Don't Trust The "Numbers"

The Strongsville City Schools Board of Education delivered a last best offer to the Strongsville Education Association on Saturday, March 2.  The Board’s argument has been that it has a duty to be fiscally responsible and that it must operate with a budget that is not in the red.  Most recently, Superintendent John Krupinski delivered the same message on Wednesday, March 6 on the Mike Trivisonno radio show on WTAM 1100.  Krupinski stated, “We already have projected deficits in the outlying years” and “we cannot operate in the red.”  He continued to deliver the
same message over and over again, that this is a crisis warranted by the Board’s budget projections.

Surely, Krupinski is correct when he says that he and the Board have the duty to be fiscally responsible and operate out of the red.  That is indisputable.

But, what if their numbers are wrong?  And, when I say wrong, I mean really, really wrong.

According to the Board’s Negotiations webpage, “If the Strongsville City Schools continued on its current path, projected deficits are $1,193,135 for 2014; $4,677,231 for 2015; and $10,863,811 for 2016.”

These numbers are stated as if they are factual.  However, the district’s projection history shows them to be anything but reliable.  These numbers come from Strongsville’s current FY 2013 Five Year Forecast. Beyond the current year, Strongsville’s Five Year Forecasts are historically very wrong. Here are some numbers to consider:

1). The actual FY 2012 end-of-year cash balance was a surplus of $2,535,361.

District projections in the years immediately preceding, however, painted
a very different picture:

• According to the 2011 Five Year Forecast, the end-of-year deficit for FY 2012 was projected to be $7,098,400. This is a one-year projection error of $9,633,761, an error of over 14% of its budget.
• Moreover, according to the 2010 Five Year Forecast, the end-of-year deficit for FY 2012 was projected to be $13,910,700. This is a two-year projection error of $16,446,061, an error of over 20% of its budget.

This type of miscalculation is the norm.  Here are more examples to consider:

2).  The actual FY 2011 end-of-year cash balance was a surplus of $542,420.

• According to the 2010 Five Year Forecast, the end-of-year deficit for FY 2011 was projected to be $7,134,500. This is a one-year projection error of $7,676,920.

3).  The 2013 Five Year Forecast currently projects that FY 2013 end-of-year cash balance will be a surplus of $314,936.

• Incredibly, the 2011 Five Year Forecast projected a FY 2013 end-of-year deficit of $23,435,200, a two-year forecast change of $23,750,136, over 34% of its budget.

These extraordinary numbers speak for themselves. One-year errors in the high seven figures seem to be the norm for the district, with two-year errors well into tens of millions. It seems that it doesn’t really matter what is printed in these forecasts because the forecast is going to be obscenely wrong.

When there is no fallout for incorrect projections, the district can put their finger on the scale to push projections as they please.  When the backbone for their argument relies upon these projection figures, they indeed have a vested interest in manipulating the data.  Every bit of data from the forecasts from 2010-2012 indicate that this is a strategy that has been used before in bargaining.

Put simply, with a historical record of incredible inaccuracy like this, the “projection” figures released by the Board on its website are no more than arbitrary, meaningless figures.  Any conclusion based on using these numbers
cannot be trusted.