Date:
April 14, 2015 at 3:34:18 AM EDT
Steve,
1. The e-mails in response to my question to the
school division last week regarding the discrepancies between their "CCPS
adopted Budget for FY2015" and the "Appropriations Resolution"
passed by the Board of Supervisors last year are copied below this e-mail.
The relevant portion of their response has been inserted here for
convenience.
"We used a
draft of the county resolution. The county then updated that draft to
reflect the correct number; we did not, however, update our
document. We are in the process of updating the document and it will be
posted tomorrow with copies being sent to the public libraries."
2.
So, CCPS set no controls and performed no verification or proofreading to
be sure that they accessed the Appropriations Resolution passed by the Board of
Supervisors instead of a draft. We are two and a half months away from
the end of the fiscal
year that budget
governed, and "grandma" is the only one who noticed that not only is
the narrative copied from the draft appropriations resolution wrong, the
numbers for the appropriation totals and categories are wrong as well.
The "Transfer to and/or Assignment for School Capital Projects"
is $1.2M higher in the
CCPS adopted budget than the amount appropriated by the BoS,
for example.
3.
Take a look at page 107 of the CCPS Adopted Budget and the figures displayed
there for the broad categories of funds for FY 2015. They are yet another
set of numbers that do not match either the numbers on page 11 of the CCPS
Adopted Budget or the numbers in the Appropriations Resolution. I understand
that they left off a couple of the categories for FY 2015 on that page (food
service, grounds maintenance and transfer for school capital projects), but
most of the other appropriation categories do not match either. Perhaps
CCPS should be asked to footnote the differences or somehow explain to the
reader why those differences exist.
4.
I cannot understand
how the BoS can proceed to vote on a real estate tax rate and a budget on
Wednesday, April 15th, to provide millions of extra dollars to the school
division when there are unanswered questions raised by the budget documents
that are corrupted by these inaccuracies, as well as questions about why this
year's five- year plan shows so much more money to be provided the school
division than the "approved" five-year plan included in last year's
budget. The BoS has not clearly shown a "need" to
raise the taxes by increasing the 94-cent levy to 96 cents.
5.
How do you know what the effect of using the wrong budget figures has
been on other school division accounting issues? If the numbers in the
printed, adopted FY 15 budget are not the numbers used to populate the accounts
that control the spending, why not? How does CCPS justify not ensuring
that they are using the legally appropriated amount of funds? I consider
this to be a serious failure, especially
in light of other problems plaguing CCPS, such as--
a. all the audit findings with respect to construction
management (some of the same findings appear in three audits since 2008 (actual
date of audit)), school transportation and payroll, among others;
b. failure to use proper processes and perform adequate
analysis in the bus camera issue;
c. a complete fiasco surrounding the outsourcing of the
custodial services, including the failure to use past performance in the
evaluation factors for selecting the successful contractor (contact me if you need more information);
d. the security risk associated with releasing improperly
drafted solicitations and improperly marked school floor plans for the two
solicitations for custodial services (pilot and current);
e. failure to establish any quality control reporting
procedures for use by the eight schools with outsourced custodial services;
f. granting of special access to GCA Services prior to
soliciting offers;
g. paying GCA Services for more than $8800 of work not done
on a fixed price contract (documentation available) and not deducting anything
when work was not done;
h. questionable evaluation procedures that seem to result in
Moseley Architects and BCWH getting most of the A/E services contracts (per
August 2011 audit Moseley was awarded 40% and BCWH 32% of the dollars and
the two firms combined received 50% of the projects from FY 09 - date of audit
in August 2011). These same two firms have received four of five A/E
services contracts funded by the 2013 bond referendum. Earlier bond
referenda have resulted in these same two firms receiving most of the A/E
services contracts also.
i. nepotism
which may have contributed to CCPS trying to charge me more than $1100 to get
information on the failure of the wastewater treatment
plant at Matoaca High School on August 1, 2013 that was not
repaired until February 2015 and has cost
approximately $750,000; (My challenges to charges resulted in
zero payments.)
j.
the climate of fear that exists among the staff of CCPS with respect to
reporting improper actions of other staff members;
k. the failure to
respond to allegations of falsification of personnel records of the secretary
fired at Ettrick Elementary discovered after her appeal had been denied, and
the failure to properly address many other problems with the principal at that
school which has been in the State Improvement Program and has had oversight by
the Virginia Department of Education;
l. the failure to produce
justifications for the more than 170 vehicles that were being driven home daily
(commuting vehicles) and that were identified as a problem last year;
m. the maintenance of two separate specialty
centers (International Baccalaureate) at Meadowbrook and Midlothian which are
inefficient in use of teacher resources and require payment of double the fees
of a single center; (The diversity statistics at these two centers should raise
serious questions about the reason for these separate, inefficient facilities)
n. the use of differing yardsticks
at some of the high schools to hide the degree of overcrowding for several
years in the presence of vacant seats at nearby schools; (Look at the actual
numbers for Matoaca High and Thomas Dale High and ask why that inequity has
been allowed to exist; I have asked orally and in writing and have received no
answer.)
o. the millions of dollars lost as
reported in the audits because Construction Management will not set up a
procedure to avoid paying sales tax;
p. the failure to heed the warning
of the MGT of America Efficiency Review of March 16, 2010 that with respect to
the supplemental retirement program, "This
unfunded liability represents a significant challenge to the financial status
of CCPS and options for managing this significant long-term obligation should
be developed"; (Referring to the "baby boomers"
reaching retirement age in the next few years, the report stated, "The increased number of participants
will dramatically increase the cost of this program."
Action to close the program to new employees as of July 1, 2013 will not
effectively address the identified problem.)
q. the general failure to
understand the importance of discipline in dating documents, identifying
contact persons for documents, project management, documenting spending
decisions, explaining assignment of scores in evaluation matrices, using
appropriate evaluation factors in selecting contractors for negotiated
contracts, and the use of basic business processes;
r. the continuing use of false
statistics such as the 99.3% efficiency cited despite repeated, public notices
that no such statistic was cited in the MGT of America Efficiency Review--not
audit;
s. the full court press being used on
the media outlets in our area to stifle the reporting of the school division's
mishaps, failures and poor performance; (Just last week I received an
e-mail from yet another local media outlet sharing that Tim Bullis had asked
that if I gave that outlet anything that they were considering writing about,
the editor should let Mr. Bullis see what was provided first.)
t. the proliferation of programs
that have not been justified and the failure to establish adequate performance
measures to show that programs should have continued funding; (This was
a finding of a Curriculum Audit a few years ago and nothing much seems to have
changed.)
u. the unjustified use of expensive
outside speakers and professional development programs that teachers have
decried for years and the failure to recognize the experts within the ranks of
CCPS that could provide such opportunities for a much lower cost with greater acceptance;
v. the continued rental of venues such
as the University of Richmond, even with the opening of the CTC @ Hull;
w. the excessive compensation of
employees assigned to some positions as reported a few years ago and the
continued granting of raises to those in grades 39 and above based on
questionable justifications and despite the notable failures of many of those
in this group to perform at acceptable levels;
x. the failure to provide any
procurement training to Construction Management personnel and others who,
together, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars with little to no
understanding of proper procurement and contract administration procedures;
y. the failure to formally document
"lessons learned" from each major A/E and construction project and
use them in subsequent procurements; and
z. the apparent failure to establish
management indicators and reports that regularly allow comprehensive assessment
of the school division's performance and the failure to properly support many
of the recommendations and provide essential information to the Board; (One
example: The list of those seeking approval of their participation in the
SRP each year does not even contain the cost of the benefit for those people on
the list, so the School Board does not even know the impact of their approval
on the budget and the unfunded liability.)
6. There are more issues, but I have given you an idea
of the concerns. As a taxpayer, I
am outraged at the overwhelming evidence of the lack of competence of the
school division in almost every area--construction management, budgeting,
personnel, Community Relations--you name it and they have fouled it up.
You can be sure the rest of the community will be upset as well at
pouring more money into giving raises and other funding to the school division
with no consequences for such failures as those identified in this e-mail and
the references provided.
7. Once again, no one has explained why the five-year
plan shows increased revenues from last year to this year. Neither has
anyone combed through the budget for savings. CCPS claims in their budget
document to be using zero based budgeting. I am not sure they understand
what it is.
8. While teachers constantly lament many of the
"professional development" activities, the proposed budget for FY
2016 shows one added
position to HR - Professional Dev at $77,395
to bring the total up to 7 FTEs. I am sure the teachers could find a
better use for that money.
9. Other items of interest in the FY 2016 proposed
budget for schools:
a. Student
Services has added one FTE at $73,997
to bring their total to 62.
b. School Improvement has 8 FTEs
with an average salary of $75,676.
c. Communities in Schools shows an
addition of 7 FTEs at a cost of $371,642 with a salaries and wages supplement
of $12,500 which I
suspect is for a car allowance. Total budget for this item shows zero (0)
in FY 2015 and $518,561 in FY 16.
d.
Four FTEs in the Superintendent's office are costing us $877,230
($18,568 more than last year including a $5,000 increase for "Other
Salaries").
e. Accounts
950 and 951 for Community Relations show a total of $1,639,717
for FY 16. How
is that amount of money justified for people who are spending at least some of
their time contacting the media outlets in the area to try to shut down the
first amendment rights of certain citizens--namely Rodney and me?
10. I do not have the time tonight to continue to list
reasons why it is unconscionable to tax all the real estate owners to give as
much money to this school division as the BoS is proposing to do. We
citizens are questioning how the BoS has shown the "need" for the
increased appropriations for the school division. No doubt they want the
money, but the "need" for it when they are operating without controls
as documented above is certainly debatable. At what point will there be
any accountability? CCPS simply did
not produce a budget that matches the appropriations provided by the BoS last
year.
11. We are weary of the lies, obfuscations,
misrepresentations and lack of accountability for what our local government is
doing with our money. By the way,
we have not even gotten around to discussing the transfer of Deputy Circuit
Court clerks back and forth contrary to the provisions of the Chesterfield
County Charter and the waste of money there, including the return to a manual
system that triggered all kinds of bad results that, for the most part, have
been unreported to the citizens.
12. The bottom
line is that you need to delay the vote on the tax rate and the budget for two
weeks so we can find out what CCPS has really done with their money this year
and find out why the five-year plan is growing despite your
"agreement" which was not reduced to writing in a memorandum.
If you decide to raise taxes, at least do what you obligated yourself to
do last year on the record, and "give back the penny." Also, we
are calling upon you to be clear and unequivocal in making your motions.
The reduced tax levy is 94 cents. If you "give back the
penny," you are really increasing our taxes and you need to make that
clear in your conversations and your motions this year.
Respectfully,
Brenda Stewart
804.XXX.XX09
Brenda,
I have some more information
for you regarding this matter.
We used a draft of the county
resolution. The county then updated that draft to reflect the correct
number; we did not, however, update our document. We are in the
process of updating the document and it will be posted tomorrow with copies
being sent to the public libraries.
Thank you for bringing this
matter to our attention.
Deborah
Thanks, Deborah. Enjoy your weekend!
Brenda
Brenda,
I know that you talked to
Carol, but I wanted to respond to your question from late yesterday afternoon
regarding the FY 2015 Appropriations Resolution and the total appropriations
being different from what is on the county's website. To the best of my
knowledge, no changes or corrections have been done.
Deborah
--
Deborah
H. Salyer
Deputy
Clerk to the School Board
804-748-1897
Posts
