Don’t be fooled by the School Board’s unanimous approval last week of the budget-fixing shell game Superintendent Mark Rendell put forth to push the projected general fund balance above the 5 percent required by school district policy.
Nobody was happy about it.
Not only did board members voice concerns about Rendell’s money maneuvering, which included the extreme measure of using the property-tax account intended for technology expenditures to pay for personnel positions that should be paid for out of the general fund; they also expressed dissatisfaction and angst over the superintendent’s failure to prevent such a crisis.
Even Rendell, who oversaw the creation of this budget mess, warned in his letter to the board: “While we have transferred the costs associated with some personnel to revenue sources that are not recurring, this is not a long-term solution.”
“I feel like we’re putting a Band-Aid on the problem,” School Board Chairman Laura Zorc said, “but sometimes you need a Band-Aid when you’re bleeding.”
Zorc and three other board members voted in favor of the plan because the district’s general fund was bleeding money and they were left with no other practical, palatable option for the district to get through the current school year without violating its own budget rules.
Tiffany Justice voted for it because, well, she tends to embrace, support and defend almost everything Rendell does, at least publicly.
In fact, Justice dutifully attempted to provide advance cover for Rendell, who faces the task of building a 2019-20 budget that returns all those temporarily funded positions to the district’s general fund without any significant influx of additional revenue.
Saying the board can expect to have “some difficult decisions to make regarding positions and services,” she urged the other members to consider reducing the district’s required cash reserves to 3.5 or 4 percent, which still would be above the state-mandated 3 percent.
“Do we need to have in excess of 5 percent?” Justice asked. “Do we need to have even 5 percent? Is that the best use of our money – in a bank account? Or is it better being used to serve our students and pay our teachers and staff?”
Her suggestion, though, didn’t garner much backing from the rest of the board. While Teri Barenborg was open to further discussion, Mara Schiff warned that the district needs to maintain sufficient cash reserves to be prepared in the event of hurricanes and other emergencies.
Zorc flatly rejected Justice’s idea, saying, “I have a lot of anxiety about changing the 5-percent fund balance … This is not something I want to even consider. I feel it’s a last resort.”
It should be.
Rendell’s lack of oversight of the district’s budget and his failure to sufficiently monitor its spending practices do not justify further recklessness. His corrective actions these past few weeks became necessary only because he didn’t do his job, at least as it pertains to finances.
Then, when the budget mess became public, Rendell tried to blame his chief financial officer, Carter Morrison, who has since resigned.
“It is incredibly unfortunate that we are here,” board member Jackie Rosario said, adding “we shouldn’t be in this situation in the first place … Had we been budgeting correctly and revisiting our budget the right way on a regular basis, we probably could’ve caught some of these things ahead of time.
“That’s the frustration.”
Rosario wasn’t alone in expressing dismay: To make sure the district doesn’t again get blindsided by budget woes, Barenborg told Rendell she wants the district’s new CFO, when hired, to participate in monthly meetings with the board.
Zorc wants more accountability, and she said she will get it.
“In the coming months, we have some difficult decisions that we are going to need to make,” she said. “Some are going to be popular, and some aren’t going to be so popular.”
Although Rendell accomplished his mission – he was required by district policy to present the board with a plan to restore the projected general fund balance to 5 percent – his rocky run as superintendent appears to finally be eroding the board’s confidence in his ability to manage the district.
The recent budget mayhem was merely the latest in a long line of headline-grabbing controversies that have occurred on Rendell’s watch. You might remember he wrongly suspended Morrison in July, tried to demote him in November and then reinstated him in December, after an investigation by the statewide law firm of Allen, Norton & Blue cleared the CFO of Rendell’s bogus allegations that Morrison tried to undermine him.
It was in November that Morrison began to counterpunch, claiming whistleblower protection under district policy and submitting a complaint alleging Rendell misrepresented the financial condition of our schools to the board and community.
Morrison’s filing prompted a second budget-related investigation, conducted by the Tallahassee-based Sniffen & Spellman law firm, which presented its findings to the board last month.
Zorc said board members were legally prohibited from publicly discussing the report until last week’s meeting, where she revealed that the firm’s investigator, Mark Logan, found no evidence of criminal conduct or gross negligence by Rendell.
“I am confident that the superintendent did not intentionally withhold financial information from the board,” Zorc said, offering what was at best a tepid endorsement.
Rosario said that, while she accepted the report’s conclusion that there was no evidence of unlawful behavior or gross mismanagement, Rendell’s oversight of the district’s finance department was sorely lacking, adding, “There certainly may have been neglect of duty.”
Despite accepting its most significant conclusion, board members were highly critical of the investigator’s report, which they said included no statements from Morrison or his finance director, Julianne Pelletier, who filed a second whistleblower complaint against Rendell in December and was so disturbed by the way her boss had been treated that she, too, resigned.
Zorc called the investigation “incomplete,” which proved to be a rather mild assessment when compared to Rosario’s rebuke.
“Do I agree with how this investigation was handled? Absolutely not,” Rosario said, repeatedly blasting the investigator for not reaching out to Pelletier, who has since taken her complaint to the Florida Department of Education’s Inspector General’s Office.
Apparently, Morrison, now working in the private sector, did not respond to the investigator’s attempts to contact him. But Pelletier, who has moved to New Hampshire and works for the state Public Utilities Commission, was eager to tell her story.
“I don’t believe this investigation is complete, and I don’t think it’s accurate, leaving her out,” Rosario said, adding, “To not even acknowledge Mrs. Pelletier in his report? That was a gross injustice to her, to her reporting, to her attempts to tell us what was going on.
“I can’t wrap my head around that,” she continued. “Where did they get their information from? I don’t understand how we paid significant money for this investigation and that’s all we received. I’m pretty disappointed with all of this.”
Despite the board’s frustration, though, it’s unlikely it will authorize any further investigations into the budget snafu.
“I don’t want to throw good money after bad,” Schiff said, adding that this experience should better prepare board members for future crises. “I want to get the house in order and move on.”
Zorc agreed, saying she will insist that the district’s next budget “significantly” reduces funds for fees available for attorneys and consultants.
“We have spent more than enough money on legal investigations and consultants,” Zorc said. “Personally, I’m beyond sick and tired of chasing our tails and wasting money.”
She then uttered words that some might construe as a warning shot across Rendell’s bow: “If we have someone in a position who is not qualified – or who continues costing us thousands of dollars because we have to keep hiring attorneys and consultants, or use up district staff time to clean up their messes – then I think it’s time for them to go.”
So don’t be fooled by the board members’ talk of starting over, moving forward and, as Schiff put it, “not creating more chaos.”
In July, they’ll vote on whether to extend Rendell’s contract.