"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?
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.
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? . . . .
