State Audit of SPS

Thomas Schweich, Missouri State Auditor, issued his much anticipated report on SPS "petition audit" on March 2 at the Central High auditorium. SNEA attended that meeting as well as subsequent news conference held by the petitioner group and two school board meetings where the district's response to the audit was discussed.

As local media reported, the district received only a "Fair" or "C-" rating from the auditor after over a year of intensive review that cost the district over $180,000 and required over 4,000 hours of work by the auditor's staff. The report contained fourteen (14) "findings" and made a total of 51 recommendations, some of which had already been met by the time the report was issued. In a break from precedent, Schweich also called for a 90-day review to be conducted to check the district's response to the auditor's recommendations. Former Greene County Prosecutor, Darrell Moore, will lead the 90-day review process, which would take place in early June. What follows is a partial overview of the state auditor's report.

Health Benefit Trust Fund Condition - The auditor stated that the Health Benefit Trust was "not adequately funded or managed" and that written long-range plans for the HBT Fund have not been prepared. You may recall that SNEA addressed these issues in September 2010, after reaching impasse in our first insurance negotiations with the district. In October 2011, SNEA and other employee representatives reached an agreement with the district that improved the financial condition of the fund and also provided for better monitoring and further discussions on ideas to sustain the fund on a long term basis. The district's response indicated the increase in the premium, but characteristically avoided any mention of having negotiated with employees toward that end.

Accounting Controls over Cash Receipts and Change Funds - The auditor reported that "significant improvements are needed in the handling of meal, student activity, athletic department, athletic event and concession receipts." Since much of these transactions involve cash and multiple collection points, there is a greater risk of theft or lost revenues. The auditor clarified these concerns by stating that they found no evidence of theft, just poor tracking of funds. The district issued a response that focused on clarifying existing policies and improve processes for handling ticket and student activity funds. The proposed hiring of an internal auditor would help move this process along.

Bond & Lease Financing, Projects, and Long-Term Planning - SNEA has long been critical of using general funds to pay for lease purchase loans for capital projects. This was done with Hickory Hills and with the new KAC building - during times of teacher pay freezes. The auditor pointed out that lease purchase agreements, unlike bonds, do not require voter approval. He also pointed out that "the district sold these bonds and certificates through a negotiated sale instead of a competitive sale. In addition, the district's bond underwriter also acts as the district's financial advisor", which creates a potential conflict of interest. The auditor pointed to a $1.84 million "over-spending" of bond funds that the district reported in October 2010 as evidence that the district needed to do a better job of monitoring bond expenditures.

Real Estate Transactions - Most of this section referred to the ongoing story regarding the sale of the old Hickory Hills building, a real estate transaction that the auditor characterized as "strange and complex." Two years after the original sale for $4.45 million, and after numerous extensions, the district has received only $97,500 while also incurring "legal and personnel costs related to multiple agreements and extensions." The auditor recommended that the district not enter into future situation where the buyer does not have financing in place.

Procurement Procedures - The auditor found that the district's procedures for selecting and contracting for goods and services are not sufficient, citing legal services with the same attorney for at least 25 years without any written contract in place. The district paid $596,204 for legal services during the two years ended June 30, 2011. Other issues were cited regarding the bidding process for contracts in transportation and in outsourcing contracts for custodial management services (Aramark, Inc.) and substitute teachers (Kelly, Inc.).

Transportation: The former Transportation Director, hired by the district in May 2009, developed the specifications required in Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purchase of digital video systems for school buses. He also served on the evaluation committee and provided input regarding vendor selection. Seven of the eight proposals did not meet requirements for camera mounts. The sole vendor meeting the bid requirements was the former transportation director's previous employer. The auditor saw this as a conflict of interest. The vendor received $312,159 during the two years ending June 30, 2010.

Custodial Management: When the district solicited proposals for managerial services in 2010, the RFP did not contain provisions or requests for vendor donations. The vendor awarded the contract (Aramark) submitted a bid to the district offering a $125,000 donation over a five year period.

Contracts - The auditor found "various problems" with contracts and selection of providers, citing the lack of adequate cost analyses and the lack of solicitation from other service providers.

Kelly Services: In October 2007, the school board voted 6-1 (Hosmer dissented) to outsource substitute service to Kelly Service, Inc. SNEA spoke against this move. Prior to this outsourcing, substitute services consisted of two clerical employees operating out of a tiny office in Human Resources using an antiquated phone system called "Sub Finders". The employees in the Sub Services office had requested new software and proposed upgrading to an online service, but their request was rejected by administration as being too costly. At the time, substitute service was costing the district approximately $2.4 million per year.

Now, the auditor reports that the district paid approximately $8 million for substitute services during the two years ending June 30, 2011, including $1.5 million for administrative costs - and that the annual cost for these services has increased by more than $1 million from 2009-2011. There are no provisions in the contract to audit vendor records or billings - in essence, Kelly evaluates their own performance. In addition, the contract provisions allow the arrangement to continue indefinitely until canceled by either party. No cost analysis has been done to evaluate if the costs are reasonable and if outsourcing is the most cost effective method for providing sub services. Springfield remains the only district in the state that outsources substitute services.

Aramark: The district paid Aramark a combined $13.2 million during the two years ended June 30, 2011, to provide food and custodial management services. The costs for custodial management services have risen 53% since the first full year of the contract in 2007. As is the case with substitute service, the district does not have any audit provisions with this outside contractor.

Subsidization, Teacher Associations: We learned from the auditor's report that the district affords not only full-time leave status to an unelected and unrecognized association president (MSTA) but also voluntarily provides a sweet deal on office space, office furniture, phone service, utilities, internet connection, etc. to the same association for $217/month - free of any contract. This to an association that recently closed its regional offices to cut costs. Further, the auditor states that rental payments were not received from the association until his office called attention to the matter in September 2010.

The district fails to note in its response that there is, in fact, a written contract in place with Springfield NEA that was approved by the school board in June 2011. The contract contains a provision for a full-time president. There are no provisions in the SNEA/District contract for office space rental, utilities, or any other office service/maintenance agreement to help with association costs. SNEA rents its own office space at 1525 W. Sunshine.

A couple of observations from SNEA:

In 2009, the school board adopted Policy HH to establish a process toward recognizing a representative for teachers in our district. Policy HH begins with the following provision:


"The Board will not voluntarily recognize an organization, association, union or professional group as a representative for District teachers without a secret ballot election."

After reading the auditor's report on subsidization, it is clear that the district is in violation of Policy HH by voluntarily recognizing - through subsidization and providing services - an unelected and unrecognized association.

Summary Remarks on the Audit

Springfield Public Schools are the latest addition to the list of public entities that have endured state audits in recent years. City Utilities, the City of Springfield and MSU have all found themselves fending off the findings of the Auditor's office. Each of these institutions had to deal with hard questions regarding inequities and lack of oversight - where some individuals or business entities seemed to have achieved favored status without much accountability. At MSU, the president was a no-show to the Auditor's report. With SPS, the superintendent, cabinet and several board members sat and listened to a report that seemed much harsher in language and tone than what they had heard from the Auditor's staff during pre-audit reports. Was the Auditor grandstanding a bit? Probably. He announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate within a couple of days of the report - and then promptly withdrew.

But if you take a look at all four local audits, you see something more akin to "business as usual" or "the good ol' boy network" than blatant theft, fraud or willful malfeasance. In fact, in a couple of instances, the district appears almost gullible in its dealings with consultants and outsourced services, who seem to have made off like white collar bandits at times.

In summary, this too shall pass. Nobody is still talking about the City, CU or MSU audits - and it wasn't that long ago when bold headlines beckoned for our attention. The audit takes its place on the timeline like everything else. But if we're all about continuous improvement in this district, there are now plenty of objectives to put on the district's whiteboard, and we're pretty sure the school board will be doing walkthroughs with more frequency, at least for a while.

SNEA Recommends Three for School Board

SNEA Recommends Callen, Hosmer and Renner for School Board

This year’s school board election will take place on Tuesday, April 3. As in years past, SNEA formed a committee of members, sent out questionnaires to candidates and held interviews. A sincere thank you goes out to SNEA members Shannon Benne (Watkins), Anna Copeland (Study), Brent Fullington (Cherokee), Steve Ingalsbe (Pipkin), Rebecca Jamieson (HickoryHills), Sarah Schofield (Sequiota), and Jane Sellars (Central) for volunteering their time. Interviews with candidates were held on February 27 and March 3.

Three seats are up for election this year, and there are four candidates: Kris Callen (incumbent), Andy Hosmer (incumbent), Bruce Renner (incumbent) and David Awbrey.

Interview Sessions

Questions ranged from general reasons for running to more specific and timely issues like teacher tenure, merit pay, teacher evaluations and collective bargaining. Needless to say, there was a great deal of discussion with each candidate. After all interviews were completed, the committee weighed a broad range of factors relating to each candidate, and a ballot vote was held to determine the SNEA recommendations.

SNEA recommendations for the April 3 School Board:

Kris Callen

Kris Callen has served on the school board since 2003 and was President of the board from 2007-09. She currently serves on the board of directors for the Missouri School Board Association. Callen became involved with SPS as a parent of two children who have attended SPS schools over the past 16 years. Throughout her service, she has demonstrated a strong advocacy for SPS and public education in general. She is well informed about federal and state legislative issues that affect our district’s funding and operation.

While there have been a few times over the past nine years when SNEA has differed with Callen on specific issues locally, her steadfast support and advocacy for public education – and her awareness of legislative attempts to undermine public education – cannot be questioned. No realistic view of candidate endorsements would assume that the group and any given candidate would be in agreement 100% of the time. That’s not what SNEA seeks in this process. We seek knowledgeable people who understand the issues, are not bound by narrow ideological constraints and will work with teachers to bring improvements to our school system. Kris Callen, through her years of service, has proven that she is that kind of school board member and candidate.

Andy Hosmer

Local attorney Andy Hosmer has been on the school board since 2006 and is now seeking a third term. Hosmer has two children attending elementary school in our district and a third begins next year. His vocal support for teacher representation during his first term on the board is indicative of his broader advocacy for higher teacher compensation and respect for the teaching profession. When asked about how Springfield compares to other districts in compensating teacher, Mr. Hosmer told SNEA, “If we have to parse the salary levels and benefits to see where we rank, we are not doing what we need to do. I think it needs to be clear that SPS pays more.” He opposes the effort in the state legislature to repeal teacher tenure law, and is well aware of political attempts at the state and national level that seek to undermine public education.

Since his early service on the board, Hosmer has arguably been the most vocal critic of state and local dependence on MAP scores to determine the effectiveness of instruction and learning. During the planning and construction of the new Hickory Hills, Hosmer promoted the concept of building and sustaining a “green” school in Springfield. He is a LEEDS Schools Advocate and a member of the United States Green Building Council. Throughout his service on the school board, Hosmer has never shied away from asking the tough question, offering a new idea or taking an opposing view. For all these reasons, SNEA recommends Andy Hosmer to serve another term on our school board.

Bruce Renner

Bruce Renner is one of two former teachers now serving on the school board, after having worked as a counselor at Central and Parkview for a combined seventeen years. He also worked for eleven years in the Student Services office at Ozark Technical College. He now holds a position with Missouri State University. In 2009, Renner was the recipient of the Missouri NEA Horace Mann Award for his contributions to public education. He has also served on the Executive Board for the Missouri School Board Association.

Needless to say, Renner’s sixteen years of service on the school board has been characterized by unwavering support for the teaching profession and a body of institutional knowledge that is unmatched by any other public servant in our area. His positions on key issues such as teacher tenure, merit pay and teacher evaluations are based on common sense standards that SNEA supports. Renner’s wide range of knowledge and broad experience on the board make him a strong candidate for re-election. SNEA is proud to support his candidacy.

David Awbrey

David Awbrey is a journalist with a career spanning some thirty years at various newspapers and publications in a number of states. He served for a brief time as Communications Director for the Kansas State Department of Education before moving to Springfield and teaching at Pipkin Middle School during the 2006-07 school year. His book, A Journalist’s Education in the Classroom, was based on his teaching experiences while at Pipkin. He has also written numerous op-ed pieces in the local newspaper where he has voiced strong criticism of our district leadership, particularly our district’s propensity to call itself a “high-performing” district. Awbrey disagrees with that assertion and is critical of the district for subjecting its students to what he terms “grinding mediocrity”. Awbrey says that, “Missouri is drowning academically in 10 feet of water, (while) Springfield is a “high-performing” district because it is submerged only 9 feet.”

Awbrey also believes that Springfield is in a uniquely advantageous position be a model district for school reforms and innovation. He cites the NEA white paper, Leading the Profession, as a guide to upgrading the profession and a model for teacher involvement in driving their own professional development. In short, Awbrey is a passionate supporter of education reform and has a lot of good ideas that SNEA supports. However, several members of the committee had trouble understanding why a candidate for a public school board would choose to send his school-age child to a private school. One year of teaching may have provided enough material for an interesting book, but some questioned whether some of his portrayals of our district were based more on conjecture than real experience. While Awbrey is obviously passionate about school reform and has strong opinions about how it should be done, the interview team felt that his assessment of our district was somewhat biased and that he lacked practical experience relating to our community and schools.

Vote April 3

We hope that SPS employees will get out the vote on April 3, place signs in their yards and become active in supporting good candidates for the school board. Please call 869-5090 if you'd like to help or have any questions about the SNEA recommendation process or the candidates. Thanks.