What's Up with the Trib and W-2 Appeals . . .

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_780729.html#

------------

From Commonwealth Court’s ruling:

“Here, such an analysis was undertaken by the Honorable John E. DiSalle of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, filed July 26, 2011, in Fort Cherry School District v. Acton, No. 2010-719, and we find no basis to overturn his decision.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order on the basis of that opinion.”

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge,

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge and

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ACTON

Fort Cherry School District, Appellant,

v.

Robin Acton and/for Trib Total Media and Pennsylvania Office of Open Records.

No. 842 C.D. 2011.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: November 14, 2011.

Filed: February 8, 2012.

Commonwealth Court’s Ruling available in its entirety here: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20PACO%2020120208584.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

------------

The authors of this blog agree with Trib’s attorney, David Strassburger, "In our view, this has been a dispute that really should not have gone this far."

This has been nothing more than a drain on school finances, and to what end?

Once again, the administration is doing its best to keep public information from the taxpayers of this school district.

Taxpayer money was expended to file these appeals, yet the board has never voted to approve this expenditure in a public meeting.

Once again the school solicitor has encouraged the board to enter into a legal dispute and then reaped the benefits of billing the district for legal representation.

In the past few years, Maeillo, Brungo & Maeillo has represented the District and the administration in multiple lawsuits - many of which were unnecessary had the school simply done the right thing instead of challenging residents for various reasons.

In the Trib case, MB&M and the District have maintained that FC cannot provide the information in electronic format.  However, the certified computer examiner from the Trib has proven that the information is readily available.  The certified computer examiner’s affidavit attesting to the availability of the information is shown at the end of this post.

The issue isn’t whether the District is able to provide the information . . . the real issue is whether the District wants to release the information at all.

This is the Trib’s RTK request.

All documents requested by the Trib are public documents.

The Trib requested documentation that could provide greater insight into many of the issues brought up on this blog.

Using the limited resources available to the authors of this blog, many of the administration and board member’s questionable practices have been brought to light.

Just imagine what the Trib could uncover with its available resources.

Trib’s RTK:

1.      “Payroll/salary information for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years that would include the names and positions of all district employees, teachers and administrators, their base salaries and their actual salaries, including overtime payments, bonuses and payments for additional duties, coaching or sponsoring teams, clubs or other activities.”

Blog:

A resident made a right-to-know request for administrative payroll/salary information.  This information was presented in previous posts:

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/06/fort-cherry-school-board-using-taxpayer.html

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/10/whats-up-with-w-2s.html

On February 23, 2012, Judge Robert Simpson of Commonwealth Court overturned the Court of Common Pleas order to release the W-2s and 1099s of FC administrators

Judge Simpson’s opinion can be found here:  http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1038CD11_2-23-12.pdf

This is a win for MB&M, the school board, and Dinnen, but a loss for the taxpayers.  Thousands of taxpayer dollars were expended to keep administrative compensation information from the public – something that we, as FC taxpayers, have a right to know.

Trib’s RTK:

2.      “Names of district employees or board members permitted to sign checks.”

Blog:

Questionable checks were presented in a previous post:  http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/07/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-email-me.html

Trib’s RTK:

3.      “Names of district employees or board members who are bonded, those bond amounts and the annual costs of those bonds to the district.”

Blog:

Questions about the bonding were presented in a previous post:  http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/10/fc-school-board-practicing-prudent.html

Trib’s RTK:

4.      “Line item budgets showing actual revenues and all expenditures, including all checks written for the 2005-2006, 2006-07, 2007-2008, 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.”

Blog:

Questionable accounting practices have been brought to light in this blog using some of the very same documentation the Trib is requesting.

The documentation shows that Dinnen, Sroka, Craig, and Jacoby have been very creative with the accounting codes.

Could it be that the release of “line item budgets showing actual revenues and all expenditures” would completely expose how they have been abusing taxpayer money?

------------

The Trib is requesting public documents about public money – our tax dollars.

Why has the District spent well over $12,000 of our tax dollars to fight the release of this public information?

What is in that public documentation that the District does not want to Trib and the public to see?

What is the District trying to hide?



------------

Affadavit from the Trib’s certified computer examiner:



This Post Brought to You by the Letter "Q" and the Letter "A" and the Number "500"

Questioning . . .

     . . . the Audit . . . and

Questioning. . .

     . . . the Quarterback Club’s $500 check  . . .

Fort Cherry School Board

• Date: Jan. 24

• Action: The board unanimously approved, with one director absent, a motion to install aisle rails on the high school gymnasium bleachers, provided the cost does not exceed $6,500. The board tabled a motion to approve the results of a workplace dynamics survey while directors collect more information.

The board also tabled action on a request from Dawson Geophysical Company to conduct geophysical survey operations on school property. Directors expressed concerns regarding legal issues, such as clearances for Dawson employees and the timely removal of equipment from school property, business manager Paul Sroka said.

A request for the school's participation in a University of Pittsburgh friendship study failed to receive a second motion.

• Next meeting: 7:30 p.m. Feb. 21 at the elementary school library

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/01-27-2012-meeting-roundup

The Observer failed to send a reporter to the meeting and simply contacted Sroka for the meeting highlights.

This post will give you more meeting highlights as well as clarify the information provided in the article.

·        Remarks by Visitors:

Several residents admonished administrators and Board members for their behavior at the Committee Meeting of January 17, 2012.

During the Committee Meeting, the public saw accusations fly, especially during the “Board Reports” segment of the meeting.

·        Personnel and Curriculum:  Workplace Dynamics Survey.

Board President Chris Lauff asked Dinnen to provide the Board with the results of the survey for the January 17th Committee Meeting.  Dinnen gave the Board an undated letter from Workplace Dynamics instead.  When further questioned by Lauff, Dinnen became belligerent.  It could be said that Dinnen’s replies were full of disrespect and insubordination.  Lauff then asked Dinnen to contact Workplace Dynamics for a summary report for regular Board meeting of January 23, 2012.  It appears that the Board members were given something from the company at this meeting, but not what they were looking for.  The survey was discussed in a previous post – “What Changed?” (http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-changed.html). 

·        Finance:  Fiscal Audit

The Board tabled action on the approval of the fiscal audit which was presented by Mr. Cypher at the January 17th meeting.

The Board voted to table approval until they receive Cypher’s explanation of the transfer of money out of the Capital Reserve Fund into a “Committed Fund”.  This transfer was reported to the state in 2011 by Dinnen, Sroka, and B. Miller, but occurred without Board approval or official Board resolution as required by law.  This was discussed in the January 15th post, “A Shell Game?”  (http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2012/01/shell-game.html)

Take a look at the discussion – you will see that the action befuddled Brungo . . . who, by the way, clearly stumbles over the definition of “resolution” . . . and take note of the three people responsible for the move . . . B. Miller does not show up for the meeting . . . Sroka hides his face . . . Dinnen flees from the room.



Also disclosed in the audit presentation at the January 17th meeting . . . Cypher reported that the District ordered the football uniforms last year without going through a proper bid process - just as discussed in a previous post - “FC Tax Dollars - Being Used for Our Children's Education or Administrative Perks?” (http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/09/fc-tax-dollars-being-used-for-our.html)

·      Policy:  Creation of a Committee to Review Policy 249 –  Bullying/Cyberbullying.

Board member Darnley will chair the committee.

·         Policy:  Anti-Cyberbullying/Bullying Resolution

This item did not appear on the agenda until the day of the meeting.  Board members expressed concerns that the resolution violates the First Amendment.  The language of the resolution encompasses not just students, but school board members, staff, and faculty.  The resolution was not read in the public portion of the meeting.  Copies were not provided for public viewing.  Several board members felt that the resolution should be incorporated into the policy, not passed as a separate item.  As with other items that have appeared on the agenda at the last minute, this item was pushed through for a vote and was approved, despite concerns.  Board member Jamie White stated that he would send a copy of the resolution to his constituents; however, a copy has not been released to the public.

·     Miscellaneous:  Request from Dawson Geophysical Company to conduct geophysical survey operations proposed to cross Fort Cherry School properties.

This was tabled to give the solicitor time to negotiate with Dawson.

·        Bills for Payment:

Board members questioned a $500 payment made to the Fort Cherry Quarterback Club. 

Sroka explained that the payment was for “parking services” provided by the Quarterback Club.  He went on to say that if the Quarterback Club did not provide this service, the custodians would have to do so at time-and-a-half pay.  According to Sroka, the money is returned to the school in the form of equipment donations.

------------

This practice appears to occur yearly. 

These checks were mailed directly to the home of the President of the Quarterback Club, who was a member of the School Board at that time.

Check #206207 was signed by the former President of the School Board, who is also a member of the Quarterback Club and related to the Quarterback Club President.

Let’s take a look at the invoice for the $750 “payment” shown on Check #206207:

Sroka used this expenditure code on the bill.

10-3250 001 000 1000 390

Here’s that expenditure code as defined in the PDE’s Chart of Accounts:

10  - GENERAL FUND

3250 - SCHOOL SPONSORED ATHLETICS

School sponsored activities under the guidance and supervision of LEA staff, designed to provide opportunities to students to pursue various aspects of physical education.

390  - OTHER PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Expenditures by the LEA for these services not classified elsewhere in the 300 series of objects.

The PDE defines Object 300, “Purchased Professional and Technical Services” as:

300 - PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Services that by their nature require persons or firms with specialized skills and knowledge. Included are the services of architects, engineers, auditors, dentists, medical doctors, lawyers, consultants, teachers, accountants, tax collectors etc.

Purchased professional services?

The people providing the “parking service” are not paid.

It’s a group of volunteers who are recruited by the Quarterback Club to show up before the football game to direct traffic in the parking lot.

vol·un·teer (noun) somebody who works without being paid

Parking services are not required for graduations, concerts, plays, musicals, Open House, or even other sporting events - only football.

So, how is it determined that football needs parking services when all other organizations and public events do not? 

Could this be a way to justify a “donation” to the Quarterback Club?

It appears that each year, Fort Cherry taxpayers have been unknowingly donating $500 to $750 (or possibly more) to the Fort Cherry Quarterback Club.

Why does this matter?

No other FC booster club is afforded the luxury of an automatic donation every year.

If parking services are truly necessary, why not rotate the clubs or organizations that provide the volunteers to do this at the football games? 

Not every car parked is for parents or family members of football players.  People may come to the game to support the cheerleaders, band members, or majorettes; yet those boosters do not benefit from this “service”.

Finally, no matter how you label it, this “donation” or “payment” was not revealed to the public until it was questioned by Board members this year.

·         The volunteers were unaware of the donation.

·         The public was unaware of the donation.

And even though Sroka stated that the money is returned to the school in the form of equipment donations, the public has no way of knowing that.

Going back to the way the expenditure was coded . . .

By coding the bill as a “professional service” instead of a “donation”, the money budgeted for the expense was buried in over $30,000 budgeted for “professional services” . . .

. . . instead of sticking out like a sore thumb in the line item with the $4000 donation to Heritage Library . . .

. . . so members of the public would never notice or question the “donation” when looking at the budget.

It’s probably safe to say that only a handful of people were aware of the “donation”:

·         members of the Board who are also members of the Quarterback Club

·         Sroka

·         Dinnen

These “payments” have been consistently approved by the former Board.  Not one Board member abstained from the vote, not even those who had a conflict of interest.  To do so may have drawn attention and possibly revealed the deception.

Creative accounting . . .

 . . . abuse of taxpayer dollars . . . ???

This is but one example from one line item.

There are many more . . .

When working on the new budget, Board members need to look at each and every expenditure from each and every budget line item to ensure that our tax money is properly accounted for. 

To do so will require an itemized list of expenditures from each budget line item – not the total expended from each line item – an itemized list of each expenditure.

Stay tuned . . . more on the budget to follow.