Encumbrances, Transfers and Missing Metrics: District Responds to the $100K Security Budget Discrepancy

After my article this morning on the $100k gap between the security budget presented to the public last spring and the  number that shows up in the district’s recent Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), the Berkeley Heights School District responded to my questions – but that response raised more questions.

In her response, the Business Administrator said the higher number in the ACFR reflected prior-year encumbrances and mid-year transfers that weren’t part of the adopted budget. The administrator cited $60,473 in encumbrances carried over from the previous year (which did appear built into the adopted budget) and $97,613 transferred into the security line during the year. These transactions were framed as routine financial practices.

However, the transfer records provided by the district show that roughly 2/3 of the $97,613 added to the security line went directly to SLEO compensation costs including $40,000 to “annualize SLEO cost” and $21,000 for additional SLEO payments and $2,186 for a Class III SLEO balance.

The remaining amounts were tied to PA and paging system work and a Datacomm (correction (?)).

None of the items were documented as state or federal mandates despite “state requirements” and “national safety standards.” explanation

The district didn’t identify what the encumbrances were for or what specific services the transfers funded beyond the general categories in the spreadsheet or the safety standards/directives they connected to. Some of the items seemed more in line with facility costs than security (which becomes important in evaluating baseline need in the coming year – fire panels repairs are not a consistent security cost).

The District did not respond to questions on why other costs were not cut to make up the 100k versus using transfers.

When I expressed concerns about the audit going to the State before being presented to the Board and public, the District stood by “it’s not illegal” which wasn’t the point – but it’s a response …so.

With security spending getting to $400,000 annually up from under $50,000 just a few years ago, BHPSNJ hasn’t released metrics, outcomes or specific mandates that justify the rapid jump.

I asked the BOE to compare next year’s proposed security budget to this year’s adopted budget rather than the ACFR’s inflated final figure as a way of bringing the baseline spending under control.

With that said, the ACFR is internally consistent but that wasn’t the concern.

To date the district hasn’t provided a clear explanation for the nearly $100,000 increase or the broader rise in security spending.

Because the discussion got heated and the BA is relatively new, I’m choosing not to link the full exchange. Our policy is to focus on government accountability, not personal conflict. The full correspondence, while containing the facts, also includes exchanges that could distract from the core issue, for this reason I’ve chosen to summarize the conversation factually, but will provide the complete, unedited email thread upon request via [email protected]