FC's Business Manager - $82,411 Salary, 2 Assistants, and a Team of Solicitors. . . Reprehensible!

On the September 13th blog post, a number of checks were put up to illustrate the board’s blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility by allowing substantial expenditures for administrative and board travel and perks.  (http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/09/fc-tax-dollars-being-used-for-our.html)

The board, under Dinnen and Sroka’s direction, cut vital programs and furloughed dedicated teachers due to “budget cuts”.

Programs and teachers were cut; meanwhile the administration and board spent $27,917.13 in travel and perks in three months.

For comparison, a starting teacher at FC earns $32,000 per year.

That’s reprehensible, but that is not the point of this blog post.

The checks that were put up on that post were obtained through a right-to-know (RTK) request to the district for district bank statements.  (All manner of financial information is public under the RTK law.)

Business manager, Paul Sroka, is the district’s Open Records Officer.  All RTK requests must be submitted to him.

It is Sroka’s job to determine if the documents are public in nature and provide them to the requester (for a fee) within a state mandated time frame.

As is his right by law, Sroka habitually invokes “a thirty-day extension for legal review, possible redaction and location of any records that may have been moved off-site due to a non-current status”.

The documents are reviewed by the solicitor.

Tax dollars pay for the legal review.

As usual, Sroka invoked the thirty-day extension for the bank statement RTK request.

Some of you may have noticed that the September 13th post has been altered.

The checks obtained through this RTK request revealed the addresses of school employees.  Those addresses have since been redacted from the checks.

According to the PA Office of Open Records, public school employee addresses are not to be released.  This is by order of the PA Supreme Court.  https://www.dced.state.pa.us/public/oor/fd/20101102_Supreme_Court_Inj.pdf

Even after legal review (at taxpayers’ expense) the checks were given to the requester with the addresses of the employees intact.

The redactions that now appear on the post were done by a private citizen, not by Sroka.

Sroka habitually passes RTK requests on to the solicitor for review and guidance at taxpayers’ expense, when he could easily obtain the same guidance from the Office of Open Records by phone call or website visit for FREE.  (http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/open_records/4434)

In fact, the information about public employee addresses is on the Office of Open Record’s home page in big red letters – it’s pretty hard to miss . . .

Home Address Advisory - Supreme Court

Sroka is paid $82,411 per year (not counting additional perks) and has a team of solicitors to back him up.

All that help and Sroka still got it wrong.

To uphold the Supreme Court’s injunction, a private citizen had to redact the information.

That’s reprehensible, and that is the point of this blog post.

___________________________________________________________________

Hot Off the Press!

Trisha Craig, Director of Curriculum will not be at work the beginning of next week.

She’s on the list of attendees for the 3rd Annual ShaleNET Workforce Forum which is being held in Altoona.  (http://www.cvent.com/events/marcellus-shalenet-workforce-forum/attendees-3c314d047df84acaacfba7e8cf73b200.aspx)

Here’s the description from the website:

3rd Annual ShaleNET Workforce Forum - will be held on September 19-20, 2011 at the Blair County Convention Center (Altoona, PA) and is being organized by the Marcellus Shale Education and Training Center. The ShaleNET Workforce Forum is a multi-state conference designed to assist high schools, careeer and technical centers, community colleges, universities and government agencies in building a strong local natural gas workforce pipeline.  (http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Pages/UpcomingEvents.aspx)

The 3rd Annual ShaleNET Workforce Forum, Linking Talent to Opportunity promises to offer nationally recognized speakers on workforce development, experts on shale gas development, exciting opportunities for hands-on education, and the chance to receive new curriculum hot off the press.  (http://www.cvent.com/events/marcellus-shalenet-workforce-forum/event-summary-3c314d047df84acaacfba7e8cf73b200.aspx)

Wow, preparing our high-school students to enter the natural gas work force and new curriculum hot off the press!  How exciting!

Wait a minute. . .

Why would Craig go in search of new curriculum when we couldn’t afford to keep what we had in place?

Board member, Bruce Sharpnack pleaded with the public at a recent meeting, asking residents and taxpayers to donate $1,000,000 to the district.  (That’s not a typo - one million dollars.)

Why?  Is the money needed to cover the cost of sending administrators and board members on extravagant trips, well out of FC’s budget?

The board just approved cutting dedicated teachers.

Who will teach this new hot off the press curriculum?

The board just approved cutting vital programs - Reading Recovery, Drivers Education, Media, Elementary Music, High School Library and Jr. High Guidance.

These programs and teachers were cut by official board resolution filed with the Department of Education.

Drivers Ed, which was cut, had approximately 100 students.  Aside from teaching our teens how to be better and safer drivers, this course gave many parents a break in their car insurance . . . GONE!

The high school Library, which was cut, affected the entire junior/senior high school.  Now teachers are made to take shifts filling in as a librarian instead of teaching their subject of expertise . . . GONE!

The media program was cut along with the media teacher . . . GONE!

OOPS, WAIT . . . IT’S BACK . . .

The board brought back Media with a new teacher. This should please board member Jamie White, whose two sons make up one-fourth of the class of eight.  Three others are also seniors, leaving only three students to proceed with this 4-year progressive course.

Western Area Vo-Tech prepares FC students to enter the work force.  A Vo-Tech representative, Tim Angert, is also on the list of attendees.  Why should FC send Craig? 

3rd Annual ShaleNET Workforce Forum – cost of attendance:

·        Registration:  $225.00

·        Lodging:  $94.00 per night (according to the website, a block of rooms has been reserved for event registrants at a rate of $94.00 for single or double occupancy)

·        Gas, Mileage, and Meals:   ?????

·        New Curriculum, hot off the press:   ?????

Cost to taxpayers:  at the very least $400.

Benefit to Fort Cherry students:  ?????

Vital programs and dedicated teachers cut, yet the administration spends money on this???

Where’s the accountability?

And why are the board members permitting our money to be spent this way?

Well, well, well . . . Avella Listened!

As reported in today’s Observer-Reporter, Avella hired a new superintendent.

This line is particularly interesting:

“The board also previously discussed the potential consolidation of administrative services with Fort Cherry School District, but no such partnership came to fruition.”

On May 20^th this blog asked the following questions:

Is Fort Cherry being fair to Avella with full disclosure, so Avella can explore other options?

Has Fort Cherry offered its superintendent’s resume and employment history to Avella?

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/05/fc-avella-full-disclosure-proceed-with.html

At the time, it was doubtful that the Fort Cherry would share Dinnen’s resume and employment history with Avella; so a resident did.

Avella school board members were made aware of this blog.

In addition, the evidence that was given to board members Ray Miller and Brant Miller, evidence the Millers chose to ignore, was given to the Avella School District.

It appears that Avella chose to hire a legally and truthfully certified candidate who went through the proper channels to obtain her superintendent certification.

It appears that Avella listened.

FC Tax Dollars - Being Used for Our Children's Education or Administrative Perks?

The Board recognizes its responsibility to the taxpayers of the district to be sure that public monies expended by the school district are utilized for the furtherance of pupil education in a manner that will ensure full value to the taxpayers, and that adequate constraints and records are established to ensure that end.

The Board has the authority and responsibility to prepare the budget, approve bids and pass upon each expenditure of the district.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 601

SECTION: FINANCES

TITLE: OBJECTIVES

ADOPTED: March 27, 1995

http://www.fortcherry.org/170310597212240/lib/170310597212240/601_Objectives.pdf

During the spring budget hearings, Dinnen stated that the $10,000 allotted in the budget for football uniforms would be cut.  Also in attendance at the budget hearing:

·        Paul Sroka, FC Business Manager

·        Brant Miller, Board President and member of the Quarterback Club

·        Ray Miller, Board Member and member of the Quarterback Club

All of them were aware that the order had been placed months earlier, most likely as early as January.

At the date of the meeting, the uniforms were already in the midst of the manufacturing process, well past the cut-off date for cancellation

Sroka and the Millers were allegedly involved in the ordering process from the beginning.  None of them spoke up at the meeting to correct Dinnen's promise to cut the uniform money from the budget.

Instead of taking responsibility for placing an order without board approval, Sroka chose to deny that an order had been placed.  Dinnen and the Millers went along with the deception.

The uniforms arrived at the school at 2:58 p.m., just shy of the 3:00 quitting time for non-administrative staff.

Had the uniforms arrived after 3:00, it is feasible that they would have been accepted and not "returned".

Because they did arrive before 3:00, and were received by non-administrative staff, someone had to be held responsible.

Sroka blamed the Athletic Director for the error.  Absurd, considering the Athletic Director would never be given the authority to place a verbal order without authorization from Dinnen or Sroka.

In addition, board member Jamie White let it slip at the August 22 board meeting that the uniforms actually cost $13,000.

PA Municipal Law mandates that purchases of over $10,000 must go out for bid. 

24 P.S. § 8-807.1

Title 24 P.S. Education

Chapter 1. Public School Code of 1949 (Refs & Annos)

Article VIII. Books, Furniture and Supplies

§ 8-807.1. Purchase of supplies

(a) All furniture, equipment, textbooks, school supplies and other appliances for the use of the public schools, costing ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more shall be purchased by the board of school directors only after due advertisement as hereinafter provided. Supplies costing ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more shall be purchased by the board of school directors only after public notice has been given by advertisement once a week for three (3) weeks in not less than two (2) newspapers of general circulation. In any district where no newspaper is published, said notice may, in lieu of such publication, be posted in at least five (5) public places.

Fort Cherry District Policy mandates that competitive bids must be obtained when required by law. 

It is the policy of the Board to obtain competitive bids for products and services where such bids are required by law or where such bids may be believed to bring about a cost saving to the school district.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 610

SECTION: FINANCES

TITLE: PURCHASES SUBJECT TO BID

ADOPTED: March 27, 1995

http://fortcherry.schoolwires.net/fortcherry/lib/fortcherry/_shared/District_Policies/600_Finances/610-Purchases_Subject_to_Bid.1.pdf

School boards do not have the authority to override municipal law.

As discussed in previous posts, the board, under Dinnen and Sroka’s guidance, appears to have no problem ignoring PA municipal law (PA school code) when it suits them.  It comes as no surprise that the uniforms were never advertised for bid.

To review:

ü The uniforms were ordered without board approval.

ü The uniforms were ordered without going out for bid.

In the August 25 article that appeared in the Observer-Reporter, Sroka claims:

"Century Sports, the vendor, was notified in April when funding issues arose and an oral cancellation was called in to Ripon Athletics, but the order was accidentally processed."



Paul Sroka, FC Business Manager

An oral cancellation?

Sroka made a phone call to cancel a $13,000 custom order?!

Shouldn’t he have followed up with an e-mail or written direction to cancel such an order - just to make sure that it was understood and there was “no room for miscommunication”? 

Shouldn’t the board have requested proof that an attempt to cancel the order was made?

Furthermore, if board member Chris Lauff had not challenged the $10,000 allotted for the uniforms in the first place, would any “attempt” have been made to cancel the order?

Sroka claims the uniforms were "cancelled" in April because funding issues arose; the very funding issues that the administration exploited to furlough dedicated teachers and eliminate vital programs.

However, despite the funding issues, our tax dollars were spent on the following expenditures in April, May, and June:

·   Administrative Travel and Expenses.  These expenditures were not discussed in public and were not approved separately by the board.

• Seven Springs:  $320.00

• Hilton, New York City:  $9502.74

• Enterprise Rent-a-Car:  $703.84

•  Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia:  $4,406.40

• Smith:  $529.14

•  Dinnen:  $450.10

• Craig:  $599.37

•  Dinnen:  $369.40

•  Craig:  $272.61

•  Sroka:  $2203.00

•  Dinnen:  $358.28

•  Frioni:  $3150.00

•  Jacoby:  $564.02

•  OKorn:  $1001.52

•  Craig:  $1001.52

•  Craig:  $453.30

•  Sroka:  $393.85

·       The public was informed of board member Bruce Sharpnack’s trip to attend the National School Boards Association’s Annual Conference (April 9-11) in San Francisco, after the fact.  This trip was not pre-approved by the board.

• Sharpnack:  $1197.49

• Sharpnack:  $440.55

This article from the Observer-Reporter states the board-approved amount for seminars and conferences.  Keep in mind that the Observer contacts Sroka for FC information reported in the Meeting Roundup.  Since the publication of this article, the cost of seminars and conferences has been increased to $900.

=============================================

Meeting roundup

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

Observer-Reporter (Washington, PA)-July 23, 2009

       Fort Cherry School Board

       * Date: July 20

       * Action: Directors gave approval for board members and administrators to attend seminars and conferences during the 2009-10 school year as long as the cost does not exceed $800. If the cost is more than $800, it must be approved separately by board.

       * Discussion: If the weather cooperates, the high school roof project should be complete before the Aug. 11 deadline.

       The earthwork has been completed on the practice field.

       * Next meeting: 7:30 p.m. Aug. 17 in the elementary center library

=============================================

Under Dinnen and Sroka’s direction, the district cut vital programs, dedicated teachers, bus runs, and bus drivers because “funding issues arose”; all of which affect our children.

At the same time, gratuitous expenses for administrators and board members were approved for payment.

As stated in FC District Policy 601, the board is entrusted with our tax dollars to educate our children.

Where’s the accountability?

The Board recognizes its responsibility to the taxpayers of the district to be sure that public monies expended by the school district are utilized for the furtherance of pupil education in a manner that will ensure full value to the taxpayers, and that adequate constraints and records are established to ensure that end.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 601

The Cost of the Loss of Truth, Honor, and Integrity

Any resident or community group shall have the right to present a request, suggestion or complaint concerning district personnel, the program, or the operations of the district.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 906

SECTION: COMMUNITY

TITLE: PUBLIC COMPLAINTS

ADOPTED: March 27, 1995

http://fortcherry.schoolwires.net/fortcherry/lib/fortcherry/_shared/District_Policies/900_Community/906-Public_Complaints.1.pdf

The Superintendent may prepare guidelines for the administration of the school district which are not inconsistent with statutes or regulations of the State Board and are dictated by the policies of this Board and which shall be binding on the employees of this district and the students in the schools of this district when issued.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 003

SECTION: LOCAL BOARD PROCEDURES

TITLE: FUNCTIONS

ADOPTED: March 27, 1995

http://fortcherry.schoolwires.net/fortcherry/lib/fortcherry/_shared/District_Policies/000_Local_Board_Procedures/003-Functions.1.pdf

“Any candidate's misstatement of fact material to qualifications for employment or the determination of salary shall be considered by this Board to constitute grounds for dismissal.”

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 302

EMPLOYMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT/

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

ADOPTED: March 27, 1995

http://fortcherry.schoolwires.net/fortcherry/lib/fortcherry/_shared/District_Policies/300_Administrative_Employees/302-Employ_of_Supt-Asst_Supt.1.pdf

FC district policy states that complaints against an employee of the district shall be brought before the board and handled according to Policy 906.

FC district policy states that in the case of a complaint directed toward an administrative staff member, the general procedure specified in Part A of Policy 906, shall be followed. The complaint shall be discussed, initially, with the person toward whom it is directed and if a satisfactory resolution is not achieved at this level, the matter shall be brought, as required, to higher levels in accordance with the organization chart of the school district, terminating with the School Board.

FC district policy states that misstatement of fact during the hiring process constitutes grounds for dismissal.

FC district policy states that the board and employees are bound by policy.

May 2010:  As stated in the last post, board members Ray Miller and Brant Miller were personally handed documentation, including documentation from Mattoon, showing Dinnen’s misstatements of fact.  The resident was assured by the Millers that they would take care of the matter.

August 2010:  Having heard nothing from the Millers or the Board, the resident stood before the school board at the August 16 meeting and informed them of that fact.  The resident even offered to meet with Dinnen to discuss the matter.

Here are the resident’s thoughts on Fort Cherry Policy 906 and the information that was personally handed to Ray Miller and Brant Miller:

“As far as policy 906, it merely states that any resident has the right to present a complaint with regard to district personnel and that a fair and impartial manner should be followed by the board (and its solicitor) when seeking the truth (my words).

It continues with the step that the super would be referred the complaint - but what does a resident do when the complaint is about the super?

What does the resident do when the resident offers to meet with the super and neither the board nor the super respond to the resident??

Another policy this current board refuses to follow or abide by!  In the end, it is ultimately up to the board for the final decision.  But what if the decision is faulty?  What if the board wasn't impartial and fair?  What if the truth was covered or the attempt was made to keep the truth from being disclosed?!

This is what the FC School Board has done.  This is what the FC administration hopes for and what the residents of the FC school district- students, staff, parents and residents have inflicted upon them.”

Was the truth covered, or an attempt made to keep the truth from being disclosed?

How could such a thing happen?

If you look at the legal bills, it appears the Millers contacted the school solicitor who proceeded to “investigate”.

Let’s take a look at those bills.

Mr. Levin was Dinnen’s attorney when he sued the PDE in an effort keep the letter of eligibility and superintendent certificate that were given to him due to a clerical error.  (Dinnen filed suit April 1997)

Mr. Levin continued to represent Dinnen when he made his appeal to the PDE’s Certification Appeal Committee.  (Dinnen’s appeal hearing was held June 3, 1998 - Dinnen was fighting for his LOE in the midst of applying to FC.  Dinnen did not disclose the appeal to the 1998 school board.)

Ms. Fullerton represented the PDE in Dinnen’s lawsuit.

Copies and excerpts of the PDE documents have appeared in previous blog posts.



These are the documents Levin received from Dinnen.

Dinnen expands on his work experience and Levin asks the PDE to “promptly issue a commission.”

Here’s more from the resident who handed the information to Ray Miller and Brant Miller.  This is the resident’s thoughts on Dinnen’s letter to Levin:

“If he had the Mattoon background and it was so integral, why wasn't it originally included?!  And according to his own testimony he had more than 40 percent of his time there! It wasn't until he applied to FC that Mattoon began to appear on his resume and has always been included in his background since then.  A claim he still makes.”

The resident is speaking of this document which Dinnen submitted to the PDE with his original application for his letter of eligibility in 1996.

Dinnen did not mention Mattoon JROTC in conjunction with his tenure at Eastern Illinois University or anywhere else in his list of professional teaching experience.





Returning to the legal bills . . . according to the bills, Brungo:

ü Talked to Levin

ü Talked to Patricia Fullerton of the PDE

ü Reviewed documentation

ü Got a release from Dinnen

ü Reviewed documentation from Levin

ü Reviewed the court documents

ü Reviewed PDE documents

ü Prepared a letter regarding the issue

Cost to taxpayers so far:  $1045.00

But wait a minute. . . where’s the charge for contacting Mattoon?

Is it possible it was a billing error?

According to Mattoon, the answer to that would be “NO”.

A Freedom of Information Act request was submitted to Mattoon by a resident of the district.  The request asked if anyone had contacted Mattoon about Dinnen (other than private citizens).

Mattoon’s response:





The July 29, 2009 FOIA request and response Mr. Skocy speaks of are shown below.

No . . . it’s not a request from the Fort Cherry School District, Brant Miller, Ray Miller, or the law firm of Maiello, Brungo & Maiello, LLP.

Brungo did not contact Mattoon.

And since there is no mention of “Mattoon” on the bills, Ray Miller and Brant Miller are well aware that he didn’t.

September 2010:  Brungo finished up the “investigation” by finalizing a letter to the resident who approached the Millers back in May, bringing the total cost to taxpayers to $1,102.00.

Here’s the letter the resident received.

Unfounded?

Of course the resident’s concerns were not confirmed.

Brungo did his best to make sure they weren’t.

Ray Miller did his best to make sure they weren’t.

Brant Miller did his best to make sure they weren’t.

Cost to taxpayers:  $1,102.00

Legally and truthfully certified teachers are gone.

Dinnen remains.

Cost to children attending FC . . . legally and truthfully certified teachers are gone . . . you can’t put a price tag on a good education.