When he took the witness stand on day five of the public hearings regarding the future of Gillingham Charter School, Stephen C. Curran, business manager for Pottsville Area, explained why Pottsville Area doesn’t pay the charter school its state subsidy directly.
Since these hearings, which have been held at Pottsville Area’s D.H.H. Lengel Middle School, began last week, Mark G. Morford, Mechanicsburg, an attorney for Gillingham, has asked numerous witnesses if Pottsville Area makes subsidy payments to the charter school.
Curran, who has been the district’s business manager since 2013, was the first to explain the school district’s position on the matter.
“The system was in place already when I became employed there, allowing Gillingham or any other charter school to request from PDE (Pennsylvania Department of Education) to reduce our subsidy and be paid from that directly, instead of actually having the district cut the checks,” Curran said.
“Since you’ve been serving as the business manager for the school district, has anyone at Gillingham Charter School asked you to change the way Gillingham Charter School is receiving payments via PDE?” Ellen C. Schurdak, Bethlehem, an attorney for Pottsville Area, asked.
“No. We never had any formal requests to change the system,” Curran said.
“Have you ever had an informal request from anyone at Gillingham Charter School to change this payment method?” Schurdak asked.
“Not that I recall,” Curran said.
Funding for charter schools is addressed in Section 1725-A of the Pennsylvania Public School Code.
Gillingham’s budget for 2015-16 is $3,073,028. Of that, $2,789,912 is to be paid by the districts, and Pottsville Area is expected to pay $848,467.07, Michael A. Whisman, a certified public accountant with Charter Choices, Glenside, said recently.
“Is Gillingham Charter School prejudiced in any way by being paid directly by PDE?” Schurdak asked.
“I don’t believe so. It’s actually a very consistent revenue stream for any charter school. In our case, just looking at some of the testimony which happened in the last few days, I believe if you do it the other way, you don’t have to pay if there’s issues with enrollment and withdraw dates. That would actually hold up the money to the charter school,” Curran said. “I believe the law is you don’t have to pay any of it if there’s discrepancy, until it’s resolved.”
“What portion of the law says that the district doesn’t have to pay even uncontested portions of an invoice until all discrepancies are resolved?” Morford asked.
“I’m not prepared to answer that,” Curran said.
“You don’t know?” Morford asked.
“I do not know that section of the law,” Curran said.
Another witness for the district, Barbara DeFont, assistant manager in Pottsville Area’s attendance office, testified on Thursday afternoon and Monday morning that the district has had numerous questions about Gillingham’s student accounting practices.
In August 2015, for example, Pottsville Area received an invoice that included incorrect information about a student, DeFont said.
“There was missing special ed documentation that would affect the rate, the student rate that we were being charged,” DeFont said.
In the 2015-16 school year, Pottsville Area pays $10,350.07 per general education student and $23,177.18 per special education student, according to representatives of the state Department of Education.
“The student exited in 2013 and we were still being charged the special ed rate,” DeFont said.
“So the student exited special ed in 2013 and in August 2015, was the school district being charged the special ed rate or the general ed rate?” Schurdak asked.
“Still the special ed rate,” DeFont said.
“Of all the issues that you raised with respect to the invoices, requests for additional documents and the like, from the 2013-2014 school year did any go unresolved to your knowledge?” Morford asked.
“Not to my knowledge,” DeFont said.
“In the 2014-2015 school year, of all the issues you raised during that school year and request for additional documentation, did any of those go unresolved?” Morford asked.
“Not to my knowledge,” DeFont said.
“Are you aware that there is a hearing process if there are any billing disputes that is proctored by the Pennsylvania Department of Education?” Morford asked.
“Yes,” DeFont said.
“Has the Pottsville Area School District ever had a hearing on any billing dispute with respect to the Gillingham Charter School in front of the Pennsylvania Department of Education?” Morford asked.
“Not that I’m aware of,” DeFont said.
Curran complained about how Gillingham manages its petty cash. After doing some research and filing a Right-To-Know request, he collected some evidence which he said suggests the charter school’s administrators are careless with spending.
For example, he said the charter school has been spending public money on arrangements from a local florist. He referenced a number of receipts for flower-related purchases, including: Aug. 21, 2013, “a snack basket,” $40; April 17, 2014, bouquets, $33.75; Aug. 30, 2014, arrangement, $96; Oct. 11, 2014, arrangement, $45; Oct. 18, 2014, arrangement, $110; and Nov. 8, 2014, two arrangements, $150.
“What, if any, issues as a business manager does that raise for you in terms of fiscal responsibility?” Schurdak asked.
“Flowers are an acceptable expense possibly for graduation, in my opinion. Otherwise, again, in my humble opinion, it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars,” Curran said.
Curran noticed Gillingham representatives have been paying state sales tax on some items, when they are not required to. He also called that a waste of taxpayer money.