Transparency and Accountability continues to be neglected by Chesterfield County School Board

For the past several months, there has been an unraveling of sorts in transparency and accountability regarding the Chesterfield County Public Schools and their management and oversight of school construction projects.  It appears that the schools can estimate a building's cost high and take the difference and do what it wants without the oversight of the funding source (i.e., the Board of Supervisors).

The CCPS Superintendent, Dr. Marcus Newsome, continues to make CEO wages without risk or accountability to the Taxpayer.  Meanwhile, "no one is doing anything illegal and everyone is following the rules".

So there are several recent stories in the Chesterfield Observer and the Richmond Times Dispatch related to this iceberg of data and information that lurks just below the Chesterfield sea. 

The Board of Supervisors moved quickly to fix the problem real good in an election year with a Gecker Proposal which was adoption in a 5-0 vote.  (CYA in  full effect.)

But what is needed is context... some additional information that newspapers do not have the space to print... Here's a good example... where the antiquated public participation process that the school board uses decreases transparency and accountability.

From: Rodney Martin
Date: January 17, 2015 at 11:15:21 PM EST
To: Debra Girvin <debra_girvin@ccpsnet.net>, ce_coyner@ccpsnet.net, Dianne Smith <dh_smith@ccpsnet.net>
Cc: Dan Gecker <geckerd@chesterfield.gov>, wallerr@chesterfield.gov, Steve Elswick <ElswickS@chesterfield.gov>
Subject: 1/20/15 Providence Middle Community meeting and Upcoming 1/29/15 Manchester Middle Community meeting

Mrs. Girvin,
 I am writing to you to ask about a situation that is very perplexing to me.  I am directing this question to you as my Midlothian school board representative, and Mrs. Coyner as the incoming Chair of the CCPS board and Mrs. Smith as the outgoing Chair of the CCPS board, to determine the process used by the CCPS Board in setting the Providence Middle Community meeting date, determining the invitees of the Providence Middle Community meeting, and for advertising the Providence Middle Community meeting.  I would also be interested in hearing when the CCPS Board actually mailed or emailed particular invitations.

I, several other citizens, and an active group involved in national, state, and local Chesterfield politics, have scoured the CCPS website, BoardDocs, BoardDocs web pages, and even CCPS Facebook pages to locate the invitation to the community for this important community meeting.  I have also generally googled and searched the internet as well for this topic and reviewed all of the “calendars” in each of these pages and sources, including the homepage of Provident Middle.  Though it’s possible we could have missed it, I consider the individuals and groups I mentioned above as technologically savvy and highly engaged as it relates to the CCPS Board activities and actions.  Many of us, individually and as a group, have email contacts embedded in CCPS event announcement distribution platforms so as to remain informed about important events occurring in Chesterfield County government and schools.  If we have missed it, please direct us to the location where this open invitation came to the citizens of Chesterfield County, and especially, the Midlothian Magisterial District.  If we did miss it, why did CCPS make it so hard to find if the event is as important as CCPS indicated it to be?  

While I did hear reference to a meeting at Providence Middle at the CCPS Board meeting of January 13, 2015 (in the early 3PM session which requires me to leave work early to attend) from your finance director indicating that a community meeting was planned for January 20, 2015, that appears to be the only public announcement forum.  I and other citizens would have been grateful to have more than three business days notice to plan calendars accordingly for such an important event.   Also, I was extremely surprised to find that neither Midlothian Supervisor, Dan Gecker, nor Midlothian Planning Commissioner, Reuben Waller, had any knowledge of this meeting.  In fact, at the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors meeting of January 14, 2015, which I attended, Mr. Gecker sheepishly admitted to the public that neither he or Mr. Waller were aware of this meeting, nor, more disturbingly, were they made aware of the “community” meeting via invitation of any kind.  This reference can be found as part of the public record at the at 1:48:10 mark in the recorded version of the Board of Supervisors meeting of January 14, 2015.

I would like to observe that it appears highly unusual that the elected officials of the Midlothian District would be excluded from this event, though I understand that CCPS may not have realized I may be interested in this topic.  As you know, I have been an active participant over the last year in Chesterfield political process review, inclusive of the CCPS Board and Administration actions regarding schools.  If fact, many times vocal in disagreement with policy and sometimes in agreement with policy.  Beyond what you may think of me personally, or my belief in limited government and government transparency and accountability, I have a higher interest level in this event and process than the average citizen might for several reasons.  First, I live in Midlothian and, though all taxes I pay go to support the county at large, I clearly have vested interest in seeing how the allocated funds impact my community and district.  Second, I attended Providence Middle, though back in the day, and like other alumni recently celebrated at a recent CCPS Board meeting, I want to see this facelift successfully implemented with a reasonable process and budgeted guideline, unlike that occurring with CTC@Hull.  And, third, I want to make sure that the timelines previously represented to the people of Chesterfield for repairing and maintaining aging schools follow the process outlined when CCPS Board promoted the $304 million bond referendum, thereby maintaining the integrity of the promises sold to the people.

Moreover, and most importantly, the funds raised via debt in the public markets were part of a Comprehensive Plan that views revitalization of school surrounding communities as one of its key tenets.  I have yet to determine what this plan will exactly yield in terms of new free market investments in and around these schools.  Nor do I know exactly how this plan will truly and effectively resolve poverty in these areas, though I know each one of us as concerned citizens, business owners, taxpayers, and elected officials would like to cure or lessen poverty’s impact on those affected.  Neither the Board of Supervisors nor the CCPS Board has articulated how it sees these two questions being answered either nor has either board set forth a measurement stick or a process of how to measure this success on funds spent, if any, though I am hopeful that each has some type of analytical support.  But, what I do know is that when CCPS Board and Administration leave out citizenry and the elected or appointed officials responsible for governing the impacted area, you are dooming the process to complete and utter failure on all fronts.  Mrs. Coyner has opined and waxed poetic at liaison meetings, with citizens and press attending, that this is a crucial event for her and the county to combat poverty.  It is Mrs. Coyner’s number one priority as advocated by her at many an occasion and at many a function.  Moreover, she indicated the table needed to be open to everyone to address and combat this issue.  How then could CCPS condone this obvious snub by not inviting the people who will ultimately pay for these “government investments” in tax dollars handed over to the county and then appropriated to schools?  How then could CCPS condone excluding our elected officials who, by Virginia Code and Chesterfield Charter, have authority over the amounts and timing of funds to be allocated and appropriated to schools, after receiving input from and exercising the will of the people.  And, Mrs. Girvin, how then can CCPS condone this action and with a straight face tell the public and the Board of Supervisors via letter, as recently as January 9, 2014, that the CCPS Board and Administration are accountable and transparent?  Of course, as you and have discussed, they are neither transparent nor accountable.

It is continued actions like this that epitomizes the ongoing arrogance of the CCPS Board and Administration.  This action, coupled with the recent letter from CCPS to the Board of Supervisors discussed above (attached to this email and obtained via FOIA), continues to point to a CCPS Board and Administration that cares not for the citizenry, teachers, students, or other concerned groups watching these incompetent acts continued by CCPS.  The lack of public announcement and egregious attempt to not involve the public and their elected officials in this event (along with the above letter self-describing the CCPS Board and Administration as transparent and accountable) is a clear slap in the face to the intelligence of the constituents of the county.  Transparency and accountability are nothing more than canned jargon and sound bites used by CCPS, words they banter around for effect, but not true operating standards or guidelines.  It is clear their actions are anything but accountable and transparent.  Integrity should be the the gold standard, not manipulation, deceit, and obfuscation for the end all be all of increasing a budget or defending lack of process.

I feel compelled to copy Mr. Gecker and Mr. Waller since they were mentioned herein and obviously not invited.  I am also copying Mr. Elswick as he is now the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and has been a member of the liaison committee.  I expect that the rest of each board and each administrator will be copied but leave that action to each of the recipients herein as to what they believe the correct action there to be.  I expect, over time, the press will either see this letter, note that no meaningful community invite was provided, or hear this meeting occurred after the fact, eventually asking you and the other CCPS Board members why this path was taken.  A clear path of exclusion.
So I ask you again to answer my questions posed in the opening paragraph.  Please direct me to a meaningful public announcement of this event, if we the people missed it.  Specifically, an announcement that would have included the constituents that should be attending, their elected and appointed officials of Midlothian, and other ordinary Midlothian citizens like myself who have interest in seeing Chesterfield County move forward.

Respectfully submitted.
 Rodney Martin
  PS:  I know we have discussed the 99.3% efficiency rating CCPS routinely “quotes”.  KPMG did a normal and customary audit of the county.  It did not, and does not, measure the “efficiency” of CCPS.  Nor does, or did, MGT.  Each have told you this after citizen communication with those groups.
 

Then, the angst of the school board to fight to keep a lid on public participation.

Have you ever seen the rules to participate as a concerned citizen in a school board meeting? Here you go...

Following is the procedure by which the public may speak before the School Board:         

1. Persons wishing to be heard on action items must notify the Clerk’s office by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; they will be heard when each item is considered.
2. Persons to be heard on non-agenda items will be heard during the specified section of the meeting.
3. It is requested that an individual conduct his/her presentation in three minutes.
4. Speakers will be courteous and respectful in their remarks and will refrain from personal attacks and the use of profanity.
5. Speakers who have prepared written remarks or supporting documents are encouraged to leave a copy of such remarks and documents with the Clerk to the Board.
6. Speakers shall not discuss matters concerning the candidacy of any person seeking public office, including the candidacy of the person addressing the Board, or promote any private business venture. Speakers should also refrain from discussing matters made confidential by law, including but not limited to, matters within the attorney-client privilege, anticipated or pending litigation, matters related to specific, identifiable personnel or students, real property acquisition, or the pending award of public contracts.
7. Please note that the School Board does not generally respond to citizen concerns or questions during the Public Comment Period. When the School Board deems it appropriate, it will direct that a response from the Administration shall occur within a reasonable time after the meeting.

Do you know how much your Chesterfield County Public School "System" is out of control?

The Taxpayer must remain vigilant in the face of the school bureaucrats who seek to keep how our taxes are used and abused in the dark.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant for corruption, fraud, and waste.

Some media outlets get it and The Taxpayer is (beyond words) appreciative.

To follow up on the question... "Why the school system was allowed to build a multi-million-dollar tech center without having it formally approved and listed in its five-year capital improvement plan.", the Taxpayer submitted a Freedom of Information Act to get to the bottom of it.

We expect any criminal activity to be investigated and the consequences to be swift and full measure. At a minimum, the Board of Supervisors needs to rip a knot into this out-of-control School Board and School Administration. (Remember... you just stroked a $304 million dollar check to them last year.)


Subject: CCPS FOIA Request
Date: October 14, 2014
From: The Taxpayer 

The Taxpayer is providing this for the benefit of your clerk. It is not intended to change the date of our request or when legal receipt of our request should get to us. Our previous FOIA requests and your response thereto (though lacking) were noted again into the public record last night.

Via FOIA, The Taxpayer requests the following for CTE@Hull (or 21st Century Academy, old Clover Hill, or any other nomenclature CCPS has referred to the project) over and above the $9 million for HVAC:

1. Any and all CIPs presented by the superintendent / staff (“staff”) to the CCPS board and CIPs, if any, provided to the Board of Supervisors (“BoS”) via the County Administrator (“CA”) as required per County Charter, Section 5.2 and per the Virginia Code therein;
2. Staff presentations presented to the CCPS board, and accompanying work papers, supporting the lack of need to obtain Substantial Accord, per Charter and VA code, for a change to the use of this facility;
3. Any and all CCPS decision point documents or staff work papers that CCPS board used not to seek Substantial Accord, as required by law;
4. Staff presentations or work papers and CCPS acknowledgements (approvals) as to when the project went over the LTD Budget and where funding came from for over budget amounts given that G/L entries indicate $33 million versus $25 million (rounded) supposedly appropriated;
5. Given that CCPS provided PowerPoint presentations that $6.5 million was supposedly “funded” by savings on the new Clover Hill High School (“CCHS”), provide all staff presentations, analyses, and work papers and/or other CCPS board work product that supports these “savings”. NOTE that G/L ledgers show expenditures above the appropriated column of $70+ million and NO savings are shown; please show how funding was increased, with staff presentations, board approvals, or BoS requests and appropriation approvals, by $6 million from $70 million to $76 million, but funds were not spent after revenue increase.
6. Staff presentations, analyses, and work papers supporting how IDC lease, of $33 thousand per month, paid on a month to month basis, or $390 thousand per year, supports a $4.5 million funding source per the PowerPoint presentation to BoS Liaison and Budget and Audit committees; 
7. Staff presentations and legal opinions or position papers that support the legal position that projects can be funded with and by “savings” of other CIP projects;
8. All G/Ls or costing jobs from all projects (within or excluded from CIPs) that yielded savings to fund CTC@Hull project;
9. Provide all legal support and analyses, and/or work papers, that gives THIS board comfort that projects not in any CIP can be funded as such outside citizen purview;
10. Per Memo #64, dated August 9, 2011, provide when the “stakeholder” committee” was formed, who the members were, meeting dates, and supporting minutes and recommendations;
11. Provide any and all staff support, analyses, work papers, consultant work product, and / or other board documents that provides support for not selling property to use for other needed school CIP projects or that could support direct funding of frontline educational needs (like teacher pay) or reduce the CCPS unfunded liability of $70 million ($50 million in 2010 when MGT Report recommended action plan);
12. Provide support for which bond referendum the $25 million indebtedness now noted on the job appropriation report is allocated to, per citizen vote;
13. Provide the CIP and referendum data for question 12 as support and proof;
14. Provide any and all staff documents, consultant work product, or other board documents and analyses where the staff has addressed the recommendation to reduce or minimize the $70 million unfunded SRP liability in the MGT Report and by KPMG in the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report;
15. Please provide the a listing of all key administration positions and salaries of those presiding over both MGT Report (2010 to present) and CTC@Clover Hill projects (2007 to present);
16. Include the names of all CCPS school board members and their compensation in the same time frames; also present their Aye or Nay votes on these projects and timing thereof. 

Did you know what your County spent?

The Taxpayer remains ever vigilant.... and for good reason.  Why does The Taxpayer need more transparency from the county and school budget and procurement offices?

 

WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW CAN COST YOU!!

 
DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE CHESTERFIELD EXPENDITURES AND ACTIONS? 

SCHOOL DIVISION (CCPS)

 1.  Paid $533,309 (average more than $476 per hour) to two former superintendents (Bosher and Cannaday) whose contracts required they be available for consulting 10 days per year for seven years after they retired.   Kept them on school’s payroll issuing bimonthly checks although they were no longer employees, but independent contractors.  Value received by taxpayers for this expense: nothing that can be documented.  There were “some conversations” according to school officials.  Wouldn’t you like to get paid for conversations after you retire?

            a.  Amount to be paid to Superintendent Newsome under similar arrangement?  More than $310,000 ($775+ per hour or 163% of hourly rate paid to Bosher and Cannaday) based on Dr. Newsome’s 2013 salary.  Actual payout will be higher after adjustment for raises between 2013 and his retirement.

            b.  Superintendent’s contract also permits him to “moonlight” at consulting, writing, lecturing or public speaking while under contract to Chesterfield.

            c.  Your School Board’s response when this was publicly called to their attention:   According to Chairman David Wyman, “… he is worth every penny to our school system and to our community.”

            d.  Your School Board’s response when Dr. Doland and Mr. Wyman were asked to pull extension of the Superintendent’s contract from the December 2013 consent agenda for taxpayer to publicly address failure to revise contract language to require performance of the consulting work prior to payment:  NO!
 

2.  Continues a Supplemental Retirement Program (SRP) no longer justified and no longer affordable.  This locally funded program provides a benefit of 175% of final annual compensation in addition to regular retirement.  This benefit can be withdrawn in as few as five years.

            a.  SRP Trust Fund Contributions from FY 2005-2011 totaled $60.5 million.  MGT of America “auditors” (term used by CCPS) reported that the 2009 unfunded pension benefit liability of $59 million represented a significant challenge to the financial status of the School Division.  “The increased number of participants over the next few years will dramatically increase the cost of this program,” auditors reported.   By July 2012 the unfunded liability had grown to $72.5 million.

            b.  CCPS has the richest retiree health benefit in the region according to Superintendent Newsome and is committed to “maintain the richest benefits for our employees and retirees.”

            c.  In 2013 the School Board chose to ignore the auditors’ warning when it voted to continue the program for all except new employees joining the system July 1, 2013 or later.

              d.  Like County employees, CCPS employees essentially pay nothing toward their retirement.  The General Assembly required local taxpayers to fund raises to cover the changed procedure requiring contributions to the Virginia Retirement System to be deducted from employee’s checks instead of being paid by local governments.  Thus, 5% raises were granted to cover employees’ contributions.  Future percentage “merit” raises will cost taxpayers more, because base salaries increased to fund retirement contributions.

            e.  From information provided by County staff in 2013 during budget discussions:

            f.  Local share of the Virginia Retirement System’s needed funding is about $540 million for schools alone without including the Supplemental Retirement Program unfunded liabilities. 

            g.  Retirement of 180 employees generated liabilities of almost $19 million in 2011 alone.  “Auditors” reported that as baby boomers reach retirement age, the increased number of participants will dramatically increase the cost of this program.

THE SRP PROGRAM IS NO LONGER AFFORDABLE AND MUST BE DISCONTINUED.

3.  Spent almost $872,000 in 2011 for licenses, workbooks and technical support for intensive reading program to help students reading two or more years below grade level.  Spent approximately $16,000 for evaluation of program’s implementation.  FINDING:  23% of middle school and 42% of high school licenses not used.  WASTE:  Approx. $211,700 (more than $878 per license)

4.  For many years CCPS’ annual operating budget has included a $100,000 donation to the Chesterfield Public Education Foundation, a 501(c) (3) organization created in 1989.   Last year, the amount was $75,000.  Based on available records, CCPS has contributed approximately $1 million.

            a.  CCPS’ contribution in 2011 represented more than 35% of total contributions and grants received.  The Foundation paid its Director more than $93,200 plus benefits in 2011.  The School Board may, but is not required to contribute.  If the Board holds the opinion that any year’s appropriation is not sufficient to make the contribution, it may be discontinued.

            b.  Why isn’t it a higher priority to hire a teacher or two with this money than to donate it to a charitable foundation? 

            c.  A citizen’s request to publicly address this issue by pulling the appropriation from the Board’s consent agenda in December 2013 was denied by School Board Member Dr. Doland and Chairman, Mr. Wyman.

5.  The Superintendent engaged the services of a Richmond advertising firm to assist in developing a “brand” for the school system.  Schools are not selling Coke in a competitive environment; they are operating schools with mandatory attendance requirements, so why spend scarce money on developing a “brand”?         The Superintendent broke the procurement rules when he engaged the company, received an invoice and then began the paperwork for the purchase. The contract was cancelled after paying the firm more than $13,000.  Value received:  Nothing documented.

 

6.  The Superintendent invited Bill Bosher (former Superintendent of Chesterfield Schools) and Bob Mills of Moseley Architects to a closed School Board meeting in July 2010.  There reportedly to discuss possible uses for the former Clover Hill High building, the duo pitched their consulting proposal for the 21^st Century Academy based on a document with that date addressed to Dr. Newsome.  PROBLEM:   The Code of Virginia does not allow closing public meetings for that purpose plus these consultants who would later receive a contract that should have been competitive were given special treatment that prejudiced other potential consultants.  RESULT:   Dr. Newsome violated the Freedom of Information Act with respect to attendance at closed meetings and violated Virginia procurement rules.

             a.  After announcing its intention to award the contract to DecideSmart, a firm in which Bill Bosher and Lane Ramsey (former Chesterfield County Administrator), are partners, CCPS was reminded by the County Director of Purchasing that it had no authority to do that. 

            b.  Subsequently, the purchase was advertised very briefly and then awarded to DecideSmart.  The report produced was several months late, full of errors of all kinds, contained 42 pages of material from DecideSmart (including proposals related to programs already established by the Commonwealth of Virginia) and 46 pages of a photocopied report prepared by CCPS itself.  Several other pages of the report contained duplicate information.  For this, taxpayers paid $30,000, including $2,500 to reimburse Moseley Architects for items not listed in the purchase order.

            NOTE:  The County Director of Purchasing found it necessary to reiterate to CCPS the importance of having its personnel avail themselves of Purchasing User Training offered through Chesterfield University to “reduce the instances of unauthorized procurements.”  No record exists that training was done.

7.  CCPS had students turn out the lights during the school day to help save energy, but failed to properly consider energy costs for past school designs when evaluating proposals and selecting architects to design new schools and additions.

            a.  “Chesterfield’s two newest high schools have the highest energy costs per square foot, partly caused by their designs.”  The average costs per square foot for Matoaca High and Cosby High exceeded that of Midlothian High by 66% and exceeded the average of the other eight high schools by 31%.

            b.  David Wyman, vice-chairman of the school board … said, “I wouldn’t call it a design flaw because you have trade offs when designing buildings.  We seek a certain academic climate …” –but at what cost to taxpayers, Mr. Wyman?

            c.  The “energy manager for the county government and Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS) replied, ‘Buildings that are not energy efficient are an extravagance that we cannot afford.’  He declined further comment.” (Chesterfield Observer, New high schools have higher energy costs, July 22, 2009)

8.  The School Superintendent’s 2013 Leadership Conference on poverty cost more than $32,000.  Instead of using County facilities for the conference, CCPS rented the Sheraton Park South and incurred substantial costs for use of meeting space and microphones.  Meals were provided when they were not necessary given the time of the sessions.  The speaker’s fee was $19,000.

            a.  CCPS has a contract with University of Richmond to rent space and cater meals. 

            b.  These expenses are not necessary when there is space in Chesterfield’s buildings.

            c.  If CCPS truly values the teachers and the students, why not pay the best Chesterfield teachers who teach local students from low socio-economic (poverty) areas to share their insights with fellow teachers?  Local experience should be more valuable than experiences from long ago and far away.

9.  CCPS spent several hundred thousand dollars on lighting for auditoriums at two newly opened middle schools and said they were “just finishing the schools.”  Did they plan to be in the dark in the auditoriums for the first two years?  Audit reports have documented change orders for almost $167,000 caused by errors/omissions by the architect/engineering firm. Why are taxpayers paying for architect’s mistakes?

10.  CCPS purchased more than $4,000 worth of new furniture for someone at the Fulghum Center and then told employees to put buckets under leaks and cover computer and other equipment to protect it from the leaky roof. 

            Would taxpayers have considered it a priority to fix the roof first?  

11.  CCPS paid more than three times for essentially the same high school design.  Matoaca, Cosby and Clover Hill High are all built from the same basic design. These designs cost taxpayers millions.  The designs cost almost half a million extra because two contracts were let for part of the same design services at Cosby High.  The supposed credit claimed by CCPS was never documented. Documents do exist to show the double charge.  Outside auditors verified that the credit was never documented. 

            CCPS never explained why it did not choose to purchase the plans when Matoaca High was built even though it knew that other high school construction was planned soon.   

12.  CCPS fails to manage trailers parked at schools.  Even a quick comparison of the number of trailers parked at schools with the seats available and being used at each school will engender numerous questions.  See examples below from data for the 2013-14 school year.  Obvious question:  Why is there so much disparity in the number of trailers relative to the number of seats available and needed?

            Robius Elementary has 113 empty seats and NO trailers.

            Harrowgate Elementary has 102 empty seats and 4 trailers.

            Watkins Elementary has a 253 seat shortage and 3 trailers.

            Chalkley Elementary has a 146 seat shortage and 13 trailers.

Overall capacity existing in elementary schools:  27,003

Overall capacity needed in elementary schools:   25,997 

            Manchester Middle has a 112 seat shortage and 20 trailers.

            Falling Creek Middle has a 4 seat shortage and 14 trailers.

            Swift Creek Middle has a 15 seat shortage and 3 trailers.

            Salem Church Middle has 236 empty seats and 9 trailers.

            Providence Middle has 225 empty seats and 3 trailers.

            Midlothian Middle has 300 empty seats and 7 trailers.

            Matoaca Middle (both campuses) has 366 empty seats and 3 trailers.

Overall capacity existing in middle schools:  15,470

Overall capacity needed in middle schools:  13,914

            Matoaca High has a 66 seat shortage and 5 trailers.

            Cosby High has a 275 seat shortage and 9 trailers.

            Clover Hill High has a 125 seat shortage and no trailers.

            Chesterfield Community High has 295 empty seats and 9 trailers.

            Thomas Dale High & Annex has 553 empty seats and 6 trailers.

            Manchester High has 256 empty seats and 5 trailers.

Overall capacity existing in high schools:  19,931

Overall capacity needed in high schools:  18,471

NOTE:  Calculation of functional capacity in schools recently changed.  New capacity figures are shown here.  I am trying to get documentation on why and how calculations changed.  Matoaca High, e.g., was more than 120% of capacity, but is now shown as 104% because 270 seats were added to functional capacity.

ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS ALL HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH SEATS ON A COUNTY-WIDE BASIS—The seats are just not located where the students are.

The obvious question is how much can CCPS do to match the seats needed with the seats available to avoid unnecessary classroom additions and new buildings so money can be used for revitalization of older schools?

       

COUNTY 

 1.  Chesterfield spent approximately $1 million on consultants to help staff develop a new comprehensive plan that was essentially thrown in the trash.  County staff then developed a replacement comprehensive plan with helpful guidance from the Planning Commission.   That plan was adopted. 

            Who was held accountable for the waste of money on the consultants and for writing a contract that did not require an acceptable product to be produced before the consultants were paid?  NO ONE it appears.  Accountability—what’s that?

2.  Chesterfield has its own egregious example of a double dipper ($2 million + full county retirement and apparently 48 years of commuting at public expense), so be careful how you criticize the city of Richmond.  On Halloween 2013 Channel 6 news reported on double dipping teachers in Richmond.  From their news report:  “Bringing people back for decades after they retired is unacceptable,” Gray said. What are you going to do about it?

            a.  Government watchdog Paul Goldman said the problem is that the public accepts the practice of retirees going back to work and “double dipping” the system.  “The reason they keep trying to get away with this is because they think you don’t care and so far they’re the ones laughing all the way to the bank, aren’t they” Goldman said.  He called upon the citizens of Richmond to hold their elected leaders accountable for their actions.

            b.  A former Chesterfield fire chief who retired in July 1997 after 30 years of service is being paid approximately $100,000 on a part-time job he has held since his retirement about 17 years ago.  His title is Assistant to the County Administrator.  The County also has an Assistant County Administrator and three Deputy County Administrators. 

            c.  His part-time salary was more than $142,000 as recently as 2008.  Taxpayers have paid him approximately $2 million in addition to full retirement over the last 17 years on this part-time job.   According to county documents he is assigned a county vehicle that is justified based on the statement:  “I was issued a county vehicle in 1966.”

            d.  Concerned citizens who disagree with this blatant favoritism for former highly placed County officials need to inform Supervisors and the County Administrator and demand this money be spent more responsibly.

3.  Chesterfield leased County softball facilities at Daniels Park and Warbro Athletic Complex to a private entity that will profit from use of those facilities at unfavorable terms for taxpayers and failed to properly execute its responsibilities thereby permitting waste, potential fraud, and abuse to occur.

            a. Following actions are representative of many concerns that arose as a small group of concerned citizens investigated and advocated for the taxpayers as the initial lease of public softball facilities was renewed for the next five years.

            b.  County cancelled a 2010 concession contract that paid $16,000 annually two-thirds of the way through the contract and “negotiated” a payment of $6,000 for the eight months the contract was in force.

            c.  County turned these concessions over to a firm with NO CONTRACT in place for the remainder of the year and got no payment in return.  LOSS:  $10,000

            d.  County turned nine public softball fields over to a firm with NO CONTRACT in place and got nothing for four months despite having a contract awaiting approval that required $65,000 annual rent payments.  LOSS:  $21,668  Liability exposure with no written contract for more than 10 months:  Unknown

            e.  County, contrary to terms of contract awaiting approval, continued to pay water and sewer charges that were lessee’s responsibility.  Charges from 2010 through 2013 were not collected until July 2013 after public questioning.

            f.  County allowed Dominion Virginia Power to turn a Chesterfield account for electricity over to a collection agency because the firm operating public park facilities with no contract had not put the meter in its name as the contract required.

            g.  County failed to collect 2011 non-resident fees from lessee until July 2013.

            h.  County did not properly monitor lessee’s performance, kept almost no records of events with financial implications, and did not require performance of improvements required by the lease.

            i.  County files contain no valid attempts to develop pro forma model of potential for revenue by lessee as basis for valuing softball facilities.         

            j.  County replaced the initial lease (rent of $65,000 annually) with a five-year lease specifying rent of only $30,000 per year.  County files contain no documentation giving rationale for reducing rent.  Replacement lease also had more favorable terms and fewer required improvements.

LOSS OF RENT COMPARED TO FORMER CONTRACT:  $150,000 over five years

 

THE TAXPAYER BOTTOM LINE:  Failure of County to properly manage the process of soliciting proposals and administering the former lease, failure to properly develop a business case for leasing public facilities, and failure to properly evaluate relevant information and properly solicit and evaluate proposals for a second lease cost taxpayers far more than the $30,000 loss in annual rent.

            

COUNTY AND SCHOOL DIVISION (CCPS)

1.  VEHICLE USE AND COMMUTING

A 2013 final internal audit report reveals that 74 of 88 vehicles purchased for use 1.  VEHICLE USE AND COMMUTING by the Police Department were vehicles that are usually put into service one to two years after the purchase date.  The same audit report noted that 17 vehicles were put in service two years or more after the purchase date. Three of those 17 vehicles were put in service five years or more after the purchase date. 

            Reportedly, a County employee takes a large ring of keys and goes to the storage lot to start those vehicles just sitting there over the years.  Would you buy a vehicle several years before you needed it and leave it sitting in your driveway?  

            a.  County officials this year advised a taxpayer that problems with date entry had caused the report of a vehicle sitting for five years before being used, and that the Police Department had changed procedures.  The final audit was issued in February 2013.  A draft report was circulated among county managers prior to publication of the final report.  Why didn’t managers respond to the auditors to correct this information before the report was released?

            b.  Apparently, circulation of unfavorable information among the citizens gets attention that audit reports do not.

            c.  This audit report identifies on page 7 potential cost savings of $24 million for 454 vehicles that appear to be underutilized.

        d.  The report stated:  "Commuting privileges could not be evaluated during this audit so the volume of underutilized vehicles is most likely understated.” 

            e.  Despite an official County Policy (# 5-1) requiring Department managers to justify each employee's use of a County vehicle for commuting to and from work and to identify actual times the employee was called out after hours, when a taxpayer requested information related to commuting vehicles, the County’s response was that it would cost  $480 to pay for search costs. The audit reports that most departments are ignoring the policy (only 11% complied with auditor’s request for such information), and the data have not been collected as required.  The County is reporting 26 commuting vehicles (including 4 commuting outside the county), based on the mostly incomplete data collection.

            f.  Apparently, neither the failure of County Departments to provide data to internal auditors nor their failure to comply with written policies is a priority with the County Administrator.  More than one year after revelation of the serious noncompliance with County policies in a critical area, the County continues to insist that the taxpayer write a check for $480 to pay for compiling commuting vehicle information that the County is required to develop, but has not.

            g.  If the County Administrator does not support the work of internal auditors and does not require compliance with written policies on matters involving millions of dollars spent on vehicles—a publicly sensitive topic involving  assets widely vulnerable to abuse—then why should the taxpayers continue to fund internal auditors?

            h.  When the County Administrator does not know how many employees are commuting daily and why, but he knows he needs a bigger budget, are you convinced there is no where else to look for savings?

TAXPAYERS SHOULD INSIST ON AN INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.  (Internal auditors are of limited value because they are subject to undue influence from those being audited because those same people write the auditor’s paychecks.)

CCPS REPORTS 177 COMMUTING VEHICLES, but no records to support the justification for individual commuting privileges. 

            a.  Responses to taxpayer’s requests for documents revealed that general justifications for commuting have not been reviewed since 2010.  Those documents included incomplete analyses based on faulty data that does not withstand examination.  General justification for granting so many commuting privileges included costs of not commuting that cannot be substantiated.

            b.  Data provided on emergency callouts were from 2009.  Specific examples using a locksmith living in Powhatan County were incomplete.  It appeared that three locksmiths commute daily (240 days per year) to respond to an average of approximately 2.25 emergencies per month (2009).  No one did the math to identify the cost of having three people commuting 720 days per year to answer approximately 27 calls per year.  The “Efficiency Committee” did calculate that it cost 35 cents per mile for employees to commute in light and heavy trucks and vans, but used 50 cents per mile as the figure for reimbursing those using a privately owned vehicle to answer an emergency call.  When you do the study, you apparently get to pick the numbers you need to prove your chosen result.

            c.  From documents associated with the same audit report already referenced, “School Board will not participate in study” appeared under the heading “Justifications received from Departments.”  The reason for declining should be apparent.

2.  LAND PURCHASES FOR SCHOOLS

              a.  While appraisals are sought for some properties, others that cost much more lack appraisals.  Although the Real Estate Assessor valued a property purchased as part of the site for the new Clover Hill High School at $37,200, the School Board approved paying more than $500,000 for it, including the cost of options. 

            b.  Who can justify writing a check for $5000 to extend an option and then paying twice the option price for 12 acres of land that another County Department valued at $37,200?  Apparently your local government can.

            c.  The County still owns 6.644 acres next to Cosby High School that was not needed according to some official documents, but was purchased anyway.  It cost taxpayers approximately $227,000.  Taxpayers also paid for an expensive road on the Cosby High site that appears useful primarily to developers. 

3.  APPARENTLY TERMINATED LAND PURCHASE ASSOCIATED WITH RENOVATION OF MATOACA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITHOUT DOCUMENTED JUSTIFICATION

            a.  As documented in the landowner’s personally delivered letter dated November 12, 2013 to Superintendent Newsome, a proposed purchase of land reportedly needed to renovate Matoaca Elementary was initiated in 2010 by CCPS and apparently terminated in September 2013 with no formal notification to the landowner.

            b.  In 2012 CCPS reported that the School Board desired to purchase the property for expansion purposes.

            c.  The landowner signed a contract presented by the County on September 21, 2012.

            d.  At least three separate times this proposed land purchase was submitted for consideration as an agenda item by the Board of  Supervisors.  Three times the agenda item was pulled with no clear documentation to establish the reason.

            e.  On August 1, 2013, CCPS wrote “… my board has not decided what they want to do.  By that I mean weather (sic) to build new on a new site or rebuild on the existing site.  Stay tuned.”

            f.  On September 12, 2013, CCPS wrote, “… the school division is not currently interested in purchasing the (name deleted) residence …”.

            g.  The current presentations on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) from CCPS show that the renovations to Matoaca Elementary will be done on site.  The landowner’s property was previously described as necessary for the expansion/renovations.

            h.  Superintendent Newsome has yet to respond to the landowner’s November letter asking that CCPS either purchase the property or return the contract she signed.

THE TAXPAYER BOTTOM LINE:  CCPS and the County have wasted enough time and money to have already paid for this small piece of property reportedly needed for renovations to Matoaca Elementary.  The proposed CIP contains $3 million in planned spending for the next two years.  

There’s a lot more; but, these bureaucrats want to keep you in the dark.  The Taxpayer will no longer be led by one or two budget directors with a candle in the dark morass of each budget cycle.  We will let the sunlight into the process and finally see where the county checks go and for how much OR we will replace our representatives to do so.