As taxpayers know by now, the
forensic audit was not approved by the board.
This blog applauds the efforts
by Board Directors Chris Lauff, Jodi McKay and Leann Darnley to initiate an
outside investigation of Fort Cherry’s finances. All three voted for a forensic audit. However, Tina Cottrill, Melinda Errett , Elmo
Cecchetti, Brant Miller, Larry Heirendt, and Jamie White voted no.
For the past year the board has
been mulling over the events surrounding the misuse of the district’s AmEx credit
card by its Business Manager, Paul Sroka.
His direct supervisor, Robert Dinnen, did a shoddy job of investigating
the incident and still has not provided the board with evidence that no
district funds were spent to pay off the card.
Even if Sroka repaid
the district for the inappropriate purchases, he still acted inappropriately
and deceived the public and the board.
So why didn’t Cottrill, Errett,
and the others vote for a forensic audit when there is clearly enough evidence
of wrong-doing to warrant a forensic audit and outside investigation?
What would make the
board members vote against doing the right thing?
Possibly, those who voted no
fall into one of two groups:
- Complacent
- Afraid
The board, with legitimate
concerns that should have resulted in a forensic audit, failed the taxpayers by
voting down the motion.
Some of those who voted no may
have done so because they have had positions on the board during the years of
Dinnnen and Sroka's tenures. This list
would include Cecchetti, Heinrendt, Miller, and White.
In their complacency, could
it be that they would be held culpable for any financial indiscretions that occurred during their time in office?
This blog has discussed the
board’s complacency in previous posts, but afraid?
What could board
members possibly be afraid of?
That can be best summed-up in a
quote from PSEA Attorney Todd Parks. In
1997, Parks represented New Brighton School District librarian Marjorie McNie
in a federal civil rights lawsuit against Dinnen, who at that time, was acting
superintendent of New Brighton. Speaking
of NB board members and Dinnen, Parks said:
It may be that Dinnen has
brought his habit of using taxpayer money
“to pursue . . . personal and political
vendettas against anyone who has the courage to challenge . . . numerous
violations of laws, regulations and policies” to Fort Cherry and that Sroka
is following his lead.
Since obtaining seats on the
board, FC board members Cottrill, Errett, Darnley, Lauff, and McKay have been
questioning Dinnen and Sroka’s actions.
So, why would Cottril and Errett
vote down a forensic audit?
We can only assume that
Dinnen, Sroka, or both have threatened the board with legal action, possibly
for workplace harassment, if a forensic audit is pursued.
Did Cottril and Errett succumb
to Dinnen and /or Sroka's threats?
Dinnen and Sroka are the two
with the most to lose if an investigation ensues. If they have nothing to hide, why are they
not welcoming an audit? If they are
innocent of any wrongs, an audit would clear their names.
All discussion surrounding the
forensic audit occurred in executive session, so the authors of this blog do
not have proof that the board members were threatened. However, the board’s inaction speaks for
itself.
With all evidence pointing to
the need for a forensic audit, for what other reason would the motion fail?
Even if you put the
credit card issue aside, the district desperately needs a forensic audit.
Here’s one recent incident that
illustrates that need:
At the August 26, 2013, meeting,
board member Darnley asked Sroka about a discrepancy
between the Bills for Ratification and the July 2013 “Account Summaries” regarding
the T Lee Carter Fund. (Sroka’s “Account
Summaries” page can be found here: http://www.fortcherry.org/Page/11)
Sroka
told Darnley that the discrepancy occurred because one of the checks did not clear and
that there was a fee to transfer the money from the associated CD.
A fee to transfer money from a CD? Really????!!!!!
With Darnley’s prompting, board treasurer
Errett looked into the matter. Turns out
the fees were actually OVERDRAFT fees due to insufficient funds in the checking
account.
So, Sroka, who is in charge of millions of our tax dollars,
bounced a check.
Sroka, caught in the lie, changed his
story and blamed Washington Federal for not transferring the money from the CD
in a timely manner.
Even if that were true, wouldn’t a competent business manager ensure that the
money was transferred before cutting a check?
Furthermore, if you think this was a
one-time occurrence, documentation proves otherwise. Shown below are bank statements from 2010 and
2011 which show bounced checks from both the T. Lee Carter and the FFA Funds.
Record keeping , such as maintaining a checking account,
is taught to FC students in Financial Math.
Debt and credit cards are also part of the curriculum. Perhaps Sroka should sit in on a few classes.
