Clarifying the facts

As we get under way with the budget development process in the face of difficult economic times, it is essential that we provide accurate and up-to-date information, especially with looming budget decisions that will impact people’s lives. Thus, I was very disappointed Thursday morning when I picked up the News-Leader and saw an individual spreading misinformation and manipulating numbers to create a false impression of our schools.

As you may have noticed the News-Leader’s opinion page requires frequent corrections from our staff and Board. Let me clear up the two misleading examples used yesterday to imply something nefarious about the district.

• Increases to SPS’ debt service levy must be approved by voters. The district’s debt service payment for 2009-2010 included $30 million from an escrow account that paid off the 2000 bond issue, which was refinanced in 2003 at a significantly lower interest rate, resulting in a significant savings of taxpayer money. That bond debt was retired during the 2009-2010 budget year because that was the earliest date we were legally allowed to pay off the 2000 bond. As you know, those bonds were approved by voters who have made upgrading the physical condition of our schools a top priority.

• It’s simply not true that the district’s administrative expenses have increased from $425,000 in 2005 to $2.5 million in 2009-2010. When the district upgraded its accounting software in 2006, the finance department reviewed all general ledger accounts to ensure they were classified as recommended by the Missouri State Accounting Manual. A number of accounts were reclassified under "Executive Administration,” including administrative services DESE requires districts to have. Our district strives for an effective and efficient use of resources. As a result SPS’ ratio of 279 students per administrator is far below the state average of 187 students per administrator.

It’s unfortunate that Mr. Gargus declined my invitation last September to sit down and discuss his concerns. That might have cleared up some of the misunderstandings he has about our district’s finances.

Developing a budget and responding to difficult economic times is not as simple as laying off more than 150 district employees (representing $8 million), as Mr. Gargus suggests. We cut more than $6 million from the current year’s budget, which included personnel reductions, facility maintenance and improvements, professional development and curriculum.

As we consider the various scenarios for the 2010-2011 budget, let me make it clear that we will seek options that have as little impact as possible on the quality of education that we provide. This will certainly mean some tough decisions, and we very well may have to have a conversation about the operating levy in future years if state cuts impact the core quality of our teachers and schools.

I strongly support the right for community stakeholders to express their opinion. I also know that not everyone has a favorable view of what we do, especially when it comes to talking about taxes in the midst of this economic climate. However, when the News-Leader continues to print inaccurate information we will come directly to the community with the facts, allowing them to draw their own conclusions.

I encourage you to stay informed about the budget process with our financial blog, The Bottom Line, and don’t hesitate to provide your feedback or ask questions you may have regarding this issue.