Multiple news sources have reported on recent events at
Greensburg Catholic High School.
Financial irregularities were found, and the principal of the school was
placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired. WTAE covered the story on October 11 (http://www.wtae.com/news/local/westmoreland/greensburg-central-catholic-high-school-principal-is-out/-/10932546/22093626/-/5af53mz/-/index.html).
Financial irregularities have also been found at Fort
Cherry. Let’s compare how the two
schools have handled the issue:
Greensburg Catholic:1. Financial irregularities discovered.
2. The offending administrator was placed on administrative leave.
3. A forensic audit was conducted by an outside and independent auditing firm.
4. Information was gathered from school employees
5. The offending administrator was questioned.
6. The offending administrator was fired.
This process started in late September 2013 and wrapped up October 10, 2013.
Fort Cherry:
1. Financial irregularities discovered. (An administrator used the district’s credit card for unauthorized personal purchases after being instructed by the superintendent to cancel the district’s credit card.)
2. The offending administrator was investigated by superintendent.
3. The superintendent claims that the incident was thoroughly investigated and that the offending administrator was reprimanded. (Note that the board, which is in charge of both the offending administrator and superintendent, was not consulted as to what the reprimand should be.)
4. None of the documentation used by the superintendent in the investigation was given to the board.
5. One board member, Leann Darnley, requested the documentation be provided by the superintendent.
6. The superintendent refused the request.
7. Board member Darnley submitted a right-to-know (RTK) request for the documentation used in the investigation.
8. The offending administrator (who is also the RTK Officer) denied the RTK request.
9. Board member Darnley appealed the denial.
10. Taxpayers burdened with legal fees incurred by offending administrator/RTK officer in the appeal process.
11. Board member Darnley won the appeal.
12. The offending administrator handed over some, but not all of the documents as required by law.
13. Board member Darnley attempted to show RTK documents to fellow board members.
14. Only one fellow board member, Chris Lauff, viewed the RTK
15. FC citizen submitted right-to-know request for the very same documents requested by board member Darnley.
16. Offending administrator (who is also RTK Officer) provided different documents to FC citizen than those provided to board member Darnley. When FC citizen asked for the rest of the documentation, the offending administrator denied their existence. According to the offending administrator, the documents could not be found in school records and could not be provided by AmEx.
17. FC citizen appealed the denial.
18. Taxpayers burdened with legal fees incurred by offending administrator/RTK officer in the appeal process.
19. FC citizen won the appeal.
20. Offending administrator handed over some, but not all of the documents as required by law.
21. FC citizen attempted to show RTK documents to board members
22. Only three board members agreed to view the RTK (Darnley, Lauff, and Jodi McKay).
23. Board member Lauff made copies of the documents for ALL board members and suggested the district initiate an outside investigation at the September 16, 2013, board meeting, but the board refused to take action on an outside investigation.
24. Board members were given ample opportunity to see the financial irregularities with their own eyes.
. .. and
. . . and
. . . and
. . . NOTHING . . .
This process started in October 2012 and still is not resolved.
1. Financial irregularities discovered. (An administrator used the district’s credit card for unauthorized personal purchases after being instructed by the superintendent to cancel the district’s credit card.)
2. The offending administrator was investigated by superintendent.
3. The superintendent claims that the incident was thoroughly investigated and that the offending administrator was reprimanded. (Note that the board, which is in charge of both the offending administrator and superintendent, was not consulted as to what the reprimand should be.)
4. None of the documentation used by the superintendent in the investigation was given to the board.
5. One board member, Leann Darnley, requested the documentation be provided by the superintendent.
6. The superintendent refused the request.
7. Board member Darnley submitted a right-to-know (RTK) request for the documentation used in the investigation.
8. The offending administrator (who is also the RTK Officer) denied the RTK request.
9. Board member Darnley appealed the denial.
10. Taxpayers burdened with legal fees incurred by offending administrator/RTK officer in the appeal process.
11. Board member Darnley won the appeal.
12. The offending administrator handed over some, but not all of the documents as required by law.
13. Board member Darnley attempted to show RTK documents to fellow board members.
14. Only one fellow board member, Chris Lauff, viewed the RTK
15. FC citizen submitted right-to-know request for the very same documents requested by board member Darnley.
16. Offending administrator (who is also RTK Officer) provided different documents to FC citizen than those provided to board member Darnley. When FC citizen asked for the rest of the documentation, the offending administrator denied their existence. According to the offending administrator, the documents could not be found in school records and could not be provided by AmEx.
17. FC citizen appealed the denial.
18. Taxpayers burdened with legal fees incurred by offending administrator/RTK officer in the appeal process.
19. FC citizen won the appeal.
20. Offending administrator handed over some, but not all of the documents as required by law.
21. FC citizen attempted to show RTK documents to board members
22. Only three board members agreed to view the RTK (Darnley, Lauff, and Jodi McKay).
23. Board member Lauff made copies of the documents for ALL board members and suggested the district initiate an outside investigation at the September 16, 2013, board meeting, but the board refused to take action on an outside investigation.
24. Board members were given ample opportunity to see the financial irregularities with their own eyes.
. .. and
. . . and
. . . and
. . . NOTHING . . .
This process started in October 2012 and still is not resolved.
As elected
representatives, board members are to model responsible school governance and
leadership. Board members are duty bound
to ensure the fiscal integrity of our school district.
When the
financial irregularities with the AmEx card account were discovered, was the
offending administrator placed on administrative leave? NO.
Questions remain
unanswered.
Does the
board know why the offending administrator was asked to cancel the AmEx card in
the spring of 2012? NO.
Has the
board been given PROOF that school
(taxpayer) funds were not used to pay for the personal purchases made by the
offending administrator on the district’s AmEx card?
NO.
Has the
board been given PROOF that all
district credit cards have been cancelled?
NO.
Taxpayers deserve answers.
The offending administrator used the
district’s credit card for unauthorized personal purchases after being
instructed by the superintendent to cancel the card.
In any other school district this would have been swiftly taken care of,
as was done at Greensburg Catholic.
This has
been going on for an entire year, and the board
. . .
. .
. has done NOTHING!
The board, in its complacency and
inaction, is setting a precedent, making it possible to steal FC’s credit.
In addition, the board failed to
adopt a comprehensive credit card policy as recommended by the auditor, opting
instead to add one sentence to an unrelated policy as recommended by the superintendent.
The superintendent is protecting the
offending administrator rather than our school district.
Due to complacency and inaction, board
members are neglecting their duty to ensure the fiscal integrity of our school
district.
Fort Cherry School Board members,
past (including Cindy Gaskill who is attempting to get voted back in) and
present, have failed the taxpayers.
The board has failed to adopt a comprehensive
credit card policy and failed to take any action concerning the offending administrator
who made unauthorized personal purchases with a district credit card.
The board is responsible.
Several
board members have made it clear that the board will not spend money on an
outside investigation and forensic audit, claiming the district does not have
extra money to spend.
No extra
money to spend? The authors of this blog
disagree.
Money was
“found” in the budget to defend the district in the lawsuit filed by current board
President Jamie White demanding district-wide elections.
Money was
“found” in the budget for past board President Brant Miller to purchase new
football uniforms that were not budgeted for and not properly put out for bid.
And, money was “found” just last year to pay for
$22,000 worth of meals and miscellanies that were BUDGETED AT ZERO DOLLARS IN
THE 2012-2013 BUDGET.
(The budget
pages referenced below can be found at the end of this post.)
If money can
be pulled from a “tight” budget to pay for administrative wants, then money can
be pulled from a “tight” budget for something this district desperately
needs: an independent investigation and forensic audit.
The
complacency must end.
Each and
every member of the board who has “done nothing” is responsible for the gross
misuse of Fort Cherry’s credit and the other financial irregularities that have
been pointed out in this blog.
Fort Cherry needs an independent investigation and
forensic audit.
