Old Doesn't Mean Historic !!!! (By Bob Guerin)

Who are you calling Historic ?

This morning’s Cape Cod Times has yet another story about what’s happening (or not) with the Clark-Haddad building.  Abandoned years ago by the School Committee as too old, too costly, too small and generally worthless, the building was, the School Committee thought, to be quickly sold with the cash earned to be used to maintain and improve other Town buildings.

There are more than $25 million dollars in already known Town building repairs NOT being done because there’s no money to pay for them.

But, amazingly, to many in Sandwich being old seems to be the same as being Historic and so the question of what to do with Clark-Haddad drags on.

Apparently, 100 years or less from now, when someone thinks that the Oak Ridge School has served its useful life purpose and that future repair and upkeep costs can’t be justified, others will attempt to label the Oak Ridge school “historic.”

Someone will even slap a silly, self made, historic marker to its door, I suppose.   Somehow, just labeling something “Circa whatever” suggest to many a historic significance and import but this is not so.

"Old" and "Historic" are not synonyms.

A school is not historic because its old.  A storage building is not historic because its old.  Clark-Haddad is not historic; its old.

Its time to stop the historic hysterics; sell Clark-Haddad and move on.

Sandwich is rightly proud of its historic past but everything old is not historic and that’s a lesson Sandwich seems to need to learn if it is going to be able to afford to preserve what is truly historic and significant about this marvelous old town and its buildings.

To be clear ...

Sean Gonsalves wrote a good article in the Cape Cod Times this AM questioning the basic fairness of Sandwich parents paying fees while effectively subsidizing Community School swim memberships for the good folks of Cotuit, Mashpee, Falmouth, etc. (click here for article)

Just to be clear, there is no line in the School Budget that says "Contribution to Community School".  But there are lines for utility expenses, maintenance, etc.  If the Community School doesn't reimburse the District for its share of those costs, the District is, in effect, making that contribution.

Community School "Business Plan" Observations

Not the Community School AGAIN !!!!!!!!

DISCLAIMER: I think the Community School provides a very valuable service to members of our Community. I am not disputing the need for, or the quality of, the programs offered. I have taken several courses there, as have several members of my family. My only issue is that the cost of offering those programs, including any costs incurred by the School District for the benefit of the Community School, be paid by the Community School -- not with local property taxes intended for K-12 education.

I briefly reviewed the Community School Business Plan/Budget that was discussed at a recent School Committee meeting. The report was certainly long on data, but very short on real information. I also believe the Business Plan was missing one important component - an actual PLAN.

I have several serious issues with it; but here are some of the most glaring concerns that jumped off the page at me:

1) It appears that the Auditors' suggestion to adopt the accrual basis of accounting has been ignored. As a result, program revenue includes almost $78,000 for camps which were not actually held until the following year -- FY '12. It's important to note that although the income was recognized in FY '11 - the expenses won't be recognized until FY '12. This distorts the true operating results for FY '11 - it also ignores Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). This makes it impossible to determine the actual operating results of that program. Matching income and expense is a basic (but crucial) accounting concept.

2) $86,000 was budgeted for pool energy costs in FY '11, yet only $10,000 was actually reimbursed to the District. Did the Committee take a vote to divert District funds to the Community School program by NOT requesting utility reimbursements for FY '11? It appears that there is $57,000 budgeted for this line in FY '12 - why the difference?

It seems bizarre (and unfair) that parents are forced to pay for Full Day Kindergarten, as well as purchase paper towels, pencils and crayons for classrooms, yet there seems to be no concern about using dwindling school funds to subsidize Community School Pool costs. Its even more ironic, given that the Community School's own report shows that only 40% of its users actually live (and pay taxes) in Sandwich.

Based on these two issues alone, it appears that the actual operating loss for the Community School was grossly understated for FY '11.

3) It also appears that the auditors' suggestion to allocate General & Administrative (Central Office) costs across the various programs has been ignored. In determining the economic viability of a program, it's important to look not only at whether its revenue covers its related costs - but also a proportionate share of the general overhead costs of running the Community School. There also needs to be a discussion of the fairness of cost allocations. 

Why should users of the Adult Ed, Early Learning, and Drivers Ed programs pay higher fees to generate profits in their programs in order to offset costs which are not paid by pool users?

4) On a more basic level, the pool is budgeted to almost break even in FY '12 - BEFORE any allocation of overhead costs. The pool energy issue has not been addressed at all in the FY '12 Budget --- $86,000 was budgeted for FY '11 pool energy costs BUT only $11,000 was actually reimbursed to the District. Approximately $57,000 is proposed for FY '12. Is there any plan to reimburse the District for FY '11 energy costs? Why are School District tax dollars still being used to subsidize Community pool operations?

5) The FY '12 budget presentation is deceiving because it compares the FY '12 budget to the FY '11 Budget (not FY '11 Actual Costs). In fact, the only actual numbers for FY 12 are only through March 31. Why aren't a full year's actual results included for a realistic (and relevant) comparison?

6) There is no discussion of the cost of any of the pool cabana renovations discussed at the last meeting - or any discussion of the impact the current pool restrictions have had during the final quarter of FY '11 - or are expected to have during the coming year.

7) There is no discussion of how the upcoming capital repair work to re-grout the pool will be handled. This cost will likely reach $30,000 and will result in additional loss revenue during the period the pool is drained, repaired, and refilled.

8) There is also no discussion of how the upcoming costs of replacing/repairing the aging filtering equipment will be handled. Presumably, there will be a plea to Town Meeting for funding for the re-grouting, filtration equipment - but given the precarious nature of municipal finances, and the current public sentiment, this funding source can hardly be guaranteed.

9) I didn't review individual line items for reasonableness or inconsistent cost allocations between years (ie. Shifting costs from unprofitable to profitable programs). I also didn't look at Community School Admin staffing and how those costs should be fairly and realistically allocated between various programs. 

10) There does not seem to be any plan to continue the audit for either FY '10 or FY '11. Given the ongoing controversies with this issue, I strongly believe continuing the audit process (particularly if the report was not ignored) would help build critical local support. 

11) Local support is critical - particularly since the Plan shows that 60% of Community School revenue comes from non-residents. While these folks may be willing to attend School Committee meetings and yell, they do not pay local taxes, attend Town Meeting, or vote for either School Committee members or tax overrides. There should be no perceived obligation for Sandwich taxpayers to subsidize residents of surrounding Towns with tax dollars intended for K-12 education. 

Dr. Canfield has made a giant step toward resolving these issues by calling for an independent three member Board of Trustees with financial and managerial experience to advise his office on Community School operations.  The attention of the school administration needs to be on providing the best education possible to the K-12 students whose parents pay taxes in Sandwich -- not providing a subsidized pool membership for the nice old man from Cotuit.

What's a "Priority" ? (From Anonymous)

I received these comments recently from a Sandwich parent who asked that his name not be published.

Local talk radio personality Ed Lambert spent Tuesday morning talking about the cost of back to school supply shopping and the seemingly endless list of needs and wants teachers are able to generate for cash-strapped parents.

In Sandwich, requests for pens, pencils, tissues, glue sticks, hand sanitizers, paper, crayons and more have already been sent home this week. Each year teachers also ask for supply help from each school’s PTA (Parent Teacher Association). Requests to these organizations include the purchase of books, computers, software and more.

This year’s school budget is almost $30 million (not counting grant moneys). You’d think that somewhere in a $30 million budget you’d find money for pencils, crayons, paper and maybe some tissues.

Either these aren’t really priority spend items or maybe the schools count on sucker parents to foot the bill for the basics even after paying their taxes. It’s the same sorry game for sports, music and theatre too – school administrators bang sucker parents another $150 per season for sports and extra curriculars on top of sky-high taxes.

So, how come parents are writing big checks and spending big bucks on tissues, pencils, paper, tubas and track?

Here’s the deal: School Department wages are growing at an astounding 5.5% on average and have for at least the last 8 years . The payroll is so large and grows so fast that there’s little to nothing left for supplies, maintenance and extra curriculars. The school department, including its teachers, has figured out that “concerned” Parents will pay one way or another; and that’s just what they make them do!

Ed Lambert and his radio legions shouldn’t be the only one talking about this mess and asking hard questions.

"According to the Sandwich Enterprise, name something you DO NOT 

need to do before writing a book"

"What is 'READ a book', Alex ..."

The Rest of the Story ....

It's nice to see that The Local Rag is maintaining its long-standing tradition of never letting a lack of research get in the way of a distorted story.

But first, congratulations to Dr. Canfield for recognizing the toxicity of the Community School issue. His plan to appoint three independent people with relevant financial/business experience to review the viability of Community School operations will help distance that fiasco from his primary responsibility -- running the Sandwich K-12 School District. The amount of effort (and local tax dollars) the school administration has spent supervising a money-losing operation is crazy -- particularly since 60% of the Community School clientele doesn't even live (or pay taxes) in Sandwich.

Also, congratulations to Andrea Killion for voting against the proposed Community School Budget. The "Business Plan" delivered to the School Committee not only lacked an actual "Plan" but also lacked the meaningful financial statements or any of the realistic budget discussions that would be required to produce a true plan.

Here's a few important points that didn't manage to see the light of day in this week's local "news" coverage:

1) The School District uses tax dollars to maintain the school building and grounds and, in the past, allowed the Community School to rent out those facilities and keep the money. The Community School would then use that money to fund its operations, including operating the swimming pool for the benefit of public in Sandwich and surrounding towns (60% of Community School customers do not live in Sandwich). Under State law, revenue from the rental of public school facilities needs to be applied against the cost of maintaining those facilities.

Why should Sandwich taxpayers fund the operation of a swimming pool for non-residents -- particularly when they are also being forced to pay athletic fees, activities fees, Kindergarten tuition, and purchase an extensive list of back to school supplies? If the District is able to reduce maintenance costs by renting out facilities, why should those savings benefit non-residents instead of reducing what Sandwich residents are forced to contribute?

A prior School Committee recognized that this was not only inherently unfair -- but also contrary to State Law, and changed that policy. It's unfortunate that some members of the current committee are still so unfamiliar with the related state regulations -- despite sitting there for 1-2 years!