Getting the facts straight State Comptroller Audit does not add up

As the Monroe-Woodbury Board of Education president, I am writing in response to the recent state Comptroller’s Office audit and the subsequent media coverage. The Comptroller, Mr. DiNapoli, makes unfounded allegations concerning the Monroe-Woodbury budget process. The budget process has been transparent and has not violated any municipal or educational laws.

Mr. DiNapoli’s criticism is inaccurate and disingenuous given that the District has limited its spending growth to less than 1 percent in recent years, corresponding to tax levies that have been the lowest in the district’s history. Our budgeting process has kept taxes low, protected our children’s educational future and averted massive layoffs during this extraordinary recessionary economy with reductions in state aid.

Excessive surplus The comptroller’s accusation that the district has had excessive surpluses is inaccurate and misleading to the taxpayer. To date, the district has reduced the budget by $23 million dollars. This was accomplished by developing consecutive conservative budgets with less than 1 percent increases, saving the taxpayers over $9 million dollars in taxes.

The auditor cherry-picked through the budget data and chose only to report on line items that had surpluses rather than also showing those items that had insufficient funds. By including the district’s total revenues and not incorporating the operating transfers included in the budget, the auditors overstated the surpluses, and the report was misleading. Any surpluses have been used by the district to reduce the tax burden and protect the residents from financial liabilities.

Transparency Mr. DiNapoli also incorrectly accuses the Board of Education of a lack of transparency for not ensuring the budget process, audited financial statements and audit reports are available to the public. Public budget meetings begin months before the actual budget vote.

Furthermore, the process takes place in open session with materials that are posted on the Web site according to the Open Meetings Law and the state Education Department. All budget transfers are voted on by the board in open session and documented on the agenda.

It is unfortunate that the report did not disclose the district’s explanation to the auditors that the financials are available upon request to all residents, and that the district had already started posting this information on its Web site. There is no lack of transparency in this district.

Surplus fund balance The comptroller’s audit suggests that the district does not have a plan to use the surplus fund balance to benefit district taxpayers by reducing property taxes, paying off debt or financing one-time expenses. Again, this is inaccurate and misleading. Mr. DiNapoli’s recommendation is similar to the approach taken by a previous board that resulted in bankrupting the district and costing the taxpayers $7.3 million dollars.

For example, if the district’s budget was $100 and we only spent $96, then by law, we can roll over the $4 into what is called the fund balance. This automatically reduces the tax levy because if the next year’s budget is $101, then we would subtract the $4 and only have to levy $97. That means the district is giving the surplus back to the taxpayer.

Another example is if the district’s budget is $100 and we only spend $94, then of the $6 surplus, we can roll over $4 into the fund balance, again saving the taxpayers money.

For the other $2, the board has two choices by law: It can either reduce the tax levy or transfer it into a reserve fund to offset any financial claims against the district such as the 1.4 million dollar tax certiorari settlements.

During this recessionary and volatile economy, the board has chosen to put the money in reserve funds to protect the district from financial liabilities that could otherwise raise the taxes of our hardworking residents.

Pit bull vs. watch dog While other districts throughout New York State have been struggling with their budgets, Monroe-Woodbury has shown fiscal responsibility.

The question we are left with is why the auditors would criticize a successful financial plan.

The reason, it appears, was a conflict of interest with the auditors which led to a politically motivated report.

Originally intended to be an overseer of school district finances and accounting, the Comptroller’s Office used tactics that more closely resemble a pit bull rather than a watch dog.