Letter from SCFFAC Subcommittee Co-chair

Submitted by Dan Littmann, Co-Chair, SCFFAC Finance Subcommittee

You recently published an article quoting a member of SCFFAC who spoke at a recent District 112 board meeting and raised concerns about the District’s financial analysis that ultimately led to current discussions regarding a referendum.

Specifically, the SCFFAC member indicated that the committee allegedly “closed off analysis of matters which truly dominate the budgetary issues” and insisted that the district engage an independent auditor. His comments also asserted that “no comprehensive independent review [was] undertaken.”

As the Co-Chair of the SCFFAC Finance Subcommittee, I took special note of the opinions expressed.

While it is important for the community to discuss and debate the merits of any proposed referendum, it is equally important that the community understand that there was a diligent process followed by SCFFAC. It was comprehensive, thorough and conducted with integrity.

The facts are these:

 The SCFFAC’s recommendation to ask the community for funding was a result of in-depth analysis on a full range of financial, configuration and facilities issues. The committee met more than 25 times over the course of two years and conducted line-by-line reviews of staffing models and budgets.

 The District supplied the SCFFAC (and the finance sub-committee) with extensive detail on current and past budgets, investment plans, and financial forecasts.

 The District was extremely responsive and forthcoming about any data requested by committee members. At no time did I ask for data that was not supplied.

 The committee reviewed and in some cases, duplicated the financial forecasts by building its own models from the bottom-up, to validate the District’s stated financials. In most all cases, our independent models validated the District’s original budgets and forecasts. In the rare case that we recommended a change, the District was responsive and made adjustments that conformed to our recommendations.

 The District or SCFFAC members never ruled out consideration of a financial or configuration scenario.

 The SCFFAC was comprised of 60 members of the community, and few if any had pre-conceived agendas. Information and opinions were freely exchanged and there was representation from all parts of our diverse community.

This comprehensive assessment ultimately led to a recommendation to ask the community for a referendum that would enable the district to improve the quality of our aging facilities while simultaneously reducing operating costs to avoid a budget shortfall in the next two to four years.

However, the SCFFAC did not recommend any specific configuration or dollar amount for the referendum. Instead, the SCFFAC recommended that the district move forward with hiring an architect to help formulate a specific plan. This plan should be fed back to the broader District 112 Community for feedback regarding specific configuration options and spending levels. Such feedback will allow our community to balance the pressing financial and facilities needs with the spirit of culture and community we value so greatly in Highland Park and Highwood.

Sincerely,

Dan Littmann, Co-Chair
SCFFAC Finance Subcommittee