Is a new practice being exercised by the Bristol Warren Regional School Committee of screening all grants — from the time they are applied for, received, and then proposed to be spent by the district — a sound financial practice, or needless meddling that could potentially discourage positive educational outcomes?

It depends on who you ask.

If you ask Sheila Ellsworth, the committee’s treasurer and chair of its finance subcommittee, reviewing grant applications and expenditures is a practical tool in the committee’s toolbox to ensure adequate oversight within a district where such management has been lacking in recent years.

Ellsworth, in a recent interview, pointed to a March, 2021 report compiled by Mary King, a CPA and the former CFO for North Kingstown, which categorized a long list of financial issues within the Bristol Warren district rooted in a lack of experienced staffing and consistent financial oversight practices.

“She specifies a lack of internal controls on grants,” Ellsworth said. “That’s kind of where this all kind of came from … “I think it stresses that we did not have internal controls and the school committee was not receiving the reports we should have been receiving.”

As written by King in the report:

“It was noted that grants received by the District are not appropriately administered. For example, encumbrances for spending are lacking and many grant accounts were shown with small balances or deficit balances. Grant funds should be administered and overseen in a manner similar to the general fund with accurate and timely reporting of current and future expenditures.”

The report recommends creating and overseeing a special revenue fund to specifically track grant-funded expenditures, as well as projected future expenditures that result due to grant-funded initiatives.

“We want to see what we’re spending this [grant] money on,” Ellsworth said. “We’re responsible for the fiscal health of this district. That’s our role.”

Financial gatekeeping?

According to a district administrator who wished to remain anonymous, the grant process has traditionally been one where the superintendent’s office has worked collaboratively with school principals and teachers to identify grant opportunities that align with the district’s goals.

Once a grant was received, the only official policy that exists regarding the school committee’s role in the process is a subsection in their procedures that reads:

“Gifts, grants, or bequests will be accepted by the School Committee, provided the conditions of acceptance do not affect any portion of the control of the school system by the Committee.”

But that changed on Sept. 27, when former committee chairperson Erin Schofield, now in her seventh year on the board, made a motion to send all grants to the budget subcommittee and full school committee for approval. The motion generated no discussion and was approved unanimously in a matter of seconds.

Schofield, in an interview on Tuesday morning, provided some additional context regarding her motion.

“The intention of the motion was to suggest a procedure that would keep the School Committee apprised of grant activity and to have oversight over those that may, for example, be used to purchase technology that could require district funds to maintain,” she said. “Also, district administrators were in need of clarity around the grant procedure because the School Committee’s roll in it was unclear.”

The new approval process quickly caused a fresh round of controversy in the district following the committee’s 5-4 decision on Oct. 18 to reject a $7,000 grant-funded contract for an educational consultant who was to conduct professional development for a project-based learning initiative at Mt. Hope High School. Two members of the committee cited their discomfort with Principal Deb DiBiase’s chosen vendor, not the merits of project-based learning, as their reasoning for voting against the contract. See our cover story for more on this decision.

The aforementioned district administrator said they were “concerned” that the new approval process could potentially discourage principals and teachers from coming forward with grant ideas that might draw a similar ire from the school committee. They also said that, more procedurally, some grants have a very quick turnaround time required for recipients to utilize the funds, so adding two layers of approval through subcommittee and the full committee could potentially jeopardize the district’s ability to secure and spend grants.

“People are already exhausted this year, and the thought of having to defend everything you want to do on behalf of children is exhausting,” the administrator said.

Schofield said that, in light of what occurred last meeting, she thinks the practice needs to be reexamined.

“It seems, though, that the new procedure has brought unintended consequences and the opportunity to overstep and make decisions that negatively affect programming in our schools, so I believe we need to readjust,” she said.