The Okaloosa School Board Spends

each year. (But They Won’t Fix Accountability)


Even the State of Florida says the School Board finances are a mess.

In an Independent Performance Audit, our Okaloosa School District failed to meet ANY of the required Tasks for good financial management. Compared to other counties reviewed by the same auditor, Okaloosa County looks terrible!

The Cost to Taxpayers

(money they’ve already spent poorly)

$7.2 Million

Doing NOTHING to publicly criticize, censure, or reprimand former Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson, whose reinstatement will cost taxpayers Back Pay, Legal Fees and other costs.


Accepting the MORE EXPENSIVE (over $85,000 per month or $1 MILLION per year) of two 2014 IT Outsourcing proposals.

Paid for by $6.5 MILLION in Capital Funds – money which could have been used on school repairs or infrastructure!$file/RFP14-01%20Award%20Recommendation.pdf

$6 Million (so far)

REFUSING to negotiate savings or re-bid the IT services contract in 2019 – a move which could have saved $MILLIONS annually.

View “IT Contract – No Re-Bid” video clip

$5 Million (thru 2023)

Tax Dollars with No Plan

(money they’re “reserving” without saying where it will go)

Carrying forward (i.e. not spending) $16.2 MILLION in Capital Funds from previous years – then claiming they don’t have enough Capital Funds to improve Schools. See page 2, Line 125

$16.2 Million

Refusing to plan ahead for over $31 MILLION in available Capital Funds for FY’s 2022-25, instead using a placeholder “Project Contingencies”– then claiming they don’t have enough Capital Funds to improve Schools. See Page 1, Line 21 at

$31.8 Million


1.2 “…staff provided no evidence that the information is evaluated against key performance indicators and other reasonable criteria to assess facility maintenance program performance and costs.”

1.2 “…Transportation management does not use available key performance indicators to evaluate the transportation program.”

1.3 “…there is no formal methodology for documenting and tracking repairs to ensure they are completed and that a historical repair record is maintained.”

1.3 “…Operational Services management and staff provided no evidence that maintenance program performance and costs are evaluated based on reasonable measures.”

1.5 “…Transportation management and staff provided no evidence that transportation program performance and costs are evaluated based on reasonable measures.”

1.6 “Information Services relies on the Seat Management contractor to estimate the costs and select subcontractors for various task orders without an independent verification of the cost

2.2 “…bus driver position vacancy rates are 20% and the daily absenteeism rate is 10 to 15 percent, which sometimes disrupts student transportation services. The District’s bus to mechanic ratio is significantly lower than the industry average.”

3.1 “…there have been no recent formal efforts to evaluate the viability of contracting and privatizing transportation and fleet maintenance services.”

3.2 “…The lack of a structured and formal process of assessment is a limitation of the current approach to assessing outsourcing.”

3.4 “…the Transportation Department remains aware of innovations and options in its peer organizations, but similar evaluations have not been conducted by the Department.”

4.1 “…the District’s strategic priorities are limited and lack performance indicators and measures.”  (This appeared three times, once each for Facilities, Technology and Transportation.)

4.2 “…the district does not use performance measures to evaluate program performance and to assess program progress toward meeting its stated goals and objectives.”

4.2 “…few performance measures are reported for Seat Management related to customer service.”

4.3 “…the District lacks comprehensive departmental policies and procedures manuals that support program goals and objectives.”

4.3 “…monthly construction program meetings are conducted, yet meeting minutes are not maintained to document decisions made and items to address in future meetings.”

5.3 “…program performance data is not currently prepared or accessible to the public.”

5.5 “…no formal procedures are in place to: (1) document the process/procedure that should be followed, (2) ensure all appropriate

staff are knowledgeable of the process/procedure, and (3) ensure consistency of the information that is made available to the public.”

5.6 “…The District lacks a board policy for the review of all policies on a two to three- year cycle, especially those dated in 1999, and to ensure that departmental policy and procedures manuals are comprehensive and complete.”

6.3 “…program administrators have not fully implemented recommendations to address any noncompliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; contracts; grant agreements; and local policies and procedures identified by internal or external evaluations, audits, or other means.”

6.3 “…The recommendation in the 2018 State of Florida Auditor General’s Report to require school personnel with direct knowledge of SRO services to document receipt of services prior to invoice payment has not been implemented.”

Back to top

For more information, contact us at or check us out on Facebook.