The following is a letter from Enough Is Enough to the taxpayer-residents of Hamilton and Wenham:
It’s been a year since Enough is Enough (EIE), a citizens group promoting fiscal responsibility, asked for an operational audit of our schools. Our thinking was that this was an idea that all sides could agree upon, a way to get an expert, independent, outside look at how we could improve school operational efficiencies. We were dismayed when the idea was repeatedly ignored, confused and ultimately rejected by the school committee, the “Blue Ribbon Committee,” and even selectmen who claim they have no authority to ask the schools to entertain such an audit.
Last spring, EIE awakened citizens and defeated a capital debt exclusion override at Hamilton town meeting. The school district had been ignoring long-standing maintenance issues with our school buildings (a requirement under the two towns’ regional school agreement). A few school committee members publicly apologized for not making sure that the maintenance money budgeted was actually spent on maintenance issues. The school committee pressed forward with a capital debt exclusion override that addressed maintenance items that should have been completed with budgeted money and added many additional “wish list” items that went far beyond maintenance issues. EIE attempted to make a compromise that it could support: i.e. - limiting the town meeting article to health and safety items only, but this approach was rejected. As a result, the capital debt exclusion override went down to defeat.
The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee and school support groups promised a more open process to explain to voters why a large capital debt exclusion override was needed, despite the fact that the schools had ten operational real estate tax overrides in past years and had not spent the money budgeted in their maintenance expense line item. EIE looked forward to the promise of more openness, but this never happened. Instead, EIE had to make many requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (MPRL) (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), which is very similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out what was going on with maintenance in the schools. Request after request was met with partial non-specific responses. Instead of telling us what the schools did and did not spend money on, they gave EIE numbers that conflicted with school published reports to the community, along with vague expenditures on maintenance and “special projects”. Overall maintenance expenditures provided were far below those budgeted. When challenged, we were told that the schools do not maintain “budget versus actual reports”. We were appalled that either school accounting is not being done in accordance to acceptable practices or we were not being told the truth. “Fuzzy math” and obscuring the facts about maintenance, as well as other school expenditures, must come to an end.
The following are the results of our analysis of maintenance expense data obtained from the HWRSD:
A publication called " HWRSD Annual Report 2007- 2008 provided by HWRSD via mail to all citizens indicated that $461,103 was spent for maintenance during FY2007 and $459,067 was spent for maintenance during FY2008.
It should also be noted that the HWRSD budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2007 was $650,559; and likewise, the budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2008 was $676,377. This budget information was also provided by the HWRSD via the MPRL request made by EiE.
When EIE received the Massachusetts Public Records Law info from the HWRSD Administration the FY2007 actual maintenance dollars spent were $402,504 and included $49,136 for special projects, undefined. This leaves $58,599 unspent for the period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.
Likewise, the FY2008 actual maintenance dollars spent were $380,726 and included $71,391 for special projects, again undefined. This leaves $78,341 unspent for the FY2008 period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.
Clearly, there is a significant difference between the data provided in the HWRSD Annual Report versus the data provided to EiE by HWRSD Administration per the MPRL request. What data (of any data provided) is correct?
The largest variance of all is the FY2007 maintenance expense budget of $650,559 versus the maintenance actual 0f $402,504 which equals a variance of $248,055 less than the approved budget number of $650,559. Also the FY2008 maintenance budget of $676,377 versus the maintenance actual of $380,726, which equals a variance of $295,651 less than the approved budget number of $676,377.
A similar situation exists within the MPRL data received from HWRSD for FY2009 maintenance budget versus actual. The budget was $583,786 and total actual dollars spent were $469,353 which included $81,853 for special projects, undefined. The total variance between budget versus actual spent was $114,433.
For the three years discussed above (FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) the total approved maintenance budget dollars were $1,910,722 and of that total, $658,139 were not spent for maintenance; and of the $1,252,583 dollars spent $202,380 were spent for special projects, undefined.
Where was the $658,139 spent if not spent on much needed maintenance?
Whatever the truth, EIE cautions the public to think hard when deciding if you trust the schools with another attempt at a very large capital debt exclusion override. Without the kind of openness that the taxpayers deserve, along with public discussion and debate, the numbers are nearly meaningless. The schools, because of regional school laws, and unlike our towns, do not have to spend money allocated in their yearly budget to the line item approved. It is clear from what we have learned that funds budgeted for maintenance were never spent and/or spent in ways that may not have been related to maintenance of school buildings.
It is in everyone’s interest to have safe and healthy schools. It is also in everyone’s interest to have a school committee that demands that citizens’ questions are answered in an open and forthright manner. The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School is a public school, funded by the public, and citizens have the right to know that their money is being spent in a fiscally responsible manner in the best interests of our children. We call once again for an independent outside operating audit that focuses on all aspects of school operations. Without this independent oversight, citizens should not be giving more money to the school system. We cannot rely on hope that they will use the money as appropriated, when this clearly has not been the case up until now.
(Please let us know your opinion by voting in the poll that is posted at the top left corner of this blog.)
Sincerely,
Enough is Enough
Robert Sica
James Kent
Elizabeth Dunbar
Edwin Howard
Warren Gray
Bruce Wadleigh
George LaMontagne
Jay Burnham
It’s been a year since Enough is Enough (EIE), a citizens group promoting fiscal responsibility, asked for an operational audit of our schools. Our thinking was that this was an idea that all sides could agree upon, a way to get an expert, independent, outside look at how we could improve school operational efficiencies. We were dismayed when the idea was repeatedly ignored, confused and ultimately rejected by the school committee, the “Blue Ribbon Committee,” and even selectmen who claim they have no authority to ask the schools to entertain such an audit.
Last spring, EIE awakened citizens and defeated a capital debt exclusion override at Hamilton town meeting. The school district had been ignoring long-standing maintenance issues with our school buildings (a requirement under the two towns’ regional school agreement). A few school committee members publicly apologized for not making sure that the maintenance money budgeted was actually spent on maintenance issues. The school committee pressed forward with a capital debt exclusion override that addressed maintenance items that should have been completed with budgeted money and added many additional “wish list” items that went far beyond maintenance issues. EIE attempted to make a compromise that it could support: i.e. - limiting the town meeting article to health and safety items only, but this approach was rejected. As a result, the capital debt exclusion override went down to defeat.
The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee and school support groups promised a more open process to explain to voters why a large capital debt exclusion override was needed, despite the fact that the schools had ten operational real estate tax overrides in past years and had not spent the money budgeted in their maintenance expense line item. EIE looked forward to the promise of more openness, but this never happened. Instead, EIE had to make many requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (MPRL) (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), which is very similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out what was going on with maintenance in the schools. Request after request was met with partial non-specific responses. Instead of telling us what the schools did and did not spend money on, they gave EIE numbers that conflicted with school published reports to the community, along with vague expenditures on maintenance and “special projects”. Overall maintenance expenditures provided were far below those budgeted. When challenged, we were told that the schools do not maintain “budget versus actual reports”. We were appalled that either school accounting is not being done in accordance to acceptable practices or we were not being told the truth. “Fuzzy math” and obscuring the facts about maintenance, as well as other school expenditures, must come to an end.
The following are the results of our analysis of maintenance expense data obtained from the HWRSD:
A publication called " HWRSD Annual Report 2007- 2008 provided by HWRSD via mail to all citizens indicated that $461,103 was spent for maintenance during FY2007 and $459,067 was spent for maintenance during FY2008.
It should also be noted that the HWRSD budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2007 was $650,559; and likewise, the budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2008 was $676,377. This budget information was also provided by the HWRSD via the MPRL request made by EiE.
When EIE received the Massachusetts Public Records Law info from the HWRSD Administration the FY2007 actual maintenance dollars spent were $402,504 and included $49,136 for special projects, undefined. This leaves $58,599 unspent for the period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.
Likewise, the FY2008 actual maintenance dollars spent were $380,726 and included $71,391 for special projects, again undefined. This leaves $78,341 unspent for the FY2008 period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.
Clearly, there is a significant difference between the data provided in the HWRSD Annual Report versus the data provided to EiE by HWRSD Administration per the MPRL request. What data (of any data provided) is correct?
The largest variance of all is the FY2007 maintenance expense budget of $650,559 versus the maintenance actual 0f $402,504 which equals a variance of $248,055 less than the approved budget number of $650,559. Also the FY2008 maintenance budget of $676,377 versus the maintenance actual of $380,726, which equals a variance of $295,651 less than the approved budget number of $676,377.
A similar situation exists within the MPRL data received from HWRSD for FY2009 maintenance budget versus actual. The budget was $583,786 and total actual dollars spent were $469,353 which included $81,853 for special projects, undefined. The total variance between budget versus actual spent was $114,433.
For the three years discussed above (FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) the total approved maintenance budget dollars were $1,910,722 and of that total, $658,139 were not spent for maintenance; and of the $1,252,583 dollars spent $202,380 were spent for special projects, undefined.
Where was the $658,139 spent if not spent on much needed maintenance?
Whatever the truth, EIE cautions the public to think hard when deciding if you trust the schools with another attempt at a very large capital debt exclusion override. Without the kind of openness that the taxpayers deserve, along with public discussion and debate, the numbers are nearly meaningless. The schools, because of regional school laws, and unlike our towns, do not have to spend money allocated in their yearly budget to the line item approved. It is clear from what we have learned that funds budgeted for maintenance were never spent and/or spent in ways that may not have been related to maintenance of school buildings.
It is in everyone’s interest to have safe and healthy schools. It is also in everyone’s interest to have a school committee that demands that citizens’ questions are answered in an open and forthright manner. The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School is a public school, funded by the public, and citizens have the right to know that their money is being spent in a fiscally responsible manner in the best interests of our children. We call once again for an independent outside operating audit that focuses on all aspects of school operations. Without this independent oversight, citizens should not be giving more money to the school system. We cannot rely on hope that they will use the money as appropriated, when this clearly has not been the case up until now.
(Please let us know your opinion by voting in the poll that is posted at the top left corner of this blog.)
Sincerely,
Enough is Enough
Robert Sica
James Kent
Elizabeth Dunbar
Edwin Howard
Warren Gray
Bruce Wadleigh
George LaMontagne
Jay Burnham
One of the more troubling decisions by the school committee. Every government organization, every religious organization, every private business subjects itself to an independent audit ... well, at least the reputable ones do.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if an independent audit will lead to an corrective actions, but even in the best run organizations, something beneficial results from an independent audit.
QE
It's irresponsible for the School Committee to even consider spending money on this type of audit -- and take educational resources away from students -- just to appease EIE.
ReplyDeleteIf your group wants an independent audit so badly, why don't you get some skin in the game by raising the funds yourself? This would increase your credibility enormously among a populace that is otherwise getting really sick of your incessant complaining. Do something positive and constructive for a change.
And QE you know perfectly well the schools are already audited every single year. You at least should be able to understand the concept.
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst, the idea of an operational audit is not soley supported by EiE's members. There is a large and growing number of citizens that have been disillusioned by the costs of school overrides ($39 million since 1998)that want to see some accountabilty.
Secondly, I'm afraid you are confusing a financial audit (the budgetary process) with an operational audit. There has been no operational audit of the schools...ever.
Operational audits of the kind recommended by EiE have been known to lead to savings in many school systems; savings that far outweigh the costs of the audit, thereby increasing educational resources for students, not the other way around.
Lastly, regarding to your comment about EiE "doing something positive and constructive for a change"...we're pretty sure that we are doing just that. Our membership and supporters and the taxpayers seem to agree.
Thank you for commenting,
...JB
Put your money where your mouth is - EIE should raise the money for the operational audit.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous (aka: Bob)...
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that EiE would be pleased to assist in raising funds for an operational audit of the schools.
Since you appear to support such an endeavor, perhaps you would like to make the first donation...anonymously, of course!
Thanking you in advance for your contribution and consideration...
Regards,
Jay
You have to admit, Jay, that Anonymous is pretty good. He/she turned our logic around and used it against us. I guess that I am absolutely convinced that an operational audit will result in more than enough savings to pay for itself. Perhaps you and Anonymous would be willing to consider the following deal: EiE pays for the audit, and the HWRSD pays EiE back for every dollar saved over the next three years as a result of the audit, capped at$250,000. I think that the three year savings are going to run around the $1-2 million range, so the Town and taxpayers will still make out. It's a win/win for everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteQE...I'm afraid I can't admit that Anonymous is "pretty good". What I hear from this commentor is that he/she simply wants a select group of citizens to finance a study that will very likely benefit the entire community. That's not only unfair, it's unreasonable and irrational. It's akin to the idea of the Transfer Tax that was defeated several years ago which would have taxed about 10% of our residents for the benefit of remaining 90%.
ReplyDeleteAlso, despite the decision of the School Committee and the Blue Ribbon Committee NOT to pursue an operational audit, polling thus far on this site indicates that significantly more residents want such an audit than do not.
The school's E & D account has over $1 million dollars of unused taxpayer's money, a small portion of which could and should be used to pay for an expert and independent operational audit.
The taxpayers want such an accounting of how to increase efficiencies and they deserve it...now more than ever.
Regards,
Jay
Wait a second. The school's E & D account has over $1 million of unspent money, probably much of it coming from re-appropriated unused maintenance funds, and it still sought a capital debt exclusion override for building repairs? Unbelievable ....
ReplyDeleteQE
QE...That's right. Welcome to my world. Is it any wonder they don't support an operational audit?
ReplyDelete...Jay
Jay, The School Committee has said publicly that they would welcome an operational audit that was paid for by the towns or private funds.
ReplyDeleteEIE could easily have an audit done if they donated the money to have it done.
With the broad support for the audit, EIE should have no problem raising the money to fund the audit.
Anonymous...Recognizing that the burden of understanding is rightfully placed upon the communicator, I will try my best to answer you comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, any audit that is funded by the school operating budget (as EiE is requesting) is paid for by the taxpayers of Hamilton and Wenham. Whether the funding comes directly from the towns, or from the town funded school budget, it still comes from the taxpayers. I have likened it to your right pocket or your left pocket, it is still the same pair of pants.
In terms of asking one group or another to pay for something that benefits everyone...well I have never been a believer in the fairness of that kind of funding. Fairness dictates that all should participate, not simply a select few.
Secondly, isn't it fair to ask for the district to fund an audit with excess or "leftover" funds that were provided by the towns as part of the annual budget (and by the taxpayers to the towns) such as the approximately $1.2 million currently avaialable in the district's E&D account? Two years ago, when the taxpayers bore the burden of a $1.8 million override, the district had an extra $800k at the end of the year that went into that account. Perhaps if it had been returned to the towns in the form of a "refund", it would be worth pursuing the towns to fund the audit because they would have those funds.
Lastly, an audit that might cost $90k represents about 3/10 of one percent of the district's $28 million budget. Surely it can find the resources to pay for an audit for the benefit of everyone...especially if they take it from excess funds already provided by the town's taxpayers...and also considering the purpose of such an audit, which is to find efficiencies (save money) and effectiveness within our school system.