A key tenet of the Clark County School District’s reorganization that involves putting more money in the hands of schools won’t be done in time for the upcoming academic year.

School officials and reorganization leaders announced the delay Monday during a meeting of a legislative advisory committee that’s monitoring the process.

The so-called 80-20 funding split has been a consistent sticking point in the district’s transition to an operating model that gives more budgeting and decision-making power to principals, staff and parents. The law calls for moving 80 percent of unrestricted funds — money not earmarked for specific purposes — to schools this year, with 85 percent moved by next year.

Last month, school district officials unveiled a solution to the funding dilemma that they said would allocate 88 percent of the unrestricted funds to schools. Their tune changed slightly Monday.

Tom Skancke, the consultant hired to help the district with the details of its state-mandated overhaul, clarified the presentation in July was merely to show the “strategic method” that would be used to transfer those funds. The money has not actually been transferred to the schools.

The bottom line: The school district has not complied with the reorganization law yet but hopes to meet the funding requirement soon.

“I believe that the process they are undertaking will get the district into full compliance with the law — not just the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law,” he said.

In a nutshell, the district has transferred 55 percent of its unrestricted funds to schools through their strategic budgets, and the bulk of that money goes toward paying teacher salaries. The district has identified another 33 percent of unrestricted funds in the form of services delivered to schools from the central budget. Those services include special education teachers, transportation, nurses and school police, among others.

The problem is that school principals — who, in theory, are supposed to make budget decisions with input from parents and staff — don’t have direct control over those 33 percent of unrestricted funds.

District leaders are working with principals, school associate superintendents and the newly formed school organizational teams to determine what services should be transferred to the school level. The fund transfer will require approval from the district’s Board of Trustees, who are elected to oversee the organization’s finances.

The process, which may seem relatively simple on the surface, involves developing requirements and standards for obtaining these services from inside and outside the school district. For instance, the principal could choose to obtain landscaping services from the district or an approved vendor.

Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky said the district can transfer money to comply with the 80-20 funding split by January. That means the budgeting process for the 2018-2019 school year would reflect the changes.

“I believe we can get there,” Skorkowsky said. “We may get beyond there.”

While the district progresses toward meeting the funding requirement, a large question looms: Will the reorganization give greater autonomy to individual schools, powered by input from staff and parents who make up the school organizational teams?

Several teachers, including Daniel Barber from Durango High School, testified to the contrary during public comment.

Barber, a staff member on the Durango school organizational team, said the advisory group had “no input” on the school’s student performance plan or strategic budget because the principal presented them with the expectation of a rubber-stamp vote.

“We were not a functioning group,” said Barber, who accused the district of retribution because his teaching assignment changed after he voiced concerns about the process.

Sen. Michael Roberson, who chairs the legislative advisory committee, called the allegations “unacceptable” and urged others to come forward if they’re experiencing similar feelings of disempowerment within the school organizational teams, which are designed to guide decisions for the school.

The principal has final authority to make decisions, per the reorganization law, because, ultimately, the district is responsible for student-learning outcomes. But the essence of the reorganization law is a bottom-up approach, in which staff, parents and community members participate and offer recommendations during the budgeting and decision-making process.

“We are going to stay on this,” the state lawmaker said.

The seven-hour meeting proved to be tense at times, as those involved in the ambitious overhaul of the nation’s fifth-largest school district pointed out obstacles or frustrations.

For instance, members of school organizational teams in rural areas decried funding cuts that they say will adversely affect their educational environments.

Skorkowsky said some rural schools had received “gift” funding in previous years to put toward the hiring of a teacher or dean, but he said the new funding structure means there’s no longer an available pot of money to cover those expenses.

State Superintendent Steve Canavero said he will ensure the reorganization is carried out in the manner prescribed by law. Assembly Bill 469, which passed in April with bipartisan support, codified the reorganization regulations into state law, effectively ending a lawsuit brought forth by the school district.

Given the volume of work that remains, Canavero said it may be wise to keep the consultants and advisory committees involved for longer than planned. The nearly $1.2 million contract for Skancke’s consulting firm, TSC² Group, expires at the end of October.

“It is my desire that these bodies will continue their work until such time as they become unnecessary — a moment I don’t see in this biennium,” he said. “I highly encourage all of us to consider ways of keeping them engaged beyond October.”