| |
In fiscal year 2002, the District’s
administrative costs per student were 82 percent higher than the comparable
districts’, primarily due to some higher-than-average salaries and excessive
legal expenses. Other concerns related to the District’s contract with its
superintendent, subsidies to a charter high school, failure to follow
procurement rules, and inappropriate use of some district monies. The District’s
food service program was self-sufficient. However, largely due to costly
contract provisions and contractor overcharges, the District subsidized its
transportation program with more than $49,000 from its Maintenance and Operation
Fund. Plant operation and maintenance costs were higher than comparable
districts’, primarily because of higher utilities and labor costs. Additionally,
the District inappropriately used capital monies and lease proceeds to pay some
operational expenses, which resulted in the District exceeding its fiscal year
2002 general budget limit by more than $295,000. After correcting for these and
other errors, the District’s classroom dollar percentage was 55.6 percent, below
the state average of 58.2 percent. The District’s Proposition 301 monies were
spent appropriately; however, the District needs to clarify its performance pay
plan and ensure the Governing Board approves it. Desegregation monies were spent
to help students become fluent English speakers, and almost all expenditures
appeared to be related to the District’s desegregation plan.
|
|
