Tag Archives: Finance

Woodland Park School District 2023 to 2024 Audit Breakdown

Woodland Park needed extra time to compete its FY24 audit (school year 2023-2024), and shortly after the allowed 60 day extension was up, filed it with the state on March 3rd. They posted it to their website Friday, hours after Ken Witt submitted his resignation. When you read through the auditor’s findings, one wonders if there was a connection between those two events?

Click here to access the audit at the district’s website (it’s the WPSD 23.24 document).

WPSD received a Qualified Opinion on their Audit. What is that?
According to the Motley Fool, “A qualified opinion is an auditor’s declaration that there is an area of uncertainty in an [organization’s] financial statements.”

There are many uncertainties cited by the District’s auditor Hoelting & Company. These uncertainties vary in their severity. Per the Internal CPA Review, they are classified as:

  • Material Weaknesses–A deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
  • Significant Deficiencies–A deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

In summary, the District administration has committed dozens of egregious errors and/or failed to control financial reporting processes to the extent that fraud is quite possible and the district’s financial stability is facing a significant risk.

What does this mean?

An audit that uncovers this many errors and lack of controls usually receives a less favorable opinion.

The auditor Hoelting & Co. states on pg. 58 of the audit, “Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, status, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to WPSD…”

So what happened?

In that design, management, and specifically Ken Witt, Aaron Salt, and their oversight of the financial and administrative processes has failed to the extent that district finances are at risk.

Below is a list of “conditions” which led to this Qualified Opinion, as listed in Section II, pg. 61, titled “Financial Statement Findings”:

  1. The District was unable to reconcile and close its books in a timely manner.
  2. Assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, and expenditures all contained material errors that
    were not detected by management.
  3. Lack of supervision, training and resources within the business services department.
  4. The District does not have the proper controls, processes, or personnel in place to analyze, adjust, or independently review account balances prior to audit field work.
  5. The District did not require all “P-Card” (Purchase Card) holders to turn in support other than a receipt, such as expenditure form indicates what line item is effected.
  6. The business services department was not able to provide adequate support for credit card purchases.
  7. Lack of controls over P-Card usage, increasing the risk of error or fraud.
  8. The District could not provide detailed documentation to show who attended trainings and how it complied with District policies.
  9. Lack of control over district travel, increasing the risk of fraud or abuse.
  10. The District was unable to reconcile grants that flowed from CDE to the FDW.
  11. The District was unable to balance grant revenues and expenditures.
  12. 12 grants that did not reconcile the CDE FDW, Twenty-seven state and federal rewards that did not balance, over ten grants were not properly reviewed for deferred revenue, and nine grants that showed collective receivables exceeding one million six hundred
    thousand dollars that could not be substantiated.
  13. Grant revenues, expenditures, and receivables were materially misstated.
  14. The District did not timely complete bank reconciliations. In some cases, for over 6 months.
  15. There is lack of controls over cash, increasing the error of risk and fraud.
  16. The District did not record pupil activities within its general ledger software.
  17. The Pupil Activity Fund was materially misstated.
  18. The District has not correctly recorded BOCES flow through revenue.
  19. The District did not account for a material amount of revenue that was received from BOCES.
  20. The District general ledger did not agree to the final reconciliations with its component unit, nor did it reflect the proper accruals which led to significant audit adjustments due to a lack of controls over component unit accounting.
  21. The District made multiple material journal entries that were erroneous and required substantial work from the audit team to trace and reverse.
  22. There is a lack of controls over review for journal entries, increasing the risk of error or fraud.
  23. The District was not in compliance with CDE reporting requirements.
  24. A lack of controls exists over grant reporting to CDE constituting both a material weakness and material non-compliance over the financial statements.
  25. The district did not accurately account for salaries that should have been accrued.
  26. The District does not have an effective process in place to ensure salary accruals are recorded or reconciled in a timely manner.
  27. The District did not accurately reverse sales tax accruals or record the year-end sales tax accruals.
  28. There is not a system of controls in place related to sales tax revenue and receivables.
  29. The amounts recorded as debt services payments for interest and principal were not correct at year end.
  30. Insufficient controls over posting debt services activity.
  31. Controls over recording investment revenue were not followed. The District did not accurately record interest revenue that was received throughout the year.
  32. Fixed asset additions were materially overstated.
  33. The District did not timely file the annual financial report and the field report did not agree to the general ledger. There is a material weakness in internal controls over grant
    reporting to the CDE.
  34. The District was unable to reconcile and close its books in a timely manner.

It is the District administration’s job to oversee hiring qualified financial staff and to exert sufficient controls and redundancies so as to avoid catastrophic errors like those listed above. When the majority of the Board of Education voted to extend the remarkably unqualified Superintendent Ken Witt’s contract in 2024 without a performance review, President Mick Bates stated that Witt’s “values” aligned with the Board’s. The BOE shares Witt’s values of negligence, inability to lead, ideological indoctrination instead of education, and sheer inability to lead. The current BOE and administration continues to masquerade as a group of classic conservatives who actually proffer a radical progressive agenda that sacrifices ethical and professional standards for ideological and religious ends.

Jack Bay’s resignation letter (former CFO)

We obtained Jack Bay’s resignation letter via CORA, and you can view it here (also screenshots below). It sounds like Ken Witt and Brad Miller wanted to fire Jack and this letter of resignation was an attempt by Jack to avoid that label (the official district position is that Jack Bay did not resign). It does not paint a picture of a well-run district administrative office. We’ll be watching for the district’s audit to finally be released, it’s due this Saturday (after a 60-day extension).

Woodland Park City Council signals school funding cut over transparency concerns

During a council meeting last week, council members were visibly frustrated after they received a one-page summary from WPSD showing the six months of spending. The original summary showed money spent on replacing security cameras, software programs, and salaries for teachers at Summit Elementary School, Woodland Park Middle School, and Gateway Elementary, which closed at the beginning of the 2024-2025 academic year.
— Read on www.koaa.com/advocates-of-accountability/woodland-park-city-council-threatens-to-cut-sales-tax-funds-to-school-district-citing-transparency-concerns

WPSD BOE votes to give entire Middle School building to Merit Academy, and cut fees charged to Merit

The August 9th school board meeting contained a vote on changes to the Contract and the Facilities Usage Agreement with Merit Academy. The board did not read the changes, did not present them in the meeting, and did not make them publicly available prior to the meeting. Nevertheless, the board packet contained very detailed redlines of the proposed changes, as learned via a recent CORA request.

When you look at the actual changes, it becomes pretty obvious why the board hid this information. Their decision to move 6th grade out of the Middle School this past March created quite a stir…and if people realized what the board did for Merit, I suspect there’d be even more of an uproar. Here’s what the new FUA says:

As Merit grows, the new FUA gives them whatever space they need, with no regard for the 7/8th graders currently occupying that portion of the building. They’re currently expanding one grade level per year as each cohort moves up; they might add preschool in the future. The BOE put in place a legal agreement which will squeeze the 7/8th graders out of that building. More importantly though, they have not disclosed any plan for what will happen to the 7/8th grades currently in that building.

Here’s the currently floorpan for this ’23-24 school year:

On the financial side of things, the BOE gave Merit two sweet deals. First, Merit will no longer be asked to share the district facilities costs on a per-pupil basis. Instead, their share will be computed based upon the square footage they are using.

The district has unused building space, but Merit won’t have to help shoulder the cost of that – they get the benefit of using a district building rent-free, but get special treatment compared to the tenants (schools) of the other buildings. Second, their administrative withholding decreases from 5% to 3.5% (this is expected to give Merit about $61k, though final amount depends on pupil count).

Obtained via CORA, you can view the new Facilities Usage Agreement or the new Contract.

Grant info for the ’23-24 school year, compared to previous

I’ve been working to better understand what effect refusing grant money will have on our district (see this story). New data has been received via CORA, all grant applications for the ’23-24 school year as of 4/2/2023 (links to applications are included). I’m not sure if programs like the Title 1A funding would be secured later in the year; it’s possible the actual ’23-24 grant picture will have additional funds added beyond what’s shown here.

WPSD grant applications, ’23-24 School Year:

For comparison, WPSD grants, ’22-23 School Year:

  • Newmont CC/V Goldmine Grant – Bldg Level Educational Programs ($ 47,017)
  • Summit Elem. NLK Security Grant – Bldg Security ($ 2,019)
  • Project Lead The Way HS-Lockheed Martin – HS PLTW ($ 2,200)
  • Child Care Relief Grant – Preschool ($ 7,772)
  • Colo. Ed. Initiative SERN Grant – Social Emotional Redesign Network ($ 15,413)
  • Jadenator Donation Grant – Student Needs-Athletics ($ 2,150)
  • CDHS Child Care Oper Stabil Grant – After School Care ($ 60,688)
  • Colo. Health Foundation – Student Wellness ($ 11,376)
  • CDHS Workforce Sustain – After School Care ($ 13,144)
  • Local Donations/some Dist. funds – Auditorium Upgrade ($ 55,000)
  • School Counselor Corp Grant – Counseling ($ 489,989)
  • State Library Grant – School Libraries ($ 5,000)
  • School Health Professionals Grant – Cohort 5 (Elem) – Substance Abuse Prevention ($ 266,618)
  • School Health Professionals Grant – Cohort 6 (Sec) – Sustance Abuse Prevention ($ 216,786)
  • WPHS Advanced Placement Pilot Program – HS AP ($ 4,558)
  • Career Development Incentive Programs – HS Instructional ($ 32,944)
  • Kindergarten Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment – Kndg. Fixed Assets ($ 19,485)
  • Read Act Grant – Literacy ($ 53,409)
  • AP Exam Fee Reimbursement – AP Exams ($ 1,500)
  • Concurrent Enrollment – Concurrent Enrollment ($ 10,000)
  • WPHS SWAP – School to Work alliance Program ($187,606)
  • Suicide Prevention Grant – Suicide Prevention ($ 5,000)
  • URHN-Substance Abuse Prevention Grant – Sustance Abuse Prevention ($ 169,999)
  • Title IA – Language Arts and Math ($ 401,234)
  • Carl Perkins Consorsium – Vocational ($ 11,115)
  • Title III ELL flow Through – ELL ($ 4,151)
  • Title IIA (combined with Title IV for budgeting) – Instructional Resource ($ 92,846)
  • Title IV (combined with Title IIA for budgeting) – Combined with Title IIA ($ 25,133)
  • Supply Chain Assistance Grant, School Food Svc. – School Food Service ($ 32,178)
  • Summit Elem. Distinctive Schools Award – Title I Educational Program ($ 10,000)

Also in the ’22-23 school year were federal Covid relief funds; these are expiring on their own so I’m separating them out:

  • ESSER 3 Grant (Instr Impact) – Covid Pandemic ($ 320,436)
  • ESSER 2 Grant – Covid Pandemic ($ 306,592)
  • ESSER 3 Grant – Covid Pandemic Loss of Learning ($ 1,173,946)

Regarding those ESSER funds, the district’s Use of Funds Plan for that money can be viewed here (thanks to CORA).

Interim Superintendent expenses

I guess one of the perks of being an interim superintendent is eating out frequently at taxpayer expense?

January started out slow. Witt didn’t have a district credit card, so submitted an expense report for the Pantry ($28.03) and Peak BBQ ($50.99).

For February, Witt enjoyed a couple meals at Mountainara ($51.07 and $71.68), Fortune Dragon ($34.31), and a whopping $121.44 at Ted’s Montana Grill (source). He went on to spend $29.39 at the Pantry, $44.64 at Rosie’s Diner (in Monument), $37.19 at Grandmother’s Kitchen, $64.05 at Wines of Colorado, $42.75 at Fusion Japan, $65.32 and $72.90 at Mountainara (gotta admit, I love that place too), and then $50.14 at the Pantry (curious, how many people joined him for that meal to push the bill so high, and how many of them were board members?). (source)

So, from 1/1-3/14/2023 (his credit card billing cycle ends at the middle of the month), Ken Witt has incurred $763.90 in expenses dining out.

Merit Academy not paying for transportation services

UPDATE – it’s been pointed out to me that there may yet be an agreement written to split costs (a Merit board member says there will be one at some point).

——————-

The district made a big deal about expansion of transportation services to Merit Academy students, and emphasized that it would not add any cost to the district. What they failed to mention is that Merit Academy isn’t paying anything themselves for this service (apart from, presumably, the $50 per kid per year fee parents pay for this service) – the money is coming out of funds used to educate the children of the transitional public schools alone. This was evident in a CORA request I just received results for. The actual text of the CORA request was:

Please provide the district’s contract with Durham bus services for the following school years: 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. Please also provide the contract, amendment, or other agreement(s) with Merit Academy covering their use of transportation services through Durham Bus Services.

source

I did receive the contract with Durham, and one amendment to that contract. But that’s it, no written agreement between the district and Merit. When I inquired as to whether that was omitted in error, this was the reply:

All documents responsive to this request were provided.

The relevant section from the Merit Academy charter contract is section 5.2, as follows:

5.2. Transportation. The District and the School acknowledge and agree that transportation will not be provided by the District to students attending the School unless otherwise mutually agreed in writing. Any transportation of students to the School shall be the sole responsibility of the School, with all costs borne by the School. The School and the District agree to meet on an annual basis to discuss how the Parties might collaborate to provide transportation options for students of the School.

source

So, Merit kids get a free ride…the public school kids pay for the busses, leaving Merit kids with more money per pupil to be used for educational purposes. Let’s hope the board decides to instead enact an agreement that fairly splits costs…a board director has told me that no written agreement is needed for this transportation issue, but I’m hoping that’s not the final word.

I’ve asked for recent invoices from Durham so we can put some exact numbers on this…but with the Durham costs being fixed, the fewer the kids paying for it, the more each kid pays. For example, if you and three friends eat out and need to split a $100 bill, that’s $25 per person. But if one of those people doesn’t contribute, each of the remaining people have to pay $33.33. That’s the situation here…the bus bill is not being split equally amongst all the students covered by it. Parents do pay $50 per child to participate in this service, but that only covers a small fraction of the actual costs.

Fiscal Recklessness in Woodland Park

Most of these board members are relatively new to town. Us that have been here a long time remember days not so long ago, when the Middle School roof was leaking. Trash cans were placed in classrooms to catch the drips. The district had no money for a new roof. I recall sitting in on a presentation by Superintendent Bowman at the time…he outlined the expenses on staff, district-wide, at a very detailed level. He convinced me the district was operating as lean as it could be…and yet…there was still no money for a new roof. In the spring of 2016, voters surprisingly stepped up to help! We passed a 1.09% sales tax coupled with a property tax reduction! This has made a huge difference to our schools, and yes, the Middle School got their new roof. 🙂

This current school board has been completely reckless with spending and an insult to taxpayers who deserve more from our elected officials. Let’s look at some examples.

The board spent around $100k of district money to bring Merit Academy into the district. The feasibility study for the middle school cost our district $51,596.53. Caplan and Ernest, lawyers brought on solely for closing the deal with Merit, cost us $32,268.50. Brad Miller incurred some uncertain amount of legal fees until he stepped away from the deal at the end (his legal fees for the first five months of 2022 were about $66k and he was very involved with this beginning in January). The board was not required to give Merit any of the sales tax revenue…they could have withheld enough of that sales tax revenue to reimburse the district for expenses incurred bringing in Merit.

Miller’s legal advice to the board led to them violating Open Meetings Law in January, leading to a preliminary injunction and subsequent legal fees incurred by defending themselves in court. The exact cost is unknown, as Miller did not invoice separately for this court case and he redacts details from the invoices we request through CORA.

In June, Illingworth called for a special board meeting, where they decided to remove Superintendent Neal from the district. Having no cause for doing so, it cost the district $275k to break his contract (plus whatever legal fees were incurred by Miller for this).

Having put in place two very competent co-superintendents, Del Garrick and Tina Cassens, the board then proceeded to hire a new temporary interim superintendent, Ken Witt. Which on the surface is not necessarily financially bad, this board found a way to really screw taxpayers over on this one. They’re paying Witt an annual rate of $155k, plus a $500 car allowance and $100 cell phone allowance. The contract makes it very difficult to remove Witt, as doing so would require 120 day notice or comparable financial compensation! To top it all off, Witt is allowed to keep working at ERBOCES, where is also being paid $155k, gets a $500 car allowance, and a cell phone provided to him. Taxpayers are paying Witt more than $310k to work two fulltime jobs. You can read Witt’s contract with Woodland Park here, or read his ERBOCES contract here (that contract has been extended). Our district alone is paying a full time salary to someone that’s barely working here part time.