The second document is the Special Education Cost Fact sheet. Worth reading as it describes the formula that Hartford uses to reimburse Cheshire Special Education Costs. The formula uses the LEA (per pupil cost) calculated by Hartford. This is the annual "We spend in the bottom 15% but score in the top 15%" argument used every year. The PPC for 2010-2011 is $11,761. This number is garbage. The PPC is garbage but I will discuss PPC in a separate topic. Just know that Hartford calculates it and it's the basis of reimbursement for Cheshire.
Interesting thing here is that, in some years, BOE's have eaten Special Ed cost overruns from it's operating budget while TC's used the reimbursement to prop up the rainy day fund to the tune of $516K ($512,850 over the last 5 years):
I find it ironic that this year, the Special Ed shortfall is ~$500K which is almost the amount of 'surplus' the Town has socked away from reimbursements over the years.
I was told that by law, special education reimbursements are supposed to go to the BOE. I'm certain this will get resolved as the BOE/TC discusses the Special Ed issue soon.
Then, there's the situation whereby TC's have taken reimbursements from Hartford to prop up "Surplus" but don't use it cover the special education shortfalls in BOE Special Ed accounts. This is not necessarily a malicious thing but I think it goes to show that there's no such thing as "free" money especially when it comes to grants.
21 comments:
Tony,
The town should not be allowed to keep this money if it is reimbursement of BOE funds for SPED. Please keep us posted on what happens with this.
How about this years pool use fee? Will the town reimburse the BOE part of the monies paid to use the pool since the swim teams can no longer use it?
"I find it ironic that this year, the Special Ed shortfall is ~$500K which is almost the amount of 'surplus' the Town has socked away from reimbursements over the years. I was told that by law, special education reimbursements are supposed to go to the BOE. I'm certain this will become clarified as the BOE/TC discusses the Special Ed issue soon."
I'm sure Mr. Schrumm will fight tooth and nail to keep that money away from the BOE. Maybe the State Attorney General needs to know about this.
I'm assuming that like the rest of the budget process, the Council adopts a budget in April and the state determines funding levels after the budget is adopted. If so, a Council vote would be required to move that money (via a supplemental appropriation) to the BOE. But I may very well be missing something.
Did the BOE ever vote to request that money from the Council? I don't recall ever voting on any special ed money in the past five years.
Did the Sptd ever ask the BOE to request the money from the Council?
And when the account was underspent, did the BOE attempt to return the money to the Council or to the state special ed account?
Boy that post by Tim White sounds like typical political speak to me. The BOE never asked for that money, so it's OK for the TC to sock it away and cut their budget at the same time? Sounds more like criminal negligence on the part of the TC. If the BOE does not DEMAND that money now, their days in office are numbered too.
Misuse of funds! This has more stink on it than the bad design of the town pool.
Let's see some editorials about this issue. I can't wait to see the TC try to squirm out of this one. Man up and put the money where it belongs, in the BOE budget.
"Did the BOE ever vote to request that money from the Council? I don't recall ever voting on any special ed money in the past five years."
Well, actually you did when you voted on the allocating funding for BOE budgets. Surely...with your involvement in finance, you must've have known about Special Ed reimbursement money. Doesn't the town audit it's books and tracks sources of revenues/expenditures?
Hmm...over the last 5 years I don't recall the town council ever letting the public know they were fluffing up the town kitty with special education reimbursement money, either.
What other reimbursements does the town receive that we don't know about? And where does it go? Me thinks the public will be taking a closer look at town 'surpluses'.
If the money is there...and it's supposed to go to the BOE...what's the problem?
If there's questions about accounting procedures in town, I'd say the one to question is the Town Manager.
actually you did when you voted on the allocating funding for BOE budgets.
I disagree. If that were the case, then it'd be included in the total dollars given to the BOE annually. But Tony is bifurcating the SpEd dollar amount. That bifurcation is based on the assumed amount (assumed as of April each year) that is effectively buried in the BOEs annual operating budget... and the actual amount (actual as of June each year, after the state adopts a budget and there are no longer any assumptions).
Since Tony's number is not included in the annual operating budget, then it would require a vote by the Council for a special appropriation.
Tony's underlying point is a legitimate policy question.
But when he uses phrases such as "sock away" and "prop up," it suggests that the Council made a conscious decision to keep the money. I disagree. Suggesting "negligience" is fair though.
But that gets back to a related issue... the back scratching that is ongoing between the CEOs for the Town and Schools. My guess is that they were comfortable not pushing this issue for several reasons, including that the failure to raise the issue made them both look good in different ways (TMs supposed financial prowess was reinforced by way of the surplus & the Sptd lived within his budget). So both are given credit for the past five years by their respective boards. And now that things get tough, it ends up being a contest among the elected officials... with everyone letting the CEOs -- and their probable failure to escalate the issue -- off scott free. Or I may be wrong. Perhaps the CEOs escalated it to their respective Chairs... and the Chairs poo-pooed it annually. I really don't know. But I think for this conversation to have real value for the community, everyone needs to know what happened "behind the scenes." Then, depending on those answers, Tony's suggestions about "propping up" and "socking away" money may be relevant. But I'm guessing the suggestions are not relevant because this stuff probably never got to the full BOE & TC.
And as for the two CEOs pattern of failing to bring forward potentially relevant information, it's not right. But as a voter, it's really the elected officials -- and their failure to hold the two CEOs accountable -- who must be held to account for inaction by them.
Again though... Tony's underlying point about the additional funding could be a constructive policy debate among the 16 office holders.
Doesn't the town audit it's books
yup. And the last time I looked at the BOEs "audited financials" (which are included in the town audit), I learned that the numbers in the Audit were unrelated to the budget adopted by the BOE. Instead, the Sptd arbitrarily put in his own numbers.
I've been told that the law requires that the BOE approve the budget. If that's not the law and the BOE does not have final say over the budget, it seems pretty pointless to have a BOE.
Uh oh...Tim got spanked and doesn't like it. So tell us Tim, having been on the audit committee and a member of the TC for some time...how is it that you can't answer the question about how Special Education reimbursement money is handled within the town's finances? If the money didn't make it's way to the rainy day fund, then where did it go?
" the BOE does not have final say over the budget, it seems pretty pointless to have a BOE."
Well the backwards way the TC imposes it's will on the BOE does make the whole process seem futile. The TC ignores the BOE and the parents. They don't work with the BOE the way they are supposed to. The TC is one-sided and close-minded. That's what you get when you elect them during off-year elections. They are elected by a small minority of the town.
"Uh oh...Tim got spanked and doesn't like it."
Tim didn't get spanked and that's not the intent of the this topic. Tim has a perfectly legetimate point:
"Again though... Tony's underlying point about the additional funding could be a constructive policy debate among the 16 office holders"
Yes. During the 12/2/2010 BOE meeting, I requested a meeting between the TC Finance and BOE finance committees so we could begin working out the shortfall issue. It's not a simple matter of moving $$$ from point A to point B but a longer-term issue on how to plan for and process future special ed cost overruns.
We're waiting for the item to be put on the TC finance committee agenda.
Did the BOE ever vote to request that money from the Council? I don't recall ever voting on any special ed money in the past five years.
This current BOE has not, not yet anyway. Dr. Florio indicated to me that neither he or any BOE during his time as Superintendent asked for more special ed money.
Did the Sptd ever ask the BOE to request the money from the Council?
To the best of my knowledge, and per Greg, no. He's always tried to manage the shortfall within the operating budget. Perhaps that was a mistake. Not so much managing to the budget but not escalating the issue as it occurred.
Obviously, it's not something that could've gone unnoticed between the Superintendent and Town Manager. I think resolving this between the BOE and TC is the way to go.
If the money didn't make it's way to the rainy day fund, then where did it go?
Thank you Tony for your defense. But I'm sure it is in the rainy day fund. I didn't address that because it seemed obvious to me that's where it went. My bad since it's not obvious to everyone else.
Anyway, my point was simply to add context to the main issue. I'm a believer that context is important.
Obviously, it's not something that could've gone unnoticed between the Superintendent and Town Manager. I think resolving this between the BOE and TC is the way to go.
I absolutely agree on both counts.
So you're already going down this path. I think the discussion will be worthwhile. But as the Council & BOE proceed with this discussion, I hope that all similar situations are considered.
For example:
1) is it only the special ed fund that is considered in this case? How do you treat other school funding sources that were estimated at X dollars in the April budget, but got less than X dollars from the state in June? Are all such funding sources to be considered in this supplemental appropriation? Should the five year difference on ECS funding be included in the supplemental appropriation request?
and
2) Going forward, will the BOE be looking to return money to the town or state whenever the April Council budget is higher than the June state budget? Or vice versa?
I don't expect answers here, but I think the BOE should ponder those thoughts before requesting the money.
I think either side has a legitimate rationale (under the current framework, the Council avoids budgetary volatility which has value). But I also think the BOE / TC agreement / policy should be consistent across all similar funding sources.
And from the perspective of both technical and timing concerns... more than $350,000 can only be moved via the operating budget or with voter approval at referendum. So I doubt you'll see a supplemental appropriation of $500,000 being transferred to the BOE in the next six months. Without a referendum, it'd have to be less than $350k.
What's the point of having this huge rainy day fund if no one is ever willing to spend any of it? All we've heard for the last three years is how bad things are. If it'd so bad isn't it raining. Last year schrumm said it was for when earthquake hit rt 10! Slocum said we would have to use some this year in one of the last budget meetings. I think the chairman needs to be held to his word. I'd like to know what they think this fund is actually for.
9:22 I agree. The superintendent has stated that the next few years will NOT see the increases that have been for the past few years, so it would seem that just getting through this year will be the major challenge.
9:22 & 11:56
The rainy day fund was never meant to off set shortages in the education budget or any other departmental shortfall. If that were the case, then we would have used it all up by now and if a catastrophe happened in our town, we would be in serious trouble.
I feel we need to tighten the belt and deal with the shortfall the way everyone else does, make the difficult cuts and learn to live with them.
I wish people would stop the crying about how the BOE and/or TC don't support education. Their idea of support is giving the superindendent everything he is asking for without questioning. Perhaps those are the same parents who give their children everything they are asking for and spoiling the heck out of them.
Perhaps they should call the fund something besides a "rainy day" fund. Too many people look at that as found money and just want to spend it to cover their normal bills.
That's not what it was ever meant for.
"I wish people would stop the crying about how the BOE and/or TC don't support education."
How would we know if the BOE supports education, this TC doesn't give them the funds they need.
"Perhaps they should call the fund something besides a "rainy day" fund. Too many people look at that as found money and just want to spend it to cover their normal bills."
There is nothing "normal" about this current economic situation. The fund is surplus money which is nice to have, but if you want people to believe that it is strictly for use in the event of a catastrophe you think the voters are fools. The fools are those who elected the current TC.
Here's a simple way to look at the BoE budget proposal. It's sort of like a wish list. You put as much on the list as you can knowing that you'll get a bit less.
Too many people think just because the super asks for a certain amount that he should get it. They're a bit too gullible and apparently haven't studied the budgets in years past ( what was requested & approved vs what was actually spent).
I think we need a compromise from all parties involved.
"I think we need a compromise from all parties involved."
Agreed.
Post a Comment