Thursday, May 17, 2012

Dinnen dreams . . . will the Board be duped?

“A budget is a dream; accounting is a reality.”
FC Superintendent Dinnen
FC Budget Hearing
May 14, 2012

At FC, the only “dream” associated with the budget is that administrators “dream up” what appear to be acceptable budget numbers.

Unfortunately for our students, staff, and taxpayers, the “reality” has been the prior boards’ unwillingness to question the numbers and irresponsibly permitting the administrators’ deception . . . year after year.

This year may be different.

------------

Fort Cherry School Board is in the process of preparing the 2012-2013 budget.

Last week, board members asked the board secretary/business manager, Paul Sroka, for a breakdown of “line item expenditures”. 

Line item expenditures are vitally important in the budget process as they give a true picture of exactly how the budgeted money was spent.

Line item expenditures will break down the amounts shown in the “PROJECTED” column of the budget.  (The “PROJECTED” amount is the actual amount of money expended.)




Showing how much money was spent, and what the expenditures were for, will enable the board to see where cuts can be made.

This blog has repeatedly shown how the administration wastes taxpayer money.  A breakdown of line item expenditures will make that wasteful spending evident.

During this year’s budget hearings, Dinnen stated that if money is not available in a specific line item, then Sroka does not permit the expenditure.

This post will prove that to be untrue.


The 2012-2013 Preliminary Budget

The Preliminary 2012-2013 budget includes approximately $37,635 for travel.

The board needs to take a good hard look at the money budgeted for travel.

In what they claimed was an effort to save the district money, in June 2011 Dinnen and Sroka recommended that the district furlough teachers and cut vital programs.  The board agreed.

At the same time, Dinnen vehemently argued to keep the travel budget virtually intact.  The board agreed.

The 2011-2012 travel budget gave the administration over $40,000 to party and play.

So much for saving the district money!

Immediately after furloughing teachers and cutting programs, Dinnen, Craig, and Jack Okorn, the Technology Coordinator, spent close to $3,000 on a five-day trip to Philadelphia to attend an International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) conference.

What is ISTE? 

ISTE’s website defines the organization as “the premier membership association for educators and education leaders engaged in advancing excellence in learning and teaching through innovative and effective uses of technology.”  http://www.isteconference.org/ISTE/2011/about_us/

The expense reimbursement forms for the three administrators, Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn, are shown below.  

A few things to note on the reimbursements:

1.  The Account Codes

All three split the cost of the trip between these two codes:

10-1100-580-212-10-200

10 General Fund – 1100 Regular Instruction – 580 Travel – 212 PA Accountability Grant – 10 Elementary – 200 Elementary School Building

10-1100-580-212-30-800

10 General Fund – 1100 Regular Instruction – 580 Travel – 212 PA Accountability Grant – 30 Secondary – 800 Senior High School Building


What do those numbers mean?

This is why line item expenditures are so important.

Instead of the trip coming out of the respective budgets of Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn, the three dipped into the Accountability Block Grant money (code 212) that was designated to be used by our teachers for “Regular Instruction” (code 1100).

In other words, money that should have gone to the children’s education was used by the administration to party and play.

Was administrative travel a valid use of ABG money?

Travel is not part of the description of the initiatives of the ABG found on FC’s website.

Is it possible that the state does not permit ABG money to be used for administrative travel?

That would explain the dubious coding.

The state allocated ABG money to be used to improve student achievement, using basic initiatives, like tutoring and extra instruction for struggling students.

Instead of spending the money on the basic initiatives for our students as directed by the PDE and outlined on FC’s website, FC administrators spent the money on themselves
 
Did administrative attendance at the five-day conference improve student achievement?

Did the administrators return from Philadelphia with anything of use to our children?

How should Accountability Block Grant (ABG) Funding be used? 

According to the PA state website, “The ABG funding should be allocated for expenditures directly related to improving student achievement, including but not limited to: learning materials and resources; instruction (including salaries and benefits, where permitted) consistent with the13 limitations in sections 2599.2(b) and (e) of the ABG legislation; professional development (including coaching); technical assistance; strategic partnerships with community organizations, universities and parents and direct services to students.”


What are Fort Cherry’s initiatives for the ABG?

According to FC’s 2010-2011 Annual Report to the Community, “The Accountability Block Grant is a state-funded initiative that provides funding to a school district to be allocated to eleven different educational initiatives.”

“In general, the Fort Cherry School District has allocated its funding to the following strategies:
·         Tutoring Before/After School (grades 7-12),
·         Intensive Instruction for Struggling Students During the School Day
(grades 7-12),
·         Science and Applied Knowledge Skills (grades K-12),
·         High School Reform (grades 9-12),
·         New Curricula/Course Offerings (grades 7-12),
·         Social and Health Services (grades 7-12),
·         and Research-Based Improvement Strategies (grade 1).”


2.  Wasteful Spending

Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn took separate vehicles to Philadelphia, costing the district $1833.11 in mileage, tolls, and overnight parking fees.

·        1,926 miles @ $0.51/mile             -  $982.26
·         tolls                                                  -  $115.85
·         parking @ $49/night                      -  $735.00

Driving one vehicle would have saved the district $1,222.

3.  Who’s doing the math?

On the 2011-2012 budget, the line items for REGULAR INSTRUCT CONFERENCE/TRAVEL – BLOCK GRANT indicate that  FC spent $311 for elementary and $813 for secondary travel under the Accountability Block Grant from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.



The budget shows actual expenditures of $1,124 for REGULAR INSTRUCT CONFERENCE/TRAVEL – BLOCK GRANT.

The reimbursements show actual expenditures of $2,856.96.

The $1,124 budget number should match the $2,856.96 submitted by the administrators in June 2011 for reimbursement.  (Dinnen spent $854.07; Craig, $1,003.41; and Okorn, $999.48.)

Line item expenditures, like those requested by the board this year, would show that the administration actually spent $1,732.96 more than reported as spent in the budget.

Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn were all fully reimbursed, even though Dinnen stated that if money is not available in a specific line item, then Sroka does not permit the expenditure.

The reimbursement checks issued to the three administrators are shown beneath their reimbursement forms below.


4.  Repeating the Pattern of Waste

In June of 2010 the three went to Denver, Colorado, for the 2010 ISTE conference.

They spent $4,913.76 of ABG money.  The expense reimbursement forms for those expenditures are also shown below.

As in 2011, the budget shows a “PROJECTED” total of $1,124 actual expenditures from the two line items.  The administrators spent $3,789.76 more than reported as spent in the budget.



 
------------
Sroka reimbursed the administrators, even though Dinnen stated that if money is not available in a specific line item, then Sroka does not permit the expenditure. 

Money that should have gone to the children’s education was used by the administration to party and play.

Student Success is our #1 Priority, but is Student Success the Administrators’ #1 Priority? . . . it does not appear so.
------------


5.  Documentation
 
Dinnen 2011:





Craig 2011:



Note:  FC Open Records Officer, Paul Sroka, released the address of a public school employee on the document below.  In order to comply with the law, the authors of this blog redacted the address.


Okorn 2011:





Dinnen 2010:



Note:  FC Open Records Officer, Paul Sroka, released the address of a public school employee on the document below.  In order to comply with the law, the authors of this blog redacted the address.


Craig 2010:



(The bottom of this reimbursement form was omitted from the RTK response.)


 
Note:  FC Open Records Officer, Paul Sroka, released the address of a public school employee on the document below.  In order to comply with the law, the authors of this blog redacted the address.
 
Okorn 2010: