|
Note: In the following article, State Auditor Pat
Anderson states that "the discrepancy between the two reports stems from the
Auditor’s Office report including more schools than the education department
used in its analysis." But in fact, the State Auditor counts fewer
schools, skipping 32 schools that the Department of Education includes,
schools which had millions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of students.
See for yourself
here.
If a line is blank, that school is skipped.
What the State Auditor report does do is include the
three intermediate school districts separately, while the Department of
Education includes their students in their member districts (intermediate
school districts draw students from participating member school districts).
But this does not affect the total. No matter how you slice it or dice
it, the total revenue and total student counts differ widely between the
two state agencies, with no explanation or discussion of the divergence.
Which is right? Dept of Ed or State Auditor?
The State Auditor also states that
the use of the CPI is
"standard within the Auditor’s Office and has been for years," but last
year's schools report does not use the CPI. See
this.
And the Auditor gives no explanation for why calendar year CPI was used
instead of fiscal year CPI, when schools do their books on a fiscal year and
the report clearly states that is it analyzing fiscal year numbers.
|
Reprinted
from
Posted: 9/21/06
Clash of calculators continues in state auditor's race
by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter
The clash of the calculators
continues in the state auditor’s race with Democrat Rebecca Otto
charging Republican State Auditor Pattricia Anderson with more
accounting errors.
Anderson said Otto’s charges are wrong and annoying.
At a Capitol press conference on Wednesday (Sept. 20) Otto charged that
an 2006 Auditor’s Office report on the financial trends of Minnesota
school districts and charter schools varied from Department of Education
numbers by some $87 million.
“It’s just not close enough,” said Otto.
Additionally, Otto criticized the auditor’s office’s uses of the
consumer price index (CPI) in its calculations, arguing instead an
alternative pricing variable, the implicit price deflator, should be
used in budget analysis.
By using the CPI, Anderson’s school report makes school revenues seem to
have grown by hundreds of millions of dollars, Otto explained.
But use of the implicit price deflator would show school funding lagging
behind the cost of inflation, she explained.
“Is it deliberate? — I don’t know,” said Otto when asked if Anderson was
trying to spin the numbers.
Otto, over the course of the state auditor’s campaign, has repeatedly
attacked Anderson for faulty bookkeeping.
She believes people have been paying attention to her criticisms. “For
me it’s frustrating,” said Anderson of Otto’s charges, which she deems
baseless.
The discrepancy between the two reports stems from the Auditor’s Office
report including more schools than the education department used in its
analysis, explained Anderson.
As for the use of the CPI, that’s standard within the Auditor’s Office
and has been for years, Anderson explained.
Anderson said voters do not ask her about Otto’s criticisms. But it’s
frustrating, said Anderson, because time has to be spent figuring out
what Otto is talking about, she said.
|
|
