|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2005 22:30:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Dec 14, 2005 22:53:20 GMT -5
Admin-Thanks. I read through the entire report. It was all very interesting and definitely shows that everyone - admin., board of ed members, and community members should be on their toes. One question, the $8.1M that was paid out in claims....they are referrring to insurance claims? Also, somewhere I read that they exceeded the amount held in their fund balance, yet I cannot find anything about this. Can anyone help?
Thanks!
Concerned
|
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Dec 15, 2005 0:20:31 GMT -5
Concerned ~ and all other taxpayers.
1) Concerning the $8.1 Million ~
This was first reported in the 2004 Hevisie report. It happened during the summer months when the Board did not have their regular twice a month meetings.
The now retired financial manger OK'ed regular invoices (not insurance claims) for payment without going through the formal cycle of first preparing a summary of the invoices and preliminary checks for the Board to review and approve before payments are made. (The Standard procedure)
The process was short-circuited and payments were made - apparently to a large extent they were for new building invoices (Guess on my part) for work that had already been OK'ed by the Board - that seems to be the justification - to "expedite" things.
Good intentions - and no embezzlements. Just poor and informal judgment, probably OK'ed by her superior, Mr Burns.
However, Hevisie's report did say that proper procedures were not followed and the Board should make plans for doing corrective reviews of these expenses. To date, there seems to be no plan.
It appears that there was an informal agreement by the Board, not recorded in the minutes of whatever meeting this agreement occurred in, that there was no need for a plan to do the Hevisie recommended reviews. Again, poor and informal judgment - but this time by the whole Board!
2) As to the amount in the Fund Balance - there is a 2% cap of the proposed or last year's Budget (whichever is greater) only on the amount of Unencumbered funds in the Fund balance. Encumbered Funds are not so Bound.
We can assume that the prior year was at that limit of about $1.1 Million. The past year showed either a $1.2 Million or a $1.8 Million excess of Income over Expenses - depending on the truth about that $600,000 "innocent arithmetic error" of Mr. Burns.
Either way, that all that excess income should go into the Unencumbered Fund balance adding to the $1.1 Million already there, bringing the total to either $2.3 or $2.9 Million.
That's well over the cap limit - in fact about $1.1 to $1.8 million over the limit! State law says all of this should first go to reduce the Property tax burden.
But - the amount of this that was planned to be used to reduce the Property tax burden in Richman's budget last year was shown as $700,000. That still leaves either $500,000 or $1,100,000 unaccounted for in excessive Unencumbered Funds.
When coupled with the returned money from the attempted Packard Fund transfer ($390,000) that the voters rejected, gives us a total amount of "over the limit" in Unencumbered Funds of either $890,000 or $1,490,000.
I believe the latter figure is closer to the true amount. However, since we all are lacking the required Fund Balance report that should be part of the Proposed Budget information released by the School District - I can only guess at this being the correct amount. And heaven only knows what is in the Encumbered part of the Fund Balance.
Are these amounts anywhere near the number that you've heard about?
This is why I've been pursuing the "Fix the Bad Budget before it's put to a Vote" theme for the past two years.
That's what at the core of my Appeal to the Commissioner.
I've requested him to require an Audit of the Proposed Budget before it goes to the Voters - and that some Official certify under Oath that it is correct and in compliance with the laws and requirements for Budgets.
We've had at least two years of incompetent Budgets put in front of us - each full of inconsistencies, legal violations and plain outright errors.
It's a hard point to get across - but the Proposed Budgets in Plainedge are at the bottom of the totem pole when compared to what some of the better School Districts are doing! We DO deserve better than what we've been getting!
I'll give you the Commissioner's response when I get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Dec 15, 2005 9:51:10 GMT -5
Thanks Justfacts....but where in the report does it talk about Plainedge having too much in their fund balance?
Concerned
|
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Dec 15, 2005 10:31:10 GMT -5
Concerned ~
I found no recent report about the District having too much in their Fund Balance, A few year's ago, in another audit, they definitely where chastised by the Commissioner for having twice the allowed amount in the Unencumbered Fund Balance - and definitely told to never allow that to happen again!
However, in estimating what was, and is, in the present Unencumbered Fund Balance - I was just responding to your first post saying that you "read somewhere that they had exceeded the amount held in their fund balance."
This is a pretty accurate estimate since there was no planning by the Board to have the Packard Fund monies dropped back into the Unencumbered Funds account when they first laid out the Budget. A budget that they refused change or revise the second time around. So the final Unencumbered Fund Balance DOES exceed the 2% cap limit! How much it does depends on what was there before -numbers the Board still will not make the Administration distribute.
Had the Administration made those Packard Fund changes, the probability that the second vote would have passed is very high - and no one would have seen the hardships the Contingency Budget they chose come about. Remember - there were other ways to handle the Contingency Budget and the Board under the thumb of the Administration chose not to do it any other way!
We are where we're at because of a Board that does not, and will not, bring this Administration under control - not because of the Voters!
|
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Dec 15, 2005 10:47:15 GMT -5
|
|
