“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),
(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:
