Sunday, October 24, 2004

THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT LEDGER: THE FACTS

In the tedious art of bookkeeping, the ledger is the roadmap to “what’s going on.” It’s the big picture of spending, which helps determine the financial health of an institution, and it’s also the crystal ball, able to predict what will happen if spending isn’t curtailed. The ledger reveals priorities; it is a tool by which any CFO or financial manager will make their important decisions.

With this week’s recent reports of school department overspending, and the Superintendent’s full-page ad in defense which appeared in the October 22 Advocate, The Mirror has obtained copies of the School Department ledger sheets for fiscal years FY 02-04, which have already been closed. Here’s what was found:

FY 04: Overspending has been determined at $527,696.56, with the largest part of that being a KeySpan bill for nearly $190,000. As Councilor Matewsky so ably pointed out last Monday, the rest of the bills that haven’t been paid ranged from $28.00 for bottled water to the School Department’s labor attorney, James Tobin, who is owed over $5,000. Special Education transportation costs are also listed, at over $142,000. The Superintendent insists that the Mayor made a promise to cover the outstanding invoices with any Medicaid reimbursement money over and above $594,000 that had been set aside for the tax levy. However, the amount that came in ($16,000) by the end of the fiscal year was substantially smaller than the school department’s overage. In reality, the School Department and the School Committee has been misrepresenting the Mayor’s “promise”, which was related to the 85/15 split on the teacher’s health insurance to cover teacher bonuses, expenses that would be incurred in FY 05 – not FY 04. The School Department also tried to enlist the City Council and the Mayor in a plan to establish a Medicaid Revolving Fund in which the city’s “free cash” would be placed in a revolving fund, and then replaced with the reimbursement check when it arrived. Despite assurances from the School Department’s consultant, former city auditor Donald Andrew, and Assistant Superintendent Richard Wallace that there was “no harm, no foul” in setting up the account, the Department of Revenue had indicated in writing their disapproval of the plan even before it was voted on and a very stern follow up letter of disapproval after the vote was taken.

The ledger, however, indicates overspending occurring in these categories:

Central Administration salaries, by $374,052.80
Central Administration Miscellaneous Expenditures, by $122,911.52
Special Education Salaries, by $516,320.90
Special Education Exp., by $41,521.31
Maintenance Salaries, by $3,433.46
Student Handbooks, by $4,958.25
Water and Sewer, by $6,041.26.

Conversely, the teacher’s salaries line item was under spent by $98,520.08. It is interesting to note that had the School Department stayed within their budget on just Central Administration Salaries and Central Administration Miscellaneous Expenditures, in which the combined overspending was $496,964.32, there would have been nearly enough money to cover the outstanding bills that are currently due. In fact, the overspending in Central Administration can be directly linked to the fact that the School Department had budgeted for only 16 employees in Central Administration but actually paid 26.

FY 03: The Superintendent claims in his full page ad that the School Department did not overspend in FY 03. Again, the ledger tells another story. Total overspending for FY 03 was $106,488.00. It is in this year (and NOT FY 02 as the Superintendent claimed) that the transportation rebid occurred (as required by law), and it is in this year that special ed transportation was overspent by $572,196.69, due to this legal requirement to send the contract out for bid. What is more difficult to understand is why the Central Administration Salaries line item was overspent by $390,689.51! This is a salary account and as such should remain relatively static. Again, the problem seems to lie in the number of employees budgeted vs. the number of employees actually paid. In fiscal year ’03, the School Department budgeted for 24 employees in central administration; in reality, the payroll for fiscal year ’03 lists 29 employees in Central Administration.

And again, the Teachers’ Salaries line item was under spent by better than a million dollars, at $1,033,455,47, and Instructional Education Expenses was under spent by $473,239.48. Based on this information, it is not unreasonable to question the School Department and the School Committee’s priorities.

The ledger indicates overspending occurring in these categories:

Central Administration salaries, by $390,689.51
Central Administration Miscellaneous Expenditures, by $78,504.63
Special Education Salaries, by 477,000.30
Special Education Tuition, by $413,543.07
Athletics Miscellaneous Exp. by $155,749.93
Maintenance Salaries, by $156,263.67
Student Handbooks, by $25,092.16
Water and Sewer, by $8,702.50


FY 02: Overspending in FY 02 totaled $235,232.17. FY 02 could be described as the proverbial “calm before the storm”, when an economic downturn cut state aid to cities and towns. This was also the year in which there appeared to be an interesting shell game being played in the School Department:

$600,000 was transferred out of the Teacher’s salaries account,
$150,000 was transferred out of Instructional Education Exp,
$135,000 was transferred out of Instructional Special Exp
$300,000 was transferred out of Maintenance Miscellaneous Exp
for a total of $1,185,000.

In this same year,

$435,000 was transferred into the Central Administration Salaries line item,
$450,000 was transferred into Special Education Salaries,
$300,000 was transferred into Maintenance Salaries,
for a total of $1,185,000.

Once again, Central Administration Salaries play a key role in the budget overages, receiving a $435,000 transfer of funds while the Teacher’s Salaries line item was reduced by $600,000! Looking at the budgeted versus actual numbers, the records indicate that while the School Department had budgeted for 26 employees in Central Administration, they paid 31 employees in fiscal year ’02. The bottom line was a year-end budget deficit of $66,083.76!

The ledger for the School Department paints a picture of misplaced priorities focusing on salaries and other expenditures for non-educators at the expense of things like teacher salaries and educational supplies. An argument could also be made, based on these facts, that the School Committee has been negligent in its role as overseer. As reported in a previous post, it remains to be seen whether the School Committee will step forward to answer the questions posed by members of the Common Council. The Mirror will make a report on the November 3 Common Council meeting in a future posting, and we will update this report as necessary should additional information come to light that might explain the documented overspending incurred by the School Department.


Thursday, October 21, 2004

Common Council Calls for Answers

The Common Council met on Monday, October 18, and at least two items on the calendar remained unresolved.

Councilman Stephen Stat Smith had requested that a member of the School Department attend the meeting to answer questions concerning Everett’s MCAS standings. There was also an item on the calendar to transfer $540,000 to the School Department to cover unpaid invoices from fiscal year 2004, and some members of the Common Council, particularly Councilwoman Cathi Gover, had questions for the School Department on that subject as well. However, no one from the School Department or the School Committee showed up to the meeting. In fact, according to Councilwoman Gover, the City Council office had received communication from the School Department indicating that if the Council wanted answers to their questions, they should attend a School Committee meeting.

The two issues were laid on the table for two weeks and will be brought up again at the Wednesday, November 3 meeting o the Common Council.

The following is a synopsis of the discussion:

MCAS

Councilman Smith had raised the issue of the MCAS scores previously and had hoped to receive some clarifications from the School Department. Clearly disappointed that the School Department did not send a representative, Smith pointed to what he considered to be troubling MCAS statistics obtained from the Department of Education. “There are 275 high schools rated,” said Smith. “Everett ranked 191st . . . and out of 373 school districts, Everett ranked 304th .” Smith referenced an explanation offered by the School Department that the MCAS scores were a direct result of a lack of funding for MCAS tutors and stated his feeling that this was not a legitimate rationale for the poor showing. “I believe Mayor Ragucci has said that 47% of tax dollars goes toward education,” said Smith. “The taxpayers deserve more for their money.”

Smith initially laid the matter on the table in the hopes that a School Department or School Committee representative would arrive; when that didn’t happen, the matter was laid over for two weeks. It will appear again on the November 3 calendar, and the Chairman of the School Committee, David Ela, has been requested to attend.


A $540,000 Transfer

Up for vote was also an order “that the amount of $540,000.00 be transferred from Reserve Account into a special Reserve Account established to pay FY ’04 School Department invoices exceeding their budget. Any remaining balance in this account after all obligations are paid will then be transferred to the School Department to be used during FY ’05 in their operating
budget . . . “ This order sailed through the Board of Aldermen at their October 12 meeting, but such was not the case with the Common Council. There were many questions raised about the overall health of the School Department budget and the ability of the School Committee to fulfill their responsibilities as overseers.

Councilwoman Cathi Gover led the charge, presenting facts about overspending in the School Department above and beyond the $540,000 being requested, particularly in central administration salaries.

The invoices in question, amounting to $527,000, were incurred in 2004. The largest invoice, from Keyspan, amounted to approximately $190,000 and, according to the City Auditor, was sent late by Keyspan, explaining its late submission for payment. However, Councilman Peter Napolitano pointed out that it did not explain why there was no money left in the budget to pay a previously budgeted expense or why no one in the School Department had questioned not receiving the bill in the first place.

The overspending on the part of the School Department has been a bone of contention with the City Council for several months, and Monday night’s meeting brought forward additional facts that caused more than one Council member to question the fiscal management of the School Department.

The focus of the discussion centered on the overspending for central administration salaries. According to information obtained from the Treasurer’s Office and the Auditor’s Office, and a review of the past three fiscal years, the School Department has consistently overspent this line item. Of particular concern to Councilwoman Gover, however, were the discrepancies in salary increases in central administration for fiscal year 2005, which runs from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. According to budget and payroll records, the School Department submitted a budget to City Government that called for 4% increases for all central administration employees. The City Council approved this budget, which was to take effect as of July 1, 2004.

However, the Payroll Change Sheet for the 7/8/04 payroll for Central Administration tells a different story, according to Mrs. Gover . . . and copies of the documents obtained by the Everett Mirror bear her out. These records indicate that Mr. Foresteire received a 3.4% raise – slightly less than that budgeted but in spite of assurances from the School Committee that he would not receive his raise until his legal issues had been resolved. These records also indicate that the three assistant superintendents each received salary increases 7.4%. In addition, all other employees on the central administration payroll received salary increases of 7.1% - 11.4%. These increases range from 3.1% - 7.4% above the approved budgeted increases. The records also appear to bear out Mrs. Gover’s assertions that, in spite of budgeting salaries for 18 central administration employees, the School Department is actually paying 27 employees out of the central administration salary account – 9 people not included in the approved budget for fiscal ’05 but who have been on the School Department payroll for a number of years.

Because of these discrepancies, Councilwoman Gover and Councilman Steve Smith, who had alluded to salary overspending in his discussion of the MCAS scores, pushed for the matter of approving the $540,000 to be sent to the Administrative Affairs Committee for further review, with the request that School Committee Chairman David Ela and School Committee Finance Chairman Robert Alconada attend. However, Councilman Anthony Ranieri suggested a compromise of laying the matter over for two weeks to the next Common Council meeting, inviting Mr. Ela and Mr. Alconada to attend. The proposal to postpone the vote on the transfer was bolstered by the appearance of Mayor Ragucci, who agreed that the members of the Council deserved answers and that, in spite of the fact that the bills have to be paid and that there were daily phone calls being made to City Hall looking for payment, he also would not vote for the transfer until the School Committee representatives appeared to answer the questions being raised. The motion to lay the matter on the table for two weeks passed, with Councilwoman Kay Hicks and Councilman Lou Sierra voting no, wanting the motion passed and the bills paid.

The Everett Mirror will provide a more detailed analysis of the purported overspending in a separate piece.


Monday, October 11, 2004

The MCAS Controversy

The MCAS Controversy


There has recently been a great deal of questioning about the results of the MCAS exams for the Everett Public Schools, prompting one elected official to request that a member of the School Department appear before the Common Council to shed some light on the issue. Since this request was made, the Superintendent of Schools has published a statement in the October 7 edition of the Everett Leader Herald to address the subject, but his statement serves to raise even more questions, particularly, what is the School Department trying to hide?

The Superintendent claims in his statement that the various sources reporting on MCAS scores – newspapers, Boston Magazine, even the Federal Government – have “put a different spin on the MCAS results of 2004 . . . this evaluation has been all over the lot. In my opinion, there is only one number that matters and that is the number of Everett students who will graduate next June with their diploma.” One could deduce from that statement that the Superintendent, and by extension the School Department, is saying that it doesn’t matter how well a student graduates, as long as s/he picks up that diploma and walks out the front door. It is noteworthy that nowhere in this statement does Mr. Foresteire make a full-throated defense of this year’s MCAS results, while in previous years there were numerous annual statements touting the advantage that Everett held over communities like Revere and Medford. Interestingly enough, both of these communities ranked higher and stronger than Everett this year in MCAS rankings. Based on these observations, the Everett Mirror has put together the following analysis of MCAS scores provided through the Department of Education Website and the Boston.com analysis of statewide scores. Relevant links to detailed data will be provided as well. For the purposes of this piece, only 2004 scores have been examined.

In previous years, the Administration has repeatedly pointed specifically to Revere and Medford as surrounding communities worthy of comparison, yet makes no such analysis this year – perhaps because in this ranking, Everett is listed at 304 out of 373, while Revere checks in at 278 and Medford at 264. The actual MCAS numbers reported on the DOE website, along with the listing of urbanized centers obtained from the Department of Revenue and their respective MCAS rankings support the contention that the Everett MCAS scores are less than one would hope from a school system that has been touted as one of the best in the state.

MOVING TARGET: School Department Comparisons

In the past, when the School Department has compared spending rates, it has used the cities and towns identified by the state as “urbanized centers.”* This was not the case when the School Department, faced with a below optimal MCAS ranking, used only “cities,” the weakest scorers in the state, for comparison purposes. In political terms, this is called gerrymandering. One reason that the School Department shifted their focus from urbanized centers to cities could be that Everett ranked 23rd out of 45 urbanized centers, coming in at 304th in the state. Although School Committee member Lester McLaughlin claims that “Everett is the best blue collar school district” in the state….the numbers tell a different story. Listed below are the overall rankings given to urbanized school districts.**

Attleboro – 266 Greenfield – 298 Pittsfield - 315
Ayer – 193 Haverhill – 291 Provincetown - 213
Boston 353 Holyoke – 369 Quincy - 243
Brockton – 344 Lawrence – 370 Revere - 278
Cambridge – 311 Leominster – 290 Salem - 313
Chelsea – 336 Lowell – 354 Somerville - 320
Chicopee – 340 Lynn – 333 Southbridge - 335
Clinton – 256 Malden – 312 Springfield - 361
Everett – 304 Maynard - 214 Taunton - 294
Fairhaven – 253 Medford – 264 Waltham - 250
Fall River - 345 Methuen – 278 Watertown - 204
Fitchburg – 325 Milford – 210 Webster - 324
Gardner – 286 New Bedford – 352 W. Springfield - 277
Gloucester – 261 North Adams – 323 Westfield - 283
Great Barrington – not ranked Northampton – 215 Worcester – 356

* The listing of urbanized centers was obtained from the Department of Revenue website.

** FROM THE BOSTON. COM SITE: The Boston Globe ranked public school districts on their average rank on all MCAS tests taken Spring 2004. The ranking includes all school districts: regular, charter, regional, and vocational. For each of the 10 tests, districts were ranked on the percentage of students reaching proficient or better by combining the "advanced" and "proficient" students into a single figure for each test, then by figuring an average rank for all tests. The two lower levels on the state scoring system are "needs improvement" and "warning/failing." The tests are reading (grade 3), English (4, 7, 10), math (4, 6, 8, 10), and science (5, 8).

In a recent press release (Everett Leader Herald, September 30, 2004), the School Department stated that the Boston Globe gave two caveats to lower performance, the first being the number of children that come from families where English is not the first language, and the second as a function of family income. What’s interesting is the fact that while the School Department states that nearly 40 % of Everett’s school children come from homes where English is not the first language, only 6.9% of the children taking MCAS were considered “limited English proficient.” This percentage is based on the 3,935 who took the test figured against 273 categorized as “limited English proficient.” Yet, in examining the MCAS scores for “Regular Education Students” – that is, removing limited English students or disabled students from the mix -- the numbers indicate that Everett needs to do more. 79% of Everett 8th graders fell into the “Needs Improvement” or “Warning/Failure” range in Science and Technology. Likewise, 65% of 8th graders fell into that category for Mathematics. In fact, 60% of Everett’s 6th graders and 4th graders, and 45% of 10th graders fall into the “Needs Improvement” and “Warning/Failure” categories. Boston.com website, the MCAS summary of district results. Everett is located on page 68.

The School Committee met on Monday, October 4, and made a presentation concerning the MCAS scores which, according to one source in the Oct. 8 edition of the Everett Advocate, would answer any questions there might be concerning the 2004 results. However, upon viewing a re-telecast of the meeting on Channel 15, the audio was difficult to hear and the various tables used to make the case for a positive viewpoint did not give a clear look at the bottom line of the results. The issue will be up for discussion once again at the October 18 meeting of the Common Council, where a representative of the School Department has been requested to attend. The Everett Mirror will provide an analysis of that meeting and the information provided by the School Department in an upcoming issue.

Editorial: Another Blow to Ethical Journalism

Last week, this column addressed the propensity of the Everett Advocate to pander to the highest bidder in the battle for advertising dollars. Again, in the October 8 edition, the Advocate’s inability to engage with journalistic integrity was in full throttle with a particularly vicious attack against Ward 3 Councilman Stephen “Stat” Smith. And why the (what is now a) weekly rant on Smith? Because Smith has the temerity to question the actions and claims of the Superintendent of Schools and the School Department – particularly the recent MCAS results and ranking.

What is most telling about this alleged piece of journalism is that it purportedly came “From The Mailbag” – a section of the newspaper that most editors would call “Letters to the Editor.” But putting the semantics aside, the “letter” was signed “Sincerely, Bill Wainwright, Everett, MA.” There’s just one problem – there is no “Bill Wainwright” living in Everett. He’s not listed in the Residents’ List as of January 1, 2004, he’s not listed in the Everett phone book, and as of this writing (October 8, 2004), according to the Registrar of Voters’ Office, he’s not even registered to vote.

Whoever this phantom writer is, his arguments are ludicrous bordering on repugnant, and perhaps the most despicable aspect of his commentary is that he did not limit his attacks to Councilman Stephen Smith – he found it necessary to impugn the integrity of Stat’s daughter Stephanie, who is serving her first term on the Common Council representing Ward 3. He accuses Stat Smith of “getting his daughter elected”, as though the people in Ward 3 had no say in her election, and spins a bizarre conspiracy theory around Stephanie’s bid for the seat that involves an elaborate scheme to rip off the Everett taxpayers through their use of the health plan that is offered to the members of the City Council. Perhaps Smith should be flattered that the Phantom Writer would endow him with such political power, but this is behavior worthy of a school yard bully, not a person genuinely interested in the truth. But then again – this is the Advocate, whose “publisher” was never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Let’s look at the “substance” of this letter. “Mr. Wainwright”, after his initial volley at Smith, focused on the issue of titles of the numerous “assistant superintendents,” claiming that there is only one Assistant to the Superintendent (Mr. Anthony Malione) and two Assistant Superintendents in charge of . . . Business Matters (Dr. Richard Wallace) and English as a Second Language, English Learners and Civil Rights Matters (Mr. Peter Dolan). “Mr. Wainwright” then went on to suggest “To soothe Mr. Smith’s sensibilities, perhaps Dr. Wallace could be called ‘Business Manager’ and Mr. Dolan be called ‘Director of English as a Second Language.’ Well . . . apparently “Mr. Wainwright” and the Superintendent & the School Committee have some sort of psychic connection, because flipping forward in the paper to page 9, in a picture in which the Superintendent and Mr. Dolan hold a prominent spot, Mr. Dolan’s title appears as “Director of English as a Second Language.” Life is full of ironies.

There are so many other inexplicably bizarre statements made in this “letter” that to examine them all would be a waste of energy, so let’s get back to the crux of “Mr. Wainwright’s” attack on Councilman Smith. “Mr. Wainwright” addresses the issue of Councilman Smith’s request for someone from the School Department to appear before the Common Council to discuss the recent MCAS result by suggesting that he “save several hours of everyone’s time by watching the replay” of the School Committee meeting of Monday, October 4 on what “Mr. Wainwright” refers to as the “School Department Channel” (as an aside, for those not familiar with the “School Department Channel” – that would be Channel 15 or the “Education Channel”). Let’s take a look at that statement. “Mr. Wainwright” is suggesting that watching representatives of the School Department discuss the MCAS scores is going to give a clear picture of the meaning of the results, and that by watching said School Department representatives give their assessment of the MCAS results, any and all questions that anyone could possibly have would be answered and there’d be no need for further discussion. He is suggesting that someone who was elected to represent the people of Everett is wasting people’s time by asking legitimate questions about reports that the MCAS scores do not paint as tranquil a landscape as the Superintendent would like people to believe. And while “Mr. Wainwright” contends that Councilman Smith’s inquiry on MCAS scores is a “phony issue,” (which is ironic when you consider that “Mr. Wainwright” is a fictitious person), one could ask why he would devote so much ink – the equivalent of nearly a full page – to bashing Smith and defending the School Department. That’s a lot of column inches dedicated to a “phony issue”, and as anyone in the newspaper business will tell you, column inches equal money.

What is sad about this latest installment of the Chronicles of Vindictiveness is that, again, the Advocate is throwing up smokescreens to cover up the truth about the overall health of our school department and the fiscal mismanagement of the department on the part of those entrusted to serve the parents and children of the Everett School System. And as the preceding analysis of the MCAS scores seems to indicate – this is not a “phony issue” after all. Parents and taxpayers have the right to have their questions answered, and it’s time for the School Department to step up and stop running for cover every time they're questioned and live up to what they claim is their first priority . . . the children of the Everett school system.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Editorial: The Everett Advocate – “Truth” in Advertising

Miriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “advocate” as “one that pleads the cause of another”, or “one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal.” In some countries, lawyers are called “advocates”, and just like a lawyer, will plead a case for the right amount money. Evidently, so will the Everett Advocate.

Where is the evidence that the Everett Advocate will support your cause for the right amount of money? Think back to when the Advocate first appeared on the scene, around 1995. The editor’s two favorite targets were Superintendent of Schools Frederick Forestiere, who was referred to as a “mental midget”, and the Everett Leader Herald, another of our weekly newspapers, which was referred to as “The Fishwrap.” Vitriolic commentaries appeared weekly on these two topics, and at one point, the Superintendent actually filed suit against the paper for libel. The paper countersued. It was quite the circus – the Superintendent and the Leader Herald against The Everett Advocate. According to an article that appeared in the Boston Globe on April 15, 1997 (‘Fishwrap’ vs. The Felon in Everett’s War of Slurs, Foes Duke It Out through Rival Newspapers), the feud had been going on for two years at the time of their article, and there was no end in sight.

Then, somewhere along the line, something interesting happened. The Everett Advocate became a supporter of the Superintendent. There were no more nasty commentaries, no more references to the “mental midget” – which leads one to ask -- what happened? Ad revenue is what happened. The Superintendent started placing ads in the Everett Advocate and the Everett Advocate began advocating for the Superintendent.

This happens frequently during each election cycle as well. The candidate that provides the highest amount of ad revenue wins the endorsement of the Everett Advocate. The candidate with connections to the Superintendent, or any other high paying customer, gets favorable press. There is empirical evidence of this with the Connolly-Smith race for State Representative. The Superintendent did not want Smith to win because Smith had challenged him earlier in the year regarding school department overspending, and the Superintendent is not a man who likes to be challenged. In fact, this very same Globe article referenced above referred to the Superintendent as “ . . . a man who likes to be in charge, likes having things in place.” And suddenly, in spite of years of reasonable press in the Advocate, the paper suddenly turned on Smith, distorting facts and engaging in personal attacks on his character. The “paper” then went on to print very expensive ads from the Connolly campaign and ultimately endorsed his candidacy. A strange coincidence or a testament to the old adage “follow the money”?

The Everett Advocate is an advocate in its basest sense – a hired gun. Its goal is not to report the news or to raise the level of debate on the issues -- if anything, it panders to the lowest common denominator. It’s about the money. It is not a newspaper -- it’s a pulpit for sale to the highest bidder. The publication is free, but if you want real news about Everett, you’re going to have to look elsewhere – because you really do get what you pay for.