| Proud Sponsor |
|
| News Sections |
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
| Features |
|
| Sponsored by |
|
| About the Smugtown Beacon |
|
|
| |
|
| While Mayoral Control of RCSD Grabs Spotlight, Fairport & Pittsford Schools are in Trouble with State Comptroller's Office |
By: Christopher J. Wilmot
|
Posted: Saturday, January 23, 2010 11:46 am
|
Fairport Central Schools: Is This Ship Sinking in the Muddy Waters of Poor Oversight?
|
|
|
Saturday, January 23, 2010 Rochester, NY - First, in his defense, yet also to his detriment: Fairport Central Schools' Superintendent Jon Hunter did not return my phone call for an interview. That's just fine, and is certainly his prerogative. But it leaves me to unilaterally, and unconditionally, rely on the New York State Office of the Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, and his audit of the the Fairport (Perinton) School District.
The following is a verbatim transcript of DiNapoli's conclusions, on behalf of the State of NY, yet especially on behalf of the taxpayers who live in the Fairport Central School District. To wit:
"The Fairport Central School District (herein, this article, to be referred to as "the District") accumulated $16.6 million in excess funds over (5) five years, while increasing the tax levy by 17%...the excess funds could have been used to benefit taxpayers by reducing the property tax levy" (by same?)...
"All across New York (State), families are watching every dime and school districts need to do the same...(the) Fairport Central School District needs to use more realistic budget numbers. Taxpayers should not have to pay more property taxes than necessary", said DiNapoli.
"The audit, covering July, 2003, through May of 2009, found the District consistently over-estimated expenditures, and under-estimated revenues, resulting in significant operating surpluses from 2003-4, through 2007-8, which totaled $26.2 million. During the same period, the District's total fund balance in the general fund doubled from approximately $18.7 million in June, 2004, to more than $37.8 million as of June, 2008."
"Even while incurring these significant operating surpluses, auditors found the District increased the tax levy by 17%, from $51.9 million in June, 2004, to $60.9 million in June, 2008. In addition, the District's 2008-9 budget continued to support a substantial operating surplus of $7.4 million."
"To avoid exceeding un-reserved fund balance limits established by law, DiNapoli's audit found the District placed nearly $11.4 million in excess funds in reserve accounts, and did not use the amounts appropriated; as much as $1.5 million. This money could have reduced tax levies."
"The District's $16.6 million in excess funds included:
* $4.06 million in a capital "bus" reserve.
* $3.8 million in overstated accrued liability.
* $2.84 million in a liability reserve.
* $1.64 million in a repair(?) service.
* $1.5 million in appropriated fund balance that was not used.
* $1.4 million in an employee benefits accrued liability reserve.
* $819,810 in an insurance reserve.
* $621,230 in an unemployment insurance reserve."
"The Office of the New York State Comptroller recommends that District officials:
1.) Prepare budgets that realistically estimate revenues and expenditures.
2.) Use the surplus fund balance to benefit District taxpayers by reducing property taxes, paying off debt, or financing one-time expenses.
3.) Review all reserve funds and determine if the amount of money in each reserve is necessary, and, if not, reduce the reserves to reasonable levels."
"The District (administration) did not agree with many of the audit's findings", is the subtly bellicose conclusion to DiNapoli's press release on this subject.
Again, at press time, the District had not responded to my request for an interview, so I am not able to report to Smugtown Beacon readers whether Fairport Schools have addressed, replied, or better yet, begun to make significant changes in the way the District's administration and Board treat the hard working taxpayers whom reside in the Fairport Central School District.
Meanwhile, in Nearby Pittsford...
I grew up in the Village of Pittsford, and frankly, look back fondly on my childhood. In those days (every middle aged person uses the term "those days"), Pittsford was still fairly small, and was a dream scape for children with bikes, and a sense of adventure. We boys used to climb the now infamous railroad trestle (where two Brighton teens were killed not so many years ago). But, climbing the CSX trestle over the Erie Canal was a test of our budding young manhood--at age 14.
We rode our bikes, and later, walked, to the old Hicks & McCarthy (when it was a 'soda fountain', and before it went up scale); as well as buying candy at the Central Pharmacy and Hunters. Our mothers purchased our school clothes at the Pittsford Department Store, and the Coal Tower Restaurant had just opened.
That was the 1970's, and Pittsford is arguably safer and less wild (too bad?), with higher incomes. Pittsford-Sutherland and Pittsford-Mendoin High Schools consistently finish in the top 100 of the nation's best high schools (according to U.S. News & World Report); even slightly ahead of Brighton H.S. So it is in this light that we must take a hard look--not at educational attainment--which is very high, but at 'bang for the buck' for Pittsford's taxpayers.
The following are the findings of the State Comptrollers Office (Thomas P. DiNapoli), relative to how well the District is run. It should be noted, in Pittsford's defense, that the District was one of the first in our area to be sought out by DiNapoli, and thus did comply quickly with the riggers of a audit of this nature.
"We (DiNapoli) found weaknesses in some of the Districts financial operations, caused by a lack of Board attention to the operations. At times, the Board had not established appropriate policies to guide employees actions, and at other times, District officials did not implement the policies. For example, the Board had not established appropriate controls over 'over'-time expenditures. As a result, various employees received overtime pay of approximately $34,000 without pre-approval, and $21,000 of this amount was paid without supporting documentation. As a result, there is an increased risk to the District of incurring excessive overtime and of making unauthorized and inaccurate overtime payments."
"Although the Board has adopted a purchasing policy, the policy does not address the need for contracts for services. District officials did not enter into written agreements with various providers of services because of the lack of guidance from the Board."
"We (the auditors) selected 23 vendors of various services and found that for 17 of them, there were no written agreements. Total payments to these 17 vendors totaled approximately $252,000. Further, there was no indication that the Board approved these non-written agreements."
"For the 2007-8 fiscal year, the Pittsford District budgeted $100.2 million...The District has used the same computerized financial system for more than (6) six years."
"The Pittsford Board has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. Pursuant to Section 35 of the General Municipal Law, Section 2116-A (3) (c) of the Education Law, and Section 170.12 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, the Board must approve a corrective action plan that addresses the findings in this report, forward the plan that addresses the findings in this report...to the Comptrollers Office within 90 days."
"Employees had received $539,997 in overtime, including $34,000 without written permission."
The Democrat & Chronicle claims the Pittsford School District has implemented "some" of the Comptrollers recommended audit suggestions:
1.) District has improved its database safeguards.
2.) District goes through a multi-step evaluation with every purchase order.
3.) Each 'time sheet' now includes the date, times, work performed, reason for work, with an authorized signature.
4.) A new work order software program was implemented. The system also assigns overtime, tracks time and costs, and eliminates verbal overtime requests.
"We're making sure that we are tracking everything because we don't believe in just having a policy on paper, without action", said Pittsford School's Superintendent Mary Alice Price, to the D&C.
Finally, the Pittsford School District serves 6, 041 students with an operating budget of $106.9 million for the school year 2009-2010.
Conclusion: You Get What You Pay for, I Guess?
Again, school districts like Pittsford, Brighton, other "P" towns, West Irondequoit, and Victor Central Schools are among the best, not only in NY State, but in the nation, when using measures like graduation rates, standardized test scores (SAT, etc.), and college placement. But at what cost?
However, none of these audits can prove, or perhaps even suggest that any fraud or mal intent is at work here, at least in Fairport and Pittsford. If the audits of these school districts are to be believed, than maybe the worst one can say is that Superintendents and School Boards were 'asleep at the wheel'. Or, more generously, that rich towns and their school boards are always trying to sock away money (sometimes too much?) for a rainy day. It all depends on how one looks at the situation.
Yet, I have heard and read several reports of alleged persistent bullying of students by other students in Pittsford high schools, on sterling authority. Also, allegations exist in Pittsford, at the high school level, that certain 'teachers' have been engaging in sexual activity with under-age students, for decades. These allegations date back as far as the late-1970's, when I was a student at Pittsford-Sutherland. And allegedly, to this day, virtually no one, no adult in a position of authority has been dismissed or reprimanded in Pittsford. However, I cannot speak to any alleged similar situations in Fairport, because I have not ever heard similar unethical behavior exists there.
So, if you want your children, your pride and joy, your students to have a real shot at a good life, with real educational and professional opportunities, as a parent, you could do a lot worse than Pittsford or Fairport. But like any educated consumer, especially when it comes to the future of your kids, be an educated consumer. Before enrolling your children, in any public (or private) school or school system, sit down with the Superintendent, Principals, teachers, and other parents who either presently have, or recently did have children attending the particular district in question, and ask lots of difficult, hard-hitting questions. After all, what and whom is more important than the future of your children?
-Christopher J. Wilmot,
Pittsford, NY
We'd like to hear from you!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please login (or create a membership login) and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" field. We ask that underneath your opinion, you provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. Only opinions that include full attribution will be approved by our authors. Thanks very much!
Click here to get email updates! |
|
Printer-friendly format
|
Member Opinions:
By: Keukasmallie on 1/27/10
As a retired Superintendent of Schools, I quickly identified a possible budget strategy in play in Fairport: Maximize the district's contingency funds then use them over a period of time to smooth the tax rate in response to the vagaries of state aid, sales tax revenues, etc. Have a nice rainy day cushion.... The problem occurs when the Superintendent and the BOE see the contingent funds increase over several years and decide to hold them even closer to the vest in anticipation of a "really big" need somewhere down the road. That approach usually backfires as it has done in Fairport. When the light shines under this rock, taxpayers get really cranky! Bob Fort, Fairport, NY
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
