Yes, we should be talking about Worcester Public Schools administrative spending, but not how it's been done so far

If you watched the first Worcester School Committee, you saw opening statements in which Member Binienda extemporized on publicly approved (by the prior School Committee) contracts of central administrators (as opposed to the internal changes she made as superintendent to administrative contracts not approved by School Committee, without letting anyone know) and Member Biancheria making the classic motion of the late Brian O'Connell: to cut half a million dollars from 'somewhere' in administrative spending. She did this out of order--they weren't on the administrative cost center; that will happen tonight--and she didn't have a motion on where to then move the funding.

The press, of course, obediently trotted out headlines about motions to cut administration that failed, lacking even the context of past history to tell us that this is precisely the aim: the headline, not any meaningful budgetary decision.

There is, however, a section on administrative spending that should be getting--dare we hope?--headlines, but that's in the back of the book. 

This year, the city's spending on schools calculation is reported on page 377 of the budget book; I noted in my review when the budget came out that it was the first place I check, as it's where we see if the city has met net school spending requirements. Of course, the city hasn't. 

Not every dollar spent on public education, Worcester or anywhere, is allocated by the school committee; there is money spent on behalf of the district by the municipality. On page 377, you can find that on in section 9:

For example, in Worcester, the school district doesn't get a water and sewer bill; the city tracks that, and reports it at the end of the year as school spending; for FY25, that is projected to be $735,399.
We have talked about this before when we talk about police, which is projected for next year as $542,304.

It's the third item here, the top line, that I'd like to call your attention to. There is, in any municipal district, things that only the municipality can do. They have (unless delegated) purchasing authority, for example. As anyone who has ever received a Worcester Public Schools paycheck can attest, they send out the actual checks. You can find the list of what the city and district have agreed upon as "allowable expenditures" on pages 378 and 379 of the budget. 

Notice anything about the past several years? Namely, that jump between FY23, when it was $6.6M to this current year, when it is $9M?
Yeah.

Now, let me be entirely honest: when I saw this in this year's budget, I was kicking myself, as I was on the Committee last year, and I, in my study of this page, didn't catch it! Well, there's a reason for that; here's the same section in last year's budget book for FY24 (the last column is FY24, which is the second to last above): 

Between last May and this May, the projection on cityside administration spending increased by $2.4M.
And no one has talked about that.

Because I always have Excel open, anyway, I ran us a little chart on what this line now looks like going back to  (remember, both FY24, which is the current year, and FY25, which starts in July, are projected, not actual): 

Cityside Administration Spending on WPS
FY17-FY25 (FY24 & FY25 projected)
Source: WPS budget FY21, FY24, FY25

And given what happened over the course of this year, one has to wonder if we can count on the $9.2M projection.

I'd suggest that someone should ask about this.
Oh, and yes: even with this claimed increase, the city is still under required net school spending. 

UPDATE: When this was asked during the budget deliberation:

1. the response is that this is due to the Workday system.
2. the Committee was told, in response to Member Mailman's question regarding the City Manager late in the meeting Tuesday telling the Council the city is giving the schools an additional $1.8M (the NSS budget gap for FY24). Per Mr. Allen's response: The schools are still reconciling numbers, have had additional out of district transportation costs in ...and would be looking to use it for that with some transferred to next year...full report to follow in July.
   There are eleven days left in the fiscal year. This is money that this Committee has not seen (and apparently had not been told of), has not voted a new bottom line to include, and has not allocated. When asked about the need to vote the money, Mr. Allen said that he'd need to check with the city auditor; it is a "transfer not an allocation" so it might not need to be.
   I have no idea what that means. 
   If indeed it is to be used for out-of-district transportation, that does not count towards net school spending.
   I am very confused about this, including how it is that it seems the only way anyone knew is because the City Manager told the Council during a meeting.