Good morning. My name is Rick Horton.

Two weeks ago, the Henry County School Board voted to demolish these two homes behind us. The Taxpayer Association of Martinsville and Henry County has invited you this morning to hear the entire story.

Our group is one composed of reasonable people. We exist to question the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Prior to the decision to demolish these homes, we had been corresponding with the School Board about their use. These two homes have been sitting idle: one for four years and the other for two years.

Good morning. My name is Randy Scott.

Out of view of the public’s eye, our communication with the Board was intended not to make a public spectacle. Our questions were respectful and not intended as a gotcha moment. We actually believed the school board deserved a chance to reconsider why these homes could not be rented. Since there was no enrollment or economic justification to renovate the schools, we believed that the decision about the status of the property belongs to a future school board in a more favorable economy.

What the school board did not tell you is that they authorized payment of $ 125,000 to purchase 126 Oakland Ave. in 2009 without any negotiation or use of a market appraisal to determine its true market value. A county employee advised the school board that the home held $ 92,444 of value but the board chose to pay $ 125,000 for it. Within two weeks of a letter from the school board to the owner expressing interest to purchase, a contract to purchase was signed. The Board chose not to engage the service of a certified market appraiser to determine value. As a consequence, this was not an “arms length” transaction and the taxpayer was not well served.

A subsequent examination of the settlement statement revealed that the seller was obligated with over $ 98,000 of mortgage liens on the home. Yet the school board chose to pay $ 125,000 for the home despite the advice of the county employee who advised $ 92,444. Based on the facts, the school board held the negotiating advantage due to the status of the owner and depression in the housing market but chose not to use that advantage. The other house, 150 Oakland Dr., was purchased in 2007 for $ 67,500. Combined taxpayer investment in both is $ 192,500 excluding closing costs, hazard insurance, and lawn maintenance since.

In our initial letter of June 10 to the school board, we asked why these two homes could not be rented. In her email response to that letter, chairwoman Kathy Rogers stated that the homes were used for storage. One of the reasons for the event this morning is to demonstrate that the “storage” answer was untruthful and a gross misrepresentation.

As you will see in our tour, both homes have architectural shingled roofs, vinyl cladded replacement windows, vinyl siding and one home has a fairly new heat pump. There are no school supplies, chalk or smartboards, no textbooks, no maintenance supplies, no cafeteria equipment, no student desks, no custodial supplies, no reams of paper, no chairs or tables, etc stored in either home. These homes were not used for storage.

In their decision to demolish this investment of over $ 192,500 of taxpayer money for a safety reason, the school board did not tell you that only the rear deck on one of the two homes presents a liability situation. There is nothing else deficient about these homes that a reasonable person could conclude warrants destruction. For their effective age and lack of use, both are in excellent shape. Would a CEO destroy a marketable industrial building if the rear entrance presented a safety issue ? We think not.

In fact, one interested renter left her telephone number in the door of 150 Oakland Ave expressing interest to rent. This is the same home which needs a new deck.

The recent action by the board to now pay a contractor over $ 10,000 for the removal of asbestos and demolition of the homes was a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer funds. Prior to taking that action, the school board could have attempted to solicit bids for these two homes. We believe that an investor would have paid at least / at minimum $ 10,000 for both in exchange of the new owner moving them offsite. At the end of the day, the $ 10,000 contract for demolition, chosen by the Board, has resulted in a net loss to taxpayers of $ 20,000 as a result of the lost opportunity to sell them.

When the school board claimed that state regulations would have required a charter to rent the homes, that statement was misleading. School boards often subcontract for many services. Currently, it is subcontracting its county wide custodial services and subcontracts special education services for certain students.

The Board could have contracted these two homes to a local real estate broker to manage their rental. We believe that the best scenario for these two homes was to seek the services of a property management firm. Nothing would have prevented the school system from selecting that option. According to the purchase contract on 126 Oakland, the board chose to rent back 126 Oakland Dr. to the former owner in 2009 for six months at $ 1 per month. That action affirms the misleading statements of this board that rental was not an option.

For at least two years, the school board violated state code 22.1-79. 3 in “….noninstructional operating of necessary school buildings and appurtenances and the maintenance thereof by purchase, lease, or other contracts.” Therefore, we find the decision to demolish these homes without investigating the sale and rental options to be an arbitrary and capricious one. At the end of the day, mismanagement of these assets is a small ripple in a bigger picture. The larger issue here is what our elected representatives value in their decision making.

When you consider that this school board and the county supervisors voted to pay themselves free health insurance, then we as the Taxpayer Association, must ask ourselves what is it that these elected representatives value ? By awarding themselves free health insurance, do they show respect, compassion for those who do not have jobs and do not have health insurance ? Are they choosing to serve the constituents of Henry County just to gain free health insurance ? Do they show respect for hard earned taxpayer dollars by demolishing over $ 192,000 of taxpayer paid assets when they could have been converted them into income producing assets? Do they value fiscal responsibility when they choose to hire an outside acting superintendent for $ 8,000 per month when an available assistant superintendent could have performed at no additional cost ? By praising the outgoing school superintendent prematurely for two years of initiatives, do they value cosmetics versus commitment ? Are they more interested in what is in the showroom than what is in the stockroom ?

Based on what the facts present, we find a change in leadership is necessary. By choosing to make decisions on the whim of fiscal irresponsibility, misrepresentation, and a clear disregard for the welfare of its constituents, a complete collapse of organization integrity has occurred.

Leadership is all about honesty and looking after the stockholders of any organization. The stockholders of the school board are the taxpayers of Henry County. The taxpayers expects their leaders to perform due diligence and manage all resources wisely. The purchase and management of these homes has failed to meet that expectation. Therefore, the Taxpayer Association of Martinsville and Henry County calls for the resignation of chairwoman Rogers and acting superintendent Martin.

Finally, in the June 12 edition of the Martinsville Bulletin, Susan Reynolds of the County Administration office claimed that the Supervisors are “on call”. She was quoted that they work 24 hours / 7 days a week.

The Taxpayer Association of Martinsville and Henry County finds that claim to be an egregious insult to the men and women in our fire, rescue and law enforcement departments. Fire fighters, rescue squad personnel and deputy sheriffs are called away from their families to provide services at all hours and on holidays.

For the Supervisors to claim that they are “on call”, we find that to be a disrespectful affront to the men who serve in the County Public Service Authority ( PSA ). Those dedicated employees are called out on weekends in all kinds of nasty weather to repair broken water lines.

All of these dedicated employees are on call and serve at great personal risk and sacrifice to their families. We know many of them. They are friends of ours. They know and define the meaning of “on call “.

The Supervisors and members of the school board are not “on call”.
They are not employees; therefore, they do not deserve free health insurance.

We ask everyone to call your Supervisor and School Board Member to express your view.

Thank you for coming !

Supervisors

Jim Adams 629-8543 Milton Kendall 634-4601
Joe Bryant 252-5210 Tommy Slaughter 638-4246
Debra Buchanan 957-1394 H. G. Vaughan 956-3631

School Board

Joe DeVault 666-3024 Curtis Millner 806-2593
Terry Flanagan 957-1414 Kathy Rogers 647-4964
Rudy Law 629-5550 Charles Speakman 956-3765
Betsy Mattox 629-5636