Following my recent comments here on Riptide and in the Tribune about the new Pacifica School District (PSD) parcel tax increase, Measure L supporter and Saving Pacifica Schools president Kalimah Salahuddin and PSD board member Joan Weideman contacted me for a sit-down to discuss the disparity between what I feel the district spends per student per year ($9,170.76), based on total overall expenses of the district, and what they feel the district spends per student per year ($7,253), based on an accounting procedure that separates overall expenses into two categories, one for staff and staff-related expenses that comes directly from the district’s general fund, and the other for infrastructure improvements, which are restricted funds. The rationale in splitting the two categories is that neither students nor teaching staff receive a direct benefit from building maintenance and capital outlays.
By separating the two categories, it appears the cost per student is indeed $7,253 a year, but if, like me, you choose to combine the two categories because without buildings or capital improvements there are no structures to house teaching staff and students, it equally appears the district spends $9,170 per student a year. The difference between these two sums is $1,917 per student per year. That is a big difference and it highlights the magic of governmental accounting.
Speaking of governmental accounting and its Magical Mystery Tour logic, Weideman went over another figure I mentioned recently, an accounts-payable liability of more than $8 million. It doesn’t represent unpaid bills, as I had suggested. No, it’s much more entertaining than that. Half of that amount ($4 million) represents an accounting error by the State of California that requires the district to repay $4 million, but at the same time the state is refunding the $4 million through a different governmental accounting maneuver. In essence, no money is changing hands, but an accounting practice required by the state, so it doesn’t look like it made a $4 million mistake, is being satisfied.
In stark contrast to the accounting games of the State of California, most of the remaining $4 million represents straightforward payroll deferments by teaching staff so they will receive summertime paychecks while on hiatus. I always wondered how that worked.
I’d like to personally thank Joan and Kalimah for their offer and subsequent meeting. Joan came well prepared to discuss the district’s expenses and explain the staffing positions that Measure L will fund, and Kalimah provided extra support through her Blackberry and a mystery contact when questions could not be answered.
I wish the district luck with Measure L but strongly feel the district and Measure L supporters must include information on the district’s split accounting practice in any political literature published for their parcel tax campaign to be honest, open, and informative to the voting public. The difference of $1,917 annually per student equals a whopping $6,184,242. And make no mistake about it, the district does spend that extra $6 million annually whether it accounts for it separately or not.
Whether you choose to support Measure L, which will raise our property taxes by $118 a year for the next seven years to fund PSD staffing positions, or choose not to support Measure L, please do go to the polls November 8. It would be a shame if a small turnout swayed this parcel tax ballot measure one way or the other. The sums of public money at stake are huge, and real people will feel their impact for the next seven years.
TODD MCCUNE BRAY
Recent Comments