Lori DAmicoApril 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM
Clearly Mr. Caron is on the defensive, especially on the Mayor's behalf. My original email did not contain any of the accusations he mentioned in his response. I did not attempt to assign blame on the Mayor, or anyone else, I merely asked a valid question, which no one has been able or willing to answer, including Mr. Caron. I did not state or even imply that the Mayor or anyone else had any prior knowledge that the school department was incorrectly including these costs and I did not make any inference that anyone involved in this issue acted with deliberate intent to shortchange the school children of Lynn. These were all Mr. Caron's own words and statements, not mine. This is the original email I sent, which Mr. Caron is responding to:
Good Morning,
After listening to your response to the net school spending issue, I still have the same question I have had from the beginning and I am hoping you, or anyone else included in this email, can provide me with a simple, straight forward answer.
As we all know, the restriction on not counting retired teachers health insurance costs is well-documented and publicized. It is specifically mentioned in Section 3 of the annual state budget and it is noted on the EOY Financial Reports. It is also highlighted each year at the summer EOY report workshops for business administrators, and it is mentioned on the DESE website. Therefore, the restriction is not, or at least should not have been a surprise to any of you. You have been Mayor for 4 years, but the audit only went back I believe 2 or 3 years. Therefore, the almost $16 million shortfall is from your time as Mayor. If this is not correct, please let me know. Knowing the restriction existed, why did Lynn include these costs toward net school spending for the past few years?
I did not hear you give an answer to this simple question during last night's meeting. I heard you state in detail what costs could and could not be counted toward net school spending, as well as your personal feelings and opinion on the way the state does things. I heard you state that the reason the city has this almost $16 million shortfall was because of a box that was or was not checked on a form submitted 20 years ago. However, this is not really true. We are not facing this shortfall because of a form that was submitted 20 years ago. We are facing this shortfall because the city included these costs toward net school spending (fully aware of the restriction) for the past few years. I just don't understand how or why city and/or school officials simply ignored this restriction for the past few years and did not do any research to find out if Lynn did in fact include these costs in FY 94 as the restriction states. If they had, we would not be facing this issue, correct? So again, why did the city include these costs toward net school spending for the past few years?
Thank you
Lori D'Amico
Good Morning,
After listening to your response to the net school spending issue, I still have the same question I have had from the beginning and I am hoping you, or anyone else included in this email, can provide me with a simple, straight forward answer.
As we all know, the restriction on not counting retired teachers health insurance costs is well-documented and publicized. It is specifically mentioned in Section 3 of the annual state budget and it is noted on the EOY Financial Reports. It is also highlighted each year at the summer EOY report workshops for business administrators, and it is mentioned on the DESE website. Therefore, the restriction is not, or at least should not have been a surprise to any of you. You have been Mayor for 4 years, but the audit only went back I believe 2 or 3 years. Therefore, the almost $16 million shortfall is from your time as Mayor. If this is not correct, please let me know. Knowing the restriction existed, why did Lynn include these costs toward net school spending for the past few years?
I did not hear you give an answer to this simple question during last night's meeting. I heard you state in detail what costs could and could not be counted toward net school spending, as well as your personal feelings and opinion on the way the state does things. I heard you state that the reason the city has this almost $16 million shortfall was because of a box that was or was not checked on a form submitted 20 years ago. However, this is not really true. We are not facing this shortfall because of a form that was submitted 20 years ago. We are facing this shortfall because the city included these costs toward net school spending (fully aware of the restriction) for the past few years. I just don't understand how or why city and/or school officials simply ignored this restriction for the past few years and did not do any research to find out if Lynn did in fact include these costs in FY 94 as the restriction states. If they had, we would not be facing this issue, correct? So again, why did the city include these costs toward net school spending for the past few years?
Thank you
Lori D'Amico
