School Board, Business Manager, Take Issue With BOF Critics

By John Voket

Members of the Board of Education and the school district business manager reacted vociferously at a special meeting on Monday, offering more than 20 minutes of strongly worded rebuttals to remarks made by John Kortze, the town’s finance board chairman, in last week’s Newtown Bee. One member of the school board who claimed to have journalistic experience “at a daily newspaper in New Jersey” also took The Bee to task during the June 19 meeting, saying the article failed to present a balanced perspective because it was published without any calls for clarification being made to district staff or Board of Education officials.

School board member Thomas Gissen said that he wanted to “caution the public to be highly suspect” of the story, asserting that if he ever brought such a one-sided “attack piece” to his editors, “I would have been thrown out of there on my ear.”

District Finance Director Ron Bienkowski, who was recently recognized as School Business Manager of the Year, said statements from Mr Kortze on behalf of his board were reflective of someone who didn’t spend their entire career working in the financial field. Virtually every member of the finance board, however, works in legal or financial fields, including John Torok, who used to hold Mr Bienkowski’s position in the Newtown school district office.

This statement was echoed on June 21 during a meeting between school board Chair Elaine McClure, board member Andrew Buzzi, Jr, and members of The Bee’s editorial staff, when Mr Buzzi said that although he had not spoken directly to the finance board chairman, he was surprised that Mr Kortze would use such inaccurate language in a newspaper interview.

Mr Buzzi was referring specifically to a concern voiced by Mr Kortze in last week’s Bee article (“Finance Bd. Continues Its Call For School Budget Specifics”) about $1.7 million in unencumbered “surplus” funds that remained in the school board’s current budget, and were published in the district’s May financial statement.

Despite the fact that the $1.7 million was questioned minutes earlier in the public comment portion of the meeting, Mr Buzzi stated, “[Mr Kortze] talks about $1.7 million in unencumbered funds … I don’t know where that figure came from.”

Although the $1.7 million was the amount published and left over to be spent between June 1 and the end of the district’s current fiscal cycle, Mr Buzzi and Mr Bienkowski both said it was inappropriate to suggest the funds were “surplus.”

Earlier in the meeting, however, the board did vote to use some of the so-called “surplus” funds to prebuy more than $200,000 in books, technology equipment, and two used vans for the school transportation department. Mr Beinkowski told the board that $24,800 in textbooks and $172,000 in equipment to convert Hawley School technology to a PC platform were items originally requested in next year’s budget, but had been subsequently cut during budget deliberations.

The two used Ford Windstar vans, if purchased, would cost about $9,000 each according to school transportation director Tony DiLonardo. Those vehicle purchases never appeared in any past, current, or next fiscal year’s school budget.

Mr Beinkowski articulated during Monday’s meeting that his office had already expended well over $600,000 of the $1.7 million left over at the end of May, and that he did not understand why the article featuring Mr Kortze’s comments failed to clarify that those funds would likely be spent on day-to-day needs as the school year concluded.

The day before that article was published, a Newtown Bee editor had in fact requested an accounting of interim transfers that would have illustrated some or all of the expenditures made against that $1.7 million between May 31 and June 12. That information was refused by the school district’s business office, with Mr Beinkowski relating that June transfers would be available to The Bee the same day they were reviewed by the school board — at the board’s next public meeting, which is scheduled for July 5.

During Monday’s special school board meeting, Mr Beinkowski subsequently detailed at least $615,000 in transfers, a move Mr Gissen later suggested may have been prompted by Mr Kortze’s criticism’s in the June 16 article.

In a call to The Bee before press time for this edition, Mr Gissen characterized Mr Kortze’s claims as “inaccurate and inflammatory.

“It read like an attack piece,” Mr Gissen said. “People who read it and think ‘Those guys are out of control.’ I’m not trying to get into an argument with John Kortze, but I want to have more direct communication.”

The article in question reflected concerns and questions unanimously shared by the Finance Board at its last meeting, specifically about the school board’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), upcoming contract negotiations, year-end transfers and budgets, and an internal audit which the board of education has repeatedly referred to as an “Internal Controls Report.”

At that meeting, held on June 12, the finance board moved to send a letter to the school board requesting a joint meeting on July 10 to discuss those issues. While there was some discussion of the letter during the June 19 school board meeting, Mr Gissen said subsequently that the date is “not working for us.”

“I don’t support a joint meeting,” Mr Gissen said. “It’s not warranted.” Mr Gissen continued saying school board members typically try to attend every finance board and Legislative Council meeting to address any specific questions as they are posed, and added that “…it’s a rare sight to see a Board of Finance member at our meetings.”

When contacted on Tuesday, school board Vice Chairman Lisa Schwartz said that the answers to all of the questions Mr Kortze posed in The Bee interview were a matter of public record.

“I’m not sure what Mr Kortze was inferring. I can’t say I don’t find the article troubling, and it doesn’t reflect positively on The Bee,” Ms Schwartz said. “I just try to do my job, and it’s not easy to confront this daily criticism.”

School board Chairman Elaine McClure said during the June 21 meeting at The Bee’s office that she shared concerns expressed by her fellow board members.

“We’re public volunteers trying to do the best job we can. And to hear there’s some kind of vendetta — it’s not going to help us,” Ms McClure said. “I just don’t think [The Bee] is to have one-sided articles that can do damage; that we have this $1.7 million surplus, which isn’t true. If you’re going to print information about us, take the time to be sure it’s true.”

Mr Buzzi said he was sensitive to an article that talks about the school board not disclosing to the public.

“We talk to the public, we are open in our meetings, we give a lot of information out there — and when they say we are doing things secretly, and not disclosing things to the public, it raises our ire,” Mr Buzzi said. “We’re volunteers, this is my public service. I know we [deal with] controversial issues. Don’t tell me we’re doing things secretly or behind people’s back. That’s not fair.”

It should be noted that both Mr Buzzi and Ms McClure testified recently to the State Freedom of Information Commission, and are among school board members named in an appeal from The Newtown Bee contending the board held a secret meeting late last year during which Ms McClure was challenged for her leadership role by another board member.

The school board has stated in its defense that an executive session was appropriately called to conduct an evaluation of the performance of Ms McClure, which the Board of Education’s attorney in the matter has asserted is legal in his interpretation of state statutes. A final ruling on the FOIC appeal is expected in the coming weeks.

During the school board’s special meeting on June 19, school board member Paul Mangiafico pointed out that the $1.7 million “surplus” questioned by Mr Kortze was derived from the Board of Education’s end of May financial report. But when he was offered the opportunity to comment on the article or his board’s reactions following the meeting, he declined.

Three messages were left for school board member David Nanavaty, but requests for his comment on Mr Kortze’s interview were not returned as The Bee went to press Thursday morning.