Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Snow Comments on Newfound Millions in Rockford School District
The big news in Rockford is the referendum.
The school board is seeking voter approval for 58-cents which it incorrectly believes is lapsing, but which was approved 5 years ago with a 5-year life.
In the meantime, the law was changed and no referendum has to be held, except to keep the school board’s word with the people.
The board is promising to cut $14 million from its budget if the referendum fails.
But, now a “miracle” has occurred.
$21.2 million has been found by the financial gurus at the Rockford School District. The deficit is gone.
As reporter Jeff Kolkey writes,
In fact, he wrote the following to the comment section connected to the article:
The school board is seeking voter approval for 58-cents which it incorrectly believes is lapsing, but which was approved 5 years ago with a 5-year life.
In the meantime, the law was changed and no referendum has to be held, except to keep the school board’s word with the people.
The board is promising to cut $14 million from its budget if the referendum fails.
But, now a “miracle” has occurred.
$21.2 million has been found by the financial gurus at the Rockford School District. The deficit is gone.As reporter Jeff Kolkey writes,
That’s great news for the district’s bottom line but could cost it votes during a Nov. 7 referendum.Larry Snow, the man who uncovered the shenanigans at Huntley School District 158 is a bit more than skeptical.
In fact, he wrote the following to the comment section connected to the article:
I am on the Finance committee of the "Huntley" District 158 school board as a school board member.
If anyone wants you to believe that the official(s) in the Fiscal Office didn't notice an extra $14 Milllion sitting in their checking accounts in August, don't believe them.
Are you telling me that the Superintendent, Board President and Finance committee members did not notice an extra $14 Million on the District's monthly financial statements?
When you see that $9.5 Million of it was in benefits that weren't being paid month after month throughout all of last year, are you tellling me that no one in the fiscal office, the Superintendent, Board President and Finance committee noticed this large surplus accumulating last April, May and June?
It would have stuck out like a lawyer in heaven.
This year's budget numbers need immediate serious review.
How this was not disclosed to the public before this year's budget was approved by the Board of Education is a serious issue.
Being highly knowledgeable in school district finance, I can tell you that you can not responsibly prepare a budget for this year without noticing this $14 Million ($9.5 Million in overbudgeted benefits.)
The question is who knew what and when did they know it.
If no one knew, then people deserve to be told that their employment contract with the District for next year is not going to be renewed.
If you see no one exit for next year, then in my opinion it is either likely a whole group of individuals knew and they are not going to dismiss willing accomplices or the standards for competent on the job performance are exceptionally low in the Rockford school district.
Comments:
<< Home
Can't you just hear the late, wonderful Carl Sagan's voice saying
"Twennntee wunnnnn point toooooo
millllll yun dahlerrrrrz?"
--------------------
Re: Snow's comment "The question is who knew what and when did they know it."
Yep. Absolutely.
In private sector business, there is a difference between being a bit off in projections and being wildly off. The difference equates to use of the one way exit door by those who were paid nicely to get closer to the target....and by those who kept the information quiet more than 24 hours after they found out.
Consdidering the situation with Rockford's referendum, and District 158's referendum and their consultants and employees - maybe school districts across Illinois should mass produce rubber stamps/form letters requesting refunds of all invoices or paychecks paid out when a quality performance is lacking.
"Twennntee wunnnnn point toooooo
millllll yun dahlerrrrrz?"
--------------------
Re: Snow's comment "The question is who knew what and when did they know it."
Yep. Absolutely.
In private sector business, there is a difference between being a bit off in projections and being wildly off. The difference equates to use of the one way exit door by those who were paid nicely to get closer to the target....and by those who kept the information quiet more than 24 hours after they found out.
Consdidering the situation with Rockford's referendum, and District 158's referendum and their consultants and employees - maybe school districts across Illinois should mass produce rubber stamps/form letters requesting refunds of all invoices or paychecks paid out when a quality performance is lacking.
Lerry Snow did not bring anything to light about the D158 referendum. Quick history lesson: Larry Snow said the referendum was unnecessary because the district had enough money. That turned out to be completely incorrect. The real problem with the referendum was the flawed ballot question, which Mr. Snow did not know/ say anything about until Tony Quagliano realized there was a problem with it.
Here is part of what I wrote in my letter to the community during the referendum.
"The rationale for not opening any schools comes back to Paul Halverson's and Steve Swanson's judgment and interpretation of a cash flow projection that Paul created. Paul is the head Fiscal Services guy so he has to be correct? Right? Wrong in this instance, that's for sure, in my assessment, and I'll explain why."
Which I then explained in great detail.
Later in the letter,
"Could these administrators and board members come up with a plan to open two schools with additional teachers, not only for the new schools but for all schools, in the context of a balanced budget? Sure."
District 158 had plenty of money to open the new schools. The Board President and Superintendent did not disclose that the state was within weeks of the referendum vote going to give the District $5 Million (which it did), $Millions of which were operating funds.
There was no "cash-flow crisis" and there was ample funds to open the new schools with a balanced budget. The District borrowed $13 Million, put $9 Million in a money market account and called this evidence of a debt crisis. Board members kept this debt deception up until after the last school board election. After I got on the board of education I got the records from the Capital Development Board which showed that this was true.
The need for a 55 cent referendum in District 158 was a bunch of malarkey.
When you raise local property taxes which results in 65% of the additional taxes ending up going back to the state in the form of a reduction of state aid, how "smart" is this when you didn't need the money in the first place?
rwr1 is willing to boldly tell factual untruths about what was "history" during D158's referendum.
I wrote the entire board of education, the Superintendent and C.F.O. before they voted for the 55 cent referendum to be on the November ballot. I pointed out that their numbers were off by tens of $Millions. No one responded. Ever. It took time until after the referendum to prove
with document in hand that in addition to not needing the money that the deception was of this magnitude as well.
During the referendum, I kept insisting to Mr. Quagliano that the numbers were this far off. It was just a matter of proving it with documentation, which he was able to obtain and which I publicly presented to the Board of Education in the month following the Nov. referendum.
I had no doubt in my mind when I wrote the community, that the money was unnecessary and also that the numbers were way off.
Larry Snow
"The rationale for not opening any schools comes back to Paul Halverson's and Steve Swanson's judgment and interpretation of a cash flow projection that Paul created. Paul is the head Fiscal Services guy so he has to be correct? Right? Wrong in this instance, that's for sure, in my assessment, and I'll explain why."
Which I then explained in great detail.
Later in the letter,
"Could these administrators and board members come up with a plan to open two schools with additional teachers, not only for the new schools but for all schools, in the context of a balanced budget? Sure."
District 158 had plenty of money to open the new schools. The Board President and Superintendent did not disclose that the state was within weeks of the referendum vote going to give the District $5 Million (which it did), $Millions of which were operating funds.
There was no "cash-flow crisis" and there was ample funds to open the new schools with a balanced budget. The District borrowed $13 Million, put $9 Million in a money market account and called this evidence of a debt crisis. Board members kept this debt deception up until after the last school board election. After I got on the board of education I got the records from the Capital Development Board which showed that this was true.
The need for a 55 cent referendum in District 158 was a bunch of malarkey.
When you raise local property taxes which results in 65% of the additional taxes ending up going back to the state in the form of a reduction of state aid, how "smart" is this when you didn't need the money in the first place?
rwr1 is willing to boldly tell factual untruths about what was "history" during D158's referendum.
I wrote the entire board of education, the Superintendent and C.F.O. before they voted for the 55 cent referendum to be on the November ballot. I pointed out that their numbers were off by tens of $Millions. No one responded. Ever. It took time until after the referendum to prove
with document in hand that in addition to not needing the money that the deception was of this magnitude as well.
During the referendum, I kept insisting to Mr. Quagliano that the numbers were this far off. It was just a matter of proving it with documentation, which he was able to obtain and which I publicly presented to the Board of Education in the month following the Nov. referendum.
I had no doubt in my mind when I wrote the community, that the money was unnecessary and also that the numbers were way off.
Larry Snow
To Larry Snow, and I'll assume the blogger here is actually you: Although it seems hard to believe that the district could have had a balanced budget w/out more cuts, I'll accept your argument that there wasn't the crisis that the old administration said there was. The main point is, the real problem was the ballot question, which Mr. Quagliano and our legislators fixed. You, Larry Snow, were as oblivious to the 55 cents = $1.22 as everyone else until it was too late.
Rwr1, 1st you want to dismiss the obvious: the financial "need" for the 55 cent referendum was a deception perpetrated upon the voting public.
2nd. Do you think that county clerks who were levying 5 year referendums for school district after school district didn't know that the 1 year referendum being touted in D158 wasn't a five year referendum?
Do you think the law firms and lawyers who were doing the work for all of the school districts didn't know?
When I worked to get Senate Bill 1682 through the legislative process in Springfield, it was amazing how many school officials and school organization officials bragged that they knew for years that the referendums were for 5 years, not 1 and would collect a lot more money for the school districts.
The D158 administration tried to pass off financial projections for the $1.22 increase by hiding them in their 5 year plan. I caught the discrepancy and they refused to answer any questions related to how a 1 year referendum could be raising much higher taxes.
I insisted to Mr. Quagliano that the tax increase that the district was going after was much greater than a 55 cent tax increase based on the District's 5 year financial projections.
The District denied at a town hall meeting that this was true, until written evidence from county court records was produced.
I knew that the tax revenue shown in their 5 year projections was for far more than a 55 cent tax increase. All district officials denied it or refused to answer the question.
rwr1, you would like to believe that I didn't know that it was for a much larger tax increase but unfortunately, you are incorrect.
Don't confuse my knowing that it was a much larger tax increase and having written proof beyond my own financial analysis, to show that denials from the administration were wrong.
Other denials and lies were told during the referendum.
The District wrote in the District newsletter that they had conducted internal audits. Now no one can find any evidence of this being true.
The District said that administrators were only being paid their salaries in their contracts. We now know that administrators didn't tell the truth about how how 7 administrators were receiving $5,400 in cash compensation above and beyond their salaries specified in their contract. Board members knew during the referendum and obviously the 7 administrators knew that they were getting the money but either denied that it was true, or kept their mouth shut.
It was only after I obtained a letter from District 158's law firm addressed to top district administrators and gave it to the media, that the administration had to admit that they knew or should have known something about the more than 55 cent tax increase.
District 158 spent $8000 in legal fees trying to not give me that letter from D158's law firm and other documents that I asked for under the Freedom of Information Act.
Only when that letter became public and it showed that the administration was advised by legal counsel to get tax advice on the referendum that the administration confessed to knowing about the $1.22 tax impact.
They could hardly deny that everyone didn't know because I knew their 5 year financial projection was for a much larger tax increase and that this was the smoking gun.
Getting District 158 officials to admit that the tax increase was much higher than 55 cents was not something they willingly wanted to do.
The evidence was there and I pointed it out to the board members and administrators before they ever voted to adopt the 55 cent resolution for the November ballot.
Post a Comment
2nd. Do you think that county clerks who were levying 5 year referendums for school district after school district didn't know that the 1 year referendum being touted in D158 wasn't a five year referendum?
Do you think the law firms and lawyers who were doing the work for all of the school districts didn't know?
When I worked to get Senate Bill 1682 through the legislative process in Springfield, it was amazing how many school officials and school organization officials bragged that they knew for years that the referendums were for 5 years, not 1 and would collect a lot more money for the school districts.
The D158 administration tried to pass off financial projections for the $1.22 increase by hiding them in their 5 year plan. I caught the discrepancy and they refused to answer any questions related to how a 1 year referendum could be raising much higher taxes.
I insisted to Mr. Quagliano that the tax increase that the district was going after was much greater than a 55 cent tax increase based on the District's 5 year financial projections.
The District denied at a town hall meeting that this was true, until written evidence from county court records was produced.
I knew that the tax revenue shown in their 5 year projections was for far more than a 55 cent tax increase. All district officials denied it or refused to answer the question.
rwr1, you would like to believe that I didn't know that it was for a much larger tax increase but unfortunately, you are incorrect.
Don't confuse my knowing that it was a much larger tax increase and having written proof beyond my own financial analysis, to show that denials from the administration were wrong.
Other denials and lies were told during the referendum.
The District wrote in the District newsletter that they had conducted internal audits. Now no one can find any evidence of this being true.
The District said that administrators were only being paid their salaries in their contracts. We now know that administrators didn't tell the truth about how how 7 administrators were receiving $5,400 in cash compensation above and beyond their salaries specified in their contract. Board members knew during the referendum and obviously the 7 administrators knew that they were getting the money but either denied that it was true, or kept their mouth shut.
It was only after I obtained a letter from District 158's law firm addressed to top district administrators and gave it to the media, that the administration had to admit that they knew or should have known something about the more than 55 cent tax increase.
District 158 spent $8000 in legal fees trying to not give me that letter from D158's law firm and other documents that I asked for under the Freedom of Information Act.
Only when that letter became public and it showed that the administration was advised by legal counsel to get tax advice on the referendum that the administration confessed to knowing about the $1.22 tax impact.
They could hardly deny that everyone didn't know because I knew their 5 year financial projection was for a much larger tax increase and that this was the smoking gun.
Getting District 158 officials to admit that the tax increase was much higher than 55 cents was not something they willingly wanted to do.
The evidence was there and I pointed it out to the board members and administrators before they ever voted to adopt the 55 cent resolution for the November ballot.
<< Home
