Saturday, April 30, 2005

"Spinning" Out of Control

The newspaper wars are on again. On Wednesday, the Independent reported on allegations that the Everett Advocate had accepted payment from Shore Collaborative on behalf of the School Department for what appeared to be a "news story." The Advocate rebutted in today's paper and, in keeping with their pledge to "tell it like it is", implied that the service in question was for "advertising" -- without actually saying it was advertising but denying the Independent's contention that it was a paid "news story." It would seem, however, that the Advocate is not so much "telling it like it is" as "telling it" as they would like it to be believed.

The Advocate claims that the invoice in question, from March 2004, was for a series of centerfolds that ran in the Advocate. However, a review of the invoice shows that it was specifically for three 5 column x 16" pages in the March 5 edition of the Advocate covering "Budget Finance Meeting and Photos" of the School Committee. The total of the invoice was $1200. Since only two of the pages were photographs, one could easily draw the conclusion that the third 5 column x 16" layout, which is the measurement of one page of print in the Advocate, referenced in the invoice was to cover the accompanying "news story" written by "Ira Richards" and an unsigned Advocate Commentary taking members of the City Council to task for questioning the budget practices of the School Committee.

The Advocate also points out that of the $200,000+ spent from the Shore Collaborative "reserve fund," the Advocate "has been the recipient of only $12,000 for advertising" -- or less than 6%. In reality, the Advocate received $12,690 in payments from Shore Collaborative during fiscal year 2004, which runs from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. In fiscal year 2003, however, they received total payments from Shore Collaborative of $22,500. Over a period of two years, the Advocate received a total of $35,190 in payments from Shore Collaborative on behalf of the School Department . . . which is actually 16% of the total $208,000 expenditure made in those two years. However, the total advertising expenditures in the three newspapers for fiscal year '03 and fiscal year '04 was $61,779, which means that the Advocate received 56% of the total advertising dollars spent through Shore Collaborative on behalf of the School Department for those two fiscal years.

It would appear, then, that the report in the Everett Independent does have some merit to it, and the Advocate is "spinning" in an attempt to maintain credibility in this instance. Unfortunately for The Advocate, there is evidence in black and white that contradicts their assertion that their dealings with the School Department, at least in the March 2004 edition of their paper, was a legitimate business transaction . . . and it is the invoice that came directly from them that appears to prove the Independent's point. This is not to say that the Independent's motives in reporting the story are pure -- of course they would take whatever opportunity they could to bash the competition. In this instance, however, it looks like the Advocate handed them the club.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Time to Focus

In the three weeks since the news broke about the City Auditor accusing the Superintendent of making "illegal" expenditures through Shore Collaborative, a lot of name calling and finger pointing have taken place. People on both sides of the argument -- ourselves included -- got caught up in the rhetoric with very little focus on the substantive questions. This is not a simple issue -- but it was brought a bit more into focus at last Monday night's Common Council meeting.

The question of the legality of the expenditures is still not clear, but what is clear is the questionable nature of the expenditures. The City Solicitor indicated that additional information is required before a final opinion can be rendered. In the meantime, however, a little more detail was presented at Monday evening's meeting that seems to indicate that the School Department sought to circumvent established procurement processes by claiming that one invoice in particular was paid with private funds -- after Jack Garron, the City's Procurement Officer, had indicated to the Superintendent that three quotes were needed before the City could render payment for the services, or indeed, before the services should even have been contracted. The "private funds" ultimately used to cover this invoice were paid out of the reserve funds being held at Shore Collaborative . . . monies that are, in reality, public taxpayer dollars.


Additionally, copies of other invoices that were received by the City Auditor indicate that the charges were approved for payment through Shore by the Superintendent and the then Director of Special Education Edward McCormack. However, most of these invoices are not considered to be "special ed" related -- so this would beg the question of why the Director of Special Education would be signing off on them -- unless, of course, the monies being used to pay them had been earmarked for special education services.

Finally, there is the still open question of legality. We do not purport to be legal experts. However, in reading Chapter 40, Section 4E of Mass General Laws -- the law which establishes the Collaborative -- the law clearly outlines the Collaborative and the Trust Fund that it will manage. The Trust Fund -- not to be confused with the "reserve account" -- is managed by the Treasurer of the Collaborative under the direction of the Board of Directors. Chapter 40 does not address the establishment and management of this "reserve fund." The reserve fund comes under the agreement between the Collaborative and the member communities. The Agreement states that the Board of Directors may choose one of three options when dealing with program funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year: they may put it into a reserve fund, they may use it for current operating expenses (of the Collaborative), OR they may return it to the city. It does appear, then, that the Board of Directors established this reserve fund. The agreement does not, however, indicate the manner in which these funds should be disbursed; therefore, logic and law must dictate that these funds -- being public money -- would fall under the rules of municipal finance law & Department of Revenue advisories and must go through the same approval process as any other expenditures made for services rendered to the city. This did not happen.

Rhetoric has its place -- what would American politics be without it? It makes for good coffee shop talk. It should not replace the hard work of government. As we stated at the outset -- this is not a simple issue, and there will be more information to come. In the meantime, our thoughts are this -- when it comes to the use of taxpayer dollars, assigning blame or motive to the actions of our city officials -- be they appointed or elected -- does nothing but muddy the waters. It is the affect of their actions on your tax dollars that is important -- and that is where erring on the side of full disclosure should be the preferred method.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Ten Years Later -- Remembering Oklahoma City

Six years before we could have imagined the horror of September 11th, the people of Oklahoma City experienced the unspeakable tragedy of terror on our own soil. On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a blast that blew out the Murrah Building and killed 168 people. It was the act of a madman, made all the more unbelievable because it was perpetrated by "one of our own."

Timothy McVeigh taught us that evil can take many forms and doesn't always look the way we might expect it to look. I must admit that my first reaction upon hearing the news was that "outsiders" had done this -- and I remember a mixed sense of shame, sadness, and betrayal when the news came out that McVeigh was the bomber. I wanted it to be someone else.

The people of Oklahoma City have persevered, however, although the memory of that tragic day will always be with them. For the rest of us, it has become an event in history. Today is a good day to stop and remember the 168 who died that day and to think about the people they left behind. We cannot imagine the depth of their grief, but we can admire their strength. Diane Leonard, who lost her husband that day, put it best: "There is hope, no matter how difficult an event that you experience," she said. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59604-2005Apr16.html)

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Through a Prism....

The last week has been pretty interesting. Ever since the city auditor dropped the bomb about the school department's inappropriate spending of special education funds....everyone from the Line to the Dunkin Donuts across from Pope John has an opinion. The reaction seems to hinge on personal perspective - like light through a prism that changes color as you turn the glass. It's been rather curious to watch some people attempt a defense - particularly those who have been on the receiving end of those funds. Not surprisingly, though, the average Joe or Josephine on the street doesn't seem to have a problem understanding that spending special education money on what appears to be frivolous pursuits - advertising, dinners, and parades, is - at the very heart of it -- unethical. Special education is practically sacred - it's the third rail of government funding. Who would ever want to take anything away from children with special needs? Let there be no mistake about what this money is. This money was allocated as special education funding, and it was reported to the Department of Education as special education funds. The reserve fund is created with funds from overpayments (from either overbudgeting or when children leave the program), rents from "taxpayer funded" school rooms used by Shore Collaborative, or from services provided to other communities - again, using taxpayer funded teachers and resources. While other cities may have their own reserve funds - the fact of the matter is that the money is returned to the city treasurer, and then the school committee and superintendent are supposed to request it back, and reallocate it appropriately. You don't get to send bills that you don't want the auditor or city government to see to a third party; that's not how government is supposed to work. Again -the average Joe or Josephine seems to "get this" without a problem. Hopefully, the rest of city will catch up soon.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Drama & Distortion--Politics as Usual

Politics in Everett has never lacked for drama . . . this week is no exception. It has also never lacked for distortion, and again, recent events are no exception.

The events that unfolded at the Common Council meeting Monday evening gave us evidence of both the drama and distortion that can take place when politics becomes the priority. In the course of one government meeting, the Superintendent was accused of making "illegal expenditures", the Mayor was accused of reneging on a promise to fund teacher raises, and in the aftermath, one department head and certain members of the Common Council have been accused of doing the Mayor's bidding in his alleged continuing attempts to make the Superintendent look bad.

We would like to address one particular distortion in this discussion -- that being that the Mayor was trying to renege on an agreement made between the City and the School Department to fund 1% of the teachers' raises through an anticipated Medicaid reimbursement.

The City entered into an agreement with the School Department that any Medicaid reimbursement monies received from the state that were in excess of $590,000 would be applied to offset the cost of an increase in teachers' salaries in 2005. The City entered into this agreement based on information that they received from the School Department that these excess reimbursements would amount to $270,000. Unfortunately, however, the City did not request any documents that would verify the School Department's claim that this excess of funds would be available for disbursement. In addition, the City signed a very poorly crafted agreement with the School Department that could be interpreted to mean that the City would be responsible for covering the $270,000 transfer regardless of the amount of excess Medicaid reimbursement the city received. To date, the total Medicaid reimbursement received in excess of $590,000 has been only $16,000, leaving the City to come up with the $254,000 shortfall from another source. This is what was done Monday evening . . . the teachers are not being deprived of their pay raises, and the City is not reneging on their promise, although Wednesday's news reports certainly would make it seem like the teachers are the victims in all this political gamesmanship -- and it simply is not true.

What is true is that the City was foolish to accept the School Department's word at face value. At best, the School Committee submitted misleading information during the negotiations. At worst, they lied. What is true is that rather than calling the School Committee on the bogus information they provided in order to broker this deal, the Administration has chosen to go forward and find a way to fulfill the obligation into which they entered. What is true is that certain members of the Common Council were calling the Mayor to account for the rationale behind this agreement, given the fact that there is currently no risk that the teacher salaries could not be met for the remainder of the year. The only way the salaries will not be met is if the School Department starts playing another shell game with their budget -- transferring money in and out of accounts to cover expenses for which they did not budget.

Drama and distortion in Everett politics -- it's nothing new; in fact, it's getting pretty old. Trust in our elected and our city officials seems to be at an all time low. This is the year to call for greater accountability from those responsible for working for the greater good. This is the year to require a higher standard. We deserve nothing less.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

The Shell Game

If you saw the Common Council meeting on Monday night or read today's Everett Independent, you know that people are all abuzz about the revelation by City Auditor Skip Coppola that the School Department has been maintaining a discretionary "reserve" fund through Shore Collaborative that has been used to pay for certain expenditures made by the School Department in order to avoid these invoices going through the prescribed approval process in the city. The Everett Independent is taking the view that Mr. Coppola is operating as the Mayor's henchman, trying to make the Superintendent look bad, and attempting to use it as a "red herring" in order to avoid fulfilling an agreement the City made with the School Department to fund teacher raises this year.

We take a different view.

While we believe that the timing of Mr. Coppola's revelation was ill-advised, it's important to look at the bigger picture and examine the hard numbers. The money paid by the City of Everett to Shore Collaborative is there for the purposes of providing special education services to the children in the Everett Public Schools who need them, and for the purpose of obtaining federal reimbursement money. According to Mr. Coppola, overpayments and rental fees were placed into a reserve fund, to be used at the discretion of the school department, instead of being returned to the city of Everett. Looking at the numbers -- numbers, by the way, that were provided to Mr. Coppola by Shore Collaborative -- there were significant funds paid out for services that one would be hard pressed to justify as special education expenses.

One of these "services" was payments made to the three local newspapers. The Independent states that the "mayor's underling" tried to blame the "slush fund on money Foresteire needs to pay for advertising that the school department buys in Everett's three newspapers. "Our name got tossed in that bad mix, except we don't receive a fraction of what the other two newspapers receive -- and they don't receive enough to make a difference in paying teachers' raises, " stated the Independent. The Independent, and others with this mindset, don't seem to want to acknowledge that 1) the total spent over two years from the reserve fund on items apparently unrelated to special education was more than $200,000, an amount which can impact both teacher salaries and educational services; 2) yes, there were funds used from this reserve account to pay the three local newspapers and 3) the amount each paper received is not the issue -- the issue is this: were monies that were earmarked for special education services used for other purposes? Looking at the numbers, any "fair minded and clear thinking" person would have to say yes. In fiscal year '03, Shore Collaborative paid out $34,389 to the three local newspapers. The Independent is correct when it says that they don't receive a fraction of what the other two papers receive -- but does any clear thinking person believe that $34,389 worth of advertising in the three local papers was related to special education? The expenditures in fiscal '04 were $18, 190 -- significantly lower than the previous year but still substantial enough to beg the question; how much of these expeditures was special ed related? The most notable "advertising" appearing in the three papers related to the schools at any given time is generally for football, followed by the activities of the band, followed by the publicizing of the academic achievements of the students. Where in that mix does special education fall that it would justify a $52,579 expenditure over two years?

The second notable expenditure is money paid toward expenses for the Homecoming Parade in '02 and '03. In fiscal year '03 (which would cover the October 2002 Homecoming Parade), Shore Collaborative paid out $15,150 that was categorized as Homecoming/Parade. In fiscal year '04 (covering the October 2003 Homecoming Parade), the amount was $21,550. Where is the benefit to the special education program in the Homecoming Parade? Don't get us wrong -- the Homecoming Parade has been a great tradition in recent years, and we missed it in 2004 -- but money that is supposed to provide services for special education students (because it is, after all, "about the the kids") should be used to provide those services, not to provide a high-priced cheerleading session for the high school football team.

The School Department has been playing a shell game with these monies, and while someone may -- and we emphasize may -- be able to make the case that what they're doing is not "illegal", it will be much more difficult to justify whether it is ethical. And while some people may believe that these most recent revelations are politically motivated, that does not take away from the fact that these are serious allegations with not insignificant evidence as to their veracity, and the situation should be fully investigated.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

John Paul II -- Pilgrim, Pope, Man of God

Pope John Paul II, spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church, passed away today, ending one of the longest papal reigns in history. The Pope passed away at his residence in Vatican City as hundreds of thousands of people prayed and held vigil in St. Peter's Square.

Pope John Paul II, born Karol Wojtyla , was a man of compassion and conviction who survived the Nazi occupation of Poland, stood up against Communism, and in an extraordinary gesture, met with and forgave the man who attempted to assassinate him in 1981. He was steadfastly devoted to the doctrines of the Church, his faith and God, and he was a role model for millions of Catholics and people of faith all around the world.

The Pope's physical presence is gone from the world, but his spirit will live on through the faith of the millions of lives his touched during his papacy.