Our school directors want very, very, very much for you to believe that their Fund Balance is legal. They have written letters to the editor, complained to Free Press management, and called for a retraction of my statement that the Balance has been illegally high. So here it is - I retract nothing. Any technical compliance does not change the fact that we all are victims. And I will put my money where my wordprocessor is.
State law says that QCSD may not raise taxes if its Fund Balance (basically, reserve money) exceeds eight percent of its proposed budget. In recent years, our ending FB has been between nine and 13 percent. Even our directors and administration know that nine and 13 are more than eight. But taxes have skyrocketed because they refuse to acknowledge that these huge overages violate the spirit of the law.
Why? Because the law says that as long as the number written on paper at the beginning of the year is less than eight percent, it doesn't matter what actually happens. It doesn't matter if the budget is followed - and ours surely isn't. It doesn't matter if there are millions of dollars left over at the end of the year, outside the budget - and there surely are. It doesn't matter if those millions of dollars should have stayed in your pockets - and they surely should have.
As long as that one entry in the 5000-item-long budget says eight percent or less, our directors and administrators feel that they "complied" with the law - no matter how much tax you actually overpaid, and no matter how the budget wasn't followed. The Pennsylvania Department of Education initially agreed, but is now tapdancing around the issue. Michael Race, of the PDE Press Office, originally stated, "If the district adopts a budget as described in (a letter from QCSD Business Administrator Sylvia Lenz), there is no 'illegal' fund balance."
But when I pointed out that only the courts, not PDE, have the authority to declare anything "legal" or "illegal", he backed off: "(TFP editor David) Anderson asked us to assess and compare conflicting statements on the same subject and we offered our view on which statement was correct. He did not ask for, nor would we offer, a binding legal opinion."
Can you say bureaucratic butt-covering? The legality of any school district plan or policy can only be decided by our court system, and the distinction is of monumental proportions. Many of America's key education laws were the result of judicial decisions overruling agencies like PDE - and school boards.
Not too long ago, thousands of schools in this country were racially segregated. And the Departments of Education in those states approved it. Then, forced busing to achieve integration was OK'd by those same state DOE's. Religion was a part of public schools, with state DOE blessings. Those directors, and DOE's, all vehemently defended their actions as "legal", just like QCSD. Fortunately, U.S. courts felt differently.
I do not expect the Supreme Court to rule any time soon on whether our board is improperly exploiting a loophole in the law to justify their questionable and costly actions. The "legality" or "illegality" is secondary to the effect this all has on us. After all, this is our school system. The directors are supposed to be doing what is best for the community, not finding technicalities to hide runaway spending and poor budgeting.
The purpose of the law is to prevent districts from raising taxes unnecessarily. To prevent boards from stockpiling large slush funds, and then spending those millions on items outside the budget. To force administrators to use solid financial planning, and compile a budget that the community can count on. Sound familiar? If ever there was a school district that needed to fully comply with the spirit of the law, it is right here in Secrecy City.
Yet, Linda Martin, Bob Leight, Nancy Tirjan, Kelly Van Valkenburgh, Zane Stauffer, and Bill Laboski seem totally consumed with shedding that "illegal" albatross from around their necks. They appear far less concerned with revising the budget process, improving investment practices, curbing their outrageous spending habits, or lowering our taxes - the things that they were actually elected to do!
And where was this self-righteous call for a retraction when former Superintendent Jim Scanlon falsely stated that we needed to close a school, and eliminate sports and extracurricular programs, to balance the budget? Or when Leight, and former president Phil Abramson, falsely blamed development for higher taxes? Or when the administration falsely claimed that our graduates' college performances were not obtainable?
If you are fed up with this whole mess, there is a very simple answer. One that could have profound effects on your wallets, and on the education of your children: Don't blindly trust what the board tells you. Or the superintendent, or the PDE, or letters to the editor. Or what I write. Call in the experts. Have all of QCSD's financial practices examined by an outside agency which specializes in exactly this kind of investigation. Let's hear their analysis, and recommendations. What does our community possibly have to lose?
Yet, seven board members, the administration, and the superintendent oppose it. Why? What are they hiding? Despite the we-know-all attitude of the board, this is our school district, spending our tax dollars, and we deserve to know all. Is QCSD being run as properly and efficiently as possible?
I AM SO CONFIDENT THAT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS WILL REVEAL SUCH POOR PRACTICES, AND RECOMMEND SUCH SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS, THAT IF THOSE SAVINGS DON'T EQUAL THE COST OF THE EXAMINATION, I WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE OUT OF MY OWN POCKET!!! In reality, those savings will probably be many times the cost.
And, if the current directors continue to ignore the community, and focus on what is "legal" for them instead of what is best for us, there is an election in November. Changing one director will change the entire composition of the board. Dump long-time big spender Linda Martin, who (surprise!) opposes any financial examination. Elect reformer Lou-Ellen Renshaw. The new majority will make that review their top priority. We have nothing to lose but our high taxes.