Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

READS Collaborative

August 31, 2011 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published August 31, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2010 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The auditor found serious money-management problems at READS, including possible overpaying of its executive director, questionable cost shifting, a questionable loan to a related nonprofit, and large surplus funds.
source
“Our audit identified as much as $118,072 in excessive compensation provided to READS’s Executive Director, as much as $1,287,411 in questionable allocations of administration costs, a questionable loan totaling $944,000 from READS to its related-party corporation, payment for which READS charged non-member school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional fees, and accrued questionable surpluses in excess of $3.4 million.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state audit of READS Collaborative, an education collaborative serving school districts, covering July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted an audit of certain activities of READS for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010.”
Why was it audited?

The auditor reviewed whether READS had good internal controls, followed the law, and met fiscal and program requirements tied to its state work.

“The audit objectives consisted of a determination of whether READS implemented effective internal controls over all aspects of its operations and an assessment of READS’s business practices and its compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, as well as the various fiscal and programmatic requirements of its state contracts.”
Why it matters

The report says weak accounting practices made it unclear whether READS and its related nonprofit reported finances accurately or charged school districts fairly.

“As a result of these issues, there is inadequate assurance that the financial statements issued by both entities during the period covered by the audit were accurate or that the percentage of shared expenses charged to READS and paid for by school districts that purchased services from READS was reasonable and appropriate.”
What's in it for me?

If your community paid READS as a non-member district, the report says it may have paid more than it needed to, and that money could have supported other education services.

“These funds could have been used by these non-member districts to fund additional educational services.”
The bottom line

READS should fix how it keeps surplus money and work with state oversight offices on a fair policy for returning excess funds.

“READS should seek guidance from DLS and OAG in developing and implementing an acceptable revenue retention policy that is consistent with established guidelines.”
What happens next

The report calls for follow-up by the retirement system, READS, and state education officials to resolve compensation, oversight, and policy problems.

“Based on this review, READS, in conjunction with the MTRS and the Executive Director, should take the necessary measures to resolve this matter.”
Why it's significant

The report points beyond READS: it says state oversight of education collaboratives had been too weak, leaving them below the standards applied to public school districts and charter schools.

“This condition has resulted in education collaboratives not being held to the same performance standards that apply to public school districts and charter schools within the Commonwealth.”
Jargon, unpacked

An education collaborative is a public cooperative created by school districts to provide shared education services; READS also served districts that were not members when space was available.

“READS Collaborative (READS) was established in 1989 as a governmental organization under Chapter 40, Section 4E, of the Massachusetts General Laws, which allows school districts, with the approval of the Commonwealth’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), to enter into intergovernmental agreements establishing cooperative public entities referred to as education collaboratives.”

5 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

READS provided excessive compensation to its Executive Director in violation of the state pension law.
payroll/timeinternal controls

Why it matters: The Executive Director may have received compensation above the statutory limit for retired public employees, creating pension-law noncompliance and potential repayment issues.

Standard: Chapter 32, Section 91, of the Massachusetts General Laws limits compensation and public-sector employment hours for retired teachers or administrators. ( Chapter 32, Section 91, of the General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • MTRS should review the compensation provided to the Executive Director and READS should resolve any unallowable compensation and ensure future compliance.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The audit conclusion of $118,072 is incorrect."
Auditor: "The OSA disagrees with the assertion made by the representative from the law firm representing READS that it was incorrect for us to state that as much as $118,072 in compensation provided to the Executive Director was in violation of the state’s pension laws."
READS made a questionable $944,000 loan to READS, Inc. and charged non-member districts inappropriate fees to repay it.
procurement/contractsinternal controlscash handling

Why it matters: Public funds were not properly safeguarded, non-member districts paid unnecessary additional fees, and the transaction may have violated the Massachusetts Constitution’s anti-aid amendment.

Standard: READS must expend funds in accordance with applicable laws and the anti-aid amendment prohibits loans of public funds to certain nonprofit charitable organizations. ( Chapter 40, Section 4E, of the General Laws )

3 recommendations
  • READS, Inc. should immediately transfer the property to READS at no cost.agency: already implemented
  • READS should return $488,400 in additional fees to non-member communities.agency: disagreed
  • READS should formally document and board-approve agreements and ensure fees are consistent with its DESE Collaborative Agreement.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "There is nothing to indicate that there is a need to return funds to non members since the vote of the Board of Directors was legal and beneficial to the non members as stated above."
Auditor: "The OSA acknowledges that members of READS were also charged for the cost of the purchase of the building in question."
READS accumulated excessive surpluses by charging fees above the cost of providing services.
cash handlinginternal controls

Why it matters: Member and non-member districts paid more than necessary, and READS accumulated a fund balance contrary to DLS and OAG guidance.

Standard: DLS and OAG guidance states that governmental service fees should not exceed the actual cost of providing services. ( DLS and OAG guidance on governmental service fees; EOAF Bulletin No. 6 )

2 recommendations
  • READS should seek DLS and OAG guidance to develop an acceptable revenue retention policy.agency: disagreed
  • READS should develop procedures with OAG and DLS to reimburse member and non-member districts equitably from the fund balance.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "READS has already taken the necessary steps to ensure current policy is followed."
Auditor: "Since READS chose to address this matter on its own without seeking such guidance, the OSA cannot comment on whether the actions taken by READS to resolve this matter are appropriate."

Verified dollar findings

Other identified $606,472 not in headline

Identified dollar findings that do not fall in a named band.

$118,072 - excessive compensation
$488,400 - inappropriate charges