Is FC Business Manager Paul R. Sroka making sound business recommendations or making a date?

"Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto announced his choice for budget director, [Edward S. Kiely] who owes the Internal Revenue Service more than $83,000 in back taxes, . . "

Gerald Shuster, a University of Pittsburgh political communications professor, said Kiely’s potential job relates to the issues about his debt.

“He’s the one who’s supposed to be the financial guru making recommendations for Peduto and the entire city,” Shuster said. “If he hasn’t made those kinds of wise decisions himself, how can he do it for the city?”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

February 7, 2014

We agree with Professor Shuster.  The same thing applies to FC and business manager Paul R. Sroka.

Why would FC hire someone to make wise decisions for the district that hasn’t made wise decisions himself?  Why was Paul R. Sroka, a man with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, hired in the first place to manage the district's money?

The business manager is involved in all things financially related to the school district.  The board of directors relies on the business manager’s input when voting on items that directly affect the staff, students, and taxpayers of the district.  Sroka’s bankruptcy was on his record long before he applied at Fort Cherry.

On January 17, 1996, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court finalized Paul Robert Sroka’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Sroka’s bankruptcy carries a 20-year disposition.

For obvious reasons, the resume Sroka submitted to Fort Cherry does not mention the bankruptcy.  Nothing on the resume would make Sroka stand out from other candidates who may have applied for the position.

However, Sroka sent a letter expressing interest in the FC Business Manager position to the school auditor Cypher & Cypher, possibly giving his resume a level of legitimacy that the other applicants lacked. 

Did Cypher meet with Sroka as he requested in the letter?  Did Cypher feel comfortable forwarding Sroka’s name on to Fort Cherry without checking into his financial background?

Once Dinnen received the letter from Cypher, he should have conducted a financial background check on Sroka and any other applicants who may have applied.  As Professor Shuster said about Kiely, “(the) potential job relates to the issues about his debt.”   Dinnen, in his capacity as superintendent, should have done his due diligence to protect the financial integrity of the district. 

Or . . . here’s something to consider . . .

Is it possible Dinnen was aware of Sroka’s bankruptcy and recommended him to the board anyway?

Is it possible that Dinnen was looking for a candidate with something to hide, just as Dinnen hid  his annulled Letter of Eligibility from the board in 1998?

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

A Chapter 7 bankruptcy would make an individual very expensive to bond.  Bonding is not a requirement of business managers in Pennsylvania, but PA School Code mandates that board secretaries must be bonded.  The business manager at FC also acts as board secretary.  FC taxpayers foot the bill for Sroka’s bond, not Sroka. 

In addition, experience has shown that Paul R. Sroka, who is dealing with his own financial difficulties, is not able to act wisely with FC finances.

This blog has shown the public many of the financial gaffes this district has endured under Paul R. Sroka including:

·       Habitual miscoding of expenses

·       Bouncing checks in the scholarship accounts and subsequently telling an outright lie to the board to hide his incompetence

·       Issuing reimbursements to fellow administrators despite the lack of proper receipts

·       Not sending items out for bid

·       Commandeering the district’s AmEx for personal unauthorized expenses

That’s just a few.

Most recently, the board relied on Sroka’s recommendation in choosing bond counsel and habitually relies on his recommendations regarding upcoming renovations.

It’s interesting that, back in March of 2010, the district fired Foreman Architects and entered a contract with a new architectural firm, Burt-Hill, for the planned renovations.  At that time, the administration was reaching for the stars and had a $58 million renovation in mind.  Consequently, Burt-Hill was handed a contract potentially worth more than $2.8 million.

The official school board minutes do not reflect any discussion about replacing the architect.  By law, such discussion is not permitted in executive session, and therefore should have been recorded in the minutes if it had occurred.

As stated above, the business manager is involved in all things financially related to the school district, and as such, is the contact person for the architectural firm.  It stands to reason that the board would rely on Sroka’s recommendation when choosing an architect.

So why was Foreman Architects suddenly replaced by Burt-Hill?

An email exchange between Paul Sroka and an employee of Burt Hill recently fell into the hands of a local taxpayer and subsequently given to the authors of this blog.   A post-it note attached to the emails posed the question:

From the email exchange, it appears Paul Sroka may have been trying to initiate a relationship with an employee of Burt Hill.  At this point, we don’t feel it’s necessary to publish all of the emails in our possession, but this exchange in particular is telling . . .

Was Paul Sroka using his influence over the board’s decision to award a multi-million dollar contract to impress a girl?????

Tsk, tsk, Paul Sroka, tsk, tsk . . .

Note the date and time of the email exchange:  March 22, 2010 at 11:19 and 11:21 a.m.  That very evening the board voted to hire Burt-Hill.  The official board minutes of March 22, 2010, reflect:

"Mr. Cechetti made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Duran, that the Board approve Burt-Hill as the Architectural Firm of record. Motion passed unanimously."

Also, think about the subject line of the emails:  “Thank You”

Why “Thank You”?

Is it possible Paul R. Sroka informed Ms. Montgomery that her firm would be awarded the contract before the board actually took the vote that evening on March 22, 2010?

Is it possible Paul R. Sroka further guaranteed Ms. Montgomery’s firm would be awarded the contract by releasing the financial details of bids supplied by other interested architectural firms to Ms. Montgomery in prior emails?

Hmmmm? . . . . 

Is FC on its way back to “Truth, Honor, and Integrity”?

The authors of this blog would like to thank the FC board for taking care of three agenda items at the January 27th meeting that will greatly impact the future direction of Fort Cherry.

Foremost was the board’s formal acceptance of Superintendent Robert W. Dinnen’s retirement.

Subsequently, and wisely, the board invoked Section 1073(b) of PA School Code which states:

By formally accepting the resignation and invoking Section 1073(b), the board fulfilled the terms of Dinnen’s contract.  Formal acceptance also ensures that the board secretary include the vote in the official minutes of the board.

Additionally the board did not renew the contract of the school auditor, Cypher and Cypher.

The motion to renew failed to get enough votes, thus opening the door for a new set of eyes to be used on Fort Cherry’s finances.

Those voting to keep the status quo and Cypher were Cindy Gaskill, Larry Heinrendt, and Jamie White.

Those voting for change by seeking proposals for a new auditor were Tina Cottril, Melinda Errett, Chris Lauff, Jodi McKay, Jeanine Miles, and JoAnne Wagner.

Although no one from the Observer-Reporter attended the meeting, it appears O-R staff writer Emily Petsko called FC’s Administrative Office after the meeting to learn some details.

 http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20140130/NEWS01/140139979#.UuuDVn-9KSM

The O-R quotes Dinnen as saying:

“We’ve advanced the academic achievement of our students, instituted numerous professional development activities for our staff, created a collaborative process with parents and moved technology to state of the art … and went from $20 million in debt to debt-free.”

Let’s think about that statement.

Dinnen:  “advanced the academic achievement of our students”

That’s an easy claim to make, but do the test scores back up the claim?

Joanne Wagner created a blog while running a successful campaign for school board. 

http://wagner4schools.wordpress.com/

In Ms. Wagner’s April 30, 2013, post, she pointed out in 2013 that FC is not “advancing the academic achievement of our students” as Dinnen claims.  She references the Pittsburgh Business Times 2013 School Guide which shows FC’s statewide rank dropped:

Dinnen:  “created a collaborative process with parents

Typically, Dinnen spins things to make himself sound and look good.  A man who has no trouble claiming another's career and achievements as his own (as he did with Lt. Col. Yelk and Mattoon JROTC**), most likely would have no qualms using another's ideas and claiming them as his own.

**see http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/06/pdes-clerical-error-part-6-teaching-by.html

Interestingly, Ms. Wagner also states in her 4/30/13 post, , “. . . we need to acknowledge our problems in order to start a dialogue in the community about how to fix them. . . . This is a shared responsibility between the community and the school.  We can solve these types of problems by developing collaborative relationships and working together, not ignoring them or fighting about them.”

Dinnen:  “instituted numerous professional development activities for our staff”

“Professional development” for the administrators at FC seems to have taken a front seat, in front of our children’s education.  As documented in this blog, “professional development” has consisted of lavish meals, travel, and entertainment for administrators.

Under Dinnen’s tenure, the Administrative Compensation Plan (Act 93) has been modified to include a $5000 yearly bonus for a doctorate degree – a degree obtained with 100% tuition reimbursement thanks to FC taxpayers.  In addition, the Act 93 gives administrators who sign off on a grant a 5% cut, even if a teacher or parent has put the work into applying for it.  The administrator simply signs off on the application, and 5% goes to the administrator.

http://www.fortcherry.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=258&dataid=332&FileName=Act_93.pdf

Dinnen:  “moved technology to state of the art”

Sure, FC has state of the art technology, but is it curriculum-driven?  Former board member Leann Darnley asked that very question last May when the board was considering technology purchases.  Administrators did not respond.  Has FC been purchasing state of the art technology for the sake of bragging rights, or has an educational need truly been established?

Dinnen:  “$20 million in debt to debt-free”

FC would have paid off the $20 million debt last year, with or without Dinnen at the helm.  The district took out a bond to renovate years ago and was required to make a $1.6 million yearly payment.   Furthermore, FC is not debt-free.  The district took out a $4.5 million dollar bond almost immediately after paying off the old debt and the board is discussing the possibility of increasing that bond to $31 million. 

Also of interest in the O-R, was this quote from business manager Paul Sroka:

“Dr. Dinnen has been very helpful to me in my professional development and mentored me in understanding school finance.”

Sroka:  “mentored me in understanding school finance”

One would think that an understanding of school finance would be a prerequisite for employment as a school business manager, not something you learn on the job.  Did Dinnen’s mentoring include lessons on dubious coding of inappropriate expenditures and commandeering the district’s corporate AmEx card?

--------

With the board’s decisions to hire a new superintendent and retain a new auditor, we are cautiously optimistic that FC is on its way back to “Truth, Honor, and Integrity”.

This board faces many challenges.  Proposals from auditing firms need to be considered.  Decisions over the renovations are looming, along with a decision to increase the bond to as much as $31 million.  Hopefully prudence and good judgment will prevail.