School Business Manager Answers Specific Charges By BOF Chair

In a detailed, four-page report that was produced by school district Business Manager Ronald Bienkowski either on his own or under a directive by the Board of Education or school superintendent, 13 specific charges are answered. The response, which was presented to the Board of Education during its June 19 meeting, directly and chronologically addresses criticisms and concerns voiced in an interview with Board of Finance Chairman John Kortze that appeared in The Newtown Bee last week (see related story).

Among the issues Mr Bienkowski addressed are:

1. Mr Kortze and the finance board contending there had been no discussion of late school budget transfers and how administrators planned to spend more than $1.7 million in unencumbered “surplus” funds before the end of June.

Mr Bienkowski’s reply: “There was no discussion because we do not have $1.7 million in surplus funds.”

2. Mr Kortze’s concerns about the distribution of that surplus, which would represent six-tenths of a mill in tax relief if it were returned to the town and applied to the municipal budget in its entirety.

Mr Bienkowski replied: “To characterize the May 31, 2006, current balance of the operational budget as ‘surplus’ is unfair, especially implying that it could represent six-tenths of a mill in tax relief if returned to the town.”

He went on to say that the May and June district bills will be forthcoming in June and July. “Simple math on the Board of Education’s $56,938,770 budget indicates that the monthly expenditure would be approximately $4,495,000 per month,” he said.

The school district business manager additionally said, “While $1.7 million is a large amount of money, it represents approximately $873,000 of unencumbered expenses for each of the months of May and June, and is being used to pay unencumbered items” including $685,000 in transportation costs, $190,572 in electricity, $32,841 in building and grounds repairs, more than $20,000 in water and sewer bills, $32,435 of incurred legal bills for the month of May, FICA and Medicare premiums for May of $54,844 and almost $39,000 for substitutes, tutors, and overtime wages.

3. In The Bee interview, Mr Kortze discussed a letter being sent to the board of education requesting a joint meeting, a move unanimously endorsed by the finance board on June 12.

Mr Bienkowski noted the Board of Education did not receive that letter until Friday, June 16.

4. Mr Kortze pointed out in the letter that failing to schedule a joint meeting July 10, his board would be receptive to a joint meeting as soon as possible.

Mr Bienkowski replied: “The Board of Ed restructured its agenda to place discussion of its financials at the beginning of its meetings for the convenience of the Board of Finance members, and they have been invited to attend any time finances are discussed.”

5. Mr Kortze referenced about $60,000 in savings from insurance benefits, which ended up being accounted for as more than $250,000 in insurance savings shown as revenue as the municipal budget process and fiscal year drew to a close.

Mr Bienkowski said, “The comments about $60,000 in savings from insurance are another mischaracterization of facts. The administration doesn’t even know where this figure came from. The reality is that the $258,568 of insurance savings was identified because the decrease in … rates was put on the table as soon as it was known, and were in every subsequent adjustment sheet ever prepared by the Board of Education.”

The school business manager answered Mr Kortze’s questions about revenue surpluses and how the district could afford to fund new teaching positions in the face of more than $900,000 in mandated budget cuts, where the money to fund new positions and certain projects and prebought supplies and equipment came from by directing the finance board chair down the paper trail.

Mr Beinkowski repeatedly suggested the Board of Finance simply review the monthly financial statements he said his office has been regularly providing to Mr Kortze and his fellow board members. He pointed out that information about where the funds came from was the subject of discussion by the school board during June 6 and June 14 meetings, and that the information was also covered in The Bee.

He said the prebuying of items unfunded after initial requests or cut from next year’s budget with funds from the current budget “were discussed in public forum and were included in the record.”

Mr Bienkowski said that among the expenditures from what Mr Kortze referred to as “found money” include $27,456 in math textbooks, $31,000 for high school technology equipment, $15,000 in books for the Reed library, $40,000 for miscellaneous tech equipment, $132,000 to secure the “Hawley PC conversion,” and an additional $24,866 for textbooks, presumably for several schools in the district.

In responding to an allegation that savings are built into the budget, Mr Bienkowski responded: “Savings are never built into a budget. Savings occur as a result of dynamic changes in our operating environment. There are also unanticipated costs throughout the year.

“When potential cost deficiencies are identified, management decisions such as deferring purchases or holding positions vacant for longer periods are made. Additional revenue through excess cost programs is diligently sought out and we push the envelope on what is covered. The Board of Education consistently does the best if [sic] can with what it has.”

Mr Bienkowski said statements suggesting “lack of disclosure” represent unfair characterizations when all the actions in question are discussed and acted upon in public meetings. He also clarified that Mr Kortze’s question about $20,000 in energy savings actually referred to 20,000 gallons of oil that the district was able to acquire at $2.10 per gallon instead of $2.23.

The school official suggests that the Board of Finance members might experience less frustration by “talking to us instead of the newspaper.”

“The Board of Finance violates its own beliefs regarding open communications,” Mr Bienkowski concluded. “There is also frustration on the Board of Education’s part since after four years of analysis and requests for information, the Board of Finance, through its chair, makes comments to the newspaper that are inaccurate and misleading.”