Inkster Schools Wrongly Blames Previous Emergency Financial Manager for Its Deficit

District overspent every year without emergency oversight

Seven years after then-Emergency Financial Manager Howard Morris left Inkster Public Schools with a balanced budget, the school district is blaming him for its current financial deficit.

Inkster submitted a deficit-reduction plan to the Michigan Department of Education when it fell into deficit in 2011-2012. On the form, the state asks what caused the deficit. Inkster’s response: “Management by an emergency financial manager, compounded by a formal dispute the district lost in arbitration.”

In fact, Inkster Public Schools’ financial troubles got better only when it had an emergency financial manager.

The school district ended the 2010-2011 school year $10.5 million in debt.

Morris served as the emergency financial manager for Inkster Public Schools from 2002-2005. He left in August 2005.

Finance Manager Kelley Howey said the emergency manager’s pay was based on whether the district showed a profit. Because of that, she said a lot of repairs to buildings were neglected and the fire marshal came in and closed several buildings. She said it was “several million” in repairs. Howey said the current deficit-reduction plan has been approved by school district and state officials.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

When contacted, Morris said it was hard to see how he could be responsible.

“To say seven years after someone was there, they are responsible ... on its face, it doesn’t seem plausible,” Morris said.

Morris said he shut down schools due to dwindling enrollment and didn’t include maintenance to buildings among his budget cuts.

According to the state’s Center for Educational Performance and Information, Inkster spent $2.1 million, $2.1 million and $2.3 million on operations and maintenance in Morris’ three years as emergency financial manager. In 2010-2011, the district spent $2.6 million on operations and maintenance, or about the same as what Morris spent when the cost of inflation is factored in.

Inkster had $16.3 million in general fund expenditures in 2004-2005 when it spent $2.3 million on operations and maintenance and had $31.3 million in general fund expenditures in 2010-2011 when it spent $2.6 million on operations and maintenance.

Operations and maintenance include salaries and employee benefits, supplies, property and purchased services.

The district spent $4.8 million on operations and maintenance in 2008-2009.

According to the Michigan Department of Education, Inkster Public Schools was in debt in 1997-1998 ($1.4 million), 1998-1999 ($1.9 million) and 1999-2000 ($1.7 million).

In 2002-2003, Morris took over as the emergency manager. The next school year, the district was $135,186 in debt, but it was debt-free in 2004-2005 and the year after he left in 2005-2006. Inkster was back in deficit in 2006-2007 and has been in the red ever since.

Morris said he was surprised Inkster was in trouble financially because its enrollment is increasing.

Inkster’s student population has increased from 1,172 in 2004-2005 to 2,965 in 2010-2011.

With twice as many students comes twice as much operating funding. Yet Inkster still was in the red.

“You know what causes that?” Morris said. “Overspending.”


See also:

Teacher Contract Analysis

Coverage of School District Claiming Cuts

Helpful Facts About Michigan's Public Sector

Related Articles:

A Response to the New York Times About Charter Schools in Michigan

New Study: No Correlation Between School Spending and Student Outcomes

Most Michigan Parents Satisfied with School Choice

The False Claim That Won’t Die: School ‘Funding Cuts’ By The State

School Funding in Michigan Reaches All-Time High

What Can We Learn from Michigan Parents Using School Choice?

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:


There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites