Archive: Opinions

Letters to the EditorI want to offer a different point of view from the March 21 guest editorial which diminishes the roles former superintendent Mark Lewis and former business administrator Larry Lawrence played in the current fiscal problems in the school district. While the writer correctly points out that some of the problems began before they arrived and others must also bear some responsibility including prior administrators and the board of education, after looking at the evidence, it becomes painfully obvious that Lewis and Lawrence took a tenuous fiscal situation and turned it into what appears to be a full-fledged disaster.

Lewis came into the district in January 2006 and developed the 2006-2007 district budget, which became the first Lansing school budget to fail in almost 30 years. Larry Lawrence arrived in the summer of 2006 and, together with Lewis, administered the revised version of that budget. Lewis and his business administrators alone were responsible for that budget and its success or failure.

---That year’s budget (2006-2007) was overspent. That is, spending exceeded the dollar amount approved by the voters, something that to my knowledge had never happened in our district before.

---The general fund balance was spent down by over $1,200,000, while other fund balances decreased by over $450,000 – resulting in a decrease of the district  reserves of more than $1,650,000.

--- On July 1, 2006, the district contracted for BOCES services of approximately $2,100,000. However, by April of 2007, the district had already requested services exceeding that amount by $363,000. Yet district records give no indication that at that time either Lewis or Lawrence took any action to stop the overspending, which eventually increased to more than $400,000 by June 30, 2007.

--- During the year, Lewis asked the BOE to amend the budget by adding an additional $163,000 for emergency repairs and capital project planning.

--- The district's audit report for 2006-2007 showed many problems in the budget's execution. Some examples from that report:

Audits of 79 cash disbursements found that 62 of them did not follow district policies. Twenty lacked adequate documentation. Two included reimbursement higher than agreed to in the employee contract. Some travel reimbursements exceeded the amount on receipts. There was no documentation to support over $16,000 in credit card expenses. There was inadequate control of credit card use. The credit card payments were paid late, resulting in wasteful late fees. Money for special grants was not spent within the available time resulting in a loss of those funds to the district.

These are a few of the many items presented in that audit report (available in the district office for anyone to examine or request) which documents many procedural problems and a financial situation that deteriorated dramatically under Lewis's watch.

--- For the first time in over 35 years, the district's budget document for the current school year (2007-2008) was prepared late, so late that most residents were unable to review it before the annual budget meeting. That document, which by state law was required to be available by April 27, 2007, was not available at all until May 1 and was not available by mail until after the May 3 budget hearing.

--- That budget document contained many inconsistencies. In particular, in 14 cases, the budget amounts on the summary pages differed from the budget amounts shown on the budget detail pages.

--- The budget for the current school year (2007-2008), designed and constructed entirely by Lewis and Lawrence, will be overspent by as much as $265,000 because of poor preparation and planning. It might have been worse. That deficit actually reflects a reduction of the original amount (by as much as $100,000) due to the current interim business administrator's successful efforts to eliminate and reduce spending wherever he could.

Even though Lewis has left the district, many of the problems under his watch will be carried over into future budgets. For example, one key source of revenue for the district is the interest earned on reserve funds. Because these funds have been depleted, the district has lost that source of revenue. In addition, that $265,000 deficit (due to his poor planning) will be carried over to the 2008-2009 budget, resulting in an additional taxpayer burden over and above routine year-to-year increases.

The responsibility for these problems rests squarely with Lewis, the administrator charged with the overall preparation and execution of the budgets. While the BOE provides overall general financial direction, they are not involved at all in the day-to-day operations. These operations are solely in the hands of the fiscal administrators, as they should be, as long as operations are running smoothly. Unless the BOE suspects a problem and makes a concerted effort to uncover these operational deficiencies, they simply may not know that they exist. It's encouraging that problems are less likely to go undetected in the future. Starting in 2008, two additional ways of auditing are now being used in the district.

While it's unfair to lay the majority of the fiscal problems on the BOE, they are responsible for selecting Lewis in the first place. Even a casual Internet search before his selection would have revealed that it was unlikely Lewis would work out here. All school districts are unique, and when selecting a superintendent, it’s important to find someone who is a good fit for a district. While it's possible that Lewis performed well in other districts with other characteristics, he certainly did not fit well with ours. Lewis’s style was dictatorial. That just doesn't work in a district like ours that has so many bright, active, concerned residents with good ideas who want to actively contribute to their schools.

During Lewis's brief tenure, we witnessed the results of his style, such as his "epiphany" to move the fifth grade to the elementary school without any consultation with those concerned, his failure on multiple occasions to provide adequate information when requested, a budget failure, a facilities project failure, and steadily worsening employee morale. Considering those problems, it wasn't surprising to hear concerns expressed about his leadership style and the direction of the district from many people in several stakeholder areas: teachers, staff, parents, community members, and even some past and present administrators.

To his credit, even Lewis recognized he was not a good fit for the district. In his farewell interview with the LSO (August 17, 2007), he stated, “there are a certain number of disappointments and frustrations that occurred during my tenure here.  I would go home and ask myself do I have the attributes that are needed to push this school district forward.  And too often I came up with the answer no.  …  I didn't have the opportunity to really immerse myself into the community and be able to get a sense of the prevailing culture here and the cultural assumptions that underpin what we observe here and what we see.”

During Lewis's time here, we did have a couple of board members who, to their credit, challenged his authoritative style. One of them, Christine Iacobucci, also opposed his initial selection and was one of the two board members who voted against the 2007-2008 budget. Ironically, she was defeated in last year's BOE election as a direct result of a smear campaign related to her questioning the superintendent's actions.

Although Lewis was a bad fit in many areas, it's the problems in the fiscal area that will continue to haunt us for quite a while. That's especially frustrating because it's not like Lewis wasn't tactfully offered some advice on fiscal matters by knowledgeable people. He just refused to listen to it. That was his style.

As a case in point, Tom Jones offered Lewis his help. Tom was the district’s business administrator for 10 years. Although people may have had beefs with Tom from time to time because of his fiscal conservatism, under his watch the district never experienced any major fiscal crises. Budgets routinely passed by wide margins, several building projects were conducted, reserve funds steadily increased, and expenses were closely monitored. When unanticipated major expenses came up, money was available to handle them.

Although currently enjoying his retirement, when Tom became concerned about some district fiscal matters, he volunteered his advice to Lewis and Lawrence on several occasions. Based on his considerable knowledge of the district, Tom pointed out problems the district would run into if corrective measures were not taken. Unfortunately, we're now dealing with many of those problems because, instead of appreciating Tom for his desire to help the district improve its financial situation, Lewis and Lawrence dismissed him as an annoyance. Perhaps if they had considered and acted on Tom's concerns rather than dismissing any opinions other than their own, we would be in a much better fiscal situation now. Considering the overspent budget, the dwindling fund reserves, and the myriad of procedural problems during Lewis’s time here, it appears that he desperately needed the help.

Despite the fact that rejecting Tom Jones’s counsel created a financial situation that is much worse than it might have been otherwise, Lewis couldn’t resist taking a personal swipe at Tom on the way out. In that same August 17 interview, Lewis said, “[Larry] was in the process of fixing [the problems] but unfortunately there is a retired administrator …who was second guessing his every move and I think that was absolutely wrong and it was unfortunate.”

Although those comments can be dismissed as the "sour grapes" expression of a person leaving a less-than-successful tenure, they could have had serious repercussions in our search for a new superintendent. The search consultants pointed out to the BOE and members of the search committee that anyone considering applying here would want to find out all they could about the district. They would most certainly read Lewis's comments in the LSO. After reading such a dismal description of the district, it's possible some fine potential applicants decided against applying. As it turned out, we were lucky to find a superior candidate who recognized that Lansing was an excellent district and wasn't deterred by Lewis's jabs at the district on his way out.

On the bright side, the Lewis and Lawrence era is behind us. Despite the current financial troubles which are their legacy, we have good reason to be optimistic. The current administrators have done an amazing job in analyzing the district's situation and determining a path that will lead to a much-improved fiscal situation within a few years. Although it may take a while to restore the district to a good financial status, the fact that they are doing it through a process in which they are deliberately including all stakeholders, -- encouraging, welcoming, valuing, and considering their concerns, advice, and opinions -- speaks very well for them. They understand the need for the community to be involved, and, as a result, the future for the district looks brighter than it has for some time.


From: Ted Laux
Ithaca, NY 14850

----
v4i14