Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

My comments at the 2/13/12 CCS board meeting

I want to talk about Report 6.1, Update re: Budget Amendment Q-2.

I am concerned about the way this new budget amendment was prepared and some of the data in the board packet.  I understand the new Finance Director, Mary Beth Rogers wants to format the reports in a way that is comfortable for her and that makes sense. 

What was in the board packet before it was taken down by the district did not have any history on it.  The budget has not been prepared in this format to my knowledge in the past and the budget does not compare this year’s original budget to the new format of the finalization of the budget with more than half of the data already in.

I discovered what appears to be incorrect and concerning data.

  1. Workers compensation was noted, but had zero dollars for the amounts.
  2. Substitute wages were listed twice for most of the school levels.
  3. The Board of Education expenditures included $116,000 in legal expenses and $24,000 in other professional services.  I am interested to know what those $140,000 needed to be spent on as I don’t recall that high of expenses in past years..
  4. Executive Administrative expenditures included:
    1. $62,000 for an administrative assistant,
    2. $67,000 for your secretary
    3. $59,000 in postage,
    4. And $11,000 in dues, fees, and subscriptions.
    5. I would like to know how much was spent in those categories in the last three years to compare how high those expenses are to historical data because I believe the expenses are high and I believe that the administrative assistant is a new position. (Actually, the administrative assistant position is Dr. Rock's secretary, Heidi McClain at $62,000.00/year.  The apparent new position is "secretary" at $67,000.00/year.)   Was that approved by the board?          

I also want to talk about Discussion item 7.1, Ballot Language for May 8, 2012 Special Election for the $20 million dollar bond request. 

I know that the district was explaining to the public after the January board meeting that if the bond was approved and the bond interest expenses increased or taxable values of the district decreased or did not go up by the percentages assumed in the bond estimates, that the second and third bond amounts would be adjusted downward in order to prevent going over one mill.  I didn’t then and don’t now believe that was possible to do.

I don’t see that financial information in the current board packet that shows that the district is still saying that they will do that and I hope that it will be addressed tonight and wonder why the district has backpedaled on those statements.    

No comments:

Post a Comment