educational programs. Furthermore, there has been a marked increase in the number of cooperative undertakings in pursuit of connnon interests. However, differences remain which would have to be reconciled if a single district is created. ADVANTAGES OF A SINGLE DISTRICT Major advantages of a single district over the two present districts number fifteen. These advantages are concerned with the basic structure for education, adequately financing the schools, equalizing educational opportunities, and improving the quality of education. Actually, all concerns of the study focus on the improvement of the schools. There follows a statement of each advantage and a brief discussion of its meaning. ! Better School District Will Be Provided Adequate criteria for determining the soundness of a school district have been developed by educational authorities. These criteria are con- cerned with such things as a sufficient number of children in the district in order to make possible rea sonable educational effectiveness and cost economy, adequacy of the district as a unit of local government, availability of an adequate local tax base, adequate bonding capacity, reasonable tax leeway and some degree of fiscal independence . When these criteria are applied to the present districts of Atlanta and Fulton County, neither is - 5 - �revealed as a satisfactory district. six criteria: Fulton County meets only one · of the the number of children to be educated. bonding capacity. Atlanta lacks adequate If the two districts were combined, the resultant district would be more adequate, primarily because of fiscal resource, than is either when considered separately. Educational Opportunities Can Be Equalized Morg Easily The right of every indivi dual to secure an education is inherent in a democracy. The modern definition of this right is that every individual must secure an education appropriate to his purposes, interests, abilities and needs. Equality of educational opportunity, therefore, does not mean the same education for all, but it does mean the same level of quality for all insofar as this is possible. The extreme diversity of cultural in- terests and backgrounds which are found in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, and i n any other metropolitan area, require a wide range of educational programs adapted to these basic differences in people. The current nation- wide interest in providing more realistic educati onal programs for children in slum areas is an indication of concern for this kind of need . The Atlanta district is heterogeneous in composition while the Fulton County district is more homogeneous. Combining the two would make it possible to provide in a more economical and efficient manner the variety of educational programs which are needed. The equalization of educational opportunities in Atlanta and Fulton County is virtually impossible under the present district organization. A single district would contribute much to making this a manageable task with minimum difficulties. - 6 - �N.ew and N.e eded Educational Programs Could Be Provided More Economically Neither school district has yet provided post-secondary education programs for which there is great need. Perhaps the fastest growing trend in American education is the development of comprehensive junior colleges. These institutions provide two years of academic work either for terminal purposes or for transfer to a senior college. They also usually offer pro- grams in vocational-technical education and in adult education. It is in- creasingly clear that continuing education is a must for the adult citizen of tomorrow. of education. The kind of world in which we live requires increasing amounts A recent Educational Policies Commission report takes the position that two years of education beyond the high school should be provided at public expense for all high school graduates. Fulton County is not financially able to provide junior colleges under its present tax structure. It would not represent the best economy for each district to provide its own junior colleges. A program to serve the metro- politan area would provide the best means of meeting this growing educational need. The two districts have already found it profitable to cooperate in the provision of vocational and technical education as shown by a new vocationaltechnical school which is to serve both districts. Plans are in the making for construction of a second institution of this type. More Adequate Curricula for Special Student Groups Can Be Provided The variety of curricula needed to meet the diverse educational needs referred to above requires special education programs for small groups of selected students . These programs serv~ children with serious physical - 7 - �handicaps, those suffering from severe mental retardation, children with extreme emotional difficulties, the exceptionally bright, and those with unusual talents. Since such programs are needed for only small numbers of children, they can be provided more economically if the student population to be served is drawn from both the Atlanta and Fulton County districts rather than for each school district to offer its own programs. Furthermore, the educational quality of offerings can be improved more readily in a unified district. Certain Educational Programs and Services Can Be Pi·ovided More Satisfactorily The richness and depth of both teaching and learning are being enhanced by new discoveries concerning human growth and development. The contributions of science to the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes are increasing at a rapid rate. Integrating into curricula the accelerating flow of new and useful subject matter which the modern school program must offer if it is to remain effective is an increasingly difficult problem. The modern school must be staffed by professional personnel who keep up with these continuing developments that affect their productivity. System- wide and continuous career development programs for personnel have become a necessity . This educational service can be provided better on a larger district basis rather than in terms of the present separate districts. The development and use of various learning resources and the appropriate utili zation of technological advance s in teaching can be stimulated and fostered better thr ough a single school district. - 8 - �Needed Improvements in Educational Quality Can Be Achieved More Readily The search for better schools is a common thread running through all considerations involved in deciding the consolidation question. Unless the ultimate consequence of unifying the two school districts is a better quality of education, there is little need to pursue the issue. Changes in financing schools, in administrative and supervisory services and in the scope and variety of educational offerings can be justified only if they bring about better education. The educational advancement which is essential to sound progres~ of the Atlanta metropolitan area requires a unified approach and not a series of separate and structurally unrelated school programs. The search for educational quality is now both universal and continuous. The pursuit of quality is complex because it is concerned with everything that has a bearing on educational programs offered by a school district. The unification of efforts to improve quality would certainly maximize both opportunities and resources for enrichment of educational offerings. Comprehensive, Long-Range Planning Can Be More Effective The increasing magnitude of educational responsibility has been stressed in earlier statements. The quantitative demands as well as the qualitative demands of this responsibility will continue to increase. Projections which have been made through the next several years show no letdown in the rate of population growth in the Atlanta metropol itan area . The indicated increase in the educational load calls for the most intelligent planning of which the people respensible are capable . Since this growth ignores school district - 9 - �• lines, · adequate planning for new enrollment also must ignore these lines insofar as actualities permit. Comprehensive, long-range planning cannot be satisfactory if it is segmented on the basis of school district lines which have no constructive significance in the context of the metropolitan area as a whole. For the same reasons long-range planning for improvement in the quality of education can be more effective if done for a single district rather than the present separate districts. More Effective Solutions to Connnon Educational Problems Are Possible Educational problems are not confined to areas marked off by school district lines. Some educational problems are unique to certain types of districts, as is true of Fulton County and Atlanta. But many such problems are connnon to the school districts of an area , state , region or nation. problems which are common seem to be on t he increase. Those The school district which embraces as nearly a self-sufficient socio-economic unit as is possible provides the best structural framework for t he consideration of educational problems . Solutions to thes e pr obl ems should not be restricted by ar ti- f icial distr i ct l i ne s which ignore t he facts of l ife . A uni fi ed district would pr ovide for a mor e constructive approach to problem s oluti on than does the present dual appr oach. This is all the more important s ince most of t he educational problems to be face d are common t o t he two districts. More Effective Research Programs Can Be Stimulated and Executed As good schools have become more central t o personal and connnunity - 10 - �advancement, the place of research in education has become more apparent. Sound analyses of existing programs, the identificat~on and description of strengths and weaknesses, and the determination of grounds for change require research. Planning ahead to be sure there will be adequate classrooms and teachers for the children in school at the beginning of a given year rests on research. School systems without strong _research programs cannot achieve their maximum effectiveness. The complexity of a metropolitan area and the interrelationships of roles of its _different segments require comprehensive research programs based on trends and needs of the entire area rather than of sub-units such as separate school districts. Furthermore, economy and wise management dictate a metropolitan-wide approach to research. Needed Experimentation and Educational Invention Can Be Achieved More Readily Major advances in our society depend heavily on invention and experimentation. nology. This fact is well recognized in the world of science and tech- The role of invention and experimentation in the improvement of social institutions such as schools is equally important. Schools, like the communities in which they exist, must change as society changes. New curriculum materials should be developed and tested on experimental bases. New knowledge of human growth and development should be applied to teaching and learning on experimental bases. New teaching procedures and methods should be tested through tryout and evaluation. Heavy reliance upon invention and experimentation are crucial to needed educational advancement. There is no need for the school systems within Fulton County to engage in separate programs of this nature . - 11 - The interests �of both districts can be served better by unified programs, to say nothing of economies which could be effected. More Extensive Use of Selected Educational Facilities and Learning Resources Is Possible Centers for acquiring, creating, distriputing and servicing curriculum materials such as publications, filmstrips, video tapes, films and the necessary equipment for appropriate ~se of these materials are becoming common. The creation of teaching materials for local use and on the basis of needs unique to the local situation is an important function of these centers. The use of television in teaching and in professional development programs is increasing. The needed facilities for extensive television programs in the metropolitan area can be centered easily in one location. It is not necessary to duplicate the facilities and resources mentioned above in different school districts serving the same metropolitan area. A single center can provide a constant flow of materials far richer and more comprehensive than would be possible if available financial support is used to provide centers in the separate districts. Equity and Balance in Financial Effort and Support Can Be Achieved An axiom of educational finance, which is accepted universally, is that wealth should be taxed where it is in order to educate children where they are . The most glaring deficiency in the structure of public education in the Atlanta area violates this axiom. is the City of Atlanta. The center for commerce and industry ·C ontributions of most Fulton County citizens to - 12 - �the economy of the metropolitan area are made largely in the City of Atlanta where they do their work. This wealth enriches Atlanta primarily, although earnings paid to the individual may be spent wherever he chooses. The City already recognizes these facts of the economy of the area by helping to support schools in the Fulton County District through al½ mill countywide property tax. The industrial wealth of the metropolitan area which is a major source of school revenue lies largely within the City of Atlanta. No equitable system of financ~al support and effort is possible which does not take into account these economic facts. A single tax program for the metropolitan area with the revenues distributed according to educational need is the only available satisfactory answer to the problems of providing adequate support for the schools. This is Atlanta's problem as well as Fulton County's problem because of the highly complex interdependence of the economy of the two districts. A single school district would be the most simple and prudent way to achieve the goal of equity and balance in financial effort and support. Greater Financial Stability is Possible The disadvantages of heavy reliance on the property tax for the support of schools are well known. The primary advantage is that revenues from property taxes fluctuate less than do revenues from more sensitive barometers of economic health. Desirable stability in the financial structure of a · school system in the final analysis is related to the soundness of the economy of the district and the fairness of its system of taxation . The better balanced the tax program, the more stable the financial base of the schools. The more complete the area served by the school district is as an - 13 - �economic unit in its own right, the more stable will be the local tax base for schools. It is obvious that combining the Atlanta and Fulton County districts into a single school system would provide a far sounder economic base for year-to-year stability in school support. Economies Are Possible Consolidation cannot be justi~ied solely as an economy measure, if this is defined as an actual reduction in expenditures. Any plan for inrrnediate unification of the Atlanta and Fulton County School Districts would cost more than the sum of the current budgets of the two systems because, assuming that the same quality of education is to be provided in the entire district, costs would need to be equalized upward instead of downward. Nevertheless, some financial economies are possible because of the elimination of duplicate programs and services which can be handled better through a single system. In this connection, special reference is made to experimentation, invention, research, certain district-wide programs and services, specialized curricula for small student groups and others enumerated earlier. These programs could be provided at higher quality levels and at a lower unit cost on a unified basis than would be possible in dual programs. However, the greatest economic gain to be derived from consolidation would be in the creation of opportunities to purchase more with the edu- _ cational dollar rather than in the utilization of fewer dollars. This kind of economy is of much greater importance than is the mere saving of money. One good test of a school district is not how little money it spends , but how much education it buys for its exvenditures . - 14 - �New Educational Developments Can Be Better Accommodated As shown earlier, the revolution in education which is underway is composed of both problems and opportunities. A large school district is in better position than a small district to stay abreast of such developments because of its more complex and varied interacting elements. Problems and needs often fall into sharper focus in a large district where the dynamics of change appear to express themselves with greater vigor. Opportunities for new developments in education to be put into practice prevail to a greater degree in the large district. Many resources not for- merly available to improve schools are now being made available. The major source of this new support is the Federal Government through numerous pieces of legislation. It is much easier to take full advantage of the funds thus made available if a single district is created. The complexities of govern- ment relations to education are rapidly increasing. It would be more satis- factory to handle these relationships for the Atlanta and Fulton County Schools through a single agency than through two agencies. Assumptions The above identification and description of advantages of a single school district ar e predicated on certain as sumptions concerning the propos ed new dis t rict . Among these a ssumpt i ons ar e the f ollowing: 1. An adequate legal base for the new district wi ll be pr ovided . 2. An a dministra tive structure which will make pos s i ble the necessary leadership for educational advancement in the metropolitan ar ea will be created. ~ 15 - �3. An adequate plan for financing the new school district will be adopted. 4. Emphasis on continuously improving educational quality and extending educational services will be ·continued. Conclusion Consolidation as such is of no value. It is valuable only as it results in educational advancement, improve~ educational opportunities for children, youth and adults; however, it will not guarantee such advancement. DISADVANTAGES OF A SINGLE DISTRICT The Commission was as much interested in identifying and analyzing the disadvantages of one school district as it was in identifying and analyzing the advantages. Without the weighing of advantages and disadvantages against each other, no objective way of making a decision was open to the Commission. Major concern was with both real and possible educational disadvantages of a single district rather than with problems and issues which would have to be faced if the two present districts are dissolved and a new one is created in their stead. However, the latter problems and issues are also important and they were studied extensively. this report. They are reviewed in a subsequent section of Possible disadvantages of the larger district are presented nex t. Difficulties in Providing School Programs Needed Because of Differences in Attendance Areas The capacity of schools to make adaptations which take into proper - 16 - �account the educational needs of their neighborhoods is related to the size of districts. Considerable uniformity of educationa~ programs in the various attendance centers within districts has been traditional. Because of the range of socio-economic conditions which exist in metropolitan areas a greater variety of educational needs is present in metropolitan school districts. Thus, greater variations are required in school programs than are needed in smaller more homogeneous districts. Current efforts to develop more realistic school programs for _children in slum areas of cities is an example of the need for different kinds of progr ams according to community backgrounds. A reasonable degree of control must be vested in the local school community if these variations in educational needs are to be met. Neighborhood control generates local responsibility, interest and initiative which are essential to good schools. Unhealthy Reliance £ill Bureaucracy Wher e at least some degree of local control is not pre sent , decisions are necessarily removed from the local scene. Instead of the healthy exer - cise of community responsibility for schools , directives from a centr al of f i ce removed fr om the community may t ake the place of l ocal initiati ve . Thus, bureaucratic controls may grow up whi ch inevitably stress unif ormity and discourage the community autonomy whi ch has been one of the major strengths of public education in Ameri ca. There is evidence to show that the larg~r the district t he greater the likelihood that a ut hority over the neighborhood school will be central ized in administrative offices which are usually too far removed from the local school to be responsive to local interests and needs . - 17 - �Inadequate Invention and Experimentation - Historically, many very large school districts have been notably lacking in educational invention and experimentation. Some of the major current educational ills of our country are found in the slums of large city districts where until recently little effort has been made to develop school programs which would serve these areas realistically. Innovation is difficult in situations which do not encourage the exercise of individuality. Uniformity and invention are not compatible. ulations Excessive use of rules, reg- and directives inhibit creativity. Problems unique to large school districts in metropolitan areas have been the subject of much study in recent years. Experiments with new methods and procedures for utilizing the interests and abilities of citizens in neighborhood school centers have been successful. At present, the nature of educational needs of the culturally deprived and the curriculum materials and teaching procedures which are adapted to their backgrounds are subjects of important research and experimentation. The Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act of 1965 provides more than one billion dollars to improve education programs for socially disadvantaged children. Current trends are pointing to ways of stimulating innovation and experimentation in all school districts. Poor Conununication The difficulties of maintaining satisfactory channels of conununication increase with the size of a school district. The threads which hold a school system together become tenuous as the district grows larger. Greater depend- ence must be placed on formal and impersonal means of conununication in large districts. Opportunities for misunderstanding and conflicting opi ni ons are - 18 - �greater where personal and informal contacts are missing. Too Much Centralized Decision Making The disadvantages of bigness in utilizing democratic participation in reaching decisions stems partly from the lack of an adequate structure for such participation and partly from the slowness of action characteristic of large units of government. The fact that both the soundness of decisions and an adequate understanding of thejr meanings are enhanced by participation in their making is of great importance in education because of the nature of teaching and learning. It has been difficult for large school districts to avoid making many decisions in central offices which might be made more satisfactorily in local attendance areas. Loss of Personal Identity Many studies have shown that a close relationship exists between the productivity of a person and the degree to which he feels himself to be an integral part of the enterprise which provides his employment. The more he is made to feel that he is but a mere cog in a machine, the more he acts as though this were true. There is no substitute for warm personal re- lationships in achieving satisfaction and success in one's work. The kind of environment which encourages such relationships is very hard to maintain where large numbers of persons are involved. Conclusion The Atlanta and Fulton County school districts, if combined , would be about eleventh in size among all districts in America . - 19 - In 1964- 65, the �total regular day school enrollment in the two districts was 150,218 plus special schools and adult programs. This is about one~sixth the enrollment in New York City which has more than one million pupils and enrolls more pupils than any other district in the Nation. Both the Atlanta and Fulton County districts have reached already the size of school systems which have suffered from the ills described above. -Therefore, if the proper safeguards are observed in the creation and establishment of the new district, combining the school districts would. scarcely create problems of bigness beyond those which already exist. Just as creating a single school district would not guarantee the educational advantages discussed in this document, neither would the ills described inevitably follow. Knowing the disadvantages to avoid should be sufficient forewarning to assure the provision of an adequate legal base for the new district, satisfactory administrative leadership and sufficient financial support. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION After carefully balancing against each other the educational advantages and disadvantages of one district in place of the two existing districts, the Commission then defined and examined the steps which would have to be taken in order to create a single school district for Fulton County and the tasks which would have to be completed in the transition . Neither set of undertakings appeared to be faced by insurmountable barriers ; hence , the Commission was free to make its decision on strictly educational grounds . The evidence before the Commission scarcely permitted a recommendation other than the creation of one school district for all of Fulton County. - 20 - �This is the reconnnendation. The Atlanta and Fulton County school districts should be dissolved, not merged . An entirely new district should be created . In this way none of the limitations of the present districts need be preserved and the advantages of both can be combined in the new district. Furthermore, desirable features of a school district not currently present in either Atlanta or Fulton County can be incorporated in the new di st rict. NEXT STEPS The foregoing presentat ion outli nes some of the steps taken by t he Commission in reaching a decision on the question of merger. Having de- cided that, in its opinion, the educational programs needed by the children, youth and adults of Atlanta and Fulton County can be provided better by a single district, the Commission turned to a study of the actual steps which would be necessary to achieve merger. The legislati on creating the Connni ssion, in addit ion to directing the Commission 11 To study the desirabi lity and fea sibility of combining . . . 11 (the Atlanta and Fulton County School Systems), stated that the Commission 11 may draft a pl an or plans f or the combining of such school systems . 11 The decision on whether there will be a s ingl e di st r ict will be made by the voters of the present districts. Hence , i f the member s of the General Ass embly from Atlanta and Fult on County accept the Commis sion's reconnnendation, thei r next s tep would be to dr aw up a nd submit f or passage necessary legislation for holding a referendum on the issue. Since the voters ar e enti tled t o a ll informati on that can be provided in order for them to make the best decision, legislation authorizing the referendum should also spell out the essential characteristics of the pro- - 21 - �posed new district. The Commission reconnnends that this legislation include the following: 1. A definition of the necessary legal basis for dissolving the present districts and creating the new district. 2. A description of organizational, administrative and tax structures of the new district. 3. Provisions ior safeguarding present commitments and obligations of the two existing districts. 4. The date on which the new district would come into being. 5. Provision for setting up the machinery required to make the transition from the two present districts. Should the majority of votes cast in the referendum in each of the two existing districts favor the single district, the proposed school district would then be created in accordance with the specifications of the legislation. : (It is assumed that voters in each district would be required to approve the single district before it can be created.) The transition from two school districts to one school district is complex and requires careful planning~ to be resolved can be foreseen. Problems and issues which will have Their exact nature will depend to some extent on the specific provisions made for dissolving the present district and creating a new district. But the following questions may be anticipated, and satisfactory answers to them are possible at this time. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS Since merger of the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts has been discussed from time to time during the past twenty years , opinions - 22 - �already have been formed on both sides of the issue. It may be assumed, however, that the vast majority of citizens have had ~o opportunity to become properly informed on the basic facts needed in order to reach a wise decision. Much public discussion of the facts concerning the present districts and the proposed new district is essential to reaching a sound decision. These facts should be made available to all citizens. questions will be asked and properly so. possible answers to these questions, Many Citizens are entitled to the best It is, of course, impossible to foresee just what all of these questions will be, but it is safe to assume the following will be of interest. Answers to these questions are given in light of known facts. What Would the New District be Like? The Atlanta district consists of 128,395 square miles of which 8.420 miles lie in DeKalb County. The Fulton County School District includes 420 square miles of territory. Therefore, the two districts, if combined, would make a single district of 548,395 square miles of which 539.975 square miles would be in Fulton County proper. The proposed district would have had a total population of 632,600 on April 1, 1964, including 126,400 in the present Fulton County district and 506,200 in Atlanta, of whom 43,900 were in DeKalb County. On October 1, 1964, the total school enrollment for the regular day program, including* kindergartens, would have been about 142,000 pupils . Professional personnel in the new district would have numbered nearly 5,500 individuals, and other school employees just under 3,000 persons. There would have been 170 elementary schools, 35 high schools and two night high schools in the district. - 23 - The schools are now located as �follows: 118 elementary and 24 high schools in Atlanta, 52 elementary and 11 high schools in the Fulton County district. - The school budget for 1965-66 would have been slightly under 61,500,000 dollars, with expenditures equalized by raising Fulton County School District expenditures up to current Atlanta levels, including the provision for kindergartens. The 1965-66 budget for the Atlanta schools is $46,713,124.92; the Fulton County school budget for the same year is $13,891,184, making a total of $60,604,308.92. The school tax digest for the 1965-66 school year is $1,448,147,960 at present assessments. This is divided as follows: $167,691,000 in the Fulton County district and $1,280,456,960 in the City of Atlanta. What Will be the Name of the New District? The Atlanta-Fulton County School District is an appropriate name. Enabling legislation would specify the name of the district. What Would Happen to the Properties of the Two Present Districts? Properties of the two districts would become the property of the new district. These assets belong to the people and are simply held for the people by the present districts. The new district would hold them in the same way, and their value would be unaffected by the transfer . Buildings and equipment would serve the same people they now serve and in the same ways . Children would attend the school they now attend and would be taught by the same teachers . - 24 - �What Would Happen to Debts of the Present Districts? Nothing. Debts of the Atlanta district amount to $41,894,556, and for the Fulton County district, $18,100,444. These are bonded debts incurred primarily for the construction and equipment of needed school buildings. Provisions have been made already for retirement of these debts . These provisions would be as binding if there is a single district as they are at present. What Would Happen to the Teachers,. Principal s, and Other Employees of the Present Districts? All of these individuals would retain their present positions. The only exception would be among administrative personnel on the district-wide level. Some reassignment would be necessary but no one would be assigned to a posi tion of lesser rank than he now holds , with the exception that only one superintendent would be needed. What Would Happen to Salaries of Employees ? No one would take a cut i n salary. In f act, those teachers now in t he Fulton County schools would receive a small salary increase since the Atlant a salary s chedule i s slightly better than the Fult on County schedule. Two salary schedul es would be untenable, as would be any reduction in salaries of present employees. What Would Happen to the Present Teacher Retirement Systems? Each of the existing retirement systems would be retained for those - 25 - �who are now members as each system has provided a bind~ng contract to its members. No teacher could possibly lose in retirement benefits because of a single district. Some way should be found to provide a sound retirement system for the proposed district with each new employee enrolling in this system. Perhaps the present State system could serve this purpose. What Would Happen to the Tenure of Teachers? The proposed new district would not affect earned tenure of teachers in either of the present two school districts. All teachers would carry with them into the new district all of the years of service and all of the benefits of tenure which they have earned. What Would Happen to Positions Held !2y: Teachers in the Present Districts? Nothing. Teachers would continue their work in the same schools, in the same capacity, in the same school communities and with the same colleagues. Would the Singl·e District Cost Less Money? No. While various economies could be effected in a single district resulting in some savings fov the particular services rendered, the overall cost would be higher than the combined cost of the two present districts because the single system would provide for the e~tire district those programs and services which are now provided by only one of the districts. For example, the new district would provide kindergartens for all schools as are provided in the present Atlanta district . - 26 - Provisions for pupil �transportation would have to be uniform throughout the new district. If the Fulton County policy of transporting pupils who live one and one-half miles or more from school or from public transportation which is provided at a student rate were adopted for the new district, no additional cost would be necessary. Adding kindergartens to present Fulton County schools would cost approximately $400,000 per year. Capital outlay needs would be $1½ million for the construction of 60 classrooms for kindergartens. How Would ---the New -- School District be Financed? One of the major reasons for creating a single district is to provide a more equitable tax base for education. In view of the fact that Fulton County has reached the maximum tax rate for schools under present provisions and Atlanta is approaching fiscal difficulties because of the present tax structure, the new district would be timely in making it possible to work out -a more reasonable plan for f i nanci ng education in both Atlanta and Fulton County. A tax structure which differs from that of either present district should be sought. The goal sought by the new tax program would be to di stri bute among the people of the entire county the cost of education on a fair basis. A single district would make possible taxing the wealth where it is and applying it to educati onal need where it exists - - a longt erm guide to f inanci ng schools. A major source of school support should be f ound to take some of t he ' burden f r om the pr oper ty tax and to equalize responsibi lity for support. - 27 - �I Would School Taxes Paid .£Y the Average Individual Be More or Less Than at Present? An answer to this question is not possible without knowing the tax structure of the new district. However, it is safe to assume that the av~rage tax payer will be taxed more fairly in view of one of the main advantages of creating one district. A single tax system for education in the entire country would certainly be fairer than either of the present systems. These systems leave much to be desired. in particular is cumbersome and inequitable. The Fulton County plan Atlanta is now paying part of the educational bill for Fulton County as a result of annexing 72 per cent of the taxable wealth in the Fulton County School District and almost 50 per cent of the students. Should a tax be levied to broaden the base of support, the tax bill of the property owner could be reduced. Wouldn't~ Single District Be of Greater Benefit to the Fulton County District Than to Atlanta? Perhaps initially as Fulton County's school finance problems currently are more severe than those of Atlanta because of the city annexation program of the last decade. But, that which is Atlanta and that which is Fulton County as defined by existing boundaries is unrealistic. The economic life of the two is so interwoven that existing boundaries simply make no sense at all as taxing units. The two districts are now taxing themselves at r elatively the same rate in terms of real effort . - 28 - Partly because of the �= tax structure, Fulton County schools are in truuble fiscally. not far behind in this respect . Atlanta is Hence, both districts stand to gain from a single district if a sound tax structure is created. Can't~ School District Become Too Large? Probably so. The answer depends upon whether size is permitted to foster unhealthy bureaucracy. districts in the Nation. Atlanta is already one of the largest school The new district would occupy about the same position among large districts that Atlanta now occupies. Are There Examples of Similar New Districts? Yes. One of the latest to be created is the Nashville-Davidson County School District. All units of local government were merged in this instance. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, is another fairly recent example of the same kind of change. Others could be mentioned. No failures of such mergers are known at present. Is There~ Trend in Metropolitan Government to Larger Units , Including Larger School Districts? There are some indications of such a t rend , pr obably because of a growing recognition of the need to streamline metropolitan goverrlments and minimize overlapping and duplication. No doubt , many additional questions will be asked concerning the proposed new district. Obj ective answers should be provided insofar as it is - 29 - �possible to do so. It is hoped that every citizen will familiarize himself with the facts concerning schools in the present districts and the arguments for and against creating a single district. AFTER THE REFERENDUM? If the voters approve a single district proposal, the time table defined in the enabling legislation would be set in motion. Much work would have to be done to effect the transition. The autonomy which local school districts in Georgia are free to exercise is considerable. The Atlanta and Fulton County school districts have freely exercised this autonomy. Being entirely separate districts, they have developed their own policies, procedures and operational patterns. While many similarities exist in these matters, there are also differences. Creation of a new district would require careful attention to such guides and practices. Changes which are necessary must not work injustices on school personnel or reflect unwisely on educational programs. Careful and tedious study are required which will result in the development of policies, procedures and operational patterns needed by the proposed new district and which may or may not exist currently in either of the present districts. Some of the several aspects of this problem are listed below with types of needed action indicated. Additions to this list are likely to be necessary in the event a single district is created . 1. Development of a system of personnel records for professional and other school personnel . 2. Development of a system of records for pupil accounting. 3. Development of necessary guides and procedures fior budgeting . - 30 - �4. Development of purchasing plans and procedures. 5. Development of plans for appropriate financial accounting. 6. Development of a salary schedule for professional and other personnel. 7. Development of a retirement system, or systems. 8. Development of policies concerning· employment practices, professional and other. 9. Development of policies regarding sick leave, vacations, leaves of absence, professional growth, etc. 10. Development of policies regarding size of schools. 11. Development of general school regulations such as length of the school day, number of days in the school year and holidays. 12. Development of a school calendar. 13. Reach decisions on the school program having to do with kindergartens, special education, vocational education and other program areas. 14. Reach decisions on pupil-teacher ratios to be established and maintained. 15. Reach decisions on services to be provided by the school district, such as food, transportation and health. 16. Reach decisions on instructional materials and supplies which are to be provided. 17. Reach decisions on special professional personnel to be provided such as librarians, school psychologists, counselors and reading specialists . 18 . Reach decisions on administrative and supervisory services to be provided. - 31 - �r 19. Reach decisions on non-professianal personnel to be provided, such as lunch room workers, custodians and secretaries. 20. Determine the curriculum adjustments which are necessary and suggest how they are to be made. 21. Recommend policies regarding expansion of school programs with special reference to junior college education, vocational and technical education and adult education. 22. Propose a method of combining the two central office staffs. 23. Propose a plan for the internal organization and administration of the new school district, answering such questions as: Will there be area superintendents? Will there be junior high schools? How many grades will be in the elementary schools? 24. Recommend the future of the Metropolitan School Development Council. Will it have served its purpose if the new school district is created? If not, should it be extended to include the entire metropolitan area? 25. Reconlmend plans for handling textbooks and instructional supplies. 26. Make recommendations concerning teaching loads. 27. Make recommendations concerning the visiting teacher program. 28. Make recommendations concerning organizations which exist in the respective school districts, such as Parent- Teacher Associations, local teacher associations and the various student organization~ . 29. Make a budget for the new school district. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE CREATION OF THE COMMISSION This document begins with a paragraph which states that a revolution - 32 - �in education is underway because of swiftly moving cultural changes of profound impact on all areas of civil~zation. During the course of this study several developments occurred which have major bearings on the recommendation for one school district to serve Fulton County. Among these developments are the following: 1. Mounting sentiment for a new Atlanta annexation program. Any such move could only aggravate further the already s·erious financial problems of the Fultorr County schools under the present district organization. 2. A statewide educational study has been completed which strongly recommends fewer, more efficient, school districts for the State. While main emphasis is on districts of sufficient enrollment to provide economically the wide range of educational programs and services needed, the basic concern is with sound districts. 3. The Federal Government has passed an education support bill for elementary and secondary schools. This seems to signal a new and far stronger role of the National Governemnt in education for the future. Other Federal legislation which influences schools supports this conclusion. The impact of this changing role on school dis- trict organization is not clear at this time. But present indi- cations point clearly to the importance of strengthening local school districts. 4. The proposed new Constitution for the State of Georgia, if passed, will encourage the consolidation of school districts and will make it easier for consolidation to be achieved. - 33 - �APPENDIX �TABLE I ESTIMATED TOTAL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS IN REGULAR DAY PROGRAMS IN THE ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS 1965-1970 Years Atlanta Fulton County Total 1965-66 119,204 35,020 154,224 1966-67 122,376 36,210 158,586 1967-68 125,548 37,441 162,989 1968-69 128,721 38,714 167,435 1969-70 131,893 40;030 171,923 - 35 - �• TABLE II ESTIMATED ANNUAL SCHOOL BUDGETS OF THE ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS 1965-1970 Atlanta Years Fulton County Total -·· - - $46,713,125 $13,891,184 $60,604,309 1966-67 51,104,159 15,002,479 66,106,638 1967-68 55,907,949 16,202,677 72,110,626 1968-69 61,163,297 17,498,891 78,662,188 1969-70 66,912,647 18,898,802 85,811,449 1965-66 1!- ~!- Actual - 36 - �
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 1, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 2, Document 5
  • Text: : w t : Aa 4 a_i . ch —_ Tentative ONE DISTRICT FOR ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOLS? Studies of public education in the Atlanta and Fulton County school dis- tricts have been underway most of the time since the early years following the close of World War II. The continuous and rapid growth of the Atlanta metro- politan area and the character of this growth have focused attention on problems and issues many of which strongly influence the public schools. The desire of citizens to provide educational programs of high quality has stimulated con- stant concern for the satisfactory resolution of these problems and issues. The quest for better schools is a thread which runs through all of the various special studies of education during this period, Some of the studies were authorized by one or both of the local school boards, while others were authorized by the General Assembly of the State of Georgia. The latest of those initiated by the General Assembly was authorized in 1963. It created a Local Education Commission composed of nineteen citizens from the two school districts. The Legislature empowered the Commission "to study the desirability and feasibility of combining the school systems of Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County; to provide that said Commission may draft a plan or plans for the combining of such school systems and submit same to members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties." This Commission can profit from previous studies by taking into account their findings and conclusions as they relate to consolidation. BRIEF REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The question of whether or not the Atlanta and Fulton County school dis- tricts should be combined into a single district has been debated for a good many years. The Local Government Commission of Fulton County gave considerable attention to the consolidation issue in a report of its studies which was issued in 1950. The Commission did not recommend merger of the two school systems be- cause of (1) the "huge cost that would be involved in raising the county system up to city salary and kindergarten standards", (2) the "vast physical job in- volved in consolidation." However, the Local Government Commission did not set forth educational reasons as a justification for not recommending consolidation. The report stated that its proposals should not stand in the path of ultimate unification of the two school districts and expressed the view that it would be easier to effect ecnsolidation after changes had been made which minimized the differences in the two school systems. The Commission further expressed the view that combin- ing of the schools would be made easier "if in the meantime the tri-cities and the rural areas would assume a larger share of their school costs." However, the Commission did recommend certain changes which have had a profound effect on education in the Atlanta-Fulton County school districts. The report, known as the Plan of Improvement, recommended greatly enlarging the city limits of Atlanta and the consolidation of certain city and county services. This plan, as later put into effect by the General Assembly, resulted in the transfer of about 0 Fulton County schools and nearly half of the school en- rollment in the County district to the school district of Atlanta. Furthermore, 72 per cent of the taxable wealth to support schools in the County district was included in the annexation. These changes took place in 1952. 3 Even though the two separate school districts remained in reality, a sub- stantial step toward consolidation took place because of the reduction in the number of schools and in enrollment in the Fulton County district and the sub- sequent increase in the Atlanta district. Unfortunately, severe financial problems were created in what was left of the Fulton County school district because of the large proportion of taxable wealth to support schools which was - transferred into the city district. The financial woes of the Fulton County schools have increased steadily since that time. The General Assembly of Georgia created a Local Education Commission of Atlanta and Fulton County in 1958 to make a study of their educational systems and to draft a plan or plans for their improvement, submitting the plan or plans to the members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb counties. The - Act stated that "such study shall give full consideration to the position of such systems within the total educational system of the State of Georgia, and the plan or plans shall include any changes in political and administrative and fiscal structure of either or both of such systems which the Commission deems desirable and feasible." Thus, concern for consolidation appears in this legislation and in the assignment of duties to the Commission. This Commission first gave attention to the legal problems which would be involved in consolidation, Mr. G. Stanley Joslin, Professor of Law at Emory University, was commissioned to study the legal considerations which would be necessary if consolidation were undertaken. Mr. Joslin prepared a memorandum for the Commission on these matters. The memorandum emphasized an important technical distinction between merger and consolidation, thus indicating two distinct ways in which unification might be achieved. Merger would involve one system becoming a part of the other, thus taking on all the powers and limitations inherent in the system which ab- sorbed it. Consolidation means a completely new school system which would be hy created from the present Atlanta and Fulton County districts. These districts would cease to exist when the new district came into being. The newly-created district would be new in every respect, including provisions for a board of edu- cation, school taxes, debt limitations, administrative officials, and operational procedures. Mr. Joslin stated that the new system could be constituted in a way that would permit the addition of other school systems or parts of such systems when and if the citizens affected so desired. No major legal difficulties need be involved in consolidating the two systems according to Mr. Joslin. He recommended that if a decision is made to combine the two systems, consolidation would be better than merger. If merger were to be decided upon, fewer legal difficulties would be involved if the city system joined the county system rather than if the county system joined the city system, The Commission then turned its attention to other aspects of the consolida- tion issue. Considerable research was conducted to determine the economic and financial advantages and disadvantages of unifying the two districts. The Commission became greatly interested in the educational implications of consoli- dation. Thereafter, it viewed consolidation primarily in terms of opportuni- ties which could be provided for improving education in the metropolitan area, After a careful study of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation, the Commission decided that "consolidation is neither desirable nor practicable at this time." It went on to state that "consolidation will be much more feas- ible, in our judgment, if and when (a) the two separate systems have adopted similar policies with respect to kindergartens, (b) teacher pay scales of the two systems are either identical or at least much closer together than at present, (c) citizens of the Fulton County school district have voted to eliminate the Homestead Exemption for school operating tax purposes, and (d) the Atlanta-Fulton 5 County area has successfully passed through the impending school desegregation crisis." Stated another way, the Commission found itself favorably disposed toward consolidation but did not believe the time was right for the transition which would be required, It stated that mere consolidation of the two school districts per se would be neither good nor bad. The values of such a move lie in whether or not better schools could ts provided for the metropolitan area than could be provided by two separate systems, and as economically. However, the Commission did not. drop the idea of improving schools in the metropolitan area by means of improved organizational arrangements, It concluded that a number of the advantages of consolidating the school systems could be achieved through the creation of machinery for joint action and for the develop- ment of joint programs by the Atlanta and Fulton County boards of education. Separate and independent action of the two boards on matters involving common interests lack the strength of joint action and would be less economical in cost, The search for ways to improve schools convinced the Commission that continuous research and experimentation were necessary if the improvement program it recom- mended was to be successfully executed. Furthermore, the demands on education are such that continuous research and experimentation are essential for a school program which is sufficiently up-to-date to meet current needs. These are examples of undertakings which would be more productive if engaged in jointly by the school systems rather than if each system developed its own separate programs, To achieve these purposes, the Metropolitan School Development Council was created as a separate entity to serve both school systems and to be controlled jointly by them. The Council is the instrument through which many recommenda- tions of the Local Education Commission have been achieved in full or in part. Its success is a demonstration of the ability and willingness of the two boards 6 of education and their professional employees to work cooperatively for better schools. The Council was viewed initially as a possible intermediate step toward eventual consolidation, This assumption is supported by the success of the Council. The financial position of the Fulton County Board of Education rapidly de- teriorated following the annexation program of greater Atlanta which was com- pleted in 1952. After annexation was complete, only 28 per cent of the former taxable wealth remained for the education of Fulton County public school students, while the number of students remaining was 50 per cent of the total prior to an- nexation. School population in the County continued to increase at the rate of about 7 per cent each year, thus creating capital outlay problems as well as the necessity of increasing operational budgets. By 1963-64, the Board of Edu- cation found it necessary to reduce school support because there was no longer tax leeway for increasing the school budget. All bonding capacity for building prrposes had been utilized, also. This dire situation prompted the Fulton County Board of Education to appoint a Study Commission of ten citizens of the County to find ways and recommend ways to the Board for alleviating the financial crisis which gripped the schools. The Commission projected school enrollments, capital outlay needs, and operational budget needs for the Fulton County schools through the 1972-73 school year, assuming that schools of at least present quality were to be main- tained. Eleven different possibilities of financing the schools were corsidered, all of which proved to be inadequate, if taken singly. It recommended a combina- tion of alternatives for financing the schools of Fulton County, but it expressed grave concern for the future and recommended that the "study of what would be in- volved in merging the Fulton County and Atlanta school districts should be con- tinued with a view to effecting such a merger when it is feasible." 7 ‘AlL of these Studies gave serious attention to consolidation and without exception they concluded that the directions toward which the two school systems should move lead to consolidation. As stated in one of the reports, the question seemed to be not whether there should be consolidation, but rather when should consolidation be effected. DIMINISHING BARRIERS In the meantime, certain of the barriers to combining the two school dis- tricts which were identified earlier have been either overcome or minimized. The State Minimum Foundation Program has been modified in ways which will not require a financial sacrifice in state aid should the two districts be united, as would have been the case earlier. The only loss would be the state alloca- tion for the salary of one superintendent, about $6,700, and there may be gains which would offset this loss, depending on the kind of new district to be created. The level of financial expenditures of the two districts has been brought closer together, although troublesome differences remain. Questions concerning kindergartens are perhaps the most difficult. The trends in school desegregation appear to be clearly established. While citizens generally seem to accept desegregation as a reality, problems which accompany the actual integration of schools are profoundly complex and their solutions are unclear, However, whether one or two school districts exist in Fulton County may be viewed as largely immaterial with reference to desegregation. Perhaps the most important change is the growth of the two systems toward the same basic assumptions concerning education and the increase in productive cooperative efforts between the two systems, This is progress toward the kind of unity which is essential to physical consolidation. NEW IMPERATIVES Meanwhile, other transitions of great importance have been taking place, Foremost among these is the widespread recognition that the provision of educa- tion of increasingly high quality is an essential requirement of all districts if its people are to remain in the mainstream of modern civilization. Neither the schools of yesterday nor the schools of today will be adequate for tomorrow, Cultural transitions are taking place at a rate of speed which quickly render obsolete much of current education. Intensive efforts to find the best ways of providing the needed education are underway in many school districts. The national government is keenly aware of these needs as is evidenced by its in- creasing support of education at all levels. Education is now recognized as the only effective way of eliminating poverty, achieving worthy personal objectives, and developing more satisfactory communities, states, and nations. The continued rapid growth of the Atlanta metropolitan area is another major force which deeply influences the schools and how they should be organized. A population of three million people is projected for the area by the year 2000. The basic structure of local government in the area has thus far been relatively unaffected by this growth, except for the annexation program completed in 1952. These units of government, including those for schools, become increasingly archaic as the metropolitan area continues its growth and development. A major aspect of urbanization is the fact that as size increases so does cultural diversity. This complexity of interests and abilities necessarily in- creases interdependence because a metropolitan area permits many kinds of special- ization which are supplementary to each other and when taken together constitute the entire area. Hence, the status of a given unit in such a complex affects the whole. 9 This is why no part of a metropolitan area can afford a second-rate school system. Therefore, the present fiscal condition of the Fulton County school district is a concern of the entire metropolitan area and not simply of the Fulton County school district alone, As pointed out above, a major imperative is the inability of the present Fulton County school district to sustain an ade- quate program of education. Since nothing has been done to alleviate the crisis in school finance underscored in the 1963 study, this imperative becomes more compelling, THE IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT Before taking a closer look at the question of consolidation, a brief dis- cussion of school districts and their proper functions may be in order. The American concept of public education includes provisions for substantial control of schools by local communities, The local school district, a creature of the state, was invented to enable people served by the schools to have a voice in their purpose and government. There are thousands of local school districts in America. These districts vary greatly in size and in population. They are easily classified into different types according to the kinds of schools they provide, Much study of school districts by authorities suggests the following cri- teria for an adequate district: 1. It should have enough children to educate to enable schools to funetion effectively and economically. 2. It should be a reasonably complete social and economic unit. 3. It should have taxable wealth adequate to provide healthy local support. lh. It should have adequate bonding power for needed and anticipated capital outlay. 10 5. It should have tax leeway for both current operations and capital outlay. 6. It should have reasonable fiscal independence. These criteria were applied to the Fulton County school district in the 1963 study. It was found that the district could meet only the first criterion. It, therefore, by no stretch of the imagination could be judged as an adequate school district. On the other hand, the Atlanta school district meets all of these criteria to a reasonable jeiran: Atlanta has already recognized a degree of responsibility for the Fulton County school district by supporting a 13 mill countywide tax for support of Fulton County schools. If the two districts were combined, the single district would be a sound and adequate district, if es- tablished on the basis of proper legal provisions. REASONS FOR CONSOLIDATION The foregoing discussion traces the historical development of consolidation as an issue and reviews the findings and recommendations of previous studies as they bear on the question. Current developments and trends are also identified and interpreted in relation to their impact on the structure of education in the Atlanta metropolitan area. These facts point clearly toward a single school district. But the really persuasive reasons which should be considered in making a decision are concerned with consolidation as an instrument for achieving butter educational programs for the metropolitan area, a more equitable support basis for the schools, and the provision of structural and procedural arrangements which will facilitate the economic use of personnel and financial resources in the ongoing development of more adequate education, and finally with the pro- vision and stimulation of the research and experimentation which are essential 11 in the continuous improvement of education in the metropolitan area. These educational advantages to consolidation are listed and briefly discussed in the following pages. A Better School District Will Be Provided The discussion above concerning the proper functions of a school district and the characteristics of a sound district clearly justify this conclusion. Furthermore, sound principles of political science as they relate to units of local government support this conclusion, In addition, maintaining and foster- ing good relationships with other units of local government would be enhanced by a single district. These factors are obviously related to the ease and conven- idence of governing the local schools, Educational Opportunities Can Be Equalized More Easily The American dream has long stressed the right of every individual to secure an education. We now believe that every individual has the right to an education appropriate to his purposes, interests, abilities, and needs. Equality of edu- cational opportunity, therefore, does not mean the same education for all, but it does mean the same level of quality for all insofar as is possible. The extreme diversity of cultural interests and socio-economic backgrounds which . are found in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, and in any other metropolitan area, require a wide range of educational programs adapted to these basic differ- ences in people, The current nationwide concern for providing more realistic educational programs for children in slum areas is an indication of this kind of need. The Atlanta district is vastly heterogeneous in composition, while 22 the Fulton County district is more homogeneous. Combining the two would make it possible to provide the variety of educational programs needed in a more economj- cal and efficient manner. The equalization of educational offerings in the present school districts of Atlanta and Fulton County seems virtually impossible, A single district would contribute much to making this a manageable task with minimum difficulties, New and Needed Educational Programs Could Be Provided More Economically Neither school district has yet provided post-secondary education programs for which there is great need. Perhaps the fastest growing trend in American education is the development of comprehensive junior colleges. These institu- tions provide two years of academic work either for terminal purposes or for transfer to a senior college. They also usually offer programs in vocational- technical education and in adult education. It is increasingly clear that con- tinuing education is a must for the adult citizen of tomorrow. Furthermore, the kind of world in which we live requires increasing amounts of education, A recent Educational Policies Commission report takes the position that we must provide two years of education beyond the high school at public expense for all high school graduates. Fulton County is not financially able to provide junior colleges. It would not be the most economical plan for each district to provide its own junior cole leges. A program for the metropolitan area would provide the best means of meet- ing this emerging educational need. The two districts have already found it profitable to cooperate in the provision of vocational education as reflected by the new vocational school which is to serve both districts and provisions for a second such institution. 13 More Adequate Curricula for Special Student Groups Can Be Provided The variety of curricula required to meet the diverse educational needs re- ferred to above means special educational offerings for-small groups of selected students. Reference is made to groups of children with serious physical handi- caps, those suffering from severe mental retardation, children with extreme emotional difficulties, the exceptionally bright, and those with unusual talents. Since such programs are needed for only small numbers of children, they can be provided more economically if the student population to be served is drawn from the entire metropolitan area rather than if the two present school districts offer duplicate programs. Furthermore, the educational quality of offerings can be more readily improved in a unified district, Certain Educational Programs and Services Can Be Provided More Satisfactorily The richness and depth of both teaching and learning are being enhanced by new discoveries concerning human growth and development. The contributions of science to the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes is increasing at a rapid rate, Integrating into curricula the accelerating flow of new and use- ful subject matier which the modern school program must offer if it is to remain effective is an increasingly difficult problem. The modern school must be staffed by professional personnel who keep up with these continuing developments that affect their productivity. Systemwide con- tinuous career development programs for personnel have become a necessity. This is one type of educational service which can be provided better on a metropolitan- wide basis rather than in terms of the present separate districts. The develop- ment and use of various learning resources and the appropriate utilization of 14 technological advances in teaching can be stimulated and fostered better through a single school district. Required Improvements in Educational Quality Can Be Achieved More Readily The search for better schools is a common thread running through all con- siderations involved in deciding the consolidation question. Unless the ultimate consequence of unifying the two school districts is a better quality of education, there is little need to pursue the issue. Improvements in financing schools in administrative and supervisory services, and in the scope and variety of educa- tional offerings can be justified only in terms of their educational import. The concept of a metropolitan area which is basic to the considerations of this paper demand an educational program for the Atlanta metropolitan area and not a series of separate and structurally unrelated programs. The search for educational quality is now both universal and continuous. The pursuit of quality is complex in that it is concerned with everything that has a bearing on the educational programs offered by a school district. The unification of such efforts would certainly strengthen the opportunities and resources for enrichment of educational offerings. Comprehensive, Loag-Range Planning Can Be More Effective The increasing magnitude of educational responsibility has been stressed. The quantitative aspects of this problem will continue to increase, Projections which have been made through the next several years show no letdown in the rate of population growth. The indicated increase in the educational load calls for the most intelligent planning of which the people responsible are capable. 15 Since this growth ignores school district lines, adequate planning for new en- rollment must also ignore these lines insofar as actualities permit, Compre- hensive, long-range planning cannot be satisfactory if it is segmented on the basis of school district lines which have no constructive significance in the context of the metropolitan area as a whole. More Effective Solutions to Common Educational Problems Are Possible Educational problems are not confined to areas marked off by school district lines, as has been emphasized. Some educational problems are unique to certain types of districts, as is true of Fulton County and Atlanta. But many such problems are common to the districts of an area, state, region, or nation, Those which are common seem to be on the increase. The school district which embraces as nearly a self-sufficient socio-economic unit as is possible provides the best structural framework for the consideration of educational problems, Solutions to these problems should not be restricted by artificial district lines which ignore the facts of life. A unified district would provide for a more construc- tive approach to problem solution than does the present dual approach. This is all the more important since most of the educational problems to be faced are common to the two districts. More Eifective Research Programs Can Be Stimulated and Executed As good schools have become more central to personal and community advance- ment, the place of research in education has become more apparent. ‘Sound analyses of existing programs, the identification and description of strengths and weak- nesses, and the determination of grounds for change require research, Planning 16 ahead so that there will be adequate classrooms and teachers for the children in school at the beginning of a given year rests back on sound research. School systems without strong research programs cannot achieve their maximum effective- ness. The complexity of a metropolitan area and the interrelationship of roles of its different segments require comprehensive research programs based on trends and needs of the entire area rather than of subdistricts which are separate school districts. Furthermore, economy and wise management dictate the metropolitan-wide approach to research. Needed Experimentation and Educational Invention Can Be Achieved More Readily Major advances in our society depend heavily on invention and experimentation. This fact is well recognized in the world of science and technology. The role of invention and experimentation in the improvement of social institutions such as the schools is equally critical. Schools like the world in which they exist must change as their clientele changes. New curriculum materials must be developed and tested on experimental bases. New knowledge of human growth and development must be applied to teaching and learning on experimental bases. New teaching pro- cedures and methods must be tested through tryout and evaluation. Heavy reliance upon invention and experimentation are crucial to needed educational advancement. There is no need for the school systems within the metropolitan area to engage in separate programs of this nature. The interests of both can be served -better by unified programs, to say nothing of economies which could be effected. 17 More Extensive Use of Selected Educational Facilities and Learning Resources Are Possible Centers for acquiring, creating, distributing, and servicing curriculum materials, filmstrips, video tapes, films, and the necessary equipment for appro- priate use of these materials are becoming common, The creation of teaching materials for local use and on the basis of needs unique to the local situation is an supoitent function of these centers. The use of television in teaching and in professional development programs is increasing. The needed facilities for extensive television programs in the metropolitan area can be centered easily in one location. It would be foolish to duplicate the above in different school districts serving the same metropolitan area. A single center can provide a constant flow of materials far richer and more comprehensive than would be possible with dupli- cate facilities in the separate districts, Equity and Balance of Financial Effort and Support Can Be Achieved An axiom of educational finance which is accepted universally is that wealth should be taxed where it is in order to educate children where they are. The most glaring deficiency in the structure of piblic education in the Atlanta area vio- lates this axiom. The center for commerce and industry is the City of Atlanta. Contributions of most Fulton County citizens to the economy of the metropolitan area are made largely in the City of Atlanta where they do their work, This wealth enriches Atlanta primarily, although the earnings paid to the individual may be spent wherever he chooses. The contribution of the city to support of schools in the Fulton County district is a 14 mill property tax. The industrial 18 wealth of the metropolitan area which is a major source of school revenue lies largely within the City of Atlanta. No equitable system of financial support and effort is possible which does not take into account these economic facts. A single tax program for schools in the metropolitan area with the revenues distributed according to educational need is the only satisfactory answer to the financial dilemma of the Fulton County schools. This is Atlanta's problem as well as Fulton County's problem because of the previously stressed interdependence of the metropolitan area. A single school district would be the most simple and prudent way to achieve this goal. It should be pointed out that a new tax plan would be needed, for Atlanta is approaching the situation of Fulton County under its present tax system, Greater Financial Stability is Possible The disadvantages of heavy reliance on the property tax for the support of schools are well known. The primary advantage is that revenues from property taxes fluctuate less than do revenues from more sensitive barometers of economic health. Desirable stability in the financial structure of a school system in the final analysis is related to the soundness of the economy and the fairness of the system of taxation. The better balanced the tax program, the more stable the financial base of the schools. The more complete the economic district or area served by the school district as an economy in its own right, the more stable the local tax base for schools. It goes without saying that combining the Atlanta and Fulton County dis- tricts into a single school system would provide a far sounder economic base for year-to-year stability in school support,
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 2, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 1, Document 15

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_001_015.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 1, Document 15
  • Text: ~ A PROGRESS REPORT to the LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION FROM DEKALB AND FULTON COUNTIES by the LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY November, 1966 Tentative THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Purpose This document reports progress made by the Atlanta and Fulton County Education Commission in developing detailed plans for creating a new school district to take the place of the Atlanta and Fulton County districts as instructed by the General Assembly of Georgia when it extended the life of the Commission in 1966. The document consists of decisions and plans which the Commission has made for creating a single school district, an outline of remaining tasks of the Commis- sion, provisions which have been made for completion of these tasks, a statement of budget needs, and a time schedule. Background Reference to the previous work of the Commission is necessary for the purpose of understanding properly this report. The commission was created by an act of the General Assembly adopted by the 1964 ses- sion which gave the Commission responsibility "to study the desirabil- ity and feasibility of combining the school systems of Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County: to provide that said Commission may draft a plan or plans for the combining of such school systems and submit same to members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties," The tasks assigned to the Commission turned out to be difficult and complex requiring studies involving law, economics, public finance, school costs, population analysis, school personnel, welfare provisions, school district structure, educational needs, existing educational pro- grams, and curriculum development. These studies analyze current status and project probable future developments. The studies provided the information required by the Commission to execute its assignment. The first report of the Commission; an interim one, was released in January of 1965. It briefly reviewed the substantial history of local concern for how education should be organized in the Atlanta- Fulton County area as reported in various studies, some essentially educational in nature while others dealt broadly with problems and issues faced by the growing Atlanta metropolitan area. The major con- tribution of this report was the careful identification, description, and analysis of advantages and disadvantages of a single school dis- trict in place of the Atlanta and Fulton County districts. The report pointed out the difficulties to be overcome in creating a single dis- trict. It also described the proposed single district and suggested a tentative budget for completing the assignment of the Commission. In February of 1966, the Commission released a report entitled, “District Reorganization for Better Schools in Atlanta and Fulton County." Building on the interim report summarized above, this docu- ment inquired into the effect on educational programs of transition to a single district, the effects on financing education and listed a number of important questions concerning the proposed district for which answers were provided, With the background thus developed, the = Commission was in position to reach a decision on whether or not it should recommend a single school district. The decision of the Commission was that a single district should be created to take the place of the present Atlanta and Fulton County districts. It found that the consolidation of the Atlanta and Fulton County districts was less desirable than dissolving them and creating a new district in their stead inasmuch as the disadvantages of neither district would need to be perpetuated, while the advantages of each could be retained. The report included seventeen other recommendations which defined required legal steps to be taken in creating a single district, described how the new district should be organized, and sug- gested financial provisions. The report then defined twenty-nine transition tasks to be undertaken concerning primarily school programs of the present districts. A Public Information Services Program was suggested to help achieve broad public understanding of the proposed new district. The report ended with an analysis of recent develop- ments of significance to the school district reorganization issue. The report was presented to the Legislative Delegation of DeKalb and Fulton counties before it was released. The Delegation accepted the report and requested additional information on current and pro- jected school revenues for the Atlanta and Fulton Ccunty School dis- tricts, a further analysis and comparison of expenditure patterns of the two districts, a projection of school revenue and expenditure patterns for the two districts, and comparisons of projected revenue patterns and expenditure patterns of the two districts with the pro- posed single district. Requested also was a comparison of current educational programs of the two districts and the comparison of these programs with those projected for the new district. Finally, the Delegation asked that the necessary steps for establishing and placing in operation the proposed district be spelled out in a definite vattern which would serve as a blueprint for transition. A report issued in January of 1966 provided the requested informa- tion except for the actual transition blueprint. The latter is the major concern of this report. The first phase of the work of the Commission for the present year consisted of defining and outlining as specifically as possible the various tasks which should be undertaken and completed in establishing the proposed district. Responsibilities for completing these tasks were allocated and necessary authorizations were made accordingly. Using this outline as a guide, the Commission has reached important decisions and made substantial plans for creating the proposed new school district. These decisions and plans are presented in the re- maining pages of this report. Decisions and Plans Once the Commission decided to recommend a single district, it then turned its attention to the tasks which would have to be com- pleted in carrying out this recommendation. These tasks may be cate- gorized as follows: 1. The legal work required to dissolve the present districts and to create the proposed new district. 2. The educational planning necessary in order to assure effective transition from the present districts to the proposed new district. 3. Suggestions on the election, terms of office of board members, and initial role of the Board of Education for the new district. 4. A program for developing adequate public understanding of the proposed new district and the reasons which support its creation. 5. Allocations of responsibilities for getting done the neces- sary tasks. Legal Work Mr. A. C. Latimer, Attorney for the Atlanta Board of Education, and Mr. James P. Groton, Attorney for the Fulton County Board of Educa- tion, have been retained by the Commission to be responsible for the necessary legal work. The logic of this decision is obvious since their experience and present responsibilities will serve them well in this undertaking. Extensive research for the purpose of identifying, analyzing, and clarifying a voluminous body of legislation of both general and local dimensions regarding education in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts is underway. Relevant court decisions are being subjected to the same type of study. There is no other way to ascertain the requirements for dissolving the two present districts. When this has been done, legislation will be prepared for dissolving the districts. Then, new legislation essential to establishing and maintaining the proposed district will be prepared along with required constitutional provisions. Attorneys Latimer and Groton have prepared a detailed outline of work which must be done before the new constitutional provisions and legislation can be drafted. This outline consists of fourteen different subjects which are being considered separately. The study of each subject involves: 1. identifying and analyzing existing laws and regulations pertaining to the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems which will have to be considered, amended, or repealed; 2. determining the legal problems which require special atten- tion, and 3. establishing the end results to be accomplished by the new legislation. The fourteen subjects and a brief paragraph on progress achieved follow: 1. General powers.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified as have problem areas to be considered. The new legislation is to cover powers generally appropriate to school systems under the Georgia Constitution and such other powers as are required to borrow, to contract with other governmental bodies, to sue and be sued, to operate school buses, to accept donations, bequests, and so forth, to operate educational programs from kindergarten through college, including vocational schools, relationships with adjoining school systems, and =6- to establish a new district that is a political subdivision of the State. 2. Local taxation for schools.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified as have problem areas to be considered. The new legislation is to cover uniform property tax assessments throughout the district, provide for elimination of homestead exemptions, establishment of annual millage, tax levies, tax collections, and tax sources other than the property tax. 3, Revenues from sources other than local school tax.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified as well as problem areas to be con- sidered. The new legislation is to cover authorization of appropria- tions from city and county governments, intangible taxes, transporta- tion funds, and escheats. 4. Power to increase bonded debt and assumption of bonded debt.-- Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified. Problem areas which have to be dealt with have been defined. New legislation is to cover power to levy property tax, millage limitation, restrictions on retirement of debt, assumption of county school debts, and assumption of city school debts. 5. Repealer.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repeaied have been identified. Problem areas to be considered have been defined. The new legislation is to repeal or amend the Fulton County one and one-half mill constitutional amendment and Fulton County constitutional amendments on millage limi- tation, bonded debt limitation, and pensions. 6. Method of adoption.--Questions to be considered include whether or not a single constitutional amendment will suffice or if multiple amendments will be required; provision for courses of action if multiple amendments are required and some are adopted while others are not. whether the amendment(s) is to be general or local, what vote is required, who is eligible to vote, and how the ballot should be worded. 7. Succession to school property and contract rights.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified. Problem areas tc be considered have been defined. New legislation is to cover the transfer of county school properties to the new district and the transfer of city proper- ties to the new district. 8. Assumption of liabilities and contract obligations. -=-Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified. It has been ascertained that no notable problem areas exist under this subiect. New legislation to be passed is to cover debts other than bonds, obligations, liabilities, and State School Building Authority lease payments. afe 9. Personnel.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended , or repealed have been identified. It has been determined that no notable problem areas exist under this subject. Now legislation is to cover contracts, pay scales, tenure, and fringe bene- fits. 10. Boundaries of the new district.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified. It has been ascertained that- no notable problem areas exist under this subject. The new legislation is to provide that all of Fulton County and the part of Atlanta which is in DeKalb County are to be included in the new district. Provision for the addition of new territory and other schools is to be included. 11. Board of Education.~--The present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identi- fied. Problem areas to be considered have been defined. The new legis- lation is to cover composition of the Board, eligibility for Board membership, term of office, election districts, powers, duties, respon- sibilities, compensation, and changes in composition and size of election districts. Provision is to be made for terms of office of initial board members. 12. Superintendent of schools.~-Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identi- fied. It has been established that no notable problem areas exist under this subject. New legislation is to cover criteria of eligibility, pro- vide for appointment by the Board, determine the term of office, and enumerate powers, duties, and resporsibilities. =9. 13. Transition provisions.~-New legislation is to provide for an interim board of education to consist of the Atlanta and Fulton County boards, interim administration provisions, and an effective date for the new district to become operative. The legislation is to prescribe a schedule of steps to be taken if the constitutional amendment(s) is adopted. 14. Pensions.--Present statutes, regulations, and court decisions to be considered, amended, or repealed have been identified. Problem areas which must be considered have been defined. New legislation is to prescribe for either a new pension system or membership in the State teachers’ retirement system, merging of the county school pen- sion system into the new system, transition of city school employees from the city general pension system, and authority to receive contri- butions for pension funds from city and county governments. Educational Planning Necessary to Assure Orderly and Effective Transition from the Present Two Districts to the Proposed Single District The transition from two districts to one is to be as orderly and systematic as is possible without interruption or dislocation of edu- cational programs and personnel (student, professional, and other). To achieve this purpose requires a great amount of planning involving the development and approval of new policies and procedures. Major areas of decision and policy development have been defined as outlined below. It should be noted that much of this planning is to be expressed in the legal framework of the proposed new district, some of which is -10- reflected in the legal work as reported above. Certain other aspects of planning and policy are not necessary for the legal framework, some of which appropriately wait until a decision is reached on whether or not the proposed district is to be established. If voters reject the new district, this planning will not be necessary; if they approve, there will be time to complete such planning before the new district becomes operative. The areas for policy and procedure development and achileve- ments under each area are listed below. Minor repetition occurs because of the need to give direction to the legal work already described. District organization and administration.--The new district is to include all of Fulton County and that part of Atlanta which lies in DeKalb County. The district is to have a board of education of nine members elected at large by the qualified voters of the district in a non-partisan election for terms of six years, one from each of nine subdivisions of the district of approximately the same number of per- sons. The legislation is to prescribe how the subdivisions are to be formed and how they are to be re~divided as population changes require. Three members of the initial board shall serve full six-year terms, three members shall serve four-year terms, and three members shall serve two-year terms as determined by the Fulton County Grand Jury. Thereafter, board members are to be elected for six-year terms in regular school board elections as existing terms of members expire. Vacancies in board membership are to be filled by appointment of the board until the next regular school board election at which time un- expired terms will be filled by the voters. -li- In the event the constitutional amendment(s) is approved, the Atlanta and Fulton County School District board members are to serve as the board of education for the new district until the new board is elected and can take office. Board members are to be paid $300 per month with the chairman being paid an additional $50 per month. Provision for transition.--If the proposed new district is ap~- proved by the electorate, a transition committee is to be established immediately by the Atlanta and Fulton County School District boards acting as a single board upon the joint recommendation of the superin- tendents of the two districts. This committee is to be responsible for the many plans and procedures concerned with education programs which a smooth transition will reauire. The committee is to include the two superintendents of schools, the chairman of each board of education, the fiscal officers of each school system, the assistant superintendent for instruction of each school system and such other individuals as may seem appropriate. The transition plans worked out by this com- mittee are to be approved by the boards of education. If the single school district is approved, the two school systems are to continue as at present for the balance of the school year in which approval occurs and an additional calendar year in order te allow time for completion of needed transition plans. The board of education for the new district, if approved, is to be elected as soon as possible after approval and should formally organize itself without delay and proceed at once with the selection of a super- intendent of schools. The superintendent is to be employed and is to ~-|2- begin his work as far in advance of the creation of the new school district as is possible. The superintendent of schools.--The superintendent is to be ap- pointed by the board of education and given such powers as are neces~ sary to act as the chief executive officer of the school district. His term of office, compensation, and other benefits shall be establish- ed by the board of education. Financial provisions.--The proposed new district is to be fiscally independent. While major local support is to come from the property tax, provision is to be made for local support from other forms of taxation. Bonding capacity of the new school district is to be 10 per cent of the assessed valuation of taxable property. The homestead exemption in Fulton County is to be abolished. Assessments of property for school tax purposes is to be uniform and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal provisions and policies of the new school district are to permit full utilization of financial support from state, federal, and other sources. Dr. R. L. Johns of the University of Florida has been employed to recommend provisions for financing the proposed new school district and to develop guides and procedures for purchasing and financial accounting and for preparation of the annual school budget. Dr. Johns is now working on this assignment. =1 36 Personnel.--Dr. Willard S. Elsbree, Teachers College, Columbia University, has been employed to develop salary schedules for profes- sional and other personnel of the proposed school district, a retire- ment system or systems, policies regarding tenure, sick leave, vacation, leaves of absence for professional growth and others as needed, develop a system of personnel records for professional and other personnel, and propose a method of combining the two central office staffs. Dr. Els- bree is working on this assignment. Curriculum.--It is necessary to determine the various curricula to be offered by the proposed school district, develop policies for selec- tion and distribution of instructional materials, recommend policies regarding expansion of school programs with special reference to junior colleges, vocational and technical education, and adult educa- tion, determine the special professional personnel to be provided such as school librarians, school psychologists, counselors, and reading specialists, develop plans for kindergartens for schools now in the Fulton County District and make recommendations concerning teacher loads, including pupil-teacher ratio. Work in this area has not gone beyond definition of what is to be undertaken. Pupils.--A system of records for pupil accounting is to be develop- ed for the proposed district and recommendations concerning the visiting teacher program. These tasks are yet te be undertaken. Services.--Decisions are to be made on the kinds and amounts of services to be provided by the school district in areas such as trans- portation, food and health. How these are to be provided is to be ajpd= suggested. The number and kinds of nonprofessional personnel to be employed by the new school district such as secretaries, lunchroom workers, and custodians is to be determined. Plans for storing and handling textbooks and other instructional supplies are to be worked out also. This is another area of planning which, except for definition and direction, can await a decision on the fate of the proposed district. Maintenance and operation.--Policies are to be developed regarding kinds, numbers, types, and levels of competence needed by personnel in maintenance and operation: policies and procedures concerning main~- tenance and operation programs: policies and procedures concerning work assignments and responsibilities. These policies and procedures can await development until the fate of the proposed district has been established. Initial Role of the Proposed New Board of Education Early responsibilities of the new board of education have been touched on in the section above. The new board is to be elected as soon as possible and is to begin functioning as a board immediately thereafter. As indicated previously, its early major responsibility will be the selection of a school superintendent for the new district. When this has been done, the superintendent is to assume responsibility for recommending the many policies and procedures which must be worked out before the new district becomes operational. The transition com- mittee referred to earlier will have done much preliminary work along =1%= these lines and will undoubtedly recommend to the superintendent many of the needed policies. Developing Public Understanding of the Proposed New District A well-informed public is essential to reaching a wise decision on the school district issue. Therefore, a systematic, comprehensive, carefully coordinated program to develop and distribute among all citi- zens adequate information on the district reorganization plan and the reasons which support it is needed. The Commission report which develops the arguments for and against a single school district should be made available to citizens and its contents widely publicized. Mass media of communication are to be employed to assist in developing interest and public understanding. Newspaper coverage is to be widely employed. Both radio and television are to be used extensively. Arguments for and against the proposed district should be presented through these media. Presentations to civic clubs, parent-teacher associations, and other formal groups are to be stimulated. Many informed citizens are to be employed in this program, pitteens representing all walks of life. A committee of leaders in community affairs is to be charged with re- sponsibility for organizing and coordinating this program. The com- mittee is to be appointed by the boards of education upon recommendation of the superintendents of schools. Pemalning Tasks The major unfinished task is completion of the necessary legal work. While a great deal of this has already been done, the needed legislation aie remains to be drafted. This cannot be done until the extensive research on existing statutes, regulations, and court decisions has been completed and questions arising therefrom have been answered. Roughly one year is needed for finishing this task. The work in finance which Dr. R. L. Johns is doing should be com- pleted within six months. ‘Retirement provisions, tenure, sick leave, leaves of absence, salary schedules, personnel records, and a plan for combining the two central office staffs being developed by Dr. Willard Elsbree should be completed within six months. Curriculum studies, developing pupil accounting provisions, decid- ing on transportation, food, health, and other services to be provided. and provisions for maintenance and operation need not progress much be- yond the present planning stages until it is known whether or not the proposed district is to be created. As indicated above, the machinery for discharing these steps has been defined and can be put in motion on short notice. Budget To be developed. Motivating Assumption of the Commission The first decision of the Commission was that the sole criterion by which it would determine its recommendation on the issue of school district organization in Atlanta and Fulton County is what will best serve the educational welfare of those to be educated in Atlanta and eG
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 1, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 1, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_001_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 1, Document 9
  • Text: ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY EDUCATION COMMISSION PROVISIONS FOR CREATING AN ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT The General Assembly of Georgia at the request of its representatives from Fulton and DeKalb counties created a Local Education Coumission in 1964 and charged the Commission with responsibility: To study the desirability and feasibility of combining the school systems of Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, includ- ing the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County; to provide that said Commission may draft a plan or plans for the combining of such school systems and submit same to members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties. The Commission was appointed and conducted the requested study, releasing its report in February, 1966. The report recommended the dissolution of the Atlanta and Fulton County School Districts and the creation of a new district in their stead. A plan for creating the proposed new district was included in the report which outlined the steps necessary for carrying out this recom mendation. The report of the Conmission was accepted by the legislative delegation representing Fulton and DeKalb counties. After due deliberation of the recommendations, the legislative group secured approval for continuation of the Commission and requested it to carry out the steps which it had defined as being necessary for dissolving the present school districts and creating the proposed new district. This memorandum outlines the tasks involved in creating the proposed new district and suggests how these steps may be executed. Five distinct but related tasks are essential in carrying out this latest charge to the Commission. They are: 1. Legal work which is necessary in order to dissolve the two present districts and to create the proposed new district. 2. Educational planning necessary to assure orderly and effective transition from the present two districts to the proposed single district. 3. Suggestion on the initial role of the new board of education. 4. A program for developing public understanding of the proposed new district and the reasons which support its creation. 5. Allocations of responsibility for getting done the necessary tasks. Fach of the five steps is outlined briefly in the following pages. The assumption is made that the plans for the proposed district and the charac- teristics of the district included in the 1966 report of the Commission are acceptable. They are, therefore, reported in this document where appropriate. LEGAL WORK Substantial legal tasks must be undertaken and completed in order to establish the proposed new school district. It is not possible to define with certainty all of these tasks at present because there is no existing overview of legislation and court decisions affecting the present Fulton County and Atlanta School Districts although major task areas can be defined. These follow: 1. Compile and analyze the legislation and court decisions which currently affect the Atlanta and fulton County School Districts. Since this has never been done, there is no way of knowing at present the precise dimensions of this task. 2. Prepare the legislation which must be adopted in order to abolish the Atlanta and Fulton County School Districts. Until the necessary 3. Se research has been completed, there is no way of knowing just what this step involves. Whether a single piece of. legislation general in nature will suffice or whether specific measures repealing sep- arate iaws relating to such subjects as taxation, bonding capacity, and so forth, are required remains to be seen. Provide for meeting present and future unfilfilled legal and moral commitments of the Atlanta and Fulton County School Districts. Indebtedness, outstanding bonds, retirement provisions and tenure rights are examples of such commitments. Current welfare provisions for personnel may be continued or provisions can be made in new legislation to protect earned rights of present personnel through incorporation in any new welfare provisions which might be created for the school district. Establishing eligibility of the new school district for state funds is an illustration of another type of pro= tection, as is assurance that current salary levels will not suffer in the transition. Arrange for the transfer of properties of present school districts to the proposed new district. Prepare a constitutional amendment for creating the new school dis- trict. This is an essential step under Georgia law. The amendment should be expressed in general terms insofar as feasible, leaving as many of the specific provisions concerning the district as possible to be taken care of outside the framework of constitutional mandates. The amendment would necessarily specify the boundaries of the district, define its basic structure, and outline its powers. Such would be done within the limitations of other constitutional pro=- visions affecting schools and school districts. For example, the amendment would have to be consistent with the constitutional definition of the State's responsibility for public schools. Legal provisions to banade either by constitutional amend- ment or statutory acts include creation of a board of education of seven members elected at large for terms of six years, one from each of seven subdivisions of the district of approximately the same number of persons. The amendment or enabling legislation should prescribe how the subdivisions are to be formed and how they are to be redivided as population changes dictate. Provisions should be made for the initial board to be elected as follows: three members to serve the full six-year term, two members to serve four=- year terms, and two members to serve two-year terms. Thereafter, the board members would be elected as existing terms of members ex- pire. Vacancies should be filled by appointment of the board until the next election at which time unexpired terms will be filled by the voters. Tt will also be necessary to make provisions for a referendum to determine whether or not the amendment is to be approved (approval of voters of both districts is thought to be necessary). Provisions should be made in the event the constitutional amend ment is approved for the board members of the Atlanta and Fulton County Districts to serve as the board of education for the new dis= trict until the new board is elected and can take office. A schedule should be worked out, if needed, for shifting to the seven-man board elected as herein prescribed. 7. Board members should serve without compensation, receiving pay only for necessary expenses incurred in carrying out their duties as members of the Board of Education The proposed new district should consist of the present Atlanta District, including the part which is in DeKalb County, and the present Fulton County District. A fundamental task is providing for a sound fiscal base for the proposed school district. Establishing eligibility for State funds, establishing eligibility for Federal funds, and providing for sound local support are necessary considerations. The school board should be authorized to determine the property tax for supporting the school system, as the Atlanta School Board does at present. Furthermore, a uniform property assessment plan for the entire district should be adopted and homestead exemptions eliminated. Sources of local school support in addition to the property tax should be found. If the proposed new school district is approved by the voters, a transition conmittee should be established immediately te work out the many plans and details essential to an orderly transition from two districts to one. The transition committee should include the two superintendents of schools, the chairman of each board of educa= tion, the fiscal officer of each school system, the assistant superin- tendent for instruction of each school system, and such other indi- viduals as may seem appropriate. This committee should be responsible for the detailed transition plan to be approved by each board of education. If the single school district is approved, the two present school systems should continue as at present for the balance of the school year in which approval occurs and an additional full year in order to allow time for completion of needed transition plans. 8. The board of education for the new district should be elected as soon as possible after the approval of the constitutional amendment and should formally organize itself without delay and proceed at once with the selection of a superintendent. A superintendent should be employed and he should begin his work as far in advance of the creation of the new school district as is possible. 9. Execute any other legal assignments which are appropriate in the light of the analysis of pertinent legislation and court decisions and necessary provisions to assure creation of a school district conforming to recommendations of the Commission in its 1966 report. EDUCATIONAL PLANNING An enormous volume of work must be completed before the proposed school district can go into operation. ilany policies must be decided upon and much specific and detailed planning completed in order to assure the proper function— ing of the new district. Major categories of policy development and needed provisions for operational guides under each are listed below. As is true of legal aspects described above, a precise definition of all of the steps necessary in this stage of planning is not possible presently and must await further exploration of current policies and practices of the two school systans. Finance 1. Develop guides and procedures for making the annval school budget. 2. Develop plans and procedures for purchasing. Bz 4. Personnel 1. Develop plans for necessary and appropriate financial accounting. Develop a budget for the new school district. Develop a system of personnel records for professional and other school personnel. Develop salary schedules for professional and other personnel. Develop a retirement system or systems. Develop policies concerning employment practices for both profes- sional and non-professional personnel. Develop policies regarding tenure, sick leave, vacations, leaves of absence for professional growth, and others as needed. Propose a method of combining the two central office staffs. Develop a system of records for pupil accounting. Make recommendations concerning the visiting teacher program. Administrative Structures and Regulations 1. Develop a plan for the internal organization and administration of the new school district including appropriate policies and defini- tions of responsibility. Reach decisions on administrative and supervisory services to be provided. Develop policies regarding the size of schools. Develop general school regulations such as length of the school day, number of days in the school year, and designate holidays. 5. Develop a school calendar for the first year of the new system. 6. Recommend the future of the Metropolitan School Development Council. Curriculum {:' Determine the curricula to be offered. 2. Develop plans for kindergartens in schools now in the Fulton County District. 3. Develop policies for selection and distribution of instructional materials, 4, Determine the special professional personnel to be provided such as librarians, school psychologists, counselors, and reading special- ists. 5. Ascertain the curriculum adjustments which are necessary in the transition period and suggest how they are to be made. 6. Recommend policies regarding expansion of school programs with special reference to junior collepen: vocational and technical education, and adult education. 7. ake recommendations concerning teacher loads, including pupil- teacher ratios. Services 1. Reach decisions on services to be provided by the school districts such as transportation, food, and health services and how they should be provided. 2. Determine the non-professional personnel to be provided such as 3. lunchroom workers, custodians, and secretaries. Recommend plans for storing and handling textbooks and other instruc- tional supplies. | Maintenance and Operation 1. - 3. Other l. Develop policies regarding kinds, numbers, types, and levels of competence needed by personnel in Maintenance and Operation. Develop policies and procedures on the maintenance and operation programs. Develop policies and procedures concerning work assignments and responsibilities of personnel. Make recommendations concerning organizations which should exist in the new school districts such as Parent-Teacher Associations, local teachers associations, and the various student organizations. INITIAL ROLE OF THE PROPOSED NEW BOARD OF EDUCATION Just how specific a blueprint for transition should be is to a consider- able extent a matter of definition. At one extreme is a plan which provides only the basic legal provisions necessary for bringing the new district into being. At the other extreme is a plan which includes the multitude of basic policies, operational procedures and allocations of responsibility essential to the effective functioning of a school district, The plan presented in this document embraces the first extreme and also the second to the extent that the Commission accepts responsibility for the essential educational planning which must precede the operational phase of a new district. As already indicated, this planning consists largely of developing recommended policies and procedures consistent with the basic charter of the proposed new district as outlined above and decisions of the . Commission with respect to the nature and quality of programs and services it thinks the new district should provide. However, only that which is man= dated by law will be binding on the new Board of Education. In a sense, the Conmission is acting in these matters as an agent of a school district which is yet to be created and what it proposes in the realm of educational planning is for study and action by the new 3oard of Education unless areas are involved where decisions have been made already. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED NEW DISTRICT Since public schools are the business of the public, every opportunity should be seized upon to help the public keep as fully informed as possible on school problems, issues, needs, and the nature of good schools. A well informed public is essential to successful decision making on educational policies and plans. | Therefore, a major task in considering the proposed basic shift in the educational structure of Atlanta and Fulton County is developing and distribut- ing among all citizens adequate information on the proposed change and the reasons which lead to the proposal. The report of the Commission with its treatment of both sides of the issue of a single school district should be made available to all citizens and its contents should be widely publicized. Therefore, if the proposed constitutional amendment is adopted and a referendum is held, the referendum should be preceded by a systematic and well organized public information program. Mass media of communication should be employed to develop interest and public understanding. Newspaper coverage should be stressed. Joth radio and television should be used extensively. The pros and cons of the pro- ‘ posed district reorganization plan should be presented through all three media. In addition, presentations to civic clubs, Parent-Teachers Associa- tions, and other formal groups should be stimulated. Many informed citizens should be used in this program. Among such citizens should be leaders fron all walks of life, especially school leaders, including 30ard of Education members. By the time the election is held, all citizens should be fully informed on the issues at stake. In no other way is it possible to reach an adequate decision on the school organization issue. GETTING THE JOB DONE It is the responsibility of the coordinator appointed by the Commission to prepare and submit to the Commission the transition plan as outlined above. An adequate plan requires bringing into play an array of specialized competence beyond the ken of any single individual; therefore, extensive use should be made of carefully selected consultants. The legal work should be entrusted to Mr. Pete Latimer, Attorney for the Atlanta Board of Education, and ir. James Groton, Attorney for the Fulton County 3oard of Education. Dr. R. L. Johns, University of Florida, or some one of comparable stature in school finance, should be sucured as a consultant on all planning involving finance, purchasing, and accounting. Dr. Willard Elsbree, Emeritus Professor of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, or some other authority in personnel, should be secured as a consultant on policies and procedures concerning all categories of personnel. This assignment would include proposed salary schedules and wel- fare provisions. Curriculum authorities should be consulted as needed. A committee of leading citizens should be appointed and given responsi- bility for conducting an adequate public information program. The Comnission should appoint this committee upon eotieandacton of personnel by the Atlanta and Fulton County school superintendents and approval by the two boards of education, Appropriate professional personnel should be available to the committee. Appropriate personnel from the two school systems should be involved in the development of proposed policies and procedures, especially in information and evalvation roles. TMP: jp 8/12/66
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 1, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 1, Document 11

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_001_011.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 1, Document 11
  • Text: MINUTES LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION MEETING September 22, 1966 The Local Education Commission met in the Conference Room of the Administration Building of the Atlanta Public Schools at 10:00 a.m., September 22, 1966, with the following in attendance: Commission Members if. P. L. Bardin Mr. William if, Teem, III ir. J. H, Cawthon Mr. Fred J. Turner Dr. Rufus =. Clement Dr. Paul D. West Mr. Ed S. Cook, Sr. Mr. Alan Kiepper Consultants and Staff Dr. John W. Letson e Mr. Thomas ifiller Dr. Truman Pierce Mrs. Alan Ritter Mr. James Groton Mr. W. L. Robinson Mr. A. C. Latimer Dr. Curtis Henson Minutes of the April 27, 1966 meeting were unanimously approved. The Executive Committee recommended Ifir. Marthame Sanders to fill the unexpired term of ifr. James White. Ifr. J. H. Cawthon made the motion that Mr. Marthame Sanders be appointed to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fred Turner and passed unanimously. A letter of resignation was read from Dr. James L, Miller, Jr. The motion made by Hr. Tom Miller that the resignation be accepted was seconded by Mr. W. L. Robinson and passed unanimously. Dr. Pierce reported on the proposed plan of work entitled "Provisions for Creating an Atlanta-Fulton County School District". He stated that the section dealing with the legal work had been discussed in some detail with Mr. James Groton and that the steps as outlined seemed to be adequate at this tine. Following Dr. Pierce's presentation, Mr. Robinson made the motion that the report be received. It passed unanimously. Mr. Robinson stated that the method of electing school board members for the new district should be clearly defined. He made the motion that the report state that board members are to be elected on a school district- wide basis by the qualified voters in a special, non-partisan election. The motion was seconded by Dr. Clement and passed unanimously. Dr. Clement made the motion that the proposed new 3oard of Education consist of nine members = one member from each of nine subdivisions of approximately the same population = all elected by the total electorate. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ed Cook, Sr. and passed wnanimously. Dr. Clement made the motion that the wording in the plan of work be changed to read, Board Members will be compensated at the rate of $300 per month with the chairman being paid an additional $50 per month. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and passed unanimously. It was suggested that the report contain the statement that any seat on the Board of Education vacated for any reason will be filled by appoint- ment by the Board until the seat can be filled by a regular school board election which will be held every two years. How the length of office for the initial Board will be determined was discussed. ifr. Robinson made the motion that a committee of five members be appointed to make a recommendation to the full Commission on how the length of term for each Board Member of the initial 3o0ard will be determined. lir, Bardin, Dr. Pierce, and three other members appointed by Mr. Bardin are to serve on this Conmittee. The motion was seconded by Ir. Tom Miller and passed unanimously. Mr. Fred Turner made the motion that the plan of action ‘as amended be adopted by the Conmission. The motion was seconded by lrs. Alan Ritter and passed unanimously. Mr. Cawthon made the motion that Dr. Lyle Johns, University of Florida, be.employed to make the necessary. study in the area of finance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tom Miller and passed unanimously. Mr. Tom Miller made the motion that Dr. Willard Elsbree, Emeritus Professor of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University be employed to conduct the necessary study in the area of personnel and that if he is not available, the Executive Committee have the authority to select a substitute. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fred Turner and passed unanimously. In all cases, the rate of remuneration for each person who works for the Commission and the tasks to be accoupitsned will be approved in advance by the Executive Committee. It was agreed that a copy of the amended Plan of Action be sent to each member of the two school boards. Mr. Groton and Mr. Latimer outlined the work to be accomplished in the legal area. The Commission agreed that the lawyers be given the authority to start work as outlined in the following three areas: 1. General Powers 2. Revenue from sources other than Local School Tax 3. Power to Increase Bonded Debt and Assumption of Bonded Debt The lawyers are to keep the Commission informed about progress, costs, and proposed next steps. The Conmission will select and approve each additional item to be studied before action is taken by the lawyers. It was suggested that Dr. Pierce and the lawyers proceed as expeditiously as possible and that the Commission meet again in approximately 30 days to hear progress reports. At the October meeting, plans for an interim report will be discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. Approved By: Chairman Recording Secretary
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 1, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 9, Document 10

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_009_010.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 9, Document 10
  • Text: - Rough Drat Ay is called GPERATION INT MEMORANDUM . es an action process for improving the transportation City which nas been developed jointly by Atlanta wu A ce RCEPT and will have a number of steps, starting with initiation of a new shuttle bus service on December 1, 1959, which will lead in successive steps to the eventual development of a complete transportation systema for the center city as pert of the region's basic te je Leal sportation system. TUL or oe easaryvee Where rer This precess has been d Transporta tion and the to help solve problems eitv, This mesorandum combine the energy and minizsration to achieve ’ = ff s ‘a £ eveloped Zn response to concern of the Secretar: o rbhan Mass Transportation Administrator for action Urban Mass i : : brought on by the growth and expansion of center is the beginning of a program which we hope will r@ésources of Atlenta and the Urban Mass Transit Ad- é series of specific action goals over time. = a CENTER CITY GROWTE: ATLANTA, THE CENTER OF THE SOUTHEAST cP) 4? Since 1960, Atianta's Cénter City has grown beyond ail predictions. _ Pige eS = - million Square feet of office ected to continue, with Bor plenners and developers rban expansion -- perhaps at a rate leading all other rh ° rH 0 G i) 0 H. oS 6 rt Lh " Be ma a citias of comparable size. Planners anticipate that employment in the central city will double within the next two decades, and with redevelop- ment space contiguous to the alreacy highly developed core, builders are Ere ae 2 TIONS actively keeping pace with their the na for accelerated development and economic growth. os . Se 9 3 The city has become the gateway to this region: of vast potential, and re- teins a posi tion unparalleled, in fact unchallenged, by other areas of Baer S “re ri °o Yn cr ee 7. > ae re te ana government and how they work toget her in directing continved center city cevehopment. In abstraction this is often stated as the “business spi- ela rit of Atlanta" based on gsz optimism stemming from a proud and snectécular es gr@ivth record -- a sense of certainty that Atlanta holds a key to the future ‘of the Southeast. In reality this meens a strong and articulate business ot ; ; oF ope ae é . : community working with sgvernment to provide direction and coordination for anticipated levels of growth. Nowhere is the bus =ness-sovernm ment reletion- g el r = Sndpore evident or v ieble then in the center city, for all acknowledge tt = oy tt Pp. hh er = fs wo M HK Qo fo jo ta] rr ° i o o Hi go fy Qu o [a co 1 4 HH ia 92 kt pa w KR NS rh o Ih ck a to = nS cu at cr de 2 fr I given. and work for its continuation with an avowed distaste for a vastly decen- tralized city. The "Regional Development Plan” (1962) calls for a stroag. central area, with the City of Atlanta's "1983 Land Use Plan" specifically citing the central area as ". . . so complex it requires a well conceived, well developed, and well executed plan of its own." Special transportation a a studies heve also acknowledged the center city as unicue and requi ying: ~-ecific detailed analysis of its own. To fulfill these special needs: for center city plepning, an elaborate study design (the central area study) we has been ceveloped as a joint city-business community attempt to chart the course end needs of center city SFoweG, PROBLEM OF CONGESTION AND ACCESS ils Center city growth has not, of course, evolved withsut ereating problens. % : , ‘ : ay rs evelooment has taken place upon a little changed and With few exceptions d - taunted gow anti sit referendum, agencies are busy at revising a plaa wnicn should win en- After an initial setback on a rapid tran- strour thusiastic a approval. Mayor Allea perhaps best sums up such concerns in his statement tha "We cannot accommodate any more deartibvnn our @xist- ing street patterns. and there is not enough money on God's green earth to erate strect patterns in Atlante." Current loss feinn niescses ere evar “212, Rain RALVR ach Desbl ae, See MSE aay. neerteres Tencing efforts have not included coordinated interix steps for relief of center a congestion. Such steps ere critically needed, and this program, along with the Central Area Study, are designed for just that purpose. - on and access are not just anticipated; there are }4e Provléems of congest WAS nd have proved most successful -- one, a special application, is nearly an identical service concept as this first phase of Step'I. The service a is being operated between Georgia State University, a downtown school with very limited parking facilities, and the same south parking facility as proposed in this first phase of Step I. The other shuttie operation is the "Shoppers Special" routed within the center city, serving mator r fw ct » b he outlets. enade, oe Biles - ees af . . Te : aqe7 meet sy ; ; ; ae Pasi tvo of Step 1 will hopefully begin in early spring with }! i ; | OF petion in the form of a Damo. Grant. At vhis tise service improve-. - mencs will be made in whatever fora the monitoring co Aterstcard 2. ests, This may include increased heacway, revised fare echedvies, altered or additional routes, and the use of more parking facilities. Step Li of Operation Intercept will be besed on the monitoring implica- tions cf Stép I, and is expected to require considerable capital investimant,. nis step that new technology will be employed and a large expansion of services put into effect. The new technology will more than Several ayvlications for federal essistanc but n tt ft bd ©) he He f. 3 |. ~ — Ps a F E Ss oO rt °o ss k 4 we oO 9 ho kee ct % t+ G3 2] o ra oO iy oO Oo >} n cr 5 5 cr aa oOo ce tecnnical study grants as well. Step II can also see the initiation of specific access“link<-ups to- ae the Model Cities and NDP project areas, if their studies find it desireble. - =a Alveady in operation is a Model Cities shuttle bus program, which Ne e puke Can even in Step I become a part of the Gperation interce zt process, The monitoring program as develosed by the CCT team will in Step I. be 1 where it will not only be Step TIL Vil become a part of the los 7 - > developuent program. This does not mean however a loss of center city orientation. In fact, the ultimate goal is to see into eperaticen a permanent secondary distribucion system2 within the center city in ot fuil compliement of the regional rapid transit ees and embodying those successful service application$of Steps I and Il. The Step il monitoring operation will be oriented towards this Step ITI system con- F cept, anc the Step Til planning time frame compatible with the longs range primary system program such that complimentary, pe etens can be insured, j 4 7 “Sas 1 RUAN LEAT ON . f Operation Intercept will involve a number of the Atlante axencics in f t ior Gifferent facets. 1. Basic Policv Meking and Coordination Operation Intercept has been considered as part of the basic transportation program of the Atlante area. It is “being discussed and reviewed by the policy q : = . 7 * . : making and coordinating orgenizations¥in- Atlanta, including the Policy Cosmittee - a fra Transportation Study, % nH Pu -] (o a, mn go h 0 fo eH Qa oO ° ad an befe fie fo cr bs wa Q o 5 4 de er Tr @ a o rh ct hy }— fo f and the Planning and Develovment Committee of the City of Atlanta's Board of Aldermen, ana the Board of Directors of Central Atlanta Progress. The technical plannins work will be coordinated with the regional pelnnins operations of the = = ? o = o = Atlanta Recion Metropolitan Planning Commission. . o « o 2, Lone Renge Planning -— The Centre. Area Study, an operation jointly sponsored primary responsibility, under this overall volicty framework, [or the specific ‘ ~ cansportetion facilities and sexvices as they ere * * = “TRE arfect center city. Operation Interceat will be tied into 2% going planning Oo Fh @ o =) je Q ct j i > 3. Monitoring - During Steo $ of Oparetion Intercept, fie CCT Team will be responsible for the technical work reauired to monitor operation under “tie directis: - of a Working Committee consisting of the City of Azlanta | MARTA, Car.cral Atlenta Pro- gress, and the Atlanta Transit Comseny. In subsequent SEepe; this technicel work | Will de eosorbed by-local agencies, mostg yg: I likely 4 the Central Aree Study . 4. Federal Applications - Initially the City of Atlanta will be the applicant for federal applications coming cirectly out of .Operction Intercept. % pe ions The Atlanta Transit System will operate the service in The operation of subsequent services tep of Operation Intercept. 2 responsibilities assigned to verious of the operating Will depend on th asencies coming out of the basic trénsportatioan planning process. é . ‘ fi ® tc ‘ms * * oe OPERATION & TIMETABLE ~ Ls c i Atlanta Progress, the C to develop ideas on quick action & _ city's immediate transportation vr B. When Phase II of September 1°59, ary Jos fo action program to provide ct @ peripheral parking facilit the most congested were presented speccions of the proposed route, suitable experiment ‘for Phase II Department), Cent QO onplete dL, Pres all-day snuttle service, operating a through the heart ef th i) u2 lots ity Pl the CCTP was Atlanta was ready to the expressway connector areas. wit progre aration of an operat ing at 10 generacea am and various Or ct OTHERS anning artment, and #enes “Oo Den projects to hel: some of "nS — oblems. ennounced by Secretary Volpe in ror imm Oo make specific proposal an = an all-day bus service connecting ttlanta Stadium and the Civic Cen- + Les at and downtown arterials before The Team met in Atlaata 6Cl Come hn the project concept, made = ad generally endorsed the preyect as. 2 va of the Corer. ia Sransit Company, the City of At-— Atlan ral Atlanta Progress, and the CCT? began m for this operation. This included: ee ional plan by ATS for a AG at mute headways zfrom plan é downtown area, including = eiesraies by th ae facilities. 3. The downtown business community, through their orgenization e agreed to support the project finencially . i and the rogress, ha December i rt Fo Las) 5 ct 1) ‘gd between the time service will start on e interin UMTA will be able to support the project through capi 4. Prenaration of this OPERATION INTERCEPT memorandum by the working group which is designed to obtain UMTA support and guidance for this whole program. - 2969, i on Noveaber BD. The meeting with Administrator s expected to be the last of the initiel phases of the overacion, We é now ready to roll. Zi. DPE LTATE ACTION the new shuttle bus will begin ti be 28 A a Civic Center parking e On December 1, Atlanta Transit A, Stadium aa this wilh through central city irom the fifty cent fare will be charged for this service. Included in the cost of all-day parking and round trip bus fare. Those passengers i e charged 15¢ per ride. 2 be who use the bus service wintout parking will b Funds .te provide for the difference belween operating costs and reverses during the initial months of the service will be provided by the ioc business community who, in addition, will pick up the costs of promotion. t vided by Atlanta Transit. The c ™ costs net costs of operation, B. Just prior to begiming the the Atlanta agencies, will develop a service. program will include: lL. "J AY iy w @ ee co ry fo n ct v ry ke f9 j— w Parking will be provided by the city. 3° fo rib « iL Buses.and operations will be pro- publicity are expected to run about \2 e expected to be counts, speed and celay analysis, counts on t Studies of the operations of the service, inclucing O-D the economics of the operation including -costa> about $44,060 per . : é . and revenues, user attitude toward fares, ability to pay, break-even cog is for service, etc. : iz é . 4&4. Studi service could be route lLocaticns, » 5. Analysis of the oppor subsequent stages i of the ho re applied including an inv es of other areas and routing “cunities for new ran Lew similar shuttle — UMTA for OPERAT a INTERC2 =OE 4 ai = I-46 ae ult IT and the development of Steps rs S to be of two kinds initiell s< we 5 A capital grent application to provide for the surchase of 11 new buses that can be used | to expand the shuttle service in the letter tages of Step I £6 supplement or replace the existing eeuipnent thac wiil be put into operation immediately. We now estimate the cost of the buses and other equipment to be approximately raRD 000. : 2.
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 9, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 25

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_025.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 2, Document 25
  • Text: REPORT OF THE CONSULTANTS on CERTAIN PERSONNEL PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED MERGER of the FULTON COUNTY — ATLANTA SCHOOL SYSTEMS JUNE 19, 1967 WILLARD S. ELSBREE and JOHN E. PHAY CONSULTANTS Report of the Consultants on Certain Personnel Problems Relating to the Proposed Merger of the Fulton County - Atlanta School Systems, June 19, 1967 This report deals with the implications of merging the certificated and non-certificated personnel of the two current school systems — Fulton County and Atlanta. The question of the soundness of the merger itself was deemed to be outside the province of this study. The consultants have proceeded on the assumption that a merger is contemplated; that if effected, it is essential to unify personnel policies and practices, and that specific procedures for dealing with the employee groups in the two school systems should be spelled out. Perhaps the two most important personnel problems that must be re- solved if a merger is to be effected are the establishment of equitable salary and wage policies and the determination of how present and future pension and retirement provisions are to be administered. Certain other policies and practices must also be unified if the merger is to deal fairly with the employed personnel. Sick leave, insur- ance provisions, and tenure regulations must somehow be brought into harmony — otherwise morale will suffer and the objectives of the merger will not be fully realized. In order to obtain the data and information needed to arrive at recom- mended procedures the consultants assembled, with the help of the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, pertinent published materials from each of the school systems involved and they interviewed executives responsible for the administration and supervision of the personnel policies. Included in the list of those interviewed were: the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, the Deputy Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, the Director of Finance for Fulton County Board of Education, the Assistant Director of Finance for Fulton County Board of Education, the Controller of the Atlanta School System, the Assistant Controller of the Atlanta School System, the Superintendent of Schools in each system, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel in Atlanta, the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, the Director of Non-certificated Personnel in Atlanta, the Secretary for the Atlanta General Pension Fund, the Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Schools, Atlanta. Many official reports were examined together with policy statements in an effort to learn the basis for existing practices. The fact that salary policies were undergoing major revisions has been noted and the proposals contained in this report take full account of these changes. It should be pointed out that many personnel policies are subject to revision almost annually, Salary levels in particular are very unstable and inflation has forced boards of education and public boards generally to boost salaries and wages more frequently than was true a few years ago. Because of this instability any calculations of future costs are bound to be unreliable, The best that can be done is to make what appears to be reasonable assumptions and show their implications. Salaries of Certificated Personnel With the merger of the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems an immediate concern of the several thousand individuals employed will be - iat will be my salary for next year? It is the opinion of the consultants that a basic salary schedule should be developed for the certificated per- sonnel of the merged systems but that such a schedule should be developed only after the merger is consumated. The preparation of a salary schedule that has good possibilities of wide and enthusiastic reception should in- volve many people in its development. Representatives of organized pro- fessional groups, area specialists and supervisory and administrative per- sonnel should have a part in the preparation of the basic salary program. Until the merger occurs, similar professional organizations will continue to exist for both Atlanta and Fulton County. After merger, many organiza- tions will be consolidated and at that time the new organizations may be appropriately represented. The same situation obtains for representatives of area specialists and the supervisory and administrative staff. A salary schedule that could be recommended by consultants prior to the merger of the systems and without the involvement of representatives from the new groups would be premature, Therefore, it is recommended that after merger a salary study committee composed of representatives of all certificated groups and areas be appointed to consider salary schedules and salary . policies for the new system. With the decision reached that any new salary schedules should be developed only after merger of the systems, the consultants examined the possibilities of what salary provisions ee be best for immediate appli- cation following the merger and during the transition period. The same treatment, salarywise, of all personnel in the new system is a prerequisite in determining salary policies for the new system. It was found that the two salary schedules could be merged and after careful review and examination the consultants came to the conclusion that retention of the salary schedules of the Atlanta System and the placement of the Fulton County personnel on the Atlanta schedules is the best solution possible with the merging of the two systems. To make such a transfer from one salary schedule to another it is recommended that the following rules be applied: 1, No employee's salary will be reduced. 2, Teachers and other certificated personnel will be placed on the appropriate 1967-68 Atlanta School System's salary schedule, on the step stipulating a salary that is equal to or next higher in amount to the current salary being paid, 3. Any Fulton County employee whose salary is higher on his present salary schedule than it would be on the same step of the Atlanta salary schedule will be paid this higher salary amount, but when and if eligible in subsequent years he will proceed according to the provisions of the appropriate salary scale. 4, For employees new to the merged system, a maximum of five years' service in other school systems will be accepted on a year by year basis. Such a person, with five years' experience, would enter on step 6 of the salary schedule. 5. Salary scale incentives applicable to the Bachelor's and Master's degree scales will be established following steps 4, 8, and 12. Teachers will be allowed to proceed on these salary scales only after completing six semester hours of approved college or university credit, or its equivalent, in in-service programs approved by the Board of Education, To make the salary changes by the application of the above rules it was estimated by the Coordinator of Metropolitan School Development Council that the cost increase will be approximately $ During the transition period there should be established a salary study committee, as indicated earlier in this section, to ascertain the adequacy of the salary schedules and policies in operation and to recommend any changes that promise to produce better salary arrangements, In addition, a review should be made to ascertain whether or not individual employees have been appropriately classified and given correct placement on the salary schedules. Wages of Non-certificated Employees A similar approach is suggested for arriving at appropriate wage policies for the non=-certificated workers in the county and the city school systems. Atlanta has recently adopted a classification plan recommended by the Public Administration Service. These schedules have been developed after much study and it appears logical to fit the non-certificated school employees from the county into the basic Atlanta pattern. There are differ- ences in the length of the work year in some categories. This calls for minor adjustments but is not a serious obstacle to unifying the two groups. Bus drivers are employed in the county but are not employed by the Atlanta School System. The current wages paid bus drivers should be continued for the time being and the pay levels assessed when salaries and wages generally are being reviewed. In the case of custodians it would be necessary to reclassify the Fulton County employees in order to achieve parity. This is not a difficult task and if the merger is voted, temporary classifications could be made in those cases where the job descriptions were not clear and final assignments made after individual cases were reviewed. According to estimates made by the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, the cost of bringing all the non-certificated employees under a single tent if the Atlanta pay scales were applied is $543,756. This assumes that no consolidation in jobs will be made and the same number of employees are retained, Retirement Provisions Both Fulton County and the City of Atlanta maintain local pension and retirement systems for their employees. This practice is of fairly long standing and, as has been the case in other American cities and counties, it arose because of the obvious need to provide employees with protection against the vicissitudes of advanced age and the local community against the inefficiency which results when workers, past the prime of life, are retained on the job. e Unfortunately the history of local pension plans has not been too favorable. Even when’ they have maintained a solvent position, which many have not, they have seldom provided the protection to new members that was guaranteed by those established and administered by the State. Asa result, they have rapidly diminished in number and state plans have sup- planted them. The latter because of larger memberships, the spreading of risks, and greater resources, have supplied the certificated staff with superior protection, Moreover, state employees! retirement systems are increasingly providing coverage for the non-certificated employees in school systems. The problem confronting Fulton County and Atlanta with respect to pension and retirement is not unlike that found in many other systems. The funds required represent a tremendous investment and the accrued lia- bilities run into millions of dollars. The ultimate solution in the minds of the consultants lies in moving the responsibility as quickly as possible from the local system to the State and the abandonment of any local retirement for new certificated personnel, This cannot be achieved quickly nor painlessly. While the pro- posal to merge the two school systems poses some knotty problems with re- spect to employee retirement, a reasonable solution can probably be worked out. With the merger of the two systems, it is recommended that the policies with respect to retirement and pension provisions listed below be adopted by the various boards concerned: 1. All new certificated personnel will secure membership under the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia. All new non-certificated personnel will secure membership in the social security program provided under the Federal Insurance Com- pensation Act. All certificated personnel who are members of retirements systems operated by either the Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund Board or by the Fulton County School Pension Board may withdraw their personal contributions to their pension fund if and when they become members of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia. Members of the retirement system operated by the Atlanta Pension Board who wish to continue to be covered by the provisions of such board may continue their membership, and the Atlanta Pension Board will continue to administer and be responsible for all pension liabilities for such personnel as required by their cur- rent commitments, Future changes in pension benefits will be available to such members, The Fulton County Board of Commissioners will assume all obliga- tions, liabilities, and commitments of the Fulton County School Pension Fund Board, Members of the retirement system operated by the Fulton County School Pension Board may at their option transfer their membership to a new Fulton County pension system to be administered by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners or its designate and retain all of the rights and benefits they heid under the system oper- ated by the Fuiton County School Pension Board. Commitments for members who have retired under the pension systems operated by either the Atlanta Pension Board or by the Fulton County School Pension Board shall have all such commitments honored by the Atlanta Pension Board or by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners respectively. Insurance The practice of providing group iife and personal accident insurance for employees is commendable and should be continued. It is recommended that: k Tenure Employees of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems who have retained their school system sponsored insurance policies and who are retired will have their benefits and vested rights under their policy protected by the Atlanta City Board of Aldermen and the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, respectively, and such boards will manage and make any annual payments due insurance companies that exceeds the amount required of the employees under the pro- visions of the policy. At the time of the merger, group life and personal accident in- surance contracts be cancelled and a new contract agreement be entered into with a commercial company that wiil provide the best policy at the lowest rate. Job security should not be placed in jeopardy for an employee of the two school systems because of the merger. It is recommended that: Ls Tenure policies for the new system be established for the several classes of personnel employed and that the policies 10 for each classification be these now extant in either the Atlanta School System or the Fulton County School System that are more generous to the individual employes. 2. Employees holding tenure in either of the two systems concerned at the time of merger be automatically provided tenure in the new system, 3. Any probationary period served in the two systems concerned and prior to the merger of the two systems will be accepted at full value for tenure considerations in the merged system. Leaves of Absence and Vacations The emoluments and rights earned under provisions that now exist for the personnel in the Atlanta and Fulton County schools should be protected, It is recommended that the provisions that are most generous to the em- ployees, that now exist in either of the two school systems concerned, be adopted for the new merged system with respect to sick leave, maternity leave, bereavement leave, military leave, professional study leave, emergency leave and vacations. Records With the merger of the two systems, it is anticipated that changes will be needed in both accounting and personnel records systems. With modern office equipment and electronic data processing machinery, the work of business, accounting, financial and statistical offices can be handled with dispatch. Moreover, information on personnel can be secured in as many ways as needed in short periods of time. In order for the new system to be able to function efficiently, it is recommended that as soon as the merger is voted, specialists in systems data processing be employed to plan for the merging of data of the two schocl systems together with progiams for fast retrieval of such data, il Combining the Central Office Staff Personnel A merger nearly always requires some consolidation of central office personnel, Hence, the procedures for determining how the unified system should assign the current central office employees needs to be spelled out. The two systems as might be expected have several comparable central office positions and in some instances the merger, in the interest of economy, might necessitate the assignment of certain officials to posts outside the central office, This fact together with the need to reassess existing assignments calls for the exercise of both judgment and diplomacy on the part of those charged with the responsibility of building a new central organization, The consultants believe that the wisest procedure to follow in merging the two central staffs is as follows: 1. The new Board of Education should choose a superintendent of schools for the system and an associate superintendent. 2. The Board of Education should appoint a committee to make recom— mendations as to the assignment of personnel to the new system central office positions, This committee should be composed of the superintendent of schools, who should act as chairman, the associate superintendent of schools, and two officials current~ ly responsible for the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel in the two systems being merged. 3. The officials currently responsible for the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel should make recommendations to the superintendent of schools regarding the assignment of secretaries, clerks and custodial workers needed for service in the central headquarters, 12 In making assignments, consideration should be given to the age, experience and personal fitness of the individual employee for the job to be filled. All central office employees should be housed under one roof and adequate facilities should be provided to facilitate the work.
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 2, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 16

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_016.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 2, Document 16
  • Text: ( aah MINUTES LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION December 21, 1965 The Local Education Study Commission met in the 3oard Room of the Fulton County Administration Building at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 21, 1965, with the following in attendance: Mr. Kenneth Stringer Dr. Rufus Clement Dr. James L. Miller Mr. Earl Landers Dr. John Letson . Dr. Paul West Mr. Tom Miller Mr. P. L. Bardin Mrs. Alan Ritter Mr. Alan Kiepper, (Proxy) Mr. Bardin called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the minutes of the August 23, 1965, meeting. The minutes were unanimously approved. He then gave a brief review of the work of the Commission since the last regular meeting and pointed out that a meeting was held with members of the Atlanta and Fulton County Boards of Education on September 21, 1965, and with the Representatives and Senators from Fulton and DeKalb Counties on September 27, 1965. The Legislative Delegation later developed a re- solution outlining additional information which should be included in the report of the Commission. Dr. Pierce then presented the addition to the report. Comments and suggestions offered during the presentation included the following: Assessed evaluation of property in Atlanta is approximately 70% of the 1956 reappraisal which in reality is about 30% of the current market value for the city and 20% for the county. Judge Wood's decision does not include independent school districts. Homestead exemptions will not be affected. The cost for putting Fulton County teachers on the same salary schedule as the Atlanta teachers should be included in the report. "New board members will be elected as vacancies occur" should be changed to "new board members will be elected as terms expire". The report should show that Fulton County's bonding capacity is 10% of the digest and Atlanta's bonding capacity is 4% of the digest. Since board members in Atlanta have been elected for four-year terms beginning January 1, 1966, would any legal difficulty be encountered by calling for a new election of board members in 1968? If so, could this be resolved by having current members of both boards compose the new board until terms expire and then elect only seven new members to the new board? Wealth behind each child in Fulton County and Atlanta may change if portions of the county are annexed into the city. It should be stated that support to schools as stated in the report is predicated upon no changes in present tax structure. The report should include a statement efhow the seven districts :. from which the board members will be elected are to be determined and how they will be readjusted as population changes. Since we now have seven senatorial districts it might be desirable to use them as the starting basis for the seven districts from which school board members will be elected. These districts will be amended as necessary so that areas within the city but which lie in DeKalb County will be included and so that other portions of DeKatb County will be excluded. Fiscal independence for the school board should refer only to the property tax and not include the ability to set sales tax rate and other similar taxes. The combined budget for both school systems should be projected. The Commission accepted the report as presented with the suggested changes presented above. The lawyers were instructed to draw up the necessary proposed constitutional amendment for combining the two systems. A copy of the amendment is to be sent to each member of the Commission for study before the next meeting of the Commission. Copies sent to Commission Members are to be clearly marked Rough Draft and Confidential. The Conmission will meet again to review the proposed constitutional amendment as soon as possible. The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 P.M.
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 2, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 18

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_018.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 2, Document 18
  • Text: ~! > MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Chairman: Bus. Phone Home Phone Pope Brock, Chairman of the Board Fulton National Bank 2629 Arden Road, N,. W. Atlanta, Georgia Vice-Chairman Jack W. West Jack W. West Contracting Company P. O. Box 6787 Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Secretary-Treasurer: Mrs. Earl F. Geiger 4291 East Brookhaven Drive, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia Robert Earl Brown P. 0. Box 20787 Atlanta Airport Atlanta, Georgla Dr. Samuel D. Cook, Chairman Department of Political Science Atlanta University Atlanta, Georgia Dr. Irving H. Goldstein, DDS 826 Peachtree Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgla Joseph K. Heyman, Senior Vice President Trust Company of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Max Holt, Comptroller Dittler Bros., Inc. 1375 Seaboard Industrial Boulevard, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 Ernest W. Keappler 2266 Campbellton Road, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311 William T. Malone 774 Lullwater Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 875-3411 577-2357 767-7501 523-6431 875-7034 588-7916 355-3423 344-3550 378-0174 355-4496 627-8630 231-3264 344-6330 525-7512 872-6671 873-2777 233-0747 766-0594 761-3775 378-0174 Joseph M. Maloof, Assistant Vice President First Fereral Savings & Loan Association 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia William F. Methvin, Jr. W. F. Methvin, Jr. Lumber Company P. ©. Box 8121, Station F Atlanta, Georgia J. ¥. Moreland, Sr., Principal Booker TT’. Washington High School 12 Chappel Road, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 Clifford Oxford Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford and Irvin First Federal Building 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 E. Earl Patton Patton Associates 38 Old Ivy Road, N. E, Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Paul E. Pressley Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford and Irvin First Federal Building 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 J. W. Stephenson, Jr., Manager College Park Branch Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Association 3581 Main Street College Park, Georgia Freeman Strickland 1208 First National Bank Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Franklin Thomas, Executive Director Butler Street YMCA ee Butler Street, Ny E, Atlanta, Georgia Counsel: James B. Pilcher Associate City Attorney 1114 William-Oliver Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 For further information contact: Miss Peg Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Bus. Phone 525-7681 876-0300 758-8871 525-3404 233-7020 525-3404 761-0153 588-6414 524-0246 524-7731 572-2661 Home Phone 627-8405 876-0300 753-8276 237-3900 29a 1179 622-0872 76129845 233-2445 344-2685 231-4307
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 2, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 9, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_009_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 9, Document 2
  • Text: PROPOSED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM LEGEND ) wesw BUSWAY RAIL RAPID ans == PERIMETER HIGHWAY PROPOSED FREEWAY SYSTEM LEGEND Ms NEW FREEWAYS Ge Mm RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE FREEWAY 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION === =< COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING FREEWAYS LEGEND Ma MPROVEMENTS 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION -_——— = COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM 7! phates! 7’ FENCE RAIL RAPID OEE ooo =e ? 7’ FENCE —~ OPEN GROUND 7 FENCE BUSWAY ot cee RAIL RAPID BUSWAY TANTAT VATA ae AERIAL & aa ie STRUCTURE Sci PROJECTS BY MILES PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM Type Miles FREEWAYS, TOTAL SYSTEM ........ccccccccecccseesesseseeseeees 321 NEW OUTSIDE 15285 5. ccrccssesessescacsnosipaswrnacesstanvihens 47 NEW). INSIDE S285 i.os ces cduscss secerivertdelawnventaceerianees 44 IMPROVED EXISTING......... Sudscupreserieaicametsh7ersattanl 54 EXISTING, -NOT IMPROVED cuissicsscccecisesacsesaetsncoe 176 ARTERIALS, NEW AND IMPROVED ....................000085 732 COLLECTORS, NEW AND IMPROVED ..................0.005 803 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, FUTURE FREEWAYS ..............0.....008 40 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR PROPOSED 1983 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HIGHWAY Millions of Dollars (New routes and improved existing) FREEWAYS 508 ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS 1,058 TOTAL | $1,566. TRANSIT (Excludes rolling stock/vehicles) RAPID RAIL 158 BUSWAYS 263 TOTAL $ 421 TOTAL PROGRAM $ 1,987 INNER CITY JOB ACCESSIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF EAGAN HOMES RESIDENTS BY TRANSIT RAIL & BUSWAY-D LARGE BUSWAY-E MARTA RAIL-B SURFACE TRANSIT-A AN EXAMPLE FOR A CLOSE-IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVED WELL BY EXPRESS TRANSIT QU RSS SSS SSS 330,000 280,000 270,000 70,000 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES PLAN B (MARTA SYSTEM) 66 MILES LEGEND wee RAIL RAPID mes PERIMETER HIGHWAY TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D.-1 70 MILES LEGEND BUSWAYS RAIL RAPID == PERIMETER HIGHWAY TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-3 70 MILES LEGEND BUSWAYS — RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM E-2 72 MILES LEGEND BUSWAYS RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 9, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 9, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_009_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 9, Document 9
  • Text: ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA., CHAIRMAN SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. GEORGE D, AIKEN, VT. JAMES G, EASTLAND, MISS. MILTON R. YOUNG, N. DAK. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, GA. JACK MILLER, [OWA B. EVERETT JORDAN, N.C. CARL T. CURTIS, NEBR. GEORGE MCGOVERN, S. DAK. MARLOW W. COOK, KY. 4y . JAMES B. ALLEN, ALA. ROBERT DOLE, KANS. 3) (nitea plates Sy enate COTYS M. MOUSER, CHIEF CLERK COMMITTEE’ ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 September 18, 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor City of Atlanta Atlanta, Georgia Dear Ivan: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your recent letter to the Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Your courtesy is indeed appreciated, and in an effort to be of assistance on the matter outlined in your correspondence, I, too, have contacted Mr. Villarreal. When I have received a reply, you will certainly hear from me again. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, [PUblaw
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 9, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 20

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_020.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 2, Document 20
  • Text: COMMITTEES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMIS sion ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE Pope Brock, Chairma Jack W. West : Mrs. Earl F. Geiger Joseph K. Heyman Clifford Oxford J. Y. Moreland ATLANTA CITY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE Clifford Oxford, Chairman Joseph M. Maloof Dr. Samuel D. Cook William F. Methvin, Jr. Robert Earl Brown FULTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Irving H. Goldstein, DDS, Chairman Freeman Strickland Max Holt J. Y¥. Moreland Ernest W. Keappler SUBURBAN AREA STUDY COMMITTEE Joseph K. Heyman, Chairman Paul E. Pressley J. W. Stephenson, Jr. William T. Malone E. Earl Patton Franklin Thomas For further information contact: Miss Peg Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334 572-2661
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 2, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 2
  • Text: ATLANTA, GEORGIA ae t.0) , 7 ate ATLANTA, GEORGIA PHONE 522-4463 << ee ATLANTA, GEORGIA PHONE 522-4463 Linda Price 2 FORM 25-11
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 13

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_013.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 2, Document 13
  • Text: TABLE II ESTIMATED ANNUAL SCHOOL BUDGETS OF THE ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS 1965-1970 Years Atlanta Fulton County Total 1965-66.” $46,713,125 $13,891,184 $60,604, 309 1966-67 51,104,159 15,002,479 66,106,638 1967-68 55,907,949 16,202,677 72,110,626 1968-69 61,163,297 17,498,891 78,662,188 1969-70 66,912,647 18,898,802 85,811,449 * Actual
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 2, Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 17

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_017.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 17
  • Text: MINUTES OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY AUGUST 1, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on August 1, 1967, at 3:00 P.M. in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) Richard -H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager Joan Eschenbrenner, Secretary MARTA Advisory Committee H. Boyer Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects Roy J. Boston, P.E., Georgia Society of Professional Engineers Consultants W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, San Francisco J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Raymond O'Neil, Deputy Resident Manager, Parsons, Brincker- hoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Robert P. Barksdale, Project Estimator, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta David McBrayer, Traffic Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Louis Dismukes, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta Cc. B. Cleveland, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta Arden Brey, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta Tom Watson Brown, Huie & Harland, Atlanta Others Joseph Errigo, Urban and Community Development Assistant, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Atlanta P. A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council Robert W. Roseveare, Traffic Engineer, DeKalb County Jd. B. Cooley, Planning and Research Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads Norman J. Van Ness, Bureau of Public Roads George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads Gerald L. Smith, Bureau of Public Roads Joseph E. Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Atlanta William M. G. Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York Dick Hebert, Atlanta Constitution David Nordan, Atlanta Journal Art Schultz, WSB Radio Ken Goodnight, WSB-TV Abe Gallman, WSB-TV Harvey Kramer, Intern, Fulton County Comptroller's Office Al Barr, Intern, Fulton County Comptroller's Office Bill Hayes, Intern, Fulton County Comptroller's Office J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry A. Coursey, Mrs. Margaret C. Breland, Miss Claudette Parrish, Tim Urban, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Blount, the reading of the minutes of the July meeting was dispensed with and they were unanimously approved. Financial Report The General Manager presented the financial report as of July 31, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DeKalb County had sent in its second quarterly payment; Gwinnett County was the only one in arrears. Progress Reports General Manager Mr. Stuart reported on the two-week managerial seminar he attended at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, sponsored by Kent University and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The General Manager said Los Angeles, Seattle and Washington, D.C., were to have referenda during 1968 with regard to rapid transit. He pointed out that insufficiency of federal funds may be less important than the competition from these cities. Mr. Rich men- tioned the importance of taking steps to hold a referendum in 1968. Mr. Stuart reported on meetings with Cousins Properties regarding MARTA's requirements. Cousins Properties were about to incur cer- tain construction expenses in the Air Rights area in their efforts to provide for future rapid transit operations; these were costs that could be charged to MARTA under appropriate agreements. Mr. Stuart requested the Board's approval to continue negotiations with Cousins. Costs involved had not been determined; however, Mr. Stuart estimated them to be between $70,000 and $90,000. The Chief Engineer was to meet with representatives from Cousins Prop- erties and reach agreement as to exact costs which would be even- tually chargeable to MARTA, when funds were available. MARTA would be responsible for accrued interest as well. It was moved by Mr. Bishop and seconded by Mr. Haverty that the General Manager continue negotiations with Cousins Properties with an indication of intent on the part of the Authority, provided all requirements were met. Mr. Stuart said the proposed subcontract between Parsons, Brincker- hoff-Tudor, Bechtel and Law Engineering Testing Company for test borings had been reviewed and found to be in order. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, approval was given to pro- ceed with the subcontract. Mr. Rich suggested that in the future the General Manager prepare a brief write-up on each proposed subcontract prior to the Board meeting. Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel Mr. Coil summarized the report given at the briefing prior to the Board meeting, which included parking layouts, patronage estimates, and parking lot requirements for the 64-mile system; work contem- plated in connection with the soils engineer on the central and west lines which Law Engineering Testing Company was to do; as well as the work being done in San Francisco on central line alignments affecting the I-75/I-85 connector on West Peachtree Street. Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates In the absence of Mr. Hammer, Mr. Bennett said the report on finan- cial feasibility was completed and that copies would be made avail- able to the Board very soon. "Rapid Busways" Proposal As a result of a request from Mayor Ivan Allen, the Board had directed the MARTA staff to review the rapid busways proposal made recently by the Atlanta Transit System. Mr. Stuart read the complete report of this evaluation, the summary of which is attached hereto and made a part of the minutes. In response to a question from Mr. Blalock, Mr. Stuart said the rights-of-way for rapid busways and rapid transit were not the same. The Chairman polled each Director for his reaction to the report. Mr. McMillon was emphatic in hoping that nothing would divert the Board from its efforts to bring rail rapid transit to metropolitan Atlanta. Mr. Bishop said he was concerned with the legal entangle- ments involved in the busways proposal. Mr. Haverty stated he would be interested in the rebuttal from the Atlanta Transit System with regard to the report. Mr. Adamson felt there were too many problems and that there would be a delay in rapid transit if the busways proposal were accepted. After discussion, it was moved by Mr. Blount, seconded by Mr. Bishop, and unanimously agreed that the Chairman forward to Mayor Allen MARTA's recommendation that the implementation of the "Rapid Bus- ways" concept not be attempted. Other Business The Chairman introduced the following interns from the Fulton County Comptroller's Office: Harvey Kramer, Al Barr and Bill Hayes. Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:50 P.M. Next Meeting September 5, 1967.
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 25

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_025.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 25
  • Text: MINUTES OF THE FORTY-SECOND MEETING METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY JULY 1, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on July 1, 1969 at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, 619 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Ga. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) S. Truett Cathy (Clayton County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) John C. Wilson (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT Sanford S. Atwood (DeKalb County) John C. Staton (Fulton County) OTHERS PRESENT Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager E. W. Nelson, Chief Engineer King Elliott, Public Information Director Edmund W. Hughes, Authority Secretary H. N. Johnson, Administrative Assistant Consultants W. O. Salter, PBO&D, San Francisco J. A. Coil and Ray Gustafson, PBTB, Atlanta W. Stell Huie, Huie and Harland Others Jan Richey, George Brown and John Miller, City of Atlanta Planning Department Andy Springer, Greater Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. William H. Parr, Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Jerry Coursey, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. a Before taking up the regular agenda, Mr. Blount stated that he was presiding at the request of Mr. Rich. Mr. Blount expressed regret in behalf of the Members over the recent resignation of Mr. Rich as Chairman of the Authority. Mr. Rich had tendered his resignation to Mayor Ivan Allen on June 23rd, advising that due to the press of other essential business he felt that it was nec-— essary that he leave the Board. The meeting was then called to order by the Vice Chairman. Minutes Minutes of the June 3rd meeting had been mailed prior to the meeting. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Haverty, they were unanimously approved. Financial Report The Authority's financial report as of June 30, 1969 was before the Board. Mr. Stuart asked for approval of the statement in order that it might be mailed to the Local Governments, as re- quired at the close of each quarter by the MARTA Act. He pointed out that the budget was closing out for the first half witha balance of some $14,000.00 due to lesser charges to Counsel and PBTB. Financial support from DeKalb County and Gwinnett County had been assured for the balance of the calendar year. Payment from Clayton County had been received for the entire year. Meet-— ings had been held with financial officials of the City of Atlanta and Fulton County concerning their contributions for the second half of 1969. Attention was called to the Bus Lease Account finan- cial statement. Mr. Stuart stated that the apparent deficit re- flected in this account was not an "out of pocket" deficit and was due to the differential between interest and depreciation charges and that the two figures would even out within a few years. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, the financial statement was unanimously accepted, and Mr. Blount directed that a copy be forwarded to heads of the Local Governments and financial officers. The financial statement is attached and made a part of these minutes, Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart stated that at the June meeting the Board had authorized him to proceed with the preparation of an application to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for financial support towards a proposed technical studies work program. He stated this program had been presented to the AATS Technical Coordinating Com- mittee (TCC) at their meeting on June 19, 1969 and subsequently the TCC had passed a resolution approving the filing of the applica- tion with DOT and recommended its approval by the AATS Policy Com- mittee. BAG Report of General Manager (cont'd) After some discussion the Board agreed that before lengthy and expensive engineering and cost studies are made, various transit proposals should be analyzed and taken to public meetings to determine their general acceptance and political feasibility. The Board instructed its General Manager and Chief Engineer, working with its consulting engineers, Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor- Bechtel, to analyze the mass transit recommendations of the Voorhees Report and to compare them with the regional rapid transit system proposed earlier by MARTA. They are then to produce a recommenda- tion for a system which will include the best elements of both proposals. The Board asked that this analysis be completed for presentation at the MARTA Board Meeting on August 5th. Following this meeting, it is expected that this analysis will be presented to the AATS Technical Coordinating Committee, the AATS Policy Com- mittee, and at public meetings. In assigning this work to the engineers, the Board agreed that this approach is in agreement with the resolution of the AATS Policy Committee of May 22, 1969 in which MARTA was asked to develop further specific information in connection with those recommendations of the Voorhees Report involving rapid transit. Resignation of John C. Staton Mr. Blount advised the members that Mr. John C. Staton had also resigned from the Board because extensive travel commitments made it impossible for him to attend regular Board meetings. It was with regret that Mr. Staton had found it necessary to take this action since he had contributed tremendously to the rapid transit program. Mr. Blount advised that if it was agreeable to the Members he would be glad to serve as Acting Chairman of the Authority until an election could be held after the two new directors are appointed. This action was enthusiastically approved by the Members present, Report of Counsel Mr. Huie stated that several legislators had asked him if MARTA was planning to seek a new source of local funds for alloca- tion to rapid transit. He suggested that the Board consider a study of possible sources with the view of eventually recommending a specific source being earmarked for rapid transit. Adjournment Mr. Blount adjourned the meeting at 4:20 P.M. Next Meeting August 5, 1969. CD nun 4y Aegd = Be Secretary é
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 12

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_012.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 12
  • Text: aan | f va ot ¥ HUC-6-66 MINUTES OF MEETING GEORGIA HIGHWAY USERS CONFERENCE (Y v/ WV / those present were: Lad O. C. Hubert, Chairman William Dalton, Vice Chairman Charles Skinner, Vice Chairman Stephen Styron, Vice Chairman Harold Budreau A. R, Brickler W. B. Bryan Charles Clynick Tom Duncan George L. Evoy Harry Fox Elmer George Billy George Ed McGill James Golden Otis Hathcock Jack Houston George H, Jones Iverson H. Lord, Jr. Tom Patton Walter Phillips, Jr. H, Eston Reagan M, F. Smith Andy Springer H. C. Thompson W. M. (Bill) Williams Introductions: MARRIOTT MOTOR HOTEL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA June 8, 1966 Georgia Motor Club (AAA) Georgia Rural Letter Carriers Assn, Georgia Motor Trucking Assn, Georgia Hotel-Motel Assn. Turner Advertising Company Portland Cement Assn, Southern Bell Tel, & Tel, Co. Automobile Manufacturers Assn., Detroit Atlanta Journal Georgia Motor Club (AAA) Georgia Branch, Asso, General Contractors Georgia Municipal Assn, Visitor (son of member) Georgia Mobile Homes Assn, and Georgia Oilmen's Assn, Ford Motor Company Travelers Protective Assn, Georgia Assn, of Petroleum Retailers Georgia Tire Dealers Assn, National Highway Users Conference Georgia Oilmen's Assn, Georgia Automobile Dealers Assn, Atlanta Automobile Assn, Travelers Protective Assn. Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Georgia Assn. of Petroleum Retailers State Representative, Hall County The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hubert, who introduced Iverson Lord, Regional Representative of the National Highway Users Conference, Eleventh Highway Transportation Congress: Reports of committee recommendations during the Eleventh Highway Transporta- tion Congress in Washington, D. C., held in April, were made by members who at- tended, Rapid Transit: Charles Skinner, Chairman of the Legislative Committee, explained a resolu- passed by the last Georgia General Assembly that proposed a constitutional amend- ment to allow the state to help finance rapid transit. The proposed amendment, to be voted upon in the next general election, declares public transportation of passengers for hire to be an essential governmental function, It limits the © state's participation to not more than 10% of the total cost, The resolution, as written, does not threaten gasoline tax funds, which by constitutional amendment must be used for highway purposes, HUC-6-66-2 FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS Governor's Safety Committce's Testimonys State Representative W. M, (Bill) Williams, Chairman of the Governor's Com- mittee on Traffic Safety, repcrted on his committee's testimony before a U. S. House Committee hearing on preposed federal automobile safety legislation, The committee hearing was told, Williams said, that a federal agency to lead the way for traffic safety is necessary for uniformity, However, Williams added, Georgians do not want federal control; just federal leadership. The federal legislators, Williams reported, were told that a till submitted by Georgia Con- gressman James Mackay is superior to the administration measure, Williams ad- ded, however, that there are portions of the President's bill that the Georgia panel agrees with, Industry's Position on Safety Bills: James Golden of Ford Motor Company, in Atlanta, predicted that compromise legislation would come out of U. S. Congressional proceedings on federal safety standards for automobiles allowing the states to participate in setting the standards, Golden said industry wants the states to utilize their know-how in the field of safety when standards are set and that federal authorities should supervise, Golden predicted, however, that the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, which already has been setting standards, will not be utilized by the federal government, It is wrong to conclude that the states have done nothing in the field of auto safety, Golden said, Then he enumerated many safety features now on auto= mobiles that came about through states actions, It is also wrong to conclude that the industry has done nothing, Golden said, There would be many more deaths on the highways if industry had not been attacking the problem, he said. Other business: Chairman Hubert declared that construction of perimeter roads would be a good alternative to rapid transit, They would keep through traffic off downtown stretches, he said, and allow local traffic to flow more smoothly. He urged the conference to consider three points for future programs, They are (1) finish perimeter roads, (2) start planning more outer perimeter roads, and (3) plan for additional traffic now on freeways, including overbuilding in downtown areas and extra lanes for other portions, The Atlanta Automobile Association was approved for membership by the Con- ference »
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 13

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_013.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 13
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN BUILDING « ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 OFFICERS: April 18, 1966 Richard H. Rich,Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary MEMO TO: Members of MARTA Heads of Governments in MARTA Members of ARMPC FROM: Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, MARTA SUBJECT: Report on Transit Authority Progress The Washington meeting was reported to you a week or so ago. Since then progress has been made in implementing agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1. The 702 loan application has been revised to cover $125,000 worth of engineering. This will be used for a lump sum contract between the Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff - Tudor-Bechtel, to provide preliminary engineering data on the 1962 "Initial System" of 21 miles of rapid transit, roughly between Oglethorpe and Hapeville. This includes studies of existing condi- tions, preliminary designs, methods of construction, soil conditions, mapping, equipment type, typical structure, and preliminary engineering of routes and stations. Estimated time: July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967. 2. A 701 planning study has been outlined and presented to HUD, amounting to about $187,500. This involves about $125,000 in grants from HUD and about $62,500 in Authority matching funds. A lump sum contract for about $100,000 will be made by ARMPC with Parsons- Brinckerhoff - Tudor-Bechtel for updating the entire 1962 rapid transit plans, developing new patronage and revenue estimates, operating costs, and for preparing a comprehensive report on the entire project. It will Memo to MARTA - 22 April 18, 1966 include consideration of new and proposed development in all parts of the area as it relates to transit. A lump sum contract for about $50,000 will be made be- tween ARMPC and Hammer, Greene & Siler Associates for economic and financial studies. This will include de- termination of all feasible methods of financing the system in stages, equitable formulas for cost-sharing among participating governments, proper allocations of capital costs, projections of tax digests, and the preparation of a comprehensive financial plan with ap- propriate reports. About $37,000 will be for administration, staff plan- ners, audit, travel, and ARMPC overhead chargeable to the transit project. This is an eleven-month project, probably beginning in June, 1966. The Authority will make a cost-plus contract with Parsons, Brinckerhoff - Tudor-Bechtel to cover other continuing engineering services required over and above the two federally-assisted programs. The amount of work to be done under this contract within about a year from July 1, 1966, is estimated at $100,000, al- though the extent of work required cannot be determined exactly. eke The financial position of the Authority at present is as follows: Local pledged money for 1966: S$ 300,000 Fulton County S$ 91,800 Atlanta 84,030 DeKalb County 82,770 Clayton County 23,190 Gwinnett County 18, 210 Amount expected from U. S. Government _ 250,000 $ 550,000 Memo to MARTA = 2. = April 18, 1966 Actual amounts received as of April 15: City of Atlanta $ 21,007.50 DeKalb County 20,692.50 Total $ 41,700.00 Amount disbursed for expenses to date 21,084.46 On Hand $ 20,615.54 Amount now due from local governments: City of Atlanta $ 21,007.50 Clayton County 11,595.00 DeKalb County 20,692.50 Fulton County 45,900.00 ' Gwinnett County __ 9,105.00 $108,300.00 Summary of requirements for the $300,000 local government funds: Disbursements to date for expenses of Study Commission S$ 21,084.46 Matching funds for 701 planning project 62,500.00 Non-federal engineering contract 100,000.00 Authority staff, office overhead, equipment, and items not chargeable to federal projects 116,415.54 Total $300,000.00 On April 14, the Chairman, Mr. Rich, and the Vice Chairman, Mr. Blount, reviewed the program with the Secretary, Mr. Bennett, the Legal Counsel, Mr. Etheridge, and representatives of the two consulting firms: Mr. W. O. Salter of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas; and Mr. Alan Welty of Hammer and Company. Memo to MARTA -4- April 18, 1966 Meetings have been held with the appropriate federal officials of HUD. The Chairman has sent letters to the participating governments requesting quarterly payments due on the 1966 pledges. It has been decided to call a meeting of the Authority for the first week of May. I would like to try May 3rd at 4:00 P. M. in the Glenn Building 6th floor conference room. Will MARTA members please let my office know if this is acceptable? For your information, I have been asked by Senator Harrison Williams (N. J.) to testify April 28 before the Senate Housing Sub-Committee relative to proposed new mass transit legislation.
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 8

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_008.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 8
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT JULY 31, 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 BUDGET TO 1967 JULY 31, 1967 Unappropriated Surplus $128,281.64 $128,281.64 INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta S$ 84,030.00 $ 63,022.50 Clayton County 23,190.00 17,392.50 DeKalb Gounty 82,770.00 41,385.00 Fulton County 91,800.00 68,850.00 Gwinnett County 18,210.00 9,105.00 Sub-Totals $300,000.00 $199,755.00 Interest Income $ 5,520.00 $2,792.27 Federal Funds: 702 Loan $ 95,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Section 9 Grant 276,000.00 67,686.12 Interest - Federal Funds 0 597.46 Sub-Totals $371,000.00 $128 , 283.58 TOTAL INCOME $676,520.00 $330,830.85 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS $804,801.64 $459,112.49 EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries $ 68,950.00 $ 35,420.51 Expenses 10,500.00 6,361.63 Benefits: Social Security 1,109.00 1,002.75 Guaranty Fund 533.00 400,00 Health and Accident Insurance 1,680.00 640.67 Retirement 10,000,00 300,54 Workmen's Compensation 99.00 104,00 Sub-Totals $92,871.00 $_ 44,230.10 Board Meetings $__ 3,150.00 $1,900.00 Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent $ 3,000.00 §$ 1,750.00 Communications and Postage 2,000.00 t,LOL 21 Furniture and Equipment 2,000.00 411.97 Supplies 3,600.00 1,214.78 Printing 1,000.00 623,56 Auditor 250,00 250.00 Accountant 1,000.00 250.00 Public Information 33,000,00 13,385.12 Advisory 5,000.00 977.35 Insurance: Public Liability 72.00 55.00 Depository and Forgery 56.00 56.27 Fidelity Bond 199.00 198.60 Sub-Totals 551,177.00 § 20.273,86 CARRIED FORWARD $147,198.00 S$ 66,403.96 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT JULY 31, 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching. Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Becktel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSES SURPLUS ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 BUDGET TO 1967 JULY 31, 1967 $804,801.64 $459,112.49 $147,198.00 S$ 66,403.96 § 20,000.00 § 7,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 8,000.00 16,333.00 9,800.00 3,333.00 0 1,667.00 1,000.00 95,000.00 60,000.00 240,000.00 60,000.00 120,000.00 100,000.00 60,000.00 21,859.05 2,000.00 1,595.84 $602,250.00 $292 193,89 $769,448.00 $366 , 356,46 S$_35..353.64 $92,756.03
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021

Box 6, Folder 10, Document 26

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_010_026.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 6, Folder 10, Document 26
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT JUNE 30, 1969 ACTUAL JAN. 1, 1969 TO BUDGET JUNE 30, 1969 Fund Balance $ 49,720.61 $ 49,720.61 Less: Adjustment = State of Georgia 1,925.80- $ 49,720.61 $ 47,794.81 INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta $ 42,015.00 $ 16,974.00 Clayton County 2,898.75 2,898.75 DeKalb County 41,385.00 16,719.54 Fulton County 45,900, 00 18,544. 00 Gwinnett County 2,276.25 919.61 Sub-Totals $134,475.00 § 56,055.90 State of Georgia 20,633.05 0 Interest Income 500.00 2,728.45 Federal Funds 31,000. 00 0 TOTAL INCOME $186,608.05 $ 58,784.35 TOTAL INCOME AND FUND BALANCE $236,328.66 $100,579.16 EXPENSE Staff Costs: Salaries § 70,274.08 $ 35,974.19 Expense 8,976.92 4,199.72 Social Security 1,581.12 1,409.84 Guarantee Fund 266.66 266.66 Health and Accident Insurance 1,227.97 746, 38 Retirement 13,339.88 0 Workman's Compensation 182.00 213.00 Board Meetings 3,000. 00 1,500, 00 Sub=Totals $ 98,848.63 § 44,309.79 Administrative Costs: Rent $ 3,050.00 $ 1,551.00 Communications 2,231.47 1,105.10 Supplies 3,338.49 901.62 Insurance 361,87 509,79 Accountant 1,500, 00 375.00 Auditor 500, 00 500. 00 Public Information 3,000. 00 73.59 Attorneys Fees and Expense 25,000.00 6,044.00 Sub-Totals EXPENSES = CARRIED FORWARD $ 38,981.83 $ 11,060.10 $137,830.46 $ 55,369.89 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT JUNE 30, 1969 ACTUAL JAN. 1, 1969 TO BUDGET JUNE 30, 1969 TOTAL INCOME AND FUND BALANCE = Brought Forward $236,328.66 $106,579.16 EXPENSES: Brought Forward $137,830.46 § 55,369.89 Consultants on Retainer: Parsons, Brinkerhoff-Tudor=Bechtel $ 8,000.00 $ 832.55 Contracts; Atlanta Area Transportation Study $ 14,000.00 $ 12,500.00 Technical Studies 46,500.00 14,000. 00 Sub-Totals $ 60,500, 00 $ 26,500.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $206, 330.46 S 82,702.44 FUND BALANCE BALANCE $ 29,998.20 $ 23,876.72
  • Tags: Box 6, Box 6 Folder 10, Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1966-1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 29, 2021