gaithersblog.net

Update: Daniel de Vise writes in the Washington Post, State Audit Finds Sloppy Credit-Card Logging:

The audit found lax oversight of the American Express cards issued to at least 1,400 employees of Maryland’s largest school system. The cards give employees a bit too much freedom to spend, according to the 68-page analysis from the state Office of Legislative Audits. Employees made $5.6 million in purchases with the cards in fiscal 2007.

School system rules require that all purchases be logged and approved by a supervisor. But in a sampling of 161 credit-card transactions from 2007, auditors found 50 that were not logged and 41 that were logged but apparently not approved. The audit also found 512 purchases with no “obvious relationship” to school business, including charges from department stores and party supply stores.

Maryland’s Office of Legislative Audits has released a new report on the financial management practices of the Montgomery County Public Schools. Following is the executive summary, transcribed from the PDF:

Executive Summary

---

The Office of Legislative Audits has conducted an audit to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the financial management practices of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in accordance with the State Government Article, Section 2-1220(e) of the Annotated Code of Maryland. State law requires the Office to conduct such an audit of each of the 24 public school systems in Maryland and provides that the related audit process be approved by the Joint Audit Committee. Since the Committee approved the audit process in September 2004, we have issued audit reports related to 13 school systems; MCPS represents the fourteenth to date. The approved process included 11 areas to be audited at each system. The following are summaries of the findings in these areas at MCPS.

Revenue and Billing Cycle (see pages 9 through 13)

According to the audited MCPS financial statements, $2.17 billion in revenue was received from all sources during fiscal year 2007, the vast majority of which was received via electronic fund transfers from other governmental entities. Procedures and controls for these revenue sources and accounts receivable were found to be adequate. However, based on our audit, controls over certain other revenues received could be improved. These revenues totaled $8.8 million during fiscal year 2007. In addition, controls over accounts receivable, which had a balance of $9 million as of June 30, 2007, and related collections should be improved.

Federal Funds (see pages 15 through 17)

Annually, MCPS is subject to an audit of its federally-funded programs (often referred to as the Single Audit, and required by Circular A-133, which is issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget). Due to parallels between that work and the scope of our audit, we placed significant reliance on the results of the independent audit of the fiscal year 2007 grant activity, for which reported expenditures totaled $89 million. The related report stated that MCPS complied, in all material respects, with the requirements applicable to its major federal programs. In addition, with respect to internal controls over compliance with and the operation of major federal programs, the auditors noted no significant deficiencies and no matters considered to be material weaknesses.

Although MCPS has an adequate process for the identification of children eligible for Medicaid-subsidized services, additional measures could be taken to ensure that MCPS recovers all such costs and that payments to the third party administrator, which processes the claims, are accurate.

Procurement and Disbursement Cycle (see pages 19 through 23)

According to MCPS records, non-payroll disbursements totaled $938 million during fiscal year 2007. MCPS used a number of contract procurement best practices and had established adequate controls over its automated purchasing and invoice processing systems. However, MCPS needs to improve controls and policies governing the use of credit cards and travel. For example, new MCPS credit cards were sent directly to the employee who placed the card order with the bank rather than to an independent employee. Also, certain credit cards purchases were not logged nor subject to supervisory review.

Human Resources and Payroll (see pages 25 through 28)

MCPS employed about 20,350 employees as of October 2007 and payroll costs during fiscal year 2007 totaled $1.25 billion (not including benefits). MCPS had implemented a comprehensive workforce planning process to address its staffing needs. MCPS should address certain deficiencies within payroll processing. Specifically, certain MCPS personnel had unnecessary and excessive access capabilities on the MCPS human resources and payroll system, and certain transactions processed on the system were not subject to supervisory review.

Inventory Control and Accountability (see pages 29 through 31)

MCPS has formal policies governing the control and accountability of materials and supplies and property. However, MCPS did not utilize just-in-time ordering for materials and supplies. In addition, record keeping for equipment was not adequate. According to MCPS records, as of June 30, 2007, the book value of its capital totaled $64 million.

Information Technology Services (see pages 33 through 38)

MCPS maintains and administers a computer network, computer operations, and a number of significant financial and academic information system applications. MCPS developed and periodically updated written technology plans. However, we identified several areas in need of improvement, including the strengthening of policies over passwords and accounts. In addition, MCPS should ensure that it uses best practices when implementing new IT applications and determine if it would be more beneficial to use in-house resources for certain support services (such as ongoing maintenance) that it currently outsources.

Facilities Construction, Renovation, and Maintenance (see pages 39 through 44)

MCPS maintains 199 schools and a number of other administrative and support facilities with a staff of approximately 1,650 custodial and maintenance personnel. MCPS had implemented a number of best practices to help reduce construction and maintenance costs for its facilities, such as a comprehensive process to plan for construction and renovations and an energy management program.

While long-term planning included factors such as student population and age of facilities, it did not include periodic assessments of school facilities and major mechanical systems (such as HVAC). In addition, while MCPS used an automated work order system to track maintenance and repairs performed, it did not use the system to compare actual costs to predetermined estimates or to analyze employee productivity. Furthermore, preventive maintenance tasks performed were not adequately documented.

Transportation Services (see pages 45 through 49)

MCPS is responsible for the safe transportation of approximately 96,000 eligible students, of which five percent are disabled. MCPS used a number of recognized best practices to increase student transportation efficiency, such as staggering school arrival and dismissal times to enable certain buses to perform multiple runs. Nevertheless, MCPS should address all appropriate factors to properly plan and develop bus routes (for example, student ride times and bus capacities) and fully use its automated bus routing software. Furthermore, MCPS should implement adequate controls over billings and collections of fees charged for transportation services provided to non-MCPS entities, such as county recreational programs.

Food Services Operations (see pages 51 through 54)

MCPS had implemented a number of best practices to help reduce food service costs, such as preparing meals for all schools at a central location and using performance measures to gauge operational efficiency. MCPS also has adequate procedures in place to identify students eligible for free and reduced-price meals under the federal national school meals programs. However, MCPS needs to improve the controls over processing of cash receipts in the cafeterias.

School Board Operations and Oversight (see pages 55 through 59)

Oversight of MCPS operations included the seven-member Board receiving financial updates, such as monthly budget variances to assist it in monitoring the efficient use of funds. The Board is also extensively involved in a comprehensive budgeting process and has adopted a detailed ethics policy. Furthermore, MCPS has an active audit committee and an internal audit unit, engaged primarily in conducting audits of student activity funds. However, several opportunities exist for the Board to improve oversight and effectiveness of MCPS operations. For example, the Board should consider focusing the work performed by its internal auditor on auditing significant MCPS operations and establishing a confidential hotline and whistleblower policy.

Other Financial Controls (see pages 61 through 63)

While MCPS had procedures in place to govern its risk and certain cash management practices, it did not have written policies governing its use of long-term liabilities, such as capital lease agreements, or cash management policies for investing excess funds from routine operations. In addition, MCPS should take additional steps to ensure it controls health care costs, such as by verifying the eligibility of program participants and conducting audits of paid claims.

Update: The account ledger for Gaithersburg High School has been posted on the Parents Coalition website. Among other things, this document shows that as of June 30, the Independent Activity Fund at GHS had total assets of $620,583.80, including $493,824.96 in cash and $115,313.92 in accounts receivable — the latter including $99,928.00 in “Student Obligations”. The accounting lists hundreds of account categories with positive working balances, ranging from the expected funds for various teams, field trips, proms, etc., to more baffling categories such as textbooks, workbooks, and other apparently academic, curriculum-related line items such as “SCIENCE-CHEMISTRY”. I say “baffling” because the school system is arguing that they continue to offer a free education, and insist that student fees are not used for curricular activities. I have trouble understanding how e.g. textbooks are not curricular. From July 2007 through June 2008, the total income in this fund appears to have been $759,221.08, while total disbursements were $707,201.98. It is quite difficult to determine from this accounting how much of that money came from student fees.

Daniel de Vise writes in the Washington Post, Audits Obtained by Parents Show More Misspent Funds

For a second consecutive year, parent activists are calling attention to a pattern of accounting problems in the use of student funds at some Montgomery County high schools.

Periodic audits of student activity funds find that school administrators frequently fail to follow protocol in recording how money is spent. In some cases, thousands of dollars intended to be spent on students are instead spent on teachers. In other cases, schools appear to be making a profit from course or test fees that are supposed to cover — but not exceed — the school’s costs. Some schools are running five-figure deficits.

PDFs of several audit reports can be found on the Parents Coalition website.

Update: While far less egregious than the apparent situation at Richard Montgomery, the audit of Gaithersburg High School (one of several available at the Parents Coalition website), also lists some opportunities for improvement. Quoting the “Findings and Recommendations” section of the report (note the following was OCR’d from the bitmapped PDF, so please consult the original for an authoritative version):

At our meeting on June 5, 2008, we discussed actions taken since our previous audit report, dated April 23, 2007, that have strengthened financial accountability for lAP resources. As discussed, those conditions have been resolved. Although these actions improve accountability and internal control, we found additional conditions which weaken controls over, or management of resources. These conditions are described below along with our recommendations.

MCPS Form 280-54, Request for a Purchase, is used to obtain principal approval to proceed with an intended purchase (see IAF manual, p. 8). The purpose of each disbursement must be fully explained on this form in order to properly record expenditures in appropriate accounts and to ensure that expenditures comply with IAF requirements. In our random sample of disbursements, we found prior approval was not obtained for 24 percent of purchases made. By requiring prior approval, the principal retains control over the expenditure of IAF funds. We recommend that Form 280-54 be prepared by staff and signed by the principal at the time verbal approval is sought so that purchase orders and invoices bear a date subsequent to the approval date.

The yearbook sponsor is required to keep detailed records of the number of books sold, the price charged as well as the number of books distributed free of charge (see IAF manual, p. 16). However, the records kept by the yearbook sponsor did not enable us to reconcile the number of books purchased with the number sold, given free, and the remaining inventory. We were therefore unable to determine that all funds generated from this activity had been remitted. We recommend the yearbook sponsor be advised about the record-keeping requirements for this activity and assisted as needed.

Vocational education business activities should be conducted in accordance with MCPS Regulation IGK-RB, Career and Technology Education Projects from Outside MCPS. During our audit we observed the daily operation of the Cosmetology shop. We found that there were no controls in place to verify that all monies received were submitted to the financial agent. It was also noted that daily receipts were being held by the sponsor and not being turned in on a timely basis. To improve internal controls over receipts we recommend that an appointment book or daily log of customers be kept along with a copy of all work orders. A copy of the prenumbered payment receipt should be attached to the work order and brought to the financial assistant with the daily receipts. At the end of each month, the financial agent should reconcile work orders, daily log, and other receipt documentation with the monthly deposits.

Other matters were discussed and satisfactorily resolved with Mrs. Annie Stone, business manager and Mrs. Debra Clouse, financial assistant. We appreciated their cooperation and assistance as well as others on your staff. Please provide a response to Mr. Adrian Talley, community superintendent, within 30 days of this report, with a copy to the Internal Audit office.

Many Gaithersblog readers will recall all the news from several weeks ago about MCPS school fees. One of the concerns raised by parents with regard to the school fees was that there was no public accounting of the use of those funds. Now, an audit of Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville has turned up evidence that, at least at that school, these funds were in fact being misused.

Channel 7 reports, Student Money Spent on Staff Perks at School:

They say thousands of dollars raised to help students is instead paying for special meals and new jackets for school leaders.

The internal audit reported thousands of dollars earmarked specifically for students at Richard Montgomery High School were in fact spent elsewhere.

From January 2007 through March of this year:

• $9,400 went for an administration leadership retreat.
• $5,100 was used for restaurant meals for the principal and other officials.
• $1,100 was spent to buy eight jackets for administrators and staff.

Melissa J. Brachfeld writes in the Gazette, Auditors say money was used improperly at Richard Montgomery:

School system auditors say thousands of dollars raised by students at Richard Montgomery High School were used on meals, clothing, a retreat and other perks to benefit staff instead of students.

The money came out of the school’s Independent Activity Funds, which are collected from classroom fees, event ticket sales and fundraisers. School system policy says that unless otherwise designated, the funds belong to the student body and may not be used to benefit staff or particular student groups.

Note that this information comes out of an audit specific to Richard Montgomery, and thus does not address the question of the use of this money at other schools.

Update 6: On Channel 9’s website, Scott Rubens posted, Montgomery County Reviews School Fees:

A $1,000 fee for a choral class fired up a parent now fighting the fees charges for classes in Montgomery County Schools. Her oldest son is in college and her youngest attending private school, but Janis Sartucci still wants to end the fee practice she calls unfair.

“You’re talking about a two-tiered school system, one for kids who can afford the extras and one that can’t,” said Sartucci.

Update 5: Kate Ryan has filed another story at WTOP, After pressure from parents, committee looks into school fees:

When parents took their grievances directly to the Montgomery County Board of Education just before school opened, and said the fees were illegal, Weast - and all the members of the school board - remained silent.

But on Wednesday, standing between Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Maryland House Majority Leader Kumar Barve - who wants to force schools across the state to drop frees - Weast says he was not contradicting earlier behavior.

“No. No. Nothing’s changed. We were already looking at things,” Weast says.

Update 4: Superintendent Weast has responded to the fees controversy in an item on Channel 7’s website, Montgomery Co. Superintendent Addresses School Fees:

“If it needs to be changed, we’ll change it. Where it needs to be changed, we’ll change it. And we’ll deal with it in a very professional way. That won’t hurt the students,” said Weast.

Update 3: Kate Ryan of WTOP also writes on this topic today, Md. House leader to call for ban on school fees:

Barve, who attended Montgomery County schools, says he’ll introduce a bill that will ban public schools from charging fees related to the curriculum.

“I didn’t have to show that my father made under a certain amount of money in order to get into it (calculus class) without paying fee. I had to show that I was able to do calculus. That’s all I had to worry about.”

Regarding the assertion that the the loss of fees will cause problems, he said:

“I don’t buy that argument. I just don’t. The Montgomery County delegation, senators and delegates, have done a terrific job bringing money home for our public school system, not just this year, but in the 18 years I’ve been in office.”

Sounds to me as if Mr. Barve is actually pretty well angered by the situation.

Update 2: Since posting this I’ve noticed that the Gazette’s Montgomery County Editorial this week, Addressing fees in public schools, speaks to this subject:

Advocates for change are on target. There is confusion over what’s mandatory and what’s not when it relates to coursework fees and some charges are open to interpretation – do principals ask or suggest, or do they require and mandate?

An updated opinion from the state’s attorney general might be helpful in guiding school boards since much has changed in the last three decades with school funding, curriculum and the materials needed in classes, from workbooks to graphing calculators. At the very least, the school board must clear up any ambiguity in its fee regulations and take steps needed to apply them consistently in all 199 schools.

Update: An expanded version of this article was posted Wednesday morning.

Marcus Moore writes in the Gazette, Barve to seek ban of school fees:

Del. Kumar P. Barve, the [Maryland] House Majority Leader, said Tuesday that he would file a bill before the upcoming General Assembly session in January to prohibit parents from paying the expenses.

“The purpose of public school education is to allow each child to get a great education regardless of their economic background,” said Barve (D-Dist. 17) of Gaithersburg. “I don’t think it’s wise … to stratify students between those who can afford the fees and those who can’t.”

Also on the topic of school fees, a couple of days ago Daniel de Vise wrote in the Washington Post, Public School Fees Wear On Montgomery Parents:

The fee debate has raised legal questions. In 1987, the Maryland attorney general interpreted the state’s guarantee of free public schools to mean “that everything directly related to a school’s curriculum must be available to all free of charge.” That opinion is key, as no state court has ruled on the legality of fees in the modern era.

Montgomery officials have suggested that schools are merely asking parents to pay the fees, and that all required materials will be provided. But schools seldom characterize fees as optional, in Montgomery or anyplace else.

“The families are led to believe that the fees are mandatory and that the students won’t be able to get their schedules and participate in activities and graduation if they don’t pay them,” said Angela Ciolfi, an attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center in Charlottesville.

For more on this topic, see my previous post, as well as the Marcus Moore’s story from last week.

Update: Marcus Moore writes in the Gazette, Parents: School fees are illegal:

During a recent school board meeting, parent Rosanne A. Hurwitz asked the school system to refund $8 in fees for towels charged to her son, who attends Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring.

“Failure to pay this fee results in a financial obligation and students who do not pay this fee cannot participate in certain school activities, including graduation,” Hurwitz told the board. “While the Attorney General suggests parents appeal to the board, it is unconscionable to expect the families of our county to go through this process to obtain what is clearly their right.”

Though students are not denied access to classes, the school board’s policy is still illegal, said parent Janis Sartucci, an outspoken critic of the school system’s curricular fees.

“Where’s the money go?” Sartucci asked. “If this money is required to run the school system, why don’t we see it? If we are a revenue source for the school system, we should be in the budget documents, but we’re not.”

For my readers who are about to send your kids off to school, you should be aware that a storm is brewing over the fees you are about to be asked to pay for your children’s participation in the Montgomery County Public Schools curriculum. It is being argued that Maryland’s Constitution requires the school system to provide these courses for free (funded through taxation but otherwise not charged to individual students), and thus the fees being charged for credit courses — including such core requirements such as English, social studies and science — are unconstitutional.

One parent, Louis Wilen of Olney, contacted the State Attorney General’s office regarding these fees and received a response indicating that there likely is merit to this complaint. Parents Coalition, a political action committee, has posted this letter on their website; an OCR’d version is pasted in below.

The parents’ protest of these fees has been attracting some amount of media attention. WTOP’s Kate Ryan has done a couple of stories on this, including this one on the web. James Adams reported the story on Channel 4, and Channel 7 also has an article posted. Chris Core has also weighed in [mp3 link] on the matter in his “Core Values” commentary on WTOP. Quoting the Channel 7 story,

Clarksburg High School leads the list of local high schools with more than 200 different fees, and parent, Rosanne Hurwitz,says the fees are “a form of educational extortion….”

“The art fees are probably some of the worst,” said parent Louis Wilen, who added that “sometimes the materials are a little bit expensive, but that’s just part of the cost of running a school system.”

MCPS does not appear to be interested in backing down on these fees, which vary widely from school to school. Last Tuesday (8/19), they sent out a memo to principals throughout the system, providing background information on the official MCPS position on these fees. This memo was also posted on the Parents’ Coalition website as well, and I’ve OCR’d and pasted this in below as well.

As I read the MCPS position on these fees, it appears that they believe that, while they are required to provide, for free, the facilities, books and the equipment, they are within their right to charge the students for any consumables used in the class. Thus, a workbook that would be unusable by a subsequent student, or lab materials that are consumed during experiments, are fair game for charges. They also attempt to defuse some of the complaints by insisting that no one will be denied access to these classes based on an inability to pay. However, this generosity would seem to be beside the point if the issue is whether the fees are legal in the first place, and thus it comes across as evading the question. The point of this evasion is clearly to create confusion on the part of the reader between the ability to pay and the obligation to pay. These are two very different things, and MCPS knows this full well.

One thing I note in the memo is that, in the attachment entitled Summary of Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students, they include the bullet item:

• You may be contacted by persons who challenge or contradict our policy of curricular expenses for student fees. There may be individuals or organizations that attempt to tell you that no fees may be charged. This is their interpretation of the law.

This is a bothersome statement, which among other things makes clear that the attachment goes beyond just being a “summary” of official policy — I have read policies JNA and JNA-RA, and I find nothing in either of them about being contacted by persons challenging the policy. Moreover, the statement “This is their interpretation of the law” is clearly meant to disparage those who complain. But it doesn’t work here because (a) it is so clearly reflexive — MCPS’ counterargument is, after all, just their interpretation of the law, and (b) as I read the letter from the Attorney General’s office below, it would appear to be more than just some parents’ interpretation of the law that curricular fees are highly questionable.

Anyway, here is the letter from the Attorney General’s office, OCR’d from the PDF on the Parent’s Coalition website. Please let me know if you spot any transcription errors.

Louis Wilen
17101 MacDuff Avenue
Olney, MD 20832-2960

Dear Mr. Wilen:

Robert McDonald, Chief of Opinions in the Attorney General’s Office, referred your email of August 13,2008 to me for response. I am Principal Counsel to the Maryland State Department of Education.

You explain in your e-mail that Magruder High School in Montgomery County requires students to pay fees ranging from $5 to $40 for certain courses in Art, Business and Computer Science, English, Family and Consumer Science, Health and Physical Education, SAT Prep, Music, Science, and Technology Education. (See attached schedule). You have asked our Office to investigate and take action as warranted.

Over the course of years, this Office has issued Opinions and advice letters addressing the school fees issue. In 1987, the Attorney General opined:

[W]e cannot say whether Maryland courts would go as far as courts in some states in categorizing the activities that must be offered without charge. But, whatever the outer limits of Maryland’s “free public schools” guarantee, we are safe in saying that anything directly related to a school’s curriculum must be available to all without charge. To borrow the North Dakota Supreme Court’s formulation, whatever is an “integral part of the educational system” must be free. Cardiff v. Bismark Public School Disf., 263 N.W.2d 105, 113 (N.D. 1978) (Emphasis added).

72 Op. Att’y Gen. 262, 267 (1987).

That Opinion has formed the legal basis for several letters of advice. For example, on March 7, 1995, this Office advised Senator Barbara Hoffman that a Senate Bill allowing county school boards to charge students a fee for a driver education course offered during the regular school day would violate the “free public school” requirement of the State constitution.

On February 22, 1996, this Office advised Senator Thomas Mac Middleton that a legislative proposal allowing schools to charge fees for “non-academic type activities” could raise a substantial constitutional question. That letter of advice reviews case law from various states recognizing that the courts of Maryland have not ruled on the school fees issue.

In March, 2003, we responded to a question from a public charter school that was considering imposing a fee for full day kindergarten. At that time, only half-day kindergarten was mandatory. Yet, because kindergarten was a part of Maryland’s system of free public schools, we advised that, in our view, charging a fee for full day kindergarten would not be legally acceptable.

I am enclosing a copy of each of the letters and the Opinion described above.

While the Attorney General’s Office is not empowered to “take action” against a school’s fee structure, you may wish to file an appeal of this matter with the local superintendent. Pursuant to Md. Educ. Art. Code Ann. § 4-205, each county superintendent shall decide all controversies and disputes that involve: (i) the rules and regulations of the county board; and (ii) the proper administration of the county public school system. If you are not satisfied with the superintendent’s decision, you may appeal to the local school board and, thereafter to the State Board of Education, if you are not satisfied with the local board’s decision. Id. § 4-205(c)(3). The State Board of Education has the authority to decide this kind of issue and to direct the Montgomery County Board of Education to cease charging the fees that the State Board deems to be illegal.

I hope this information addresses your request and is helpful to you in pursuing this matter further if you wish to do so.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Kameen I
Principal Counsel
Assistant Attorney General

cc: Dr. Jerry Weast (w/enclosures)
Judy Bresler, Esquire (w/enclosures)
Robert McDonald, Esquire (w/o enclosures)
Shanetta Paskel, Esquire (w/o enclosures)
Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick (w/o enclosures)
Jackie LaFiandra, Esquire (w/o enclosure)

Note that where it says “(Emphasis added)” in the above, such was inserted by the AG’s office in their letter to Mr. Wilen.

And here is the MCPS memo to principals, OCR’d from the PDF on the Parent’s Coalition website. Again, please let me know if you spot any transcription errors.

Office of School Performance
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Rockville, Maryland
August 19,2008

MEMORANDUM

To:	All Principals
From:	Stephen L. Bedford, Chief School Performance officer
Subject:	ACTION REQUESTED: Student Curricular Fees

Summary

• Recently there have been a number of questions regarding curricular expenses for students (student fees) from parents, members of the community, and media. These questions have been directed to individual schools, the Office of School Performance, and the Public lnformation Office. Generally, the questions are focused on the legality of charging fees for curricular expenses, such as supplemental materials and project/lab fees.
• A summary of Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students, is attached for your information and to ensure a consistent understanding of this policy and regulation. This summary provides clarification on curricular expenses and highlights those expenses that are allowable under Policy INA. Please remember. students must have reasonable access to supplemental materials and may not be penalized academically for their inability to pay for supplemental materials.

Action

• This summary should be shared with your staff members, especially teachers, counselors, and clerical support staff. Additionally, the following links are provided to assist access to Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students, via the Montgomery County Public Schools website. Please ensure that you and your staff members are familiar with this information.

Questions

• If you have additional questions regarding curricular expenses or receive questions that you feel you cannot respond to, please contact your community superintendent.

SLB:bmk

Attachment

Copy to:
Executive Staff

Attachment

Summary of Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students

• Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students. govern student course-related fees.
• Project or lab fees may be charged. No student will be excluded from participation in any course requiring project or lab fees based on the inability to pay the fee.
• You may be contacted by persons who challenge or contradict our policy of curricular expenses for student fees. There may be individuals or organizations that attempt to tell you that no fees may be charged. This is their interpretation of the law.
• The Board of Education has approved fees under certain circumstances, and our policy is that students may be asked to purchase supplemental materials or provide project or lab fees.
• Montgomery County Public Schools provides all students with full access to all courses, the instructional materials required for those courses, and the instructional program.
• Required textbooks are provided by the school.
• Expenses associated with some courses, including workbooks and materials, that become the property of students are allowed.
• It may be requested that students purchase supplemental materials, such as workbooks, dictionaries, review guides, etc.
• Students must have reasonable access to supplemental materials and may not be penalized academically for their inability to pay for supplemental materials.
• No student may be excluded from participation in any course based on inability to pay the fee where a fee may be applicable.
• Curricular expenses are reviewed and approved annually by community superintendents.

Note that I had to look up those policy links because they weren’t present in the bitmapped PDF from Parents Coalition; if I’ve got them wrong please let me know.

• Kathleen Miller writes, Enrollment soars in Montgomery County adult English classes
  

  Enrollment in Montgomery County adult English classes for immigrants has jumped about 34 percent since the county spent nearly half a million dollars to reduce massive waiting lists in the past year.

• Kathleen Miller writes, Montgomery committee approves legislation to increase closing costs for those buying homes
  

  Under the bill approved 2-1 by the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, home-buyers and sellers would see recordation taxes increase from their current level of $6.90 per $1,000 paid for a home to $8.50 per $1,000, if their homes cost $600,000 or less.

• Courtney Mabeus writes, Staph infection spreads further through Montgomery County public school system
  

  A virulent strain of staph infection spread further into Montgomery County’s Public Schools this week with officials reporting five more cases Monday, bringing the total to 19.

• C. Benjamin Ford writes, El Pollo owners indicted on federal money laundering charges
  

  A federal grand jury has indicted the owners of the El Pollo Rico Restaurant in Wheaton on charges of money laundering and harboring illegal immigrants to work in their restaurant while they accumulated nearly $8 million in cash, real estate and other property.

• Meghan Tierney writes, Trial begins for man charged in 2005 killing
  

  The trial of a Gaithersburg man charged in the 2005 shooting death of an acquaintance in Germantown began Tuesday in Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville

• Chris Robinson writes, ‘Night Out’ events help unite neighbors and police
  

  When former Spanish radio disc jockey Denis Tobar talks about National Night Out Against Crime, his signature baritone excitedly lists the beauty of police mingling with residents in a festive setting.

• Chris Robinson writes, Gaithersburg man found guilty in robbery, rape
  

  A Gaithersburg man was found guilty last month for raping at knifepoint a Montgomery Village woman in Olde Towne in December, according to a statement from Montgomery County State’s Attorney John J. McCarthy’s office.

  Walter Flores-Montalban, 27, was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sex offense and robbery with a dangerous weapon in Montgomery County Circuit Court on July 20, according to the statement released that day.

• Sebastian Montes writes, New GHS principal defends her record
  

  Incensed by the suggestion that Handy-Collins was connected to Techworld’s woes, the school system reiterated its support.

  ‘‘There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she had any involvement in the allegations of fiscal mismanagement,” said school system spokesman Brian K. Edwards. ‘‘Any allegations that she was somehow involved in that are nothing but scurrilous innuendo.”

This is the second of the agenda items from tonight’s Council meeting that I found interesting enough to post about.

As stated in the memo below from Assistant City Manager Fred Felton, while the County’s Annual Growth Policy does not apply within the City, the schools and transportation impact taxes do. The County is now engaging in their biannual review of this policy, and some of the proposed changes are concerning. I think that the approach that Mr. Felton recommends here is quite reasonable, and for the most part I’ll let his memo speak for itself. I will add a note about the consequences of the conflict between the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and the County’s Annual Growth Policy.

According to Mr. Felton’s memo, the County is proposing that development will be allowed to proceed as long as the schools are at less than 135% of program capacity; developers would be required to pay an additional tax if the capacity is between 110% and 135%, toward the end of providing additional funds to alleviate the overcrowding. While allowing more children to be sent to such already-overcrowded schools is somewhat frightening, I believe that this tax should never have to be paid within the City of Gaithersburg, because, by the City’s APFO, proposed developments will not be approved if the schools are at 110% of capacity or more; the City also uses a more restrictive test to determine capacity.

Nevertheless, some schools attended by Gaithersburg students could well be driven to as high as 135% or more of program capacity because the school districts routinely cross the City boundary and include students from developments outside the City. I’m not sure there’s much that the City can do about this; they’ve already made a fairly strong statement of their opinion of this sort of folly via their APFO. However, as residents of the County, we can all at least directly tell the County Council what we think of this proposal.

The proposed waiver of impact taxes within Strategic Economic Development Projects could be another big help to the revitalization of Olde Towne, and the 50% credit of transportation impact taxes near MARC stations is a strong smart-growth proposal for the entire County.

The original of this memo, as well as the attachments to which the memo refers, are contained in a PDF that is part of the background materials for tonight’s meeting. Again, this was an OCR’d PDF, and I had to make a number of corrections, especially in formatting and punctuation. Please refer to the original for an authoritative copy, and let me know if you see any errors in my transcription.

MEMORANDUM TO:	Mayor and City Council
VIA:	David B. Humpton, City Manager
FROM:	Frederick J. Felton, Assistant City Manager
DATE:	July 5 2007
SUBJECT:	Montgomery County Annual Growth Policy and Impact Tax Legislation

On May 18 2007, staff sent a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council that included the Montgomery County Planning Board’s recommendations for the 2007 Annual Growth Policy (AGP) and modifications to the impact tax legislation. While the County’s AGP does not apply within the City of Gaithersburg, the County’s impact taxes for both schools and transportation are applicable to development in the City.

Over the last month, staff has attended a series of County Council hearings and Committee work sessions on the AGP and the impact tax. During the June 19, 2007 Public Hearing, former Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Scott Reilly provided testimony on behalf of County Executive Leggett. Given that the Executive is proposing significant modifications from the Planning Board recommendation, I have attached a copy of Mr Reilly’s remarks for your review.

Schools Test

Over the last three AGP cycles (2005, 2003, and 2001), the City has commented extensively on the schools test formula. In particular, the City has expressed serious concerns about sharing of capacity between schools and allowing residential development to continue with affected schools going as high as 110% of AGP capacity

In January of 2007, the City of Gaithersburg adopted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that included a schools test that was significantly more restrictive than the current County schools test. The City’s schools test was modeled closely after the City of Rockville’s schools test and closes an area to residential development if any of the receiving schools will exceed 110% of program capacity. Additionally, the City’s schools test does not permit sharing of capacity within or between clusters and only gives credit for Capital Improvements that are scheduled to be completed within a two-year timeframe

The Planning Board’s current proposal for the schools test reflects a new approach that both the County Executive and some County Council members have expressed concerns about. Rather than attempting to ensure that the current and forecasted schools can support students generated as a result of development approvals, the Planning Board approach attempts to generate significant revenues for future school construction. The Planning Board’s proposal evaluates elementary schools and middle schools on a cluster wide basis, but does not permit sharing of capacity between high schools. The Planning Board’s proposal would allow residential development to continue until a school’s capacity reached 135% of program capacity, but a substantial “special facilities payment” would be required for each anticipated student when capacity was between 110% and 135% of program capacity. These payments would range from $32,524 at the elementary level to $47,501 at the high school level. For your review I have attached an excerpt from the background material for the July 2, 2007 PHED Committee work session that discusses this issue in some detail.

Impact Taxes

As previously noted, Montgomery County impact taxes are assessed on new construction in the City of Gaithersburg. The Planning Board is recommending significant increases to both the school impact taxes and the transportation impact taxes. For example the school impact tax for a single family detached dwelling would increase from $8,464 to $22,729 per unit. The transportation impact tax for a single family detached dwelling would increase from $5,819 to $8,380. For your review, I have attached a memorandum dated May 14, 2007 from Research and Technology Chief Karl Moritz that outlines the Planning Board’s rationale.

While most County Council members appear to be supportive of some level of impact tax increase, a number of members have expressed concern that the recommendation may be excessive. An equally important issue is the timing of any impact tax increases. There has been some discussion of phasing in an increase over time to lessen the impact on projects in the pipeline.

At one point, the County allowed an exemption that would limit or waive impact taxes for Strategic Economic Development Projects. The County Executive’s staff has recommended that this exemption be reinstated in the current legislation.

For many years, the County has only charged 50% of the transportation impact tax for projects located in Metro Station Policy areas. In previous years the City has requested that this reduced rate also be applied to projects near MARC stations but the County Council has not acted favorably upon this request to date.

Staff Recommendations

Staff is recommending that the City of Gaithersburg make the following recommendations to the County Council with regard to the AGP and the impact tax legislation:

1. That the County’s schools test be modified to be more in line with the schools test adopted by the City of Gaithersburg and the City of Rockville.
2. That any impact tax increases be phased in over time to minimize hardship on development projects already in the pipeline.
3. That the exemption for Strategic Economic Development Project be reinstated, and that Olde Towne Gaithersburg be specifically designated as a Strategic Economic Development Project.
4. That development projects located in the vicinity of MARC stations (including Olde Towne and Metropolitan Grove Road) be given a 50% credit for the transportation impact tax.

I will be seeking guidance on the development of the City’s position on the AGP and impact tax legislation during the July 9, 2007 Mayor and City Council meeting. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter please feel free to contact me.

FJF/ms
Attachments

Update 2: Chris Robinson writes that the Police have released the name of the defendant in this case:

Lynnard James Slaughter, 23, of the unit block of Grandchester Place, was arrested at 5 p.m. and charged with first-degree assault, illegally carrying a handgun and the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, according to a statement from Montgomery County police released Wednesday

Update: I see now that the County Police have posted a press release on this incident. It promises more information “tomorrow” — which would be yesterday as I post this update on the 31st — but that appears not to have been posted yet. Anyway, here’s the text of their press release:

5/29/2007

Assault Arrest in Gaithersburg
Assault Arrest in Gaithersburg

Officers from the Montgomery County Police 6th District and Gaithersburg Police Department are investigating a first-degree assault that occurred today in Gaithersburg.

At approximately 11:37 a.m., a citizen called 911 to report what the caller believed was an attempted armed carjacking in the 500 block of Odendhal Avenue near Goshen Road.

Responding officers learned that the adult male suspect was known to the 18-year-old male victim and was armed and verbally threatening him, not trying to steal a car. The victim had seen a firearm, but It could not be immediately determined whether it was a BB gun or another type of firearm. After the assault, the suspect fled on foot. A Maryland State Police helicopter responded to assist efforts to locate the suspect. Through the course of the investigation, the suspect was identified. He was taken into custody at his home at approximately 5:00 this evening.

Three Montgomery County public schools: Forest Oak Middle School, Gaithersburg Middle School, and Gaithersburg Elementary School activated a Code Blue heightened security status during the initial stages of the police search for the potentially armed suspect. The Code Blue status was removed between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. Police kept a presence in the area of Forest Oak Middle school for students walking home when school was dismissed.

***Further details on the suspect will be released tomorrow after the suspect has been charged and processed.***

###

LEHB:lehb

# # #

Contact: Lucille Baur 240-773-5030 or Mel Hadley240-773-5030

Chris Robinson writes:

Three Gaithersburg schools were on alert Tuesday while police searched for a man they believed was armed with a handgun.

Forest Oak Middle, Gaithersburg Middle and Gaithersburg Elementary schools were placed on Code Blue at 12:10 p.m., following a series of reports about a man armed with a handgun in the area, said Sgt. Rudy Wagner, a spokesman for Gaithersburg Police. The suspect had not located as of Tuesday afternoon.

A witness told police at about 11:40 a.m. that he saw what appeared to be a carjacking, but police later learned the incident involved a man with a silver handgun who was threatening another man, Wagner said.

The men then fled in separate directions — the armed man toward Girard Street and the other toward North Summit, Wagner said. The victim later told police he believed it might be a B.B. gun, Wagner said.

Remember the alcohol-related trash found along a path between Gaithersburg Middle and Gaithersburg Elementary schools? Well, the City did clean it up that once, but it seems that not much has changed on the production end. These pictures were taken last Monday, April 30th.

State law, by the way, is kind of unequivocal about this sort of activity. § 26-103 says: Unless locally approved by the county board of education, a person may not drink or possess any alcoholic beverage on the premises of any public school. Since this has been going on for some time, perhaps this means that the Montgomery County Board of Education has approved this activity? Or perhaps this is just another one of those laws that Montgomery County has found to be inconvenient, or the State’s Attorney thinks may be unconstitutional?

Photos Courtesy Clark W. Day Photo-Graphics