50°
HOLDEN, Mass. — The Business and Finance Subcommittee voted to recommend a full forensic audit of the Wachusett Regional School District's finances for the past two years in the wake of financial errors that led to the firing of its business manager.
Last Monday, the School Committee voted to terminate the contract of Business Manager Peter Brennan after it was reported that an error in the fiscal year 2012 budget led to an over-expenditure to the tune of $1.2 million. Furthermore, there was an additional $1.4 million shortfall in employee benefits and insurance for FY13.
According to a letter from the school district's auditor, Richard Sullivan of Powers and Sullivan, while closing out the FY12 books it was discovered that "information contained in a spreadsheet relied upon by the Business Manager was incorrect." Expenditures for debt service had been under-reported on the spreadsheet.
As a result, the "perceived available balance in this appropriation was transferred and used to fund other budget line items," with the error being caught when the spreadsheet was reconciled to the year-end MUNIS financial system balances, Sullivan wrote.
The cause of the error "appears to be due to the fact that the internal spreadsheet used by the Business Manager to monitor budgetary spending was not routinely compared and reconciled to the MUNIS system" and management decisions were made utilizing the perceived available budget amounts based on the incorrect data, he wrote.
The letter raised concerns from School Committee member Julie Kelley, who was frustrated to see that Brennan had effectively been maintaining two sets of books, and that the superintendent had made management decisions based on Brennan's spreadsheets rather than the MUNIS system.
"The school committee was never told the spreadsheets provided to us through his monthly report to the superintendent were not MUNIS generated or reconciled," she said.
For this reason, Kelley strongly supported a more independent audit, explaining that the only option the committee should consider would be to immediately conduct a full forensic audit dating back to FY11, including operating funds, special revenue and revolving funds and federal and state grants.
Though torn about the potential costs tied to an independent audit, subcommittee members voted 6-3 to recommend the full forensic audit, hoping it would get to the bottom of the errors and help restore confidence from the community.
"My first gut instinct when we first found out this was going on was we have to have a full blown audit right now," Chairman Rob Remillard said . While he was reluctant to spend a lot of money, he said he believed "the taxpayers out there deserve to know where every penny went, or was overspent. I understand that mistakes happen, but this was a huge mistake."
Members Jim Mason, of Sterling; and Duncan Leith and Erik Scheinfeldt of Holden voted no, citing questions of the audit's cost.
Mason suggested that the cost of a full-blown forensic audit could potentially reach $300,000.
"It's not because I feel we shouldn't have one," Scheinfeldt said. "I do think we should have one, but I have no idea how much it's going to cost, and I think it's financially irresponsible to make a recommendation when you have no clue as to how much something is going to cost us. Maybe it's $100,000, maybe it's $200,000, or $300,000 — and maybe when I find that out I'll be able to vote on a recommendation. But for now it's for a lack of information that I can't vote yes."
The full committee will consider the recommendation on Aug. 6.
Comments (45)
It sounds like the school committee is run by a bunch of incompetent fools. So, you reviewed reports and you couldn't tell if the reports were run by a MUNIS system? Seriously? Or you relied on spreadsheets that weren't system generated and you didn't think to question whether they were reconciled to the system on a monthly basis? It took an auditor at year end to catch this? The school may not need a forensic audit, they already know how the error was made. What they need is an Internal Auditor to come in and review the processes and procedures within the school committe, looking at what are the risks and what controls are in place to address the risks. It seems that there is no oversight on the committee, and no set of procedures requiring a monthly reconciliation of account balances along with a supervisor REVIEW of the reconciliation. Does anyone on the school committee have a business background? Do they know anything about Risks/Controls and what procedures should be performed? It seems like it's time to get rid of some of these members and start electing someone with a business background.
Wife at CO and daughter at an ES.
Actually your wife and daughter work for the district. Just wanted to clarify.
Just The Facts made this comment about my posts "you shrink like a dandelion sprayed with weed killer."
Hmmm.. Once it was mentioned we knew who "Just The Facts" is, who has actually shrunk like a dandelion?
I have class, I will not reveal your identity. But we now know that you are a district insider. You may not work for the district, but being married to someone who does certainly slants your argument.
NOW I get it.
Take any issue with your comments about Mrs. Leith or others and there MUST BE some sort of link. Perhaps my husband works for the evil District or my son is at the high school. Next you know, anyone disagreeing with you or or with another point of view must have Wachusett green in their veins or some DNA linkage all the way back to John Adams, the father of public education. It was HIS fault, I guess.
I get it. It is quite all right to mistate the character of others.....with no apology when corrected. An apolgy is where the real class shows.
Tell you what. Will be on vaca this week at the ocean looking for other sharks. Please refrain a bit from any more mistatements until I get back .
Results of the poll conducted by The Daily Voice, 85% voted that a forensic audit is needed and those are Just The Facts.
Actually what they need is an internal audit of their risks/controls and procedures.
I'm guessing that the majority of people voicing their opinion don't understand they various types of audits.
"Two sets of books" was asserted by one member of the school committee. It implies fraud. In no way has this assertion been "confirmed" by the school committee.
"appears to be due to the fact that the internal spreadsheet used by the Business Manager to monitor budgetary spending was not routinely compared and reconciled to the MUNIS system"
How would you define this then?
I would define that as a "Lack of Internal Control".. If they had an internal Auditor to review their procedures, a competent auditor would have recommended that the spreadsheet be reconciled to the MUNIS system monthly. Furthermore, the reconciliation should have been reviewed by someone higher up and they should have signed off on the review. It is a disgrace that these procedures weren't already in place. The practice that the school committee was performing would never take place in a well run company. If the school committee were running a company, they would be out of a job.
I would not define it as "two sets of books" as it has been recklessly described in public by exactly one school committee member who chose to write her own version of what occurred. What the member has written has not been "confirmed" by the school committee.
Again, how would you define that statement?
Not by using the inflammatory rhetoric of "two sets of books" as you are eager to do. JustTheFacts made some helpful preliminary points. We should await further information and discussion from Monday's school committee meeting when there will be input from the entire committee.
Throwing around accusations based on one committee member's opinion before others have had a chance to weigh in or the accused have had an opportunity to defend themselves, is irresponsible, to say the least
I think one should actually define the statement prior to advising what it isn't. You don't seem to able to do so, which does explain your comments here.
The vote on this school committee member's motion was 6-3, with one member advising that he will support the forensic audit once he has cost information. I would consider that other members weighing in.
The superintendent was present at this meeting (he is in the picture) and had opportunity to defend himself. Are you expecting the business manager to return at some point to defend himself? are you aware of information the public is not?
This was a subcommittee meeting. I await a meeting of the full school committee. I am not jumping to conclusions as the result of one member's reaction to an auditor's letter. Key questions such as the cost of the audit and the magnitude of education cuts have not yet been considered. Several members of the Business/ Finance sucommittee stated that they were voting yes in order to bring the issue to the full committee for further discussion. Let me make that clear: Further discussion by the entire committee.
The superintendent is not the only person besides Mr. Brennan whose names have been sullied on this thread and others. No, they have not yet had an opportunity to defend themselves.
"The superintendent is not the only person besides Mr. Brennan whose names have been sullied on this thread and others. No, they have not yet had an opportunity to defend themselves"
But we're sure you will. Keep circling those wagons, Maxie.
A Correction from district insider. Duncan Leith did not set the agenda bypassing the vote on the audit. Pandiscio set the agenda bypassing the vote.
CORRECTION!!!!!!!! Pandiscioisabully can easily spew incorrect facts about Mrs. Leith. When someone pushes back, you shrink like a dandelion sprayed with weed killer.
What up? Are you person enough to admit your incorrect statements about Mrs. Leith's alleged employ at WRHS? If not, is EVERYTHING else that you say subject to a truth test?
With the privilege of an open forum comes the responsibility to be just that RESPONSIBLE.
To repeat before you spew it back:
1. Do not work for the District
2. Grandkids go there
3. Self employed and make my own buck every day
4. Believe less government can always do more
Just The Facts... I agree that you are not a district employee. But you are married to one. Enough said.
5. Married to Central Office employee? child works in the district?
OK..........Pandiscioisabully wants to continue to rant. Guess we are a nation of free speach...regardless of the garbage spewed.
STILL waiting for an answer. In a rather certain fashion you said:
1. That Mrs. Leith secured promtions at the high school from Principal Pandiscio
2. That Duncan Leith then voted certain ways as a member of the school committee because of these high school promotions.
So.........given that Mrs. Leith was an elementary teacher in the District and did not work at the high school, please clarify your comments and apparant character assasinations.
And, Pandiscioisabully, it's OK to admit a mistake in judgement....builds character.
As a reminder (before you suggest otherwise):
1. I am not on the WRSDC
2. I have no kids in the school system, but DO have grandkids
3. Despite my senior status, I have been in the private sector my whole life and self employed most of it.
4. Believe that government should do more with less
I just want you to be fair whilst in your emotional state. Stick to The Facts.
Not being emotional at all.. I was told about Duncan Leith's close relationship with Pandiscio by a very high ranking member of the school district. Maybe this particular information was not correct, but in general Leith is in Pandiscio's pocket.
Since we are being forthcoming "just the facts". Maybe you can try..
School Committee members have concern that Pandiscio knew full well of the losses. Brennan WAS using two sets of books. This was confirmed by the school committee. The finance committee voted for the forensic audit. This meant vote goes to school committee.
Pandiscio set the agenda for the meeting and let the audit vote on purpose. You honestly don't think he is hiding something? If you truly believe is less government, you don't think he needs to answer questions about these HUGE mistakes?
Pandiscio is ducking the truth. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't be fighting the audit. If you can't agree with this, you are a fraud.
I won't get into the threats he has made toward a few school committee members. But I will tell you that they were completely unacceptable!
I guess ignorance is bliss when it comes to budget sheets. Check with every one of the five Wachusett towns. They each have financial packages to run the day to day operations....much like the District uses Munis.
AND, each developes annual budgets as well as monthly reports on Excel spreadsheets that are separate from the financial systems. So, two sets fo books throughout the District, I guess.
Should these mistakes have been found with appropriate checks and balances? YES. But, saying that there were two sets of books is unfair and inaccurate.
You still offered a backhand acknowlegement that you spoke in error regaring Mrs. Leith. It was unfair and character assasination and you owe an apology for that.
AND, each obtains the numbers they use for their excel spreadsheets from their financial systems. Each, except for the district.
Defend at all costs. This isn't a red flag for you. Got it.
Brennan misled the finance committee.. not Leith.
Maximus.. Obviously you are another Pandiscio lackey... Doesn't it bother you that Leith misled the finance committee with faulty spreadsheets? That is a FACT. Doesn't it bother you that Pandiscio moved funds around illegally? You are one of the liberals that cry about Paxton and Rutland not caring about the kids. You should be thanking Paxton and Rutland for voting down the override. If they hadn't we would have never known about this loss. Do I believe there is foul play here? Yes I do. Many people do. That is exactly why we need the audit. Yes i am able to follow a story you arrogant arse.. However unlike you I don't believe everything that is spoon fed to me by Pandiscio, Watson, Leith, and the merry band of thugs.. Will I tar and feather the school committee members that vote no? What a stupid comment! Won't tar and feather them.. but I will vote against them. Open the books and reveal all. And if it is proven that Pandiscio illegally moved funds, he needs to be removed from his position.
Duncan Leith's wife worked under Pandiscio at Wachusett HS while principal. Mrs. Leith received more than one promotion from Pandiscio. hmmm.. Duncan Leith against full audit despite the missing $3 million... hmmmm
Pandiscioisabully:
Duncan Leith's wife worked under Pandiscio at Wachusett HS while principal. Mrs. Leith received more than one promotion from Pandiscio. hmmm.. Duncan Leith against full audit despite the missing $3 million... hmmmm
Submitted on August 2, 2012 - 7:54pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't plan on getting into your debate. But, facts should remain facts.....and not the fiction that is created to bolster a political position.
I seem to recall.....someone who really knows, please confirm.....that Mrs. Leith was an elementary teacher for her entire employ within the Wachusett Regional School District. She never set foot into the high school except, perhaps, as a parent of a WRHS student.
In fact, I AM sure that she received the honor as Elementary Teacher of the Year from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts one year during the later part of her carrer.
So, unless Pandiscioisabully knows something different and can prove it.....not just say it to "make it true"........ Mrs. Leith's professional track NEVER crossed that of Dr. Pandiscio during his time as principal at WRHS.
That being the case, how did she benefit from this imaginary relationship?? And what vote does Mr. Leith seemingly owe Dr. Pandiscio because of this imaginary relationship that did not exist???
You can be "Madd As A Hatter" about this whole thing. But, please stand down on the inaccurate character assassination and debate the issue with JustTheFacts.
AND, before you ask Pandiscioisabully, I am not anbody's lacky. Just interest in the facts and where do we go from here.
Duncan Leith revealed the school committee meeting agenda for Monday night's meeting. He did NOT out the audit vote on the agenda. That means the vote on the audit cannot happen. Parents come out and express your outrage!
Do you really believe three million dollars has gone missing? As in stolen? As in embezzled? Then you are unable to follow a news story.
At the subcommittee meeting three members asked for the cost estimate of a forensic audit before voting for or against at the full committee meeting. This is an entirely rational and reasonable course of action. They have nothing to be ashamed of.
If anyone votes no on Monday do you plan to tar and feather them?
Your pseudonym speaks to your lack of objectivity. Much of what you have written borders on defamation.
Kudos to the school committee members who have the courage to stand up to Pandiscio and his band of thugs. Shame on Duncan Leith, Erik Scheinfeldt, Mason, and the rest of the school committee members hoping to sweep their huge "error" under the carpet.
Ms. Kelley is standing up against the establishment for the taxpayers. I find it laughable that these school committee members are concerned about the cost of the audit.. How about the mssing $ 3 million?!!
If you want to come up with the audit money, fire Pandiscio and put his $200,000 toward the bill!
WHY are we taking our eye off the ball? Peter Brennan created the revenue sharing plan. The revenue sharing plan was to provide more equality to the towns of the district. As a part of this plan and the new fiscal budget. Our Superintendent Pandiscio attempted to increase the budget by $3.5 Million dollars. Brennan made "errors" LAST year. He made additional "errors" this year. These "errors" cost us somewhere in the ballpark of $3 million. The Business Manager has been reported of using two sets of books and misleading the finance and school committee's. For anyone that knows Superintendent Pandiscio you would agree that he is a "hands on" guy. You could say a micro manager. To say he did not know about these "errors" is really a stretch. Brennan created the new plan, Pandiscio was like Tony Robbins selling the plan. Could it be that the hope was that the additional revenue would solve the "error" issue? The "two sets of books" issue would resolve itelf. We pay the Superintendent Pandiscio over $200,000 a year! WHY does he not know about $3 million in "errors"? If he did know and did not report it, he also has an issue! Lets talk about the school committee report that Superintendent Pandiscio was moving funds around without school committee approval. That is illegel! So, Brennan created a plan. Pandiscio increased the budget by $3 million in the middle of the worse economic downturn since the great depression. Pandiscio sold it like Tony Robbins. Shortly after the overrides in Rutland and Paxton failed, the "errors" were revealed... hmmm. Then in the Landmark, Suerintendent Pandiscio was quoted as blaming the finance committee for digging a deeper hole with the push for a forensic audit. It may cost $200,000 to get to the truth Mr. Pandiscio, but that is certainly less than $3 MILLION! I encourage ALL parents to attend the school committee meeting this Monday and see first hand which school committee members vote no. Time for Truth!
The car insurance analogy is actually quite appropriate. After the accident you need to cough up the deductible (cost of audit) in order to get your car back. The question then becomes does the School Committee want thier car (budget) back?
Excellent summary of events. A forensic audit? Absolutely. Budget fiascos happen, and sometimes it's necessary for errors to come to light to create a better systems for taxpayers and future generations. Eight years ago, in 2004, The Princeton Outlook newspaper became aware of the lack of transparency in the Massachusetts special education collaboratives system after discovering a $1.4 million error on the Department of Education (DOE) website in payments from the Wachusett District to it's FLLAC collaborative. The newspaper brought the error to the attention of the DOE and school district, where it was promptly corrected. The following spring, it raised questions with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office regarding concerns about school budget transparency issues. The newspaper was referred to State Auditor DeNucci’s office, where it raised questions about the lack of accountability and transparency in relation to school district accounting practices, including special education and the collaboratives system. The newspaper then wrote an investigative series of articles on special education in 2006. The newspaper shut down after receiving a threat letter in response to that series, and the editor and her family moved away after receiving what appeared to be verbal threats as well. Eight years later, in January 2012, the Massachusetts House and Senate unanimously passed new legislation to increase oversight and transparency in the network of 30 special education collaboratives that serve over 8,000 special needs children in the state. The bill was approved after an extensive investigation by the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, the State Auditor, and the Feds that found fraudulent practices in the system that resulted in the loss of millions in taxpayer dollars. http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-25/metro/30659501_1_accounting-practices-board-members-abuses
Inspector General Gregory Sullivan called it “one of the most outrageous abuses this office has ever seen,’’ according to the Boston Globe. “Both of these entities were created to help educate children with special needs. Instead, top officials have been helping themselves to high salaries, inflated pensions, lavish parties, and personal expenses, all on the taxpayer’s dime.’’
The Special Education Collaboratives investigation was opened by Joe DeNucci’s office and then transferred to the Offices of State Auditor Suzanne Bump, who worked with the Inspector General’s Office in a lengthy multi-year investigation into accountability and transparency problems in the system, according to the Globe. The agencies uncovered serious systemic problems in the collaboratives network, which was created in 1974. In the Merrimack Special Education Collaborative alone, over $10 million was siphoned out of the system for trips to the Kentucky Derby, alcohol, excessive salaries, and personal gifts, according to the Globe. The new transparency and accountability laws for the collaboratives can be viewed at this Dept. if Ed link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance1.doe.mass.edu%2Fcollab%2Fnew_%2520law.doc&ei=7YToT7qQCvKA6QGHhpngDg&usg=AFQjCNHPtSMA3Q3tJmdbGq88arS06NQeUA
OK Just the Facts let’s only talk about really recent events. Just over the past 10 months we have found a $383,645 accounting error, their 48% revenue sharing mistake, the $1.2 Million over-spent budget mistake and the $1.5 Million shortfall in employee benefits and those are just the one we know about so far.
The WRSD keeps telling the taxpayers they are spending our money (nearly $90 Million per year) wisely but given their 48% revenue sharing mistake plus more than $3 Million in mistakes ($3,083,645) in less than 10 months the credibility of the superintendent and the school committee is about zero. Again, these are just the ones we know about so far.
We pay Mr. Pandiscio more than $200,000 per year in salary and benefits. He (and Susan Sullivan) should have caught all of these major errors.
While I do not believe an audit will find any intentional wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Pandiscio I do believe the WRSD must conduct a full forensic audit in an effort to restore at least some small shred of credibility.
It is refreshing to see Mr. Scheinfeldt take such a reasoned approach to an already difficult situation. There is NO debate that a complete analysis of this situation is needed so that it restores citizen confidence and also assures that this is unlikely to happen again. The obvious question is how, when and at what cost.
Mr. Scheinfieldt also appears to quickly learned how to speak in a very clear and responsible way while in public office. Ms. Kelly, on the other hand, needs to better understand the impact of suggesting that there are "two sets of books" at the District. The casual reader might surmise that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive and THAT takes on a totally different approach by challenging the integrity of others rather than their competency. A slippery legal slope could follow her words at even greater cost to the District and the taxpayer.
Mr. Lucceshi correctly points out that this budget drama has nothing to do with the development of a viable plan to address the crumbling school infrastructure at Mt. View. Careful analysis of all options will be necessary and voter ability/desire to pay will be determined at the ballot box. To somehow thread a crisis with annual WRSD operating budgets into the capital equation at Mt. View is disingenuous at best.
And then there is the constant equation offered by Mr. Ed Meyer. He starts from way too long to remember, includes people from the past who aren't even around anymore and then drags others in who probably had nothing to do with the original budget sheets. Next we know, he will have determined that the morning crossing guard at the fire station entrance of WRHS and the food services manager should have seen this coming and THEY are somehow the real culprits in this big mess.
The drama will continue.
Kudos to Mr. Lucchesi and JustTheFacts. Well said in both cases.
Name Withheld:
Regardless of how you feel about the business and finance sub-committee vote, it is entirely inappropriate for you to suggest "there is more debate over $100-$300K to investigate this than there is over what undoubetedly will be the expenditure of $15 million or more of Holden taxpayer money for the inevitable rebuild of Mountview."
You've consolidated two issues. The issue discussed by the B&F subcommittee and the feasibility study for Mountview school.
The two are not related.
The subcommitee is adressing a WRSDC and operating cost concern fully under their control.
The Mountview Building Committee (MBC), whose membership is defined by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), consists of four representatives with roles related to the school district and six members meeting specific criteria representing the Town of Holden. This committee as appointed representatives is working collorabatively with the MSBA, a project manager and architectural firm to address a capital concern. Members of these entities have been evaluating the Mountview issue for almost two years. Numerous public meetings have been held locally, where open and transparent discussion has occurred. Significant debate has and will continue to occur in the same manner.
I invite you to attend our committee meeting this evening where we will be discussing the contents of a 602 page document which if approved will be shared with the public and the MSBA. This "PDP" is a requirement stipulated in the MSBA process and contains significant detail regarding the existing conditions and potential options for Mountview.
As to the actions of the B&F subcommittee, I agree with their recommendation.
Unamious votes are not required. I was not present for the discussion but from the story and Mr. Scheinfeldt's post, it is clear to me the only concern discenting members had was related to the unknown cost of the audit. Perhaps with that information in hand there would have been a 9-0 vote and everything would be right with the world in your mind.
It is my hope the WRSD will vigorusly debate the recommendation of the B&F subcommittee with a specific estimate of the cost of the audit. I sincerely hope the cost of the audit is acceptable to the WRSD and they approve the audit recommendation.
Respectfully,
Chris Lucchesi
After the MA Inspector General's Office completed a 13 month investigation (see attached) of the WRSD budget and found $139,000 in wasteful spending (just the tip of the iceberg then) they recommended "The school committee should consider an independent audit/review of internal controls over district expenditures as part of a complete fraud risk assessment." The school committee refused to do an audit.
Since that time there have been a number of serious budget mistakes including last year's $383,645 error, the 48% revenue sharing mistake, the $1.2 Million budget shortfall, the $1.5 Million shortfall in employee benefits etc.
The WRSD keeps telling the taxpayers they are spending our money (nearly $90 Million per year) wisely but given more than $3 Million in mistakes in less than 10 months the credibility of the superintendent and the school committee is completely shot.
We pay Mr. Pandiscio more than $200,000 per year in salary and benefits. He (and Susan Sullivan) should have caught all of these major errors.
Peter Brennan reported directly to Duncan Leith and his committee. These multi-million errors began back in 2008 (from Julianne Kelly's report) and nobody caught them. Again, the credibility of Mr. Pandiscio and the school committee is completely shot.
While I do not believe an audit will find any intentional wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Pandiscio I do believe the WRSD must conduct a full forensic audit in an effort to restore at least some small amount of credibility.
Name Withheld: To clarify my position - I do NOT "oppose" the concept of a forensic audit. My "no" vote last night was based on the fact that (1) we have no information regarding how much such an audit will cost; and therefore (2) we have no way to determine if we can in fact cover the cost of such a forensic audit. Given this lack of information, I felt that it was somewhat premature to express my support for the audit. In my mind, it would be analogous to deciding to buy a new car despite not knowing the cost of the car. I completely understand and appreciate your concerns and frustrations with the current state of the budget, and I, like everyone else, am anxious to get to the bottom of this. However, I do not think that hastily approving a forensic audit without knowing the cost is necessarily the most prudent course of action. I am optimistic that at the next meeting, we will have a better idea of what the cost will be. Assuming we have an accurate estimate, and further assuming that the district has sufficient funds to pay for the audit, I will likely vote in favor of the audit. Thank you, and as always, please feel free to email directly with any additional concerns at escheinfeldt@gmail.com.
Erik Scheinfeldt
Except it is not buying a new car. You borrowed your friend's car, totaled it, and believe that you have a choice in whether you have to replace it.
Your administration is either grossly incompetent, or corrupt. Either way, the taxpayer's money has been mishandled at a significant level. Your duty is to account for that.
There is no option except to do the forensic audit. That should have been an easy vote.
@ Gallows: The distinction is this: If you totaled your friend's car, most likely, insurance would cover the damage. In our situation, an insurance company is not going to pay for the audit, and neither is the School Committee or the administration. If we move forward with a full forensic audit, the cost (whatever that may be) will fall squarely on you - the Taxpayer. Therefore, before voting "yes" to spending tax dollars on this audit, I simply want to know (1) how much we will be spending; and (2) how we are going to pay for it. I think I owe that to the taxpayers.
-Respectfully, Erik Scheinfeldt
The car in my analogy represents trust. You completely lost the trust of the taxpayer. You have to earn it back. There should be no dollar figure attached to that.
But there will be a dollar figure attached. Mr. Scheinfeldt is asking an appropriate and prudent question. How much will this cost? It is in the interest of you and I, the taxpayers, to know.
It is indeed immensely disconcerting that there was this measure of opposition to this.
It is almost as if there is more debate over $100-300k to investigate this than there is over what undoubtedly will be the expenditure of $15 million or more of Holden taxpayer money for the inevitable rebuild of Mountview.
There's smoke here, that is for certain.....