Kevin Ford Opens Mouth and Inserts Foot Once Again
Submitted by “Daisycutter”
According to the Café website it seems that there is a reason for this annual June dump.
"Kevin Ford has explained why the so-called “cash dump” occurs each June. Under Prop 46, the BOE cannot go back to the town for budget increases, so they have to be absolutely sure they meet their financial obligations in order of legal priority, so they wait until the end of the fiscal year to fund the items where they have any discretion, and all contingencies have been covered. This is conservative, proper and responsible fiscal management."
What say you?
______________________________________________________________________
The fact that Mr. Ford either has no idea what he is talking about or just continues to spew nonsensical propaganda on behalf of the BOE is not a surprise.
Mr. Ford’s explanation is woefully inadequate on a number of levels. For instance, how would this approach to the budget explain the cuts made in order to get the budget passed when those cuts included many of the items that were already purchased in the previous year’s “dump”?
Secondly, the Prop 46 argument is absurd, without merit and even comical – Prop 46 limits spending period, particularly during the budgeting process, and has no relevance to having to fund unexpected expenses - even things that might not qualify as emergencies but only as stupid planning mistakes - as long as the overall spending stays under the cap, and, by the way, “real emergencies” are exempted, therefore, there is nothing that prevents the BOE from coming back to the Town in the event of emergency overruns, in fact, this has happened in the past and the Town has stepped up every time.
Considering some of the items in question, (i.e. the $13K lawnmower, somewhere near an unbudgeted $300K over two years in computer equipment- part of the “cuts” mentioned above), etc., this also does not address the fact that the “phantom student” monies should have been returned rather than spent in the “dump”. As Mr. Richardson pointed out this is a new record by far and doesn’t pass the “smell test”.
Let’s also separate out the expenses related to personnel – salaries, benefits, FICA, etc. – and those for tuition from the “other” expenses as those are not something that can be held back during the year and then pushed in the bounce. They will be paid period unless personnel are cut. The bounce when compared to the non-personnel costs and non-tuition costs is even more astounding.
It appears to me that Mr. Ford’s specious argument is strictly designed to obscure spending practice anomalies designed to artificially inflate the budget that continues to grow year over year while continuing to evade the truth either due to his lack of understanding or something else.
I noticed that Aljazeera chatter has reached epic proportions over this issue in the last number of days while the Superintendent remained silent when he had the chance to address these issues, not the least of which is the huge growth in spending on continued declining enrollment.
As an example of the other side of the coin, a recent review of the Brooklyn BOE minutes reveals a return to the town of +/- $93K, as well as the practice of presenting a list of bills and discussion held on same at each monthly BOE meeting- this is called transparency.
The bottom line is this- when you review the facts, Kevin Ford, the Superintendent and the BOE have zero credibility and their games are out of control. Half baked explanations, dismissing the questioners and changing the subject aren’t going to cut it.
They wouldn’t know conservative, proper and responsible fiscal management because it doesn’t serve their purposes. Perhaps Mr. Ford should take a course or two; ethics might be a good be a start. Mrs. Paul, Mr. Loftus and the Superintendent should tag along as well.
I'm very sure that ‘Budget Maestro’ Joe Breen doesn't offer an ethics class though…
The Town of Woodstock needs to remember that the Academy Class of 2010 will graduate the first 23 of our Phantom Students given to us by the Superintendent. The Class of 2011 has 21 Phantom Students who are Sophomores this year.
By then those 44 Phantom students will haunt your tax bill for the next century.
Maybe we can have them give a class gift to the K-8 Program and just call the gift "Equipment".
But is the June Dump really part of the phantom student money? Isn't the June dump just money already budgeted but held off from spending until all contingencies are settled, just in case, for example, estimated costs, such as fuel/utilities, come in higher than expected?
According to the Budget Maestro,
"Both revenues and expenses are projected based on best information at the point in time the budget is finalized. The budget is basically a reasonable hypothesis; reality sets in as events unfold. Except for fixed annual contracts, all revenue and expenses vary from budget as the year progresses and reality replaces the earlier hypothesis. Suffice it to say that events never unfold as predicted - this is normal."
Doesn't this seem reasonable?
He goes on to say, "The CPS complaints that there is a shortage or excess in the BOE budget that should not be there, or funds are moved between line items, are fraudulent - and deliberately so. The BOE is handed an undefunded budget cap, has a long list of unfunded needs, and if there is any reduction in the cost of one item, it is quickly shifted to the next priority."
Wouldn't this seem like a natural occurance in a school budget that is large, dynamic, and at a dollar minimum due to yearly cuts from Prop 46?
And can you explain your statement,
"how would this approach to the budget explain the cuts made in order to get the budget passed when those cuts included many of the items that were already purchased in the previous year’s “dump”?"
This concerns me.
Well, my first thought is- why is Joe Breen (Budget Maestro) speaking for the BOE and defending its’ budget and practices?
You ask if this is "phantom sudent" money as opposed to “proper” contingency planning. All that is required is a look at budget vs. expenditures as to their need and reason. The Superintendent and the BOE do not provide any such information; therefore, you are left with interpretation of the expenditures for this fixed period of time at the end of the year- do these expenditures strike you as “bare bones maintenance” types of costs? Are they reasonable? You decide.
There was no denial that these monies were returned to the BOE by the Academy. The Superintendent’s silence when confronted with this speaks volumes. It appears that the “dump” was necessary to avoid having to return this money to the Town and then actually having to present a responsible budget in the following year. This would not look very good for them after all of the crying of poverty, would it?
Of course there are “normal” variances in any budget, but logic demands you to ask yourself if these expenditures are reasonable- based on the facts I don’t think you can come to that conclusion, especially, as Dave pointed out in the video, spending within $92 and $13 on $10M budgets over two years is quite a task in itself. So, are they the “the worst planners in the world” or are they “playing games?” You decide.
Have you ever seen this “long list of unfunded needs”? I would love to see it, wouldn’t you?
“If there is any reduction in the cost of one item, it is quickly shifted to the next priority." What EXACTLY are those priorities? Was the $13K lawnmower higher on the priority list as opposed to something lacking in education or the SPED teacher that was first on the chopping block? Can you get an answer? Were the bus crossing arms less important than any of the other expenditures? You decide.
With regard to explaining my statement that concerns you, I would invite you to review the “cuts” made to this year’s budget prior to passage (you may have to review video or handouts as the meeting minutes appear to have been sanitized) which included quite a few items that subsequently turned up in the check register and purchased in the “dump” (Computers, etc.). You may also recall the institution of ‘pay to play’ at WMS because there were not enough monies for supplies. Based on the supplies expenditures in the check register, does this seem reasonable to you as to their timing or substance? You decide.
It’s pretty clear to me as was discussed in the video in the prior article that we are subject to the Loftus school of budgeting wherein they will say whatever they want until passage and then proceed to do whatever they want with our money without the courtesy of coherent explanation. As noted by a member of the BOF, this is both unethical and immoral. I’m just so proud of this BOE, aren't you? Such wonderful role models for our children.
The “According to the Budget Maestro” line is a textbook definition of what the budgeting process is “supposed to be”. What we have here in Woodstock with reference to the BOE is anything but what it is supposed to be.
For starters let’s look at the June bounce in 2008: the bounce alone, not including the regular spending amount or average of the first 11 months, is roughly twice the normal monthly total. That’s a heck of a contingency and doesn’t count May’s extra half a month’s spending, and then it wasn’t used to cover things like excess fuel costs – which by the way were under budget. For an example take a look at the “equipment” subset of the budget: they had budgeted $38,435 but spent $173,514. Now that should raise some eyebrows – well, the budgeting process is subject to some variation. I mean “events never unfold exactly as predicted”, but then the previous year they had budgeted $11,525 and spent $172,358, Hmmmm.
Either the superintendent and the BOE are the world’s worst planners or they’re gaming the system. Oh by the way, for this year’s they budgeted $5,660 and at Long Range Planning just tried to get the BOE to go along with spending another $250,000!, but no games here, right?
Oh, in case you thought maybe it some of it went for tuition, nope, almost $40,000 under budget. Then we have the overall budget: on the last day in June they wrote nearly $300,000 in checks for accounts payable – not payroll – to close the expenses within $13 of the budgeted amount, this on a budget that was roughly $10,000,000- the portion that the BOE controls, the previous year was within $92. But nobody is playing games here?
The Maestro might be able to quote a textbook definition of the budgeting process but you’d have to be tone deaf not hear what’s really going on here. Anyone with any real budgeting experience will see this for what it is – a game aimed at spending as much as possible in order to justify more money for the next year with little or no regard for how it is really being used.
By the way, as to how this got padded as much as it did- the BOE doesn’t use zero based budgeting. Basically they, and the BOF, focus on how much they spent, actually budgeted, the previous year and add to it, so when those Phantom students didn’t show up a couple of years ago and then again last year those monies got spread around but didn’t show up as they should have since nobody saw anything but the increase from one year to the next. But when they got to the end of the year and hadn’t spent all the money they become a bit frantic “don’t want to turn the money back because it might make you look bad and then you won’t get as much the next year” – hence the mad spending spree.
So this zero based budgeting practice provides a great incentive to spend. And they need to spend right up to the dollar amount budgeted in order to get the same, plus increase, in the next budget. This includes tuition paid on WA students that never attended.
Actually, zero based budgeting is what is needed. You can find a definition -HERE- . It is the traditional process that we have and how it is manipulated that exacerbates the problem.
Coincidentally, the Town Auditor has recommended adoption of zero based to the BOF, it is also a recommendation of Dr. Fusco.
So bottom line. What can we the people do to stop the BOE from fraudulently representing the budget? What can we do to make them return unspent money? Do you think the 2009 budget will reflect a deflated economy? How about the upcoming evaluation of property, will it reflect the decrease in property value across the Nation? Will the Town selectmen request another raise like the teachers union received? Will the Woodstock-cafe continue to attack Proposition 46, how much will it cost the town this time? Will we ever get a chance to just relax and enjoy a little life before we die? Why if they continue to raise the price of education through wages do they continue to blame Prop 46 for shortfalls in budget ?
Care to elaborate on the future of Woodstock if changes are not made ?
Well Maggie this is a mouthful. What needs to be done is people need to come out and question these issues in numbers like they did over the 9th grade proposal. This BOE/BOF have and continue to get away with these manipulations because most stay asleep and aren’t paying attention. As long as that continues, they/we will get what they deserve. The budget needs to be continually voted down until transparency is achieved. It is my opinion that transparency will not happen with the current sitting BOE. Currently, they are changing policies in order to cover their past antics and destroying all past documentation as quickly as possible. They count on the fact that only a small percentage of residents are paying attention- therefore the misinformation, marginalization and smear campaign against those who are.
Mr. Breen and his contingent are bound and determined to get rid of Prop 46 (they should be careful of what they wish for, because I don’t think they understand the ramifications and scrutiny that would bring, especially to the BOE) and will continue to attack the Academy and anything else that doesn’t fit with their “vision” of what Woodstock should be. It was once said to me that Woodstock will be the next Cheshire. Well, I grew up near that area and if I wanted to live in Cheshire or something like it, I would have if able to afford it. If you think it is out of control here you should take a look at an average tax bill there- your eyes would fall out.
This is all about empire building and has nothing to do with education, quality or otherwise. Our school administration is sub-standard and our schools poorly run. This BOE continues to aid and abet the behavior because it serves the purposes of their misguided “vision”. It appears to me that some on both the BOE and BOF don’t have the capacity to understand the game or just go along because they lack the courage to do anything about it; very sad for the kids and the Town.
I can only speak for myself, but I will stand the post as long as we remain in Woodstock because it is the right thing to do, but am already visualizing a time of relaxation elsewhere.
It is my opinion that Woodstock will remain a mess until more people of integrity step forward to put a stop to the madness and set a path of responsible governance. Blowing out Breen and his minions in the last election did not remove the cancer; we only slowed it down a bit. The patient requires more surgery.
Kevin hides behind people like Joe Breen , Snuffy and Dean probably all the same people . He uses Woodstock-Cafe to spread his propaganda and personal opinions. He is a good example of why the BOE is getting away with squandering and making poor judgment decisions. I think the BOE statement/motto should read "For profit by the profiteers"