ROTC,
You are correct someone should have the responsibility for overseeing fund balance and someonone should have the responsibility for reconciling available funds with actual expenditures and encumbrances.

However, having the responsibility to address a given work assignment or task is not enough. One must also have the necessary INPUT to address the task and work assignment.

Let's take Ms. Perry for example. Assume for the moment that Ms. Perry has the responsibility for reconciling available revenue with actual expenditures and encumbrances.

Ask yourself what she must have to execute her job? First and foremost, she must have accurate input information regarding existing revenue, expenditures, and encumbrances. Without this input information, she CANNOT EXECUTE her tasks regardless of whether she possesses the four necessary attributes to address her assignment--i.e., decision-making authority, final responsibility, knowledge/skills, and capacity to do the work.

If others are creating excess positions (i.e., positions without funding sources) without her knowledge, she CANNOT ACCURATELY perform her reconciliation work. WHY? Because, she does not realize that others are creating positions, filling positions, and thus creating additional expenditures without her knowledge. (She is working or should be working from the board-approved budget and amendments that identify positions, supplies and materials, contract/consultant services, etc.) Now, suppose that the board was forced to adopt a poorly constructed line-item budget in 2007-2008 which in fact they did. This budget did not accurately reflect projected expendures and revenue. Furthermore, couple this problem, with Hinojosa and his executive team creating and filling excess positions without her knowlege. Also, add the problem of Hinojosa and his executive team exceeding contracted/consultant services, overspending in other areas, etc.

CAN HER RECONCILATION BE ACCURATE IF SHE IS UNAWARE OF ALL EXPENSES AND ENCUMBRANCES AND IF SHE DOES NOT HAVE A GOOD ESTIMATE OF REVENUE? No. No. No.

Through either arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, or any combination thereof, first- and second-level administrators--i.e, Hinojosa and his executive team, respectively--set up many third-level administrators and lower-level administrators for failure. Information sources and controls were compromised. Information was either invalid, not available, or not readiliy accessible, or both. Controls for minimizing excess positions were compromised when Viramontes abandoned the PPA process and Olson filled excess positions.

Now, Viramontes will probably deny that he abandoned the PPA process. His denial, however, could easily be countered with depositions of two or more key members of the delayering office or retired personnel. Olson may also deny that her function filled the positions. However, if she does, her denial can also be easily countered. Ask excess personnel who offered them their positions--Human Development or another function? Furthermore, who informed them of their salaries? Who took them through their employment orientations, etc.?

ROTC,
I've worked directly with Mr. Rastellini, Mr. McGee, Ms. Perry, Ms. Gardner, and other fine individuals in the finance division. In past administrations, they always executed their jobs well, and thus kept the district in the black.

One must ask oneself? What changed? How could these individuals have performed so well in past administrations and performed so "poorly" in this administration? In my thirty years of experience in the DISD, I have found that third-level and lower-level administrators/worker bees have always been fairly consistent. In effect, if they performed well for you in the past, other things being equal, you could expect them to perform well for you in the future.

BUT, MR. ROTC, OTHER THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL IN HINOJOSA'S ADMINISTRATION OR LACK OF ADMINISTRATION.

Spending is out of control. Controls have been compromised or done away with either intentionally or unintentionally. PLANNING has been compromised. PROGRAMMING requirements have been compromised. BUDGETING requirements have been compromised. EXECUTION requirements have been compromised. In effect, PPBES(ystem) has been compromised.

Mr. ROTC,
The more important issue here is what can DISD do to resolve its problems?

The answers lie in adequately addressing PPBES requirements without exception. Unfortunately, Hinojosa and his executive team do not have the wherewithall to address PPBES requirements. Can people from the private sector address these requirements. Some of them; unfortunately, however, they do not have the contextual knowledge to address all the requirements.

In absence of this knowledge, I've submitted over the past few weeks over 50 specific recommendations for addressing the deficit and implementing necessary controls under a different pen name.

It appears that some of these recommendations are being addressed now; however, I would like the board to receive a project overview with a corresponding detailed implementation plan for each recommendation ASAP. Third-level and lower-level administrators should provide at least bi-monthly status reports on these projects without fear of retaliation or censure from the first- and second-level administrators. They should identify their successes and failures. They should also identify their implementation problems and challenges and recommendations for overcoming them.

WHY SHOULD THIRD-LEVEL OR LOWER-LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS PROVIDE THE STATUS REPORTS? BECAUSE BOARD MEMBERS ALSO CANNOT ADEQUATELY FULFILL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES IF THEY DO NOT RECEIVE ACCURATE INPUT INFORMATION!

Dr. Blackburn knows this very well. Haven't you noticed how Hinojosa and his executive team have denied him necessary input information over the past few weeks--in point of fact, over the past three years?

Why do you think it has not been made available or readily accessible to Dr. Blackburn?

Mr. ROTC, pardon me, I do not mean to be disrespectful. I know you know the answer to my rhetorical question.