QUESTIONS FROM LIL'LORI

I sent the following email containing 4 questions to the DESE.  Their responses are in red.

After reviewing all the information I have seen and heard about the net school spending issue facing Lynn, I am left with these 4 simple questions that I am hoping you can answer.

On the EOY financial report, the restriction for including retired teachers health care costs states, "Insurance for Retired School Employees (5250) will count toward the net school spending requirement only if it was reported on the FY92 End of Year Report Schedule 19 for FY93"

However, on the DESE website and on the state budget report, the restriction states, "The department of elementary and secondary education shall not consider health care costs for retired teachers to be part of net school spending for any district in which such costs were not considered part of net school spending in fiscal year 1994."

My questions are this:

1)  Did local districts have to fulfill both of the requirements stated in the above restrictions (report insurance for retired school employees on the FY92 EOY report schedule 19 for FY93 AND have health care costs for retired teachers be considered part of net school spending in FY94 by the department) in order to have counted these costs toward net school spending over the past several years?

If the district did not include retirees’ health insurance on schedule 19 of the FY92 end of year report (which is the schedule showing budgeted amounts), then it was not included as part of the FY94 net school spending requirement.   The two circumstances are one and the same.

2)  Did Lynn report insurance for retired school employees on their FY92 EOY report schedule 19 for FY93?

No.

3)  Did the department consider health care costs for retired teachers to be part of Lynn's net school spending in FY94?  

No.

4)  Why did or didn't the department consider health care costs for retired teachers to be part of Lynn's net school spending in FY94?

Because Lynn did not include those costs on Schedule 19 of the FY92 end of year report.   Therefore, the FY93 spending, which became the base of the FY94 required net school spending calculation, did not include them either.

I then sent the following (again, their response is in red)

Since the department is telling Lynn they should not have been including these costs toward NSS, the department must know and have proof that Lynn did not meet the requirement of including these costs back in 94.  Is this correct? 

Yes, I have already sent what documentation we have to a school official who also asked. 

I also put in a public records request for the documentation, so I should have that soon.  None of this is anything new to what I and others already believed was the case.  Based on these responses, I think it's pretty clear that if Kevin McHugh, Dr. Latham, or anyone else who calculates, inputs and submits the figures and reports to DESE, had just taken the time to make one phone call or send one email to find out if Lynn met the requirements, this entire situation would have been prevented.  Every single person involved knew about the restriction for counting these costs.  Unfortunately, they chose to ignore it and simply continued doing what their predecessors had done.  The result of what I consider to be negligence, is the financial disaster now facing the city and schools.