Losing Sight Of School Budget

Transfers

To the Editor:

I was shocked to learn that the Board of Education is ignoring state law and its own policy in managing its budget. The 5-2 decision to use an “encumbrance based” system is ill advised. It removes the power to manage the priorities from the board and places it squarely, perhaps solely, with the superintendent.

The governing statue (CGS Section 10-222. Appropriations and budget. Financial information system) states:

“Boards [of Education] may, by adopting policies and procedures, authorize designated personnel to make limited transfers under emergency circumstances…. All transfers made in such instances shall be announced at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board.”

The “encumbrance based” system treats the entirety of the school budget as one multimillion-dollar appropriation. It allows dollars to be moved from one line item to another without any public discussion. There is no discussion about why and whether taking from line item “Peter” to pay line item “Paul” is the best way to spend our education dollars.

Since 1985 while serving either as a member of PTA Council, a member of the Legislative Council, a member and former chair of the Board of Education, or a member of the Fairfield Hills Authority, I’ve worked with the budget documents of our town. Beginning in October, each board begins developing its budget for the next fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). Discussing the transfers within the current budget helps board members understand current spending trends as they develop the next year’s budget.

I see only three reasons that a board would choose to use the recently reported budgeting model. One, they are trying to avoid public scrutiny and discussion. Two, they don’t understand how to read the budget. Three, they’re incapable of accepting one of their most important responsibilities — to be watchdogs over the spending of taxpayers’ money vis-à-vis the administration of education goals.

It’s interesting that the board members who ran as IPN candidates, the “Party” of transparency, all endorse using this new and probably illegal method of budget management.

Sincerely,

Amy Dent

10 Country Squire Lane, Sandy Hook               September 12, 2010