I have read Dr. Paolucci's Super Scoop article in May 2019 as well as the follow-up article by the Observer.
Fiduciary Responsibility
I am sure there are a multitude of laws at the Federal and State levels to guide and hold public officials in local governments. And with education, probably more at the DOE and RIDE levels in Rhode Island as well as regional accreditation organizations.
Investorpedia defines a fiduciary responsibility as ...
"A fiduciary duty is a commitment to act in the best interests of another person or entity. Broadly speaking, a fiduciary duty is a duty of loyalty and a duty of care. That is, the fiduciary must act only in the best interests of a client or beneficiary. And, the fiduciary must act diligently in those interests.:
As a publicly-owned private business, this definition extends a very specific set of responsibilities to employees, professionals and leaders. These responsibilities also extend to certain regulated professions such as financial advisors.
Government and public education leaders are required to do the same. Their entire focus must be to lead in the best effort for the benefit of the taxpayers and residents of their municipality.
From a financial standpoint, I learned early in my career one simple concept. Treat the money that is in your care as if it is your own.
Next Story Line
The conflict began from the Superintendent's blog (Super Scoop) posting based on a May 14th meeting. The rift, as outlined in the article said that the local school leadership may be relinquishing budgeting authority and creating a "slippery slope". She inferred that the School Committee should re-establish its authority to control local spending on education.
OK, I can understand their fiduciary and legal responsibility. The Carullo Act and State legislation has already given tremendous authority to the school committees in this state; it is called maintenance of effort. In simple terms, the municipal authority MUST fund the public school department to the level at LEAST of what they received in the previous fiscal year.
So, assume that a public school system received $30 million in FY20 for an enrollment of 1,500 students. The municipal governance (town councils) must approve no less than $30 million for FY21. AND the town government CANNOT dictate how that money is spent. Ultimately, it is an allocation of $30 million to spend as the school committee and superintendent approves.
Think about this ... if that public school system dropped enrollment by 20% in FY21, the council would still be required to approve at least $30 million dollars. Amazing business model?!
Some Points to Consider FromThis Situation
- A member of the School Committee said that they should not have to use money from their "savings account" (the legal accounting term is the Fund Balance).
- As noted in the article, the SPSs expended a great deal of effort to compile a budget to fund the operations of the system.
- The kerfuffle became more "detailed" because of the need to restore $28k to the music department. However, consider what was written earlier. The Superintendent conveyed that ... The council is supposed to act on the overall appropriation, not individual line items. She is right.
Quoting from the article ... the district is 'running on fumes,' said Paolucci, and Smithfield can’t keep offering the quality educational system it is known for if 'constantly undercut' on the town side. The district has already cut 'all the low-lying fruit,' she said.
Conclusions
You can read the article yourself.
However, it should be noted about the "theater" that was "orchestrated" at the Financial Town Meeting ... of which I attended. If there is a video of this meeting, watch it.
Bottom line ... I have heard since 2010 the same story, quotes and sound bytes from the article (and others).
Let's see how they are going to be doing in the future with enrollment and fiscal policy. Hmmm?!?!
