Wednesday, May 25, 2011

FC Board Chooses to Ignore. . . AND. . . The PDE's Clerical Error, part 1 of 4


Fort Cherry School Board Meeting, May 23, 2011:

The board voted 8 to 1 to approve sharing superintendent and administrative services with Avella.  Chris Lauff voted no.
Fort Cherry School Board is choosing to ignore evidence presented to Board President Brant Miller and board member Ray Miller that should have rendered this proposal reprehensible from its inception.
Fort Cherry is choosing to throw caution to the wind.
Avella needs to proceed with care . . . .
As you read through these documents, remember that back in December 1996, Dinnen promptly entered into a 5-year contract with the New Brighton Area School District immediately after receiving that 1996 Letter of Eligibility. 
The Letter of Eligibility was dated November 27, 1996.
Thanksgiving Day that year was November 28.
At the very earliest, Dinnen would have received the Letter of Eligibility on Friday the 29th or Saturday the 30th.
The agenda for the Monday, December 2, New Brighton board meeting made no mention of voting on Dinnen’s appointment as Superintendent; the item was added during executive session.
By locking himself in as superintendent, Dinnen was assured that any legal bills incurred would be paid for by the New Brighton Area School District.
By law, Dinnen could remain as Acting Superintendent of the District without certification for one year - that year would run out in May 1997.
With the May cut-off date approaching, Dinnen sued the PA Department of Education, arguing that his right to due process had been violated.
From the time he was voted in as Superintendent, Dinnen spent his time at New Brighton fighting the Department of Education to keep the Letter of Eligibility that was issued to him due to a CLERICAL ERROR.
New Brighton School District (taxpayers) covered Dinnen’s legal expenses.

(Documents with the exception of the newspaper clippings obtained from the PA Department of Education files.)

continued. . . 

The PDE's Clerical Error, part 2 of 4

THIS MEMO HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED BELOW.  PLEASE SCROLL DOWN.



DATE:             December 4, 1996
SUBJECT:       Superintendent Letter of Eligibility (SLE) for Mr. Robert Dinnen
At approximately 12:30 this date, I was notified by Mr. Vance Edinger, Division Chief, Candidate Evaluation Services, that on November 27, 1996, Mr. Dinnen had been issued a Superintendent Letter of Eligibility in Error.  The evaluator, in calculating his experience, had credited time that Mr. Dinnen served in Higher Education as experience towards the requirement for the SLE.
Mr. Edinger told me that this had come to his attention because he received a telephone call from an unidentified individual who wanted to know how we were able to issue the SLE when Mr. Dinnen did not have the required experience.
Based on the records available, it appears that Mr. Dinnen is currently serving as Superintendent of New Brighton Area School District.
I attempted to call Dan Myers, Ernie Helling or Pat Fullerton from the Office of Chief Counsel for advise on this matter.  None were available.  I left a message to ask that Pat Fullerton call me back on an urgent matter.  As of 2:30 I still have not been able to talk to Pat.
At approximately 2:00 I was finally able to contact Mr. Dinnen.  I informed him that he had been issued a SLE prematurely and that there needed to be a review of his experience.  Mr. Dinnen told me that the Board (School Board) had appointed him as superintendent on Monday, December 2, 1996.  Mr. Dinnen asked me if he should notify the Board and also the nature of the problem.  I explained that we needed to take a look at his experience and what steps we needed to take from the Department concerning the premature issuance of the SLE.  I also told him not to take any further action including contacting the Board until I contacted him.  Mr. Dinnen asked if this would take three to four weeks.  I told him no, that I hoped to resolve this matter within the next few days.
I also instructed Mr. Edinger to Contact Al Myers and ask him to not issue a Commission to Mr. Dinnen without first contacting this bureau.
Donald E. Lunday
NOTE:  Vance Edinger was present in the office when I called Mr. Dinnen and witnessed(?) my part of the conversation.



continued. . . 

The PDE's Clerical Error, part 3 of 4

THIS MEMO HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED BELOW.  PLEASE SCROLL DOWN.




December 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT:       Superintendent Letter of Eligibility (SLE) for Mr. Robert Dinnen
Reference:  December 4, 1996 memorandum, subject as above.
Subsequent to my December 4 conversation with Dr. Dinnen, I talked to Ms. Pat Fullerton, Office of the Chief Counsel, concerning this matter.  Pat confirmed that the proper procedure was to request that the SLE be returned.  I also briefed Dr. Poliakoff on the matter.  Additionally, on December 5, I provided Press and Communication and Government Affairs a memorandum explaining what had occurred.  These offices were notified in the event there was a press or legislative inquiry on the matter.
At approximately 11:30 a.m. this date I called Dr. Dinnen.  This was a follow-up to my discussion with him on December 4 concerning the SLE.  I informed him that we were sending him a letter officially notifying him that the SLE had been issued prematurely, that the review was not complete.  He asked how the problem had come to my attention.  I told him that we had received an anonymous call concerning his experience as related to the standard, but that we probably would have detected the problem through the supervisor’s review, that the error was in the Bureau and the the SLE had been issued before this review had been completed.  We also discussed his experience that was in question (higher education versus basic schools).  I explained that we would complete our review expeditiously and would notify him of the results as soon as possible.  In response to his questions, I explained the appeal process should he be denied the SLE.  Dr. Dinnen also wanted to know if contacting the Secretary directly now could resolve the matter since the school board had already appointed him to the position, and he had been sworn to oath of office by a judge.  I told him I could not answer for the Secretary, but if such a request were received, it probably would go to the PDE Chief Counsel.  Additionally I told him that in such event, I personally would recommend that the Secretary use the certification appeal process to review the matter.
Dr. Dinnen continued to ask questions about various scenarios.  For example, he wanted to know what would happen if he and the school board refused to return the SLE certificate.  I told him he should talk to his school board solicitor on this question, and I could not say what action PDE would take in this instance, that I would have to seek guidance from the PDE Office of Chief Counsel.
I apologized to Dr. Dinnen and through him to the school board for the error.  I also told him that if he or the school board had further questions, to please call me and I would assist them in contacting the appropriate counsel in the PDE Office of Chief Counsel or other authority at PDE if appropriate.  Although Dr. Dinnen was understandably upset with what had and would occur, our conversation was professional and congenial.
After I talked to Dr. Dinnen, Mr. Edinger sent him a letter by certified mail requesting that the SLE certificate be returned.  A copy of that letter is attached.  I also briefed Ms. Pat Fullerton on what had occurred since I first discussed this matter with her on the afternoon of December 4.
Signed by Donald Lunday
Note:  Mr. Edinger was present for the last part of the conversation with Dr. Dinnen.





continued. . . 

The PDE's Clerical Error, part 4 of 4

At the time that these news articles were published, the New Brighton Education Association had these concerns about the New Brighton School Board’s choice of Superintendent:
1.     The school district will lose state monies because the superintendent is not properly certificated.
2.     Should taxpayers fund Acting Superintendent Dinnen’s legal fight?
3.     How much of the district’s money will the New Brighton school board spend in a futile attempt to keep a superintendent who is not properly certificated?
The longer the school board takes to resolve this issue, the less time there will be to conduct a search for a qualified superintendent.

Valid concerns for the New Brighton Community back in 1996.
Valid concerns for the Fort Cherry and Avella Communities today.



. . . end of post

Friday, May 20, 2011

FC / Avella - Full Disclosure? . . . .Proceed with Caution . . . .

An editorial in today’s Observer-Reporter supports Avella and Fort Cherry exploring the option of sharing a superintendent as a way to trim Avella’s budget.
“The cutbacks seem most difficult for small school districts. Avella, for instance, operates on a $9.31 million annual budget. Even with a tax increase, it must find $900,000 in savings - almost 10 percent - next fiscal year to balance its budget. The district anticipates $600,000 less from the state, and at the same time figures expenses will increase $300,000. With many of its costs sheltered by labor contracts and state mandates, trimming 10 percent is no easy task.”
“Of the 19 school districts in Washington and Greene counties, only Avella and Fort Cherry have explored joining forces to tackle their budget problems; they are considering having one superintendent for both districts.”
Observer-Reporter  May 20, 2011

Was the sharing of administrative services with Fort Cherry on the agenda for the May 11 Avella school board meeting?
Was it brought up by one of the board members and then discussed?
Could this “last minute agenda item” be history repeating itself?
Is Fort Cherry being fair to Avella with full disclosure, so Avella can explore other options?
Has Fort Cherry offered its superintendent’s resume and employment history to Avella?

Any candidate's misstatement of fact material to qualifications for employment or
determination of salary shall constitute grounds for dismissal by the Board.
Avella Area School District
Policy #302
EMPLOYMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT/
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT - Pg. 3
http://www.avella.k12.pa.us/pdf/300.pdf

Avella should proceed with caution. . . . .



Thursday, May 19, 2011

FC Board - Making Informed Decisions?

January 2010
Schools all over the country, including Fort Cherry, were deliberating on whether or not to compete for the Race-to-the-Top Grant.
According to a U.S. Department of Education news release, state qualification entailed:
"The final application also clarifies that states should use multiple measures to evaluate teachers and principals, including a strong emphasis on the growth in achievement of their students.  But it also reinforces that successful applicants will need to have rigorous teacher and principal evaluation programs and use the results of teacher evaluations to inform what happens in the schools."
Observer-Reporter (Washington, PA)-January 17, 2010
Board member Jamie White asked Director of Curriculum, Tricia Craig, if the District would have to give the money back if the criteria of the grant were not met.
Craig’s response:  They never want the money back.

May 16, 2011, Fort Cherry Committee Meeting
During the “Discussion of Bills for Payment” segment of the meeting, board member Chris Lauff questioned an entry for $9,500 for hotel rooms at the Hilton in New York.
Sroka defended the expenditure by explaining it came out of grant money.
Lauff asked why the District would spend money - even grant money - on travel, immediately after announcing the planned furloughs.  Lauff questioned why the money had to be spent on travel, when it could have been put to better use.
Sroka’s response:  It would be irresponsible to not spend grant money because if you don’t spend it you have to give the money back.

Do government agencies want the money back, or not?!
According to the 2009/2010 Annual Financial Report, Fort Cherry received:
$1,096,149 - federal grant money
$8,677,680 - state grant money
The board and the public are not given detailed information of grant money expenditures.
·       There is conflicting information as to how excess grant money is used.
·       Where is the accountability? 
May 9 & 11, 2011, Fort Cherry Budget Meetings
Board member Chris Lauff asked if a budgeted software expense of $42,000 could be taken from newly created “Reserve for Technology” fund (which has a balance of approximately $710,000) instead of the General Fund.  Freeing up the $42,000 in the General Fund could eliminate the need to furlough a position.
Sroka’s response:  That technology money is in reserve and cannot be used.

May 16, 2011, Fort Cherry Committee Meeting
Board member Chris Lauff once again suggested using funds from the “Reserve for Technology” fund for the $42,000 software purchase.
Considering that software is a technology item, it seems fair that the money should come from the technology account, freeing up the $42,000 in the General Fund to possibly eliminate the need to furlough a position.
Sroka’s response:  You can use that money, but once the fund is depleted there will be no money for technology.
Can the technology money be used, or not?!

·       As with the grant money, the administration is providing conflicting information.
·       Where is the accountability? 

At the same meeting, Board Treasurer Elmo Cecchetti reminded the board that every year in the past, approximately $250,000 was transferred into the technology fund.
Dinnen added that it was the former Capital Reserve/Technology Fund and that FC has always used it for technology purchases.

A Brief History of Fort Cherry’s “Reserve for Technology” Fund
Prior to the December 2010 board meeting, the “Reserve for Technology” fund was classified as a 1432 Capital Reserve Fund.
By municipal law, the 1432 Capital Reserve Fund was comprised of SURPLUS LOCAL TAX MONEY.  (In other words, if as Cecchetti says it was $250,000 every year, then 5.5 mills of surplus local tax money were transferred into the fund every year).
By municipal law, Capital Reserve Funds were to be used for building improvements and school bus purchases ONLY.
Under the state’s new accounting rules, Capital Reserve Funds were to be reclassified as Capital Projects Funds.
At the December 2010 board meeting, Fort Cherry’s Capital Reserve Fund was reclassified as a “Reserve for Technology” fund – clearly going against the state mandate.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
Remember Dinnen stated at the meeting that the “Reserve for Technology” fund was the former Capital Reserve fund that FC has always used for technology.
When questioned about the transfer of the money from Capital Reserve into a Technology Fund at the December meeting, the administration’s explanation was that they thought the money was to be used for Technology all along, and therefore they are now just classifying the money correctly.
The administration is claiming ignorance, even though the state has issued two separate accounting bulletins reminding school districts of the proper use of Capital Reserve Funds (see bulletins at the end of this post).
So, in spite of the accounting bulletins prohibiting technology expenditures, Fort Cherry has been using the money from the capital reserve fund to purchase technology for years.
If they had no idea that the state did not allow such purchases, why did they report the money as being spent on “Facilities Acquisition, Construction and Improvement Services” instead of “Technology” on the Annual Financial Reports submitted to the state?

Capital Facilities Acquisition, Construction and Improvements are capital expenditures incurred to purchase land, buildings, service systems and built-in equipment.  Expenditures include the initial purchase of land and buildings; construction; remodeling, additions and improvements to buildings; initial installation, replacement or extension of service systems; and other built-in equipment, as well as improvement to sites, and activities related to all of the above.

Manual of Accounting and Financial Reporting for PA Public Schools

Chart of Accounts
Revised 7-1-09



·       There is conflicting information as to how the money was actually spent and what was reported to the state.
·       Where is the accountability? 

WHY DOES IT MATTER?
This administration has been providing dubious answers to the board, the public, and the state.
As representatives of the taxpayers, the school board is entrusted to make informed decisions that affect our children, our teachers, our community, and our tax bills.
How can the board make an informed decision based on the misinformation provided by the administration?

Accounting bulletins located on the PA Department of Education webpage:  http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=509577&mode=2
Accounting Bulletin #2007-01

SUBJECT:  Accounting for Capital Reserve funds authorized by
                   Municipal Code 53 PS 1431 - 1436

Effective Immediately
Date:  December 12, 2007
The information in this bulletin supplements Accounting Bulletin # 2003-01.  It provides clarification regarding accounting procedures related to the establishment and uses of monies transferred to a 1431 Capital Reserve fund by school districts.
1)   Schools may not deposit bond proceeds directly into this fund.  53 PS 1432 states that this type of fund may only consist of:  1) moneys transferred during any fiscal year from appropriations made for any particular purpose which may not be needed; or 2) of surplus moneys in the general fund of the treasury of the municipality (school district) at the end of the fiscal year.

2)  The money in this type of capital reserve fund may only be used for the following expenditures:  capital improvements and for replacement of and additions to public works and improvements, and for deferred maintenance thereof, and for the purchase or the replacement of school buses, and for no other purpose.  Transferring money out of the Capital Reserve fund is not permitted.

3)   The construction of new buildings and the debt service associated with these projects have been determined to fall within the parameters of capital improvements.  As such, accounting transactions that involve the money in the Capital Reserve fund must be maintained within this fund. The remainder of the project not covered by the money in the Capital Reserve fund should be accounted for in a Capital Projects fund. 

Schools should use discretion when determining whether to establish a Capital Reserve fund for new construction.  The recommended accounting procedure for future construction projects is to designate a portion of the Unreserved/Undesignated fund balance for this use.  Designating these funds will remove them from the available portion of the fund balance, but allow more flexibility with regards to the use of the money for unexpected emergencies.

Any questions regarding this bulletin should be addressed to Mary Kay Beer in the LECS Comptroller’s Office, School Finance Division at (717) 783-9003 or mbeer@state.pa.us

A.A   Accounting Bulletin #2003-01



SUBJECT:  Capital Reserve Funds 
Effective Immediately
Date:   June 9, 2003
          This accounting bulletin is to provide clarification on the two types of Capital Reserve Funds available to school entities in Pennsylvania. The Manual of Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pennsylvania Public Schools (Manual) addresses Capital Reserve funds in Chapter 5 – Special Revenue Funds.  As discussed in the Manual, a Special Revenue Fund is used to account for financial resources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes.  More specifically, a Capital Reserve Fund is used to account for expenditures that are capital in nature, and both kinds discussed below require annual disclosure in the General Fund Budget (PDE-2028) submitted to the Department of Education (PDE).

          The first type of Capital Reserve Fund is established in 24 PS 6-690 of the school code, and accounts for revenues resulting from the levy of a special tax by the school district. The usage of the money is limited to constructing a school building project that is approved by the PDE.  Also, a board resolution detailing the millage, which may not exceed three mills in any one year, and a timeframe for the project is required to establish this type of fund.  Furthermore, a 690 Capital Reserve Fund has a life of five years from the date the initial payment was made into the fund.  If the intended project does not materialize, the money must go back to the General Fund in equal amounts over five years.  Section 1850.1 authorizes Area Vocational Technical Schools to establish a Capital Reserve Fund with the same limitations, with the exception of the special tax levy.

          The second type of Capital Reserve Fund available to a Local Educational Agency (LEA) is discussed in 53 PS 1432 of the school code.  This type of fund may consist “(a) of moneys transferred during any fiscal year from appropriations made for any particular purpose which may not be needed” or “(b) of surplus moneys in the treasury of the municipality at the end of the fiscal year.”  Section 1434 further stipulates specific purposes on the allowable expenditures of these funds. The moneys in this type of fund may be expended “only for capital improvements and for replacement of and additions to public works and improvements, and for deferred maintenance thereof, and for the purchase or the replacement of school buses, and for no other purpose.” 

          The Comptroller’s Office highly recommends that LEA personnel use discretion, as well as a consultation with the LEA solicitor, before establishing either of these funds.

        Questions regarding this bulletin may be directed to the School Finance Division  at (717) 783-9102. 

Friday, May 13, 2011

Board Member Concerned About Fraud


May 11, 2011 – Fort Cherry Budget Hearing:

During the presentation of the Cafeteria budget, Director of Support Services, Jeff Marquis, informed the board that 40% of FC children receive free or reduced lunches.

Board member Elmo Cecchetti expressed concern that such a high number may be an indication of possible fraud being committed by residents of the district.

The board would do well to look elsewhere for fraud . . . . .

June 2010:

Fort Cherry school district was in the process of hiring yet another new principal.

That May, former school board member, Victoria Lauff, met with Board President, Brant Miller, and board member, Ray Miller, and presented evidence to these men showing that Superintendent Robert Dinnen had not been honest with the board during his interview and application process.  Victoria was a member of the board in 1998 when Dinnen was hired.

When she saw that Fort Cherry was advertising for a new principal, Victoria followed up with an email to Brant Miller containing pertinent information for the Board to consider.

It is believed that this information was not shared with the remaining board members.

From : vmlauff
To : Miller, Brant
Sent : Sun Jun 27 11:00:02 2010
Subject : Jr./Sr. High School Principal applications

Brant,
I see that all applications for the position of Jr./Sr. High School Principal are being handled by the Superintendent of the school district.  In light of the fact that I brought to the attention to some board representatives, the evidence that Robert W. Dinnen was not honest with the School Board in 1998, when applying for employment himself with the district then, it appears that the current school board is being inattentive and indifferent to those facts and the problems it faces now.

It is not prudent to have this individual hold others to standards which he does not hold himself to; and it is hypocritical to think that he has the integrity to fulfill this obligation directed by the board.  You have seen the facts. You have cause for immediate dismissal and yet, he is authorized to control all resumes, background checks, clearances, professional certifications, letters of interest and whatever else is required by both the commonwealth and Fort Cherry.

I would like to believe that no other school district would permit this and certainly, no legitimate business would either.  Don't forget why you were elected-- to protect the best interests of the students, communities, residents and taxpayers of this school district.  It is not in the best interest to keep an individual, such as Robert W. Dinnen, as Superintendent of the Fort Cherry School District.

Sincerely,

Vicki Lauff

B. Miller’s response to that email:

From: "Brant Miller"
To: vmlauff
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: Jr./Sr. High School Principal applications

Thank you, Vicki. We will take this under advisement.

Brant T. Miller, Esq.
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.


May 2011:

·         Fort Cherry School District is considering the furlough of 12.5 properly certified teachers and the school nurse.
·         Avella Area School District is considering consolidating administrative services by hiring Dinnen as Acting Superintendent.

“Fort Cherry approached Avella, asking if it would like to have its superintendent Robert Dinnen as an acting superintendent. Avella Superintendent Wayde Killmeyer is taking a job in another district this summer. The Fort Cherry proposal calls for Avella to pay $50,000 plus mileage to have Dinnen as acting superintendent and to do some special education work, McConn said. He said the board is not clear on all the details of the proposal, such as how often Dinnen would be in Avella. Those are some of the conversations that need to take place, he said.” – Observer-Reporter, May 12, 2011


It is the board’s obligation to seriously consider the issues presented by Victoria Lauff.

Neglect of duty by this Board could seriously impact Fort Cherry and our neighbors in Avella.


The Board shall act as the general agent of the people of this district in the matter of
public education. It shall establish educational goals for the children of this district
and govern a program of education designed to meet those goals. The Board shall be
responsible for enforcing mandatory laws. The Board shall be the agent responsible
for establishing, maintaining and appraising the public education activities of this
school district in accordance with law.

The powers of the Board of School Directors are not vested in the individual school
director. No such individual is authorized to act on behalf of the Board to carry out
any of the Board's statutorily authorized powers, except for those acts stated in law.

Fort Cherry School District Policy No. 002
SECTION:  LOCAL BOARD PROCEDURES
TITLE:  AUTHORITY AND POWERS
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
http://www.fortcherry.org/170310597212240/site/default.asp


Any candidate's misstatement of fact material to qualifications for employment or
the determination of salary shall be considered by this Board to constitute grounds
for dismissal.
Fort Cherry School District Policy No. 302
SECTION: ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES
TITLE: EMPLOYMENT OFSUPERINTENDENT
/ASSISTANTSUPERINTENDENT
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
http://www.fortcherry.org/170310597212240/site/default.asp




May 1998: