Tag Archives: Fiscal Responsibility

DAVIS: ‘Bleed it Dry, Then Get the Hell Out’ – The Fight for Tax Dollars in Woodland Park Schools

The last few days have been pretty crazy for those following the Woodland Park School District. I was going to write up a summary, but Colorado Times Recorder reporter Logan Davis just published a piece that is much better written than anything I could write!

Read the full story here

The only thing I want to add to Logan’s piece though is that yesterday (March 11), the district announced that Ken Witt’s departure would be accelerated. Instead of his last day being April 15, it would be March 11, with Aaron Salt becoming interim superintendent for now. They’ve removed all discussion of the Merit Facility issue from the agenda for their March 12 board meeting and will tackle it in their April meeting instead.

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

Woodland Park City Council livid about school district report | Pikes Peak Courier | gazette.com

Instead of the detailed accounting concerning the 1% sales tax earmarked for the Woodland Park School District that had been negotiated in the intergovernmental agreement between the two entities, the district sent a one-page summary to meet the required Jan. 31 deadline.

The council was livid.
— Read on gazette.com/pikespeakcourier/city-council-livid-about-school-district-report/article_f6a06d86-e566-11ef-b2cb-0b82fce353cd.html

What if it Were Your Student? | Guest column

From the 7/17/2024 Courier:

If the election’s over, why keep talking about the school board?

There’s been a high price paid—starting with the then-traitorous signatures on the Declaration of Independence, and later in blood — for us not only to vote, but manage the gift of elected leaders, our collective taxes.

Responding to a director’s question at the June BOE about bussing students to and from school, the superintendent reported transportation was completely state-reimbursed. This error prompted Colorado Open Records Agreement (CORA) requests from one citizen, who provided documentation to the superintendent. The superintendent admitted the error, restating his commitment to provide transportation to all district students. I wholeheartedly support this.

But there’s a catch.

Student transportation in 22-23 cost WPSD $1,230,940 (per CDE). The state reimbursed $238,137, collected transportation fees were $13,035 —leaving $979,768 to be covered by state-provided per-pupil funding. At the time, 1,677 attended our five traditional schools; the remaining 300 attended Merit Academy. (Merit was in the district, but transportation wasn’t offered.)

That nearly $1 million balance has been paid only from our district’s traditional-school per-pupil allotment. That’s $584/student, all students not just bussed students, from an amount also intended for building, administration, teacher salaries, the works.

But let’s watch our math. For the 23-24 year the district began including transportation for Merit–only asking fund participation of the $100/family asked of all bus-utilizing families. Their reasoning: Merit Academy’s transportation did not require an additional stop. But it will in 2024-2025.

To be clear, the traditional 1,422 students paid for the bussing of 1,820 students.

For 24-25, MA again will not be asked to pay their share of busing costs.

This year, traditional enrollment is projected to lower; MA is projected to be higher as they add preschool and 11th grade. Yet the nearly $1 million transportation costs will only be divided among educational funds for the traditional schools.

If MA paid their share of district bussing, the traditional schools gain at least $214,124.

Which would go a long way to paying teachers—and students—more of what they deserve. (What if that traditional student was your own?)

CORA-requested information shows leadership from MA pursuing their fair share of grant funding—suggesting even though budgets were set, they could be revised.

Should MA, in kind, pursue their share of transportation costs? Some argue, truthfully, that district schools receive funding that MA does not. Yet MA is eligible as well for grants and waivers unique to charter schools.

It’s but one example among many of preferential treatment of one school by a BOE that is charged with looking fairly to the interest of all students, all schools.

What is the honorable response from all parties? Should district costs be shared among all its beneficiaries? Should those continuing to present similar issues, finding themselves ignored, remain silent? Should traditional students’ blindly trust this Board?

But more importantly, how could we as a community come together with facts—indivisible, toward justice for all?

Carol Greenstreet

ERBOCES restores Ken Witt’s full-time salary, gives him bonus and a raise

Some months after Ken Witt took a ‘full time’ job here in WPSD, his other employer, ERBOCES, cut his salary to reflect the part-time effort he was going to be putting into that. Well, they reversed that in their May 2024 board meeting. Ken Witt’s ERBOCES salary is back to the full base amount, PLUS he gets a 5% cost of living increase, PLUS he gets a 10% bonus. Scroll to the end of the meeting minutes here to read the details for yourself. So now Ken Witt is back to milking the taxpayers for two full-time salaries (ERBOCES executive director, and WPSD superintendent), plus generous benefits and bonuses.

City Council debates sales tax

In the 5/16 council meeting, city council talked about sales tax, and Ken Witt and Mick Bates gave a short presentation and answered some questions (you can watch it here). The debate seems to be over whether or not City Council should trust the Woodland Park School District to spend the sales tax money in the manner agreed upon. Witt provided pie charts but little actual detail, something council members Geer and Baldwin both pointed out.

Here are some actions by the district and superintendent to consider when asking whether they can be trusted to spend sales tax money as agreed upon:

  • The district provides transportation services to Merit Academy without making them pay a proportionate share of the overall cost – and when public comment has brought this to light last year, Witt provided misleading answers.
  • The district spent about $100,000 to charter Merit Academy…money they could have asked that school to reimburse but instead had the other schools pay via their funds.
  • The district provides food service to Merit Academy at no cost to that school.
  • The board paid a $275,000 separation agreement to our previous superintendent, Dr. Mathew Neal (this was recorded in the FY’23 general ledger as “July 2022 Supplemental Payroll” with no comments added about who it was for).
  • The district redirected $270,155 of federal grant money without public notice nor board approval – the board had voted to spend this money on the five ‘traditional’ public schools, but it was instead sent to Merit Academy in secret.
  • The board voted to renew Ken Witt’s contract, giving him a raise and potential bonus in the process, without ever performing any job review.
  • In the 5/16/2024 city council meeting, Ken Witt appears to have lied to council, saying sales tax money was being used for ‘innovation’ by paying for the Capturing Kids Hearts program, when the facts show that program is funded by different sources.
  • District CFO Amy Ryan has barely lasted a year…a job posting shows she’s leaving the district already.

Ken Witt and the Woodland Park School District have not earned our trust with our sales tax money.