Operation Payback: a "poke in the eye to the budgeting process" - Granite Grok

Operation Payback: a “poke in the eye to the budgeting process”

Actually, it is turning out to be more of a slugfest now:  "Another brouhaha in Gilford, this time over use of school budget surplus"; it seems that the School Board’s complaint that the Budget Committee was trying to dictate policy was just a smokescreen.  Here in NH:
Operation Payback

GILFORD — Budget Committee member David Horvath is challenging the right of the School Board to spend some of its projected 2010-11 school year surplus on items budgeted for next year.

In an e-mail Horvath sent to Assistant Gilford School Superintendent Scott Isabelle, Horvath challenged the legality of the encumbrance of about $150,000  from this year’s projected surplus.

 

"It is a concern of the BC that none of these items are line items in the 2010- 2011 budget and further that some of these are in the 2011-2012 budget," he wrote noting that fluorescent lights bulbs for the Gilford Elementary School aren’t in either budget and citing RSA 32:5-II of the municipal budget act.

According to the draft minutes of the May 2 School Board meeting, Isabelle recommended spending at total of $169,000 of the projected $500,000 surplus for a tractor and a Zero-Turn mower, replacing some computers with some unexpended heating oil money, refinishing the gymnasium floor from the same heating account, replacing booster pumps from some money in the worker’s compensation line, replacing the SAU office boiler and ceiling from the heating oil account.

All of the above are items included in the 2011-12 operating budget.

Even as the soon to be departed Superintended DiMinico whined about an impending budget problem just a few weeks ago (as the State was not going to be giving the town as much money – golly guys, I’ve only been yelling about this was going to happen for what, three years??), here they are talking about spending on new stuff.  That chest beating now looks like a strictly faux concern for the affected staff that may have to be let go.  Instead, the public is now the happy audience of the happiness of "Hey!  we’re getting a new $40K mower! Oh, not approved for this year? – doesn’t matter; that grass has gotta be cut!". After all, it’s for the children".

No, this is not about the children – it is a power struggle by…

…the School Board about spending dollars; dollars are merely the proxy.  Sure, compared to the fiscal problems that DC has caused for this nation, and that Concord has caused for the State, this is pretty much really "small ball" dollar-wise.  However, regardless of the absolute amount, it still shows that politics is politics regardless of the size of the stage and it greatly illustrates the major problem underlying politics today – a lack of ethics.

Sure, the Kurt Webber led board may have the legal wherewithal to do the transfers and "claim" that some of these purchases are just "maintenance" items and have legit line items into which to log the transactions.  But is is right? 

It is unethical to subvert the spirit of the law – which under the SB2 process here in NH that our town uses, yet that is what present School Board Chair Kurt Webber is doing!  How is it ethical to spend under this year’s budget items that have not been approved for purchase until next year? How is it ethical to purchase fairly large dollar items without going through the budget process?  How ethical is to vilify the Budget Committee for trying to change policy just because we don’t wish to spend money, yet you go completely around the budget process entirely?  It seems that you have sanctioned the same behavior by your Board without so much as a ‘by your leave" (actually, it seems like you’ve snotted in our gieneral directed) Monty Python

And of course – I did weigh in briefly in the article:

Either way, said Budget Committee member Skip Murphy, the spending is a "poke in the eye to the budgeting process" and he fears the School District is "creating a slush fund" for next year.

At least there one less dunderheaded person speaking against this stupidity of Kurt creating this row:

Draft minutes indicate School Board member Paul Blandford, the board representative to the Budget Committee, initially expressed apprehension about tying spending this year to any positions that may be cut next year.

Minutes reflect he was also leery of replacing the computers this year. He said the fluorescent light bulbs replacements "would have to go through the budget process."

Of course he’d say this – he was the Representative to the Budget Committee last year and is rumored to be the same this year – he WILL be on the hot seat all budget season long.  Apprehension may be the understated word of the day; sir, know anyone in the racing biz from whom to borrow a fireproof suit?

But this is one clear reason I declared that it was time to change the outlook of the School Board (and to run to replace him):

School Board Chair Kurt Webber declined to comment on Horvath’s letter but said he agreed with the expenditures because they are already included in next year’s budget and, with the biennial state budget in such flux, he thought it made good fiscal sense to make some necessary purchases now rather than next year.

Isabelle was unavailable for comment.

Not surprised that Scott was "unavailable".  And no, after last year’s performance, it is clear that instead of acting as "The Accountant" with yes / no / here’s-the-number answers, he has decided to become the "Chief Apologist and Advocate" (shoving poor Paul Blandford out of the way). 

The bottomline is no longer the fiscal matter – it is now an ethical issue: wanton spending by screwing the process?.  "it made good fiscal sense to make some necessary purchases now rather than next year" shows the uppermost thought of Kurt Webber; he KNOWS that the money isn’t going to be there next year.  This is nothing but a "spend it while I can and suffer the consequences next year".

 

*********************
Another brouhaha is Gilford, this time over use of school budget surplus

By Gail Ober
May 12, 2011 12:00 am
GILFORD — Budget Committee member David Horvath is challenging the right of the School Board to spend some of its projected 2010-11 school year surplus on items budgeted for next year. In an e-mail Horvath sent to Assistant Gilford School Superintendent Scott Isabelle, Horvath challe…

GILFORD — Budget Committee member David Horvath is challenging the right of the School Board to spend some of its projected 2010-11 school year surplus on items budgeted for next year.

In an e-mail Horvath sent to Assistant Gilford School Superintendent Scott Isabelle, Horvath challenged the legality of the encumbrance of about $150,000  from this year’s projected surplus.

"It is a concern of the BC that none of these items are line items in the 2010- 2011 budget and further that some of these are in the 2011-2012 budget," he wrote noting that fluorescent lights bulbs for the Gilford Elementary School aren’t in either budget and citing RSA 32:5-II of the municipal budget act.

According to the draft minutes of the May 2 School Board meeting, Isabelle recommended spending at total of $169,000 of the projected $500,000 surplus for a tractor and a Zero-Turn mower, replacing some computers with some unexpended heating oil money, refinishing the gymnasium floor from the same heating account, replacing booster pumps from some money in the worker’s compensation line, replacing the SAU office boiler and ceiling from the heating oil account.

All of the above are items included in the 2011-12 operating budget.

Isabelle also suggested replacing the fluorescent light bulbs in the Elementary School — an item costing $77,000 and not in the 2011-2012 budget. He said the expenditure would be partially refunded through public utility rebate programs.

According to N.H. Department of Revenue Municipal Division Director Barbara Robinson, the appropriate law is RSA 32:10 of the Municipal Budget Act that governs the transfer of money from one item to another.

"It’s allowable to make transfers as long as you don’t spend more than the appropriation," she said.

She said RSA 32:5 refers to the budgeting process and states the lines items can’t be changed on the district warrant after the public hearing has been held.

Either way, said Budget Committee member Skip Murphy, the spending is a "poke in the eye to the budgeting process" and he fears the School District is "creating a slush fund" for next year.

Robinson said the School District SB-2 meeting legally authorizes the bottom line and, by law, N.H. school districts cannot maintain a fund balance the way towns do and must zero out their budget every year. The DRA uses any recorded surplus to offset the property tax burden.

It is not uncommon for districts to have unexpended funds or unanticipated revenues because the budget process begins long before school district knows the actual costs of operations, such as heating oil and special education.

Draft minutes indicate School Board member Paul Blandford, the board representative to the Budget Committee, initially expressed apprehension about tying spending this year to any positions that may be cut next year.

Minutes reflect he was also leery of replacing the computers this year. He said the fluorescent light bulbs replacements "would have to go through the budget process."

The board voted to spend money on everything but the light bulbs and the computers.

The e-mail from Horvath also serves to highlight the tension building
between the the School Board and the Budget Committee — much of if stemming from the decision to hire a new superintendent — which was done days before voters told the School Board they preferred, by a 2-to-1 margin, to have their School District operate without a superintendent.

"On a cynical note, if their (the School Board’s) attempt to spend the money is thwarted, I’m sure they will find another way to piss it away," he finishes.

School Board Chair Kurt Webber declined to comment on Horvath’s letter but said he agreed with the expenditures because they are already included in next year’s budget and, with the biennial state budget in such flux, he thought it made good fiscal sense to make some necessary purchases now rather than next year.

Isabelle was unavailable for comment.

>