Post by Chris_Wendt on Apr 2, 2009 6:17:23 GMT -5
I need to correct an assertion I recently made here, with my sincere apology to the members of the Board of Education.
This has to do with the board's decision to eventually reduce the amount of the allocated fund balance from the $1.3 million that had been included as revenue in calculating the anticipated tax levy increase, and published in the original budget brochure and related school district materials.
At the time the original budget brochure was published and the initial tax levy increase was forecast, the Board of Education could not have known the budget would fail...twice. It had certainly been their full intent to allocate $1.3 million fund balance to apply as revenue to reduce the tax levy to the originally projected amount.
Recent statements made by me incorrectly implied that the originally advertised allocated fund balance was willfully deceitful because the BoE later eliminated it, thus increasing the eventual tax levy significantly.
Yes, the Board of Education did eliminate the $1.3 million allocated fund balance after the budget was irrevocably defeated; and yes, that decision did result in a much higher tax levy than would otherwise have been the case if the $1.3 million fund balance allocation had been applied as advertised. And although this decision may have been taken improperly, meaning, out of public hearing and view, no, this decision was not in any way related to the originally stated fund balance allocation or tax levy projection, and did not constitute dishonesty concerning those original numbers and statements.
I was wrong to have stated the Board of Education had lied about those original numbers. They had not.
I also want to thank Michael Cucci for addressing my misstatement with me, on behalf of the board, in a very professional manner.
Sincerely
Chris Wendt
-- Hopefully, the Board Trustees will also recognize the importance of keeping the public very well informed about changes made to previously announced data, especially about unpopular or controversial decisions like changing the actual fund balance allocation after it had been published in the budget brochure. That decision did have a material and significant negative impact by increasing the tax levy by $1.3 million.
This has to do with the board's decision to eventually reduce the amount of the allocated fund balance from the $1.3 million that had been included as revenue in calculating the anticipated tax levy increase, and published in the original budget brochure and related school district materials.
At the time the original budget brochure was published and the initial tax levy increase was forecast, the Board of Education could not have known the budget would fail...twice. It had certainly been their full intent to allocate $1.3 million fund balance to apply as revenue to reduce the tax levy to the originally projected amount.
Recent statements made by me incorrectly implied that the originally advertised allocated fund balance was willfully deceitful because the BoE later eliminated it, thus increasing the eventual tax levy significantly.
Yes, the Board of Education did eliminate the $1.3 million allocated fund balance after the budget was irrevocably defeated; and yes, that decision did result in a much higher tax levy than would otherwise have been the case if the $1.3 million fund balance allocation had been applied as advertised. And although this decision may have been taken improperly, meaning, out of public hearing and view, no, this decision was not in any way related to the originally stated fund balance allocation or tax levy projection, and did not constitute dishonesty concerning those original numbers and statements.
I was wrong to have stated the Board of Education had lied about those original numbers. They had not.
I also want to thank Michael Cucci for addressing my misstatement with me, on behalf of the board, in a very professional manner.
Sincerely
Chris Wendt
-- Hopefully, the Board Trustees will also recognize the importance of keeping the public very well informed about changes made to previously announced data, especially about unpopular or controversial decisions like changing the actual fund balance allocation after it had been published in the budget brochure. That decision did have a material and significant negative impact by increasing the tax levy by $1.3 million.
