Those following the Prairie Valley School Division situation, may recall the letter I sent to the Minister of Education in order to better understand what approvals the school division attained for future capital projects. (For those that know the name Prairie Valley School Division, but can't remember why, it's the board that set-up back to back school motions to allow its Education Director (Ben Grebinksi), to be able to draw on his pension and a salary at the same time.)

Well, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation received a response to the letter we sent the Minister (click here to view) and responded today with the email below. One interesting element that was discovered while reviewing correspondence between the Ministry and the Divsion was a discussion about closing the Kennedy-Langbank; something which local taxpayers have indicated wasn't widely known. 

If you have any tips on what's going on behind the scenes at the Prairie Valley School Division, please send me an email - [email protected].

>>>

Dear Minister Harpauer:

Thank you for your response of February 28, 2012, to my correspondence regarding capital projects in the Prairie Valley School Division (PVSD).  Your letter raises further questions.

You state your ministry was “under the impression PVSD had accrued a significant surplus over the last number of years and therefore was able to self-fund these projects.” Was something uncovered by Ministry officials that changed their impression of the PVSD’s financial situation?

Further, the ministry’s web site indicates that commencing in 2009, school divisions in the province no longer have the authority to set property taxes. The total education budget for each school will be presented to the Minister of Education for approval, and all payments to the school division will be based on the approved budgets less the education property tax revenue to the division.

I would like to know what steps did the ministry take in this annual approval process to ensure that the provincial funding did, in fact, go to operations and not to the accumulation of reserves that would enable PVSD to proceed with $27 million of “self-funded” capital projects?

The ministry’s June 1, 2011, policy for self-funded capital projects states that “school divisions will not be permitted to borrow funds for 100% self-funded projects.”  Does the Ministry believe the PVSD still has the $27 million in capital reserves for its self-funded projects or has the Ministry’s impression changed? If the Ministry believes $27 million is available, could you please indicate where the funds show up in the board’s audited financial statements.

In your letter, you state the ministry approved each of the “self-funded” capital projects at Kipling School, Vibank School, and the school division office expansion in Regina as compliant with facility planning guidelines in August, 2011.  

I have, however, in my possession, copies of June 14, 2011, emails from PVSD to the ministry of education stating that PVSD was proposing to build a larger Kipling school project in order to accommodate students from the Kennedy-Langbank school. I am concerned that, if an approval was issued based on the assumption PVSD would close the Kennedy-Langbank school, the affected communities have not been engaged in any discussions on this matter. Please advise of the final size of the Kipling school project approved by the Ministry of Education and documentation supporting the approval.

You have indicated that PVSD’s $6.2 million self-funded school division office expansion in Regina was approved according to facility planning guidelines. The ministry’s web site, which has education facility guidelines, does not show any standards for school division offices. Could you please explain how the ministry could approve this project in the absence of any standards or criteria?

And finally, how many other boards of education in the province have been approved for “self-funded projects” when they have not identified when and how they acquired the necessary funds? Did the ministry’s funding model for the three years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 provide for an allocation of “surplus” funds which would allow boards to proceed with self-funded projects, such as PVSD’s $27 million in self-funded projects?

Thank you for your attention to this correspondence.