Parents raise issue of school's funding
By Ethan Smith
Published in News on September 28, 2016 9:57 AM
Full Size
News-Argus/SETH COMBS
Jeannie Meyer, far right, voices her concerns to Wayne Preparatory Academy Board of Administrators' attorney Glenn A. Barfield, far left, in a classroom at Wayne Preparatory Academy Tuesday evening.
Full Size
News-Argus/SETH COMBS
Glenn Barfield, left, the attorney for the Wayne Preparatory Academy Board of Administrators, reads the state statutes that pertain to issues that parents have raised in a classroom at Wayne Preparatory Academy on Tuesday evening.
Roughly 40 people met with attorney Glenn Barfield at Wayne Preparatory Academy Tuesday night for about three hours about concerns regarding the school's finances and the school's board of directors, whom Barfield represents.
Several parents raised concerns about millions of dollars allegedly missing from the school's accounts, but Barfield reassured those in attendance that no money was missing.
"I believe very strongly there is no, quote, missing money," Barfield said.
Allegations over missing money came from a discussion about the bonds retained in 2013 to build the school, and an appraisal that valued the land the school sits on at approximately $8 million.
Several parents raised concerns that the $8 million had reportedly been secured in bonds to build the school and the school reportedly cost roughly $3 million to build.
But the bonds and the appraisal are separate, Barfield explained. He told the parents he believes the discussion over alleged missing money began when the school started the school year with less students enrolled than initially planned, which caused the school to receive less funding at the start of the year.
"I think somebody heard the word missing in a board meeting," Barfield said. "That reference was to money that was in the budget as it had been initially proposed and approved, but which the board ultimately realized wasn't there yet. In addition, this year we actually opened with a few students less than the budget actually made provisions for. The number of students that we have as of this past Monday, I think, determines what the state funding is. And so what we're looking at is that you have less funds that are available to you to operate the school, than you did the day before you opened and you thought you had."
The issue about the school's finances was initially raised by parent Jeannie Meyer, who has a child at the school, and visited the school Tuesday morning to request the school's audits and 990 forms, which are public record since the school is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit.
Mrs. Meyer said she was at the school for approximately three hours waiting for copies of the documents she requested, and they were not immediately made available to her.
Barfield, who was retained by the board in November 2015, said this is because some notice is required to allow the organization to get all the documents together for viewing, and encouraged the people in attendance to obtain those documents and comb through them on their own.
A current lawsuit the school is entangled in with its original management company, named Banyan, was also discussed.
Barfield said the lawsuit is settling repercussions from the contract between the school and Banyan being terminated, which had clauses in it that were unconscionable, meaning they were not enforceable.
"The board that organized the school had no legal counsel. That was not good," Barfield said. "It's a very, very big undertaking, the financing is very, very complicated."
Barfield said he believes Wayne Preparatory Academy is the fourth school that has had to terminate the contract between itself and Banyan, due to the incredibly restrictive and unconscionable clauses contained within it.
In each case where a contract was terminated, the management company came back demanding $700,000 from the schools its contract was terminated with, which is what the school is currently trying to resolve.
"Our lawsuit, as a counter-claim, alleges -- and I believe the evidence will show -- that they intended to get fired," Barfield said. "This was all set up with documents that basically put us in a position that if they got fired, they would get much more money than if they actually did the work."