Parents demand spendy superintendent be fired and Board of Ed pay more attention, as dozens of Community School staff are axed to help close two million dollar budget gap
It seems that the analysis of the comparative budget to actual numbers is more complex than has been given attention. Board and parents alike are stumbling over the 1.6 million dollar question. I have heard several error in saying that Dr. Hatchett overspent by 1.6 million. This line of questioning may be a short sided view of the issues in the District with unfounded emphasis on the expense side of the ledger.
Finance Director Sweet, BCSD, named the problem in his explanation at the recent Board Meeting as reported by The Edge. I have yet to hear anyone beyond The Edge echo or articulate that the problem is not in the expense side of the ledger. The previous Finance Director, Super, and the Board are all responsible for the erroneous error of over-projecting School Year 2024-25 Revenue by $1.6 million.
Understand that if Revenue had been accurately projected in the draft budget process last year we would not have an enormous financial problem this year. If the proforma Income error were corrected during the budget preparation process one of two scenarios would have happened:
- Total expenses would be decreased to balance the budget or
- Total Revenue would be increased to balance the budget.
I suspect that actual student enrollment decreased in comparison to budgeted student enrollment. It may be that budgeted Revenue was never corrected to account for the known decrease in enrollment. There was no real time correction to the projections so that decision makers could see the trend. Further, there should have been proactive analysis and discussion of the trend leading to the question, "How are we going to make up for the decreased income? Are we going to figure out how to earn more income or are we going to hatchet expenses?"
The decrease in enrollment was mistakenly ignored in the key data driving the core of both the Revenue and Expense sides of the budget. For example, a great deal of school Income (revenue) is a direct result of the number of enrolled students. If we have 5 students and earn $10 per student then we have $50 in income. However, if student enrollment decreases to 2 students and we earn $10 per student then the total income is $20. One can see that Revenue is directly reliant on the variable amount of enrolled students. Earnings decrease as a direct result of the variable number of enrolled students.
While the expense side should be scrutinized one must remember to analyze all pertinent information from purchasing policy to depreciation policy. A comprehensive step by step look at the past will inform the future. Reviewing all fiscal policy is important. Analyzing the expenses in comparison to policy is imperative. Narrowing the focus to specific purchases authorized by specific authority figures must also be accomplished. Finally, an expense side plan can be generated.
The alleged spendthrift habits of the Super are questionable and irresponsible yet are not the greatest contributor to the current situation. The projected Income based on incorrect core data assumptions is the real problem. You can do the math. The budget as compared to actual Expenses and Revenues would balance if the error had not been made in the plan.
Back to luxury travel expenses without oversight. There should always be two signatories on every purchase order and financial transaction. One may not authorize a purchase order one has authored. That is a no-brainer. An assigned Board member should be reviewing the Super's real time purchase orders and purchases. No one in the District should make purchasing decisions without proper oversight and comparison to policy.
In light of the Revenue budget mistakes, Dr. Hatchett's lack of judgement is a smaller problem. Not diminishing her dismal prudence; I aim to outline the crux of the issue according to Director Sweet's comments above.
I know little about the situation, only what I have read in news articles. I do know enough to write that the issue is deserving of a thorough analysis. Only then will we know what should be done differently in the future. There is this truth that remains, the Super, Finance Director and Board are responsible for fiscal management. To successfully accomplish this one must be readily available more than just "one night a month" as a Board member stated. Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, roll up your sleeves, get ready for the elbow grease, the responsible parties will be putting in some long hours.
Thanks for your comment. In case this is directed at The Edge more than the School Board, to clarify, The Edge reported that outsized revenue projections are at the heart of this in the initial story about the school, so it's not accurate to say that "no one" is saying anything about revenue. Also, please see the update in this story, if it wasn't added when you initially read this piece. There was a shortfall created when the numbers weren't adjusted downward to accommodate the end of covid subsidies. As for analysis and further investigation, I have also noted that The Edge is continuing to report on this, and indeed is doing so.
Hi, Alice. No, there was no list of actual names distributed. There were some teachers who identified themselves as having been pink slipped, but only a few. I know there was the chem teacher, and two of the English teachers. I am not done reporting on this for sure. It's stunning how many cuts were made.
Thank you for your reporting on this. Setting and following the budget is one of the main responsibilities for the superintendent and school board. $2 million ??? So sorry for all the teachers and staff who are losing their jobs.
The problem: R E V E N U E is over projected.
It seems that the analysis of the comparative budget to actual numbers is more complex than has been given attention. Board and parents alike are stumbling over the 1.6 million dollar question. I have heard several error in saying that Dr. Hatchett overspent by 1.6 million. This line of questioning may be a short sided view of the issues in the District with unfounded emphasis on the expense side of the ledger.
Finance Director Sweet, BCSD, named the problem in his explanation at the recent Board Meeting as reported by The Edge. I have yet to hear anyone beyond The Edge echo or articulate that the problem is not in the expense side of the ledger. The previous Finance Director, Super, and the Board are all responsible for the erroneous error of over-projecting School Year 2024-25 Revenue by $1.6 million.
Understand that if Revenue had been accurately projected in the draft budget process last year we would not have an enormous financial problem this year. If the proforma Income error were corrected during the budget preparation process one of two scenarios would have happened:
- Total expenses would be decreased to balance the budget or
- Total Revenue would be increased to balance the budget.
I suspect that actual student enrollment decreased in comparison to budgeted student enrollment. It may be that budgeted Revenue was never corrected to account for the known decrease in enrollment. There was no real time correction to the projections so that decision makers could see the trend. Further, there should have been proactive analysis and discussion of the trend leading to the question, "How are we going to make up for the decreased income? Are we going to figure out how to earn more income or are we going to hatchet expenses?"
The decrease in enrollment was mistakenly ignored in the key data driving the core of both the Revenue and Expense sides of the budget. For example, a great deal of school Income (revenue) is a direct result of the number of enrolled students. If we have 5 students and earn $10 per student then we have $50 in income. However, if student enrollment decreases to 2 students and we earn $10 per student then the total income is $20. One can see that Revenue is directly reliant on the variable amount of enrolled students. Earnings decrease as a direct result of the variable number of enrolled students.
While the expense side should be scrutinized one must remember to analyze all pertinent information from purchasing policy to depreciation policy. A comprehensive step by step look at the past will inform the future. Reviewing all fiscal policy is important. Analyzing the expenses in comparison to policy is imperative. Narrowing the focus to specific purchases authorized by specific authority figures must also be accomplished. Finally, an expense side plan can be generated.
The alleged spendthrift habits of the Super are questionable and irresponsible yet are not the greatest contributor to the current situation. The projected Income based on incorrect core data assumptions is the real problem. You can do the math. The budget as compared to actual Expenses and Revenues would balance if the error had not been made in the plan.
Back to luxury travel expenses without oversight. There should always be two signatories on every purchase order and financial transaction. One may not authorize a purchase order one has authored. That is a no-brainer. An assigned Board member should be reviewing the Super's real time purchase orders and purchases. No one in the District should make purchasing decisions without proper oversight and comparison to policy.
In light of the Revenue budget mistakes, Dr. Hatchett's lack of judgement is a smaller problem. Not diminishing her dismal prudence; I aim to outline the crux of the issue according to Director Sweet's comments above.
I know little about the situation, only what I have read in news articles. I do know enough to write that the issue is deserving of a thorough analysis. Only then will we know what should be done differently in the future. There is this truth that remains, the Super, Finance Director and Board are responsible for fiscal management. To successfully accomplish this one must be readily available more than just "one night a month" as a Board member stated. Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, roll up your sleeves, get ready for the elbow grease, the responsible parties will be putting in some long hours.
Thanks for your comment. In case this is directed at The Edge more than the School Board, to clarify, The Edge reported that outsized revenue projections are at the heart of this in the initial story about the school, so it's not accurate to say that "no one" is saying anything about revenue. Also, please see the update in this story, if it wasn't added when you initially read this piece. There was a shortfall created when the numbers weren't adjusted downward to accommodate the end of covid subsidies. As for analysis and further investigation, I have also noted that The Edge is continuing to report on this, and indeed is doing so.
Thank you for this report! Do you know which teachers were let go?
Hi, Alice. No, there was no list of actual names distributed. There were some teachers who identified themselves as having been pink slipped, but only a few. I know there was the chem teacher, and two of the English teachers. I am not done reporting on this for sure. It's stunning how many cuts were made.
It’s very concerning!
Thank you for your reporting on this. Setting and following the budget is one of the main responsibilities for the superintendent and school board. $2 million ??? So sorry for all the teachers and staff who are losing their jobs.
Thank you JH. I agree that this is a stunner of a setback to education in Berea. I am not done looking into what actually happened.
Unbelievable.. 😪
Isn't it though?