Oxford County School District

1. Oxford County School District Autonomous Activity Funds Case Study Presented by: Kristi McDaniel, Krystal McConnell, Julie Childs, and Jamie Smith

2. Case Background • Rudy Quillen- The new superintendent at Oxford County School District (OCSD). He replaced the only other superintendent the district had, who held his position for 11 years. • Bob Andrevet- The assisstant superintendent for curriculum. He has held the position for 14 years. • Pamela Davis-She is assistant superintendent for business management. She has been in her position for about 10 years.

3. Defining the Problem • The district has autonomous activity funds. This means the funds are managed independently by principals. • This is not illegal; however, it is cautioned by the district’s lawyers that it carries a substantial risk of mismanagement and illegalities (e.g. embezzlement). • Assistant Superintendent, Pamela Davis recommends the activity funds be placed under district controls

4. Diagnosing the Problem • Two years ago Davis attempted to have the superintendent present her plan to the school board. However, the buck was passed to the new superintendant to deal with the problem. • The majority of the principals are opposed to the new plan Ms. Davis is proposing. There have been no previous issues of money abuse. • Audits are preformed every 2 years.

5. Alternative Solutions:Pamela Davis’ Formal Plan • 1. Activity fund expenditures would require 3 signatures- the principal, the assistant superintendent for instruction, and the assistant superintendent for business management. • 2. Accounting activities done by district personnel and in compliance with standard accounting procedures. • 3. Activity funds be audited annually, with district office conducting audit in the year that there was no state audit.

6. Alternative Solutions:Dr. Quillen’s search for a solution • He decided to appoint an ad hoc committee to study the issue, evaluate the proposed change, and then make a recommendation on whether it should be presented to the school board. • The following were appointed to the committee: elementary teacher, high school teacher, parent and accountant, parent and attorney, and the district’s director of federal programs. • Assistant superintendents will be nonvoting advisors. • Why are no principals on this committee?

7. Evaluating Alternative Solutions • Dr. Quillen should have used the extensive research he had put into the plan to make a decision. He had three solutions on the table-adopt the plan as written by Dr. Davis, refuse the plan, or adopt part of the plan. • What more could a committee ask that Dr. Quillen had not already researched? Who else could the committee interview that Dr. Quillen had not already interviewed on the subject? He knew the opinion of everyone involved and knew the pros and cons of each path.

8. Evaluating Alternative Solutions • Adopting the plan would have the backing of a few people including his top administration but would cause opposition with a majority of the principals. • Refusing the plan would have the backing of the majority of principals, who are directly affected by the plan but he would have his top administration in opposition.

9. Choosing the Best Solution • Dr. Quillen should back the plan suggested by Pamela Davis. He needs to take the plan to the school board and encourage their adoption of the plan. • He should have a formal meeting with the principals and central office administration to explain his reasoning for encouraging this check and balance system in the district.