In a recent Inquirer commentary, CFO Michael Masch cherry-picks financial data to blame the District’s $630 million deficit on a lack of funding.
by Christopher Paslay
On June 6th, concerned about the Philadelphia School District’s $630 million budget deficit, I published a commentary in the Inquirer headlined, “District spent its way into massive shortfall.” In it I commented that the District had only itself to blame for its current financial mess—that officials spent freely on questionable initiatives, banking on temporary federal stimulus money as if it were permanent and ignoring their own five-year financial plan.
Coincidently, on the same morning that my commentary ran in the Inquirer, Phil Goldsmith, who served as interim CEO of the Philadelphia School District in 2000-01, wrote a piece in the Daily News headlined, “If it’s really about the kids, then we need some controls.” Here, Goldsmith brought-up some of the same points I’d made about the District’s financial woes—that they stemmed more from mismanagement than from cuts in funding; Goldsmith took the argument a step further and called on city leaders (which he insisted had “misdiagnosed” the problem) to make the school budget more transparent and to hold District leaders accountable.
The articles by Goldsmith and myself did not fall on deaf ears. On June 6th, the very morning our pieces ran, Bill Green, Philadelphia City Councilman-At-Large, wrote a letter to Mayor Michael Nutter asking him for more financial oversight and accountability from the Philadelphia School District. In it Green wrote:
“The crisis at the School District is not over, but it is a crisis stemming more from a lack of meaningful oversight and good stewardship than from a lack of funding. I refer you to the excellent pieces in the Daily News and Inquirer today by Phil Goldsmith and Christopher Paslay, respectively, which define the issues and problem well. . . .”
On June 28, Michael Masch, CFO of the Philadelphia School District, publically responded to the growing criticism over the handling of District finances in a commentary in the Philadelphia Inquirer headlined, “Philly School District’s spending under control.” In it he insisted the District’s budget shortfall is not the result of mismanagement, or bad bookkeeping, or reckless spending. It is simply the result of a lack of funding.
“The district’s problem is not spending,” Masch writes in the article. “It is funding.”
With all due respect to Masch and his recent efforts to raise money and balance the budget, his claim that the District doesn’t have a spending problem is a clear case of denial; it is a total lack of accountability. He blames the District shortfall on funding cuts, and writes that they are “unprecedented and disproportionate.”
The concerning part, however, isn’t that he and the District are trying to shuck all responsibility for the $630 million budget deficit, a shortfall that has adversely affected nearly everyone in the city—taxpayers, teachers, parents, children, and unions, to name a few. The alarming part is that the numbers Masch uses in his Inquirer commentary to explain away all responsibility for the budget shortfall are cherry-picked and taken out of context.
According to the District’s Third Quarter Financial Report, dated April 13, 2011, eight percent of the District’s funding for the 2010-11 school year was federal stimulus, which totaled $258 million. In the 2009-10 school year, the District received $227 million in stimulus money. Yet Masch writes in his article:
“State and federal funding for the district is going down next year—for the first time ever, and by an enormous amount—more than $400 million, a 15 percent drop. And this is not due solely or primarily to the district’s loss of federal stimulus funds. The district received an average of $113 million in annual stimulus funds in 2010 and in 2011, but it is losing more than $400 million in total funding next year.”
It appears Masch is getting the number $113 million from “Directly Allocated Federal Stimulus Funds.” What he fails to mention, however, is that in the school years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the District also received “State Allocated Federal Stimulus Funds,” which brought in an additional $130 million per year.
Masch also writes in his piece, “The district’s annual operating budget spending grew by just 4 percent in the past three years.”
He is again playing with words. Although the District’s “Operating Funds,” which only include “Local Taxes,” “City Grant,” ‘Local Non-Taxes” and “State Funds,” may have only increased 4 percent in three years, the District’s total budget grew from $2.79 billion in 2008-09 to $3.12 billion in 2010-11. I’m no accountant or mathematician, but 4 percent of $2.79 billion is $111 million. And from 2008 to 2011, District spending increased over $300 million; interestingly, the student population in the District went down 7,000 students during this time.
I’m not the only one who finds Masch’s representation of data a bit troublesome. The City Controller’s Office has also expressed serious concerns about how the School District handles tax dollars, and has recommended that they be required to present a five-year financial plan to an independent accounting authority because of “material weaknesses” found in its financial statements.
If the entire city of Philadelphia is being asked to make sacrifices to help balance the School District budget, if kindergarten and transportation are going to be cut, if unions are going to make $75 million in concessions, if property taxes are going to go up nearly $100 a year and 1,200 schoolteachers are going to lose their jobs, than there must be some real accountability.
How can Mayor Nutter and the SRC ask so many people to give so much money to District officials who take no responsibility and who spin their financial information?
This is a question that state and local leaders must start asking themselves.