Members of the Mansfield City School District Financial Planning and Supervision Commission were not happy at their August 28 meeting when it was discovered that four new positions within the district were not included in the most recent five-year forecast.
The Financial Planning and Supervision Committee noted the Mansfield Board of Education approved four positions at their August 19 meeting: a math teacher, a science teacher, an online teacher, and a secretary.
The board also approved certified and non-certified resignations, retirements, appointments and changes of statuses, including Robert McQuate as the new assistant principal at Mansfield Middle School, Jason Douglas as the interim principal at Hedges Elementary, and Kim Johnson as an interim assistant principle at Sherman Elementary. Senior High’s Assistant Principal Fuzzie Davis’s change of status was tabled for consideration for a later date.
These positions were presented for approval at the August 28 Financial Planning and Supervision Committee meeting via Resolution 15-009. When Commission Chairperson Paul Marshall questioned whether the cost of the four new positions was incorporated into the most recent five-year forecast, Mansfield City Schools Treasurer Rosetta Stephens explained that the forecast only included information up until July 30.
“We’re working on it right now, reassigning teachers in new positions, taking of teachers who are not returning, putting people back on who were on the recall list, right now we’re doing all this investments,” said Stephens. “Our first payroll for the school year will be in September, and we’re hoping to get a good grip on the payroll and I’ll be able to get a better look at it for the actual real, five-year forecast in October. I had no idea we were going to bring positions back until we put this on the board. On July 30 I did not know that.”
Based on the state average for teacher salaries totaling approximately $80,000, the commission estimated the four new positions would cost the district roughly $300,000 for the first year, bringing total expenditures for Mansfield City Schools close to $56 million. However, Marshall noted at the time the commission did not know the effect of the four new positions on the five-year forecast.
“What I’m trying to figure out is what impact does the hiring of those new positions have on the five-year forecast,” said Marshall. “Before we can approve positions we need to know how it ripples throughout the forecast period. I thought those positions were included in the revised forecast.”
“We’re approving some positions without knowing the total impact on the budget,” said commission member Mark Brunn.
“That’s what bothers me,” added Marshall.
Other commission members voiced their displeasure with the added positions not being included in the most recent five-year forecast.
“Personally if I were a board member I would want to see this information when I approved it as well, not just the positions but what the financial impact is, given the current state of affairs,” said commission member Jill Haring.
“I’m not as worried about the five-year forecast as I am about having sufficient appropriations for this year, and if the appropriations were calculated based on what was known and now it has changed,” added commission member Sharon Hanrahan. “My immediate question is how do we fix that. I can see in the future it’s going to be a real issue because you’re not going to have the capability to move funds. I also understand why it’s the beginning of the year so personnel information at this point is in draft form.”
Brunn pointed out the addition of the four new positions sounded like “a done deal,” and suggested approving the resolution to “keep things moving.” Therefore, the commission eventually agreed to pass Resolution 15-009 approving the new positions, however Marshall noted he could only support the resolution conditionally, pending a five-year forecast update.
“I guess we had a miscommunication Miss Stephens, because I thought these positions were included in the new five-year forecast, that’s what I requested beforehand,” said Marshall.
“I didn’t have that information on July 30,” said Stephens.
“Then you need to tell me,” replied Marshall. “Because I had requested it be included. I don’t want to pursue this, but in the future if this happens again, I’m not approving anything. I’m not happy, in case you didn’t catch that. This isn’t going to happen again.”
“Before we can approve positions we need to know how it ripples throughout the forecast period. I thought those positions were included in the revised forecast,” said chairman Paul Marshall.
