Board of Education and Administration Launch WMD

It was very interesting, even mildly entertaining, to watch the board and administration continue their increasingly discredited attempts to confuse and hoodwink the voting public in their most recent rendition of the Adopt-A-Budget-Blues program. The predictable comments from the administration were followed by the even more predictable comments by board members and the required appearances by staff expressing their unyielding support for this charade. What sets this year’s performance apart from prior years is, at the special request of the administration, a guest appearance by the district’s independent auditor to not only repeat but expound on the WMD (weapons of mass distraction) launched by the administration. While this auditor initiated his discussion with a definitional lecture on the word fact; he would have been more honest had he provided the definition of obfuscation which is what he and the administration continue to engage in. Obfuscation is the concealment of meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. Despite the teary-eyed pleas of several board members and the righteous indignation expressed by others, the performance is not likely to garner even an MTV Real World award. As you have read many times on these pages: GET THE FACTS for yourself. The documents are either provided here or links are provided here for you to access the original documents. You do not need to have the information spoon fed to you by the administration or anyone else. Make up your own mind. You are free to review the posts here and review the original documents and decide for yourself. Some things to keep in mind: Mrs. Becker claimed (on multiple occasions) that the Board could not simply transfer money from one account to another or from one year to another or they would go to jail. Mr. Simmons characterized this claim as moving funds “willy-nilly”. THE FACTS: that were presented to you came directly from the 07-08 CAFR that clearly states that the board not only can and does, but must approve both transfers from one account to another (for a variety of reasons) and from one year to another (again for a variety of reasons). There is no attempt to question the nature of these transfers, but rather to point out the blatant factual error of Mrs. Becker’s original statements. [Notes to Financial Statements, Items: 2B1, p54; 2E, p57 and 4, p64 of 07-08 CAFR] No one has disputed the Independent Auditor’s qualifications or dedication. So it’s curious that he felt it necessary to spend more than 10 minutes enumerating these items in his guest appearance. Neither did anyone suggest that the district performed the audit themselves. THE FACTS: The district budgeted one amount ($38,000) for ‘Audit Fees’ and then during the year transferred an additional $35,000 into that account. The question was: Did we spend more than $35,000 over budget on audits and if so what for? [Exhibit C-1, page 89 of 07-08 CAFR] Similarly the district budgeted one amount ($247,000) for ‘Legal Services’ and during the year transferred an additional $77,894, into that account. Again, the question was: Did we spend more than $77,000 over budget on legal services and if so what for? The administration is attempting to create misleading, non factual statements regarding the child nutrition losses by claiming that the numbers they published say something other than what is stated in the report. THE FACTS: Operating Loss for Child Nutrition is listed as $889,751; for ETTC $50,219. [Exhibit B-5, Page 47, 07-08 CAFR]. The administration’s mouthpiece also claimed that ‘a resident’ stated that $50,000 in assets were purchased for the ETTC in the year that they lost $50,000 from operations. No such claim was made by anyone but the Independent Auditor. THE FACTS: The ETTC realized an Operating Loss of $50,219 for the year ended June 30, 2008. [Exhibit G-3, page 135, 07-08 CAFR]. $57,586 worth of Building Improvements were made to the ETTC. [EB Public Schools GASB 34 Fixed Assets Schedule.] The independent mouthpiece for the district finished his presentation with the biggest obfuscation of all when he tried to explain away the financial maneuverings of the General Fund Balance. He equated the district's fund balance to that of a homeowner and indicated that the only real difference is that a homeowner's budget is small and the district's budget is more than $100 million. THE FACTS: The homeowner generally has one source of revenue (or income) and that is what the household earns from working. The district has primarily two sources of revenue (or income): what they receive in aid from the state and what they collect from taxpayers. The homeowner can't go to their employer and say "I think I will need an extra $40,000 next year for expenses." The district can, AND DOES go to the taxpayers and say "I think we'll need an extra $3 million next year." The district ended the 2006-2007 fiscal year with $11,967,501 in the General Fund Balance. [Management Discussion and Analysis, p28, 07-08 CAFR] The tax levy collected by the district from property taxes increased $8,118,314 for the 07-08 fiscal year. The district raised your taxes $8 million even though they had nearly $12 million left at the end of 06-07. [Changes in Fund Balances, p152, 07-08 CAFR; Local Source Revenues, p33, 07-08 CAFR] The district ended the 2007-2008 fiscal year with $14,904,957 in the General Fund Balance, an increase of $2,937,546 over the amount at the begining of the year. They raised your taxes nearly $3 million MORE THAN THEY HAD TO. The district can do this and get away with it, the average household can't simply say "I'd like to have more money in the bank at the end of the year so my boss has to pay me more." [Managements Discussion and Analysis, p28, 07-08 CAFR] The district raised your taxes $8 million at the begining of the 07-08 fiscal year and then was forced to return $4,590,734 at the end of the 07-08 fiscal year by state law. In effect you gave the district an interest-free loan of nearly $5 million on money it knew it wouldn't need. [Fund Balance Appropriated, p77, 07-08 CAFR] The district has been playing this game for years. In fact they are able to claim a 0% budget increase in the budget for next year because they again collected too much reveue from taxes last year and are being forced by the state to return $4,069,104 into next year's budget. [East Brunswick Public Schools School District Budget Statement Page A:2] It's curious that the only person to describe the district's financial management as 'willy-nilly' is the board president who also claims the status of a CPA. GET THE FACTS and decide for yourself.