What's Up with the Audit? Cypher to present an Audit Report on Monday, March 19, at 7:00 p.m. in the Elementary Center.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/02-29-2012-meeting-recap

Let’s take a closer look at these two paragraphs:

• Action: The board voted down a motion to approve a Cypher and Cypher audit, saying that several directors still have questions about funds previously moved from unrestricted to committed purposes.

Miller questioned why the board was prolonging discussion of the audit, pointing out the state Department of Education and the district's solicitor also reviewed the funds at issue and determined the actions taken by the previous board were sufficient.

The movement of this money was discussed in the January 15th post, “A Shell Game?”, http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2012/01/shell-game.html.

Miller states the actions taken by the previous board were sufficient; however, were they legal?

 Those actions were taken without board approval.

June 2010 – PDE-2028, 2010-2011 Final General Fund Budget, was submitted to the PDE.  Signed by B. Miller, Sroka, and Dinnen, this budget indicated the intent to transfer $707,576.54 from the Capital Reserve Fund into Reserve for Technology in the General Fund.  Other than B. Miller, it appears the remainder of the board was unaware of this planned move.

December 2010 – In a last minute item added to the agenda, the board was coerced into voting to transfer the money from the Capital Reserve Fund to Reserve for Technology in the General Fund.  This move was reported to the PDE on PDE-2028 as board approved six months earlier.  Here is an unofficial transcript of the dialog and subsequent vote from that meeting.  As you will see, members of the Board were under the impression that Cypher was to come in to explain the legality of the transfer of the funds.

School Board Meeting   12-06-10          (Fund Transfer)

Brant– Should be item 15.   It says 11 on the agenda.   That is item 15. - The action to transfer all remaining funds from the Special Revenue for Technology to the General Fund /Technology Special Reserve.  Thereby closing the Special Reserve…..thereby closing the Special Reserve for Technology Fund and establishing a Reserve for Technology in the General Fund in accordance with GASB 54. 

Sharpnack – “so move”

Brant – Motion by Dr. Sharpnack and second by Mrs. Schwab

Brant – Any questions?

Chris – Yeah … Actually this is an item that we’ve been discussing and the action was to have the auditor in to explain to us in detail about how it’s going to work…  we never had that occur.  There is still some questions by myself and I think … the treasurer… regarding the action… so I would say that we would want to defer this to a future meeting.

- Secondly I have a document; I’m not sure where it came from.  It’s actually accounting bulletin 2010-02.  Which is actually the impact of GASB 54 and unfortunately I only have this copy.  I can send it to whomever.  It says what the impact was on school accounting.

 “as a result of the clarification of the use of special funds…reserve fund types, a school Capital Reserve Fund no longer meets the definition of Special Revenue Funds.  Schools with Capital Reserve Funds must reclassify these funds as Capital Projects…

Not General Funds.

Chris – I think we’re going against what the accounting bulletin actually calls out.  So… But putting it into the General Fund contradicts what the accounting office under GASB 54 requires us to do.

Chris – If you would like to read a copy of that   (gesturing to Brant)

Brant – Yeah … Pass it over.

Sharpnack – This is a recommendation from our Auditor?

Sroka –  That’s correct…  It’s the recommendation of the Auditor

Chris- I’m giving you the recommendation of the accounting office.  (Sroka trying to talk over Chris)

Chris – turn to page 2, paragraph 3

Sroka -  I have had dialog with the accounting office that I shared with this board before…

(inaudible…  Sroka is trying to talk over Chris) 

Chris - And from that we actually asked to question the Solicitor to come in…  I’m sorry…   the Auditor to come in and explain to us.

Because there is still some questions by some of the board members.

Brant – O.K.

Sharpnack – Call the question.  (“Calling the question” ends all discussion.)

Brant – We have a motion…  A second?

Jamie – Actually

Brant – Another comment

Jamie – No… We have a motion to table.

Brant – Actually he didn’t make a motion   (pointing at Chris)

Chris – I would like to make a motion to table until we have some time for the Auditor to explain.

Brant – There is a motion to . . .

Chris – “Table”

Brant – Table by Mr. Lauff

Brant – Is there a second?

Jamie – “Second”

Brant – There is a motion and a second by Mr. White to Table

Discussion – inaudible

Sharpnack – inaudible

Brant- Yeah, We vote on the motion

Brant – Any questions on the motion?    Motion to defer…

  

Elmo- Motion to defer means to table?

Brant – I’m sorry…  Motion to Table.

Elmo – Ah… Yes a question… Mr. Lauff is correct.  We did ask.  I don’t know if the actual invitation was relayed to Mr. Cypher or not…

We did ask Mr. Cypher to come in and present him…  present us his reason……..   Inaudible    ……. And um…

I know he was here not long ago to discuss…was it….financial statements?....

Sroka – inaudible

Elmo – and excuse me… I thought he might wanted… I thought he might have addressed it at that point in time.

So, I’m just wondering if we should not have him in… allow him in …

Sroka – inaudible

Brant – inaudible

Jamie – Question for Paul…if we delay this a month is there any… inaudible

Paul – I don’t perceive closing the year then.  If I can’t transfer the money.

Discussion…  Everyone

Paul – inaudible

Jamie – Why can’t you just transfer it in January?   Our fiscal year is June to…

Paul trying to talk over Dinnen

Dinnen - July

Dinnen– They are closing the audit right now.  The audits going on right now for the last year.

That’s why you need the action right now.  The auditor today needs the action…Right Now.

Jamie- to do… effective June 30th?

Dinnen – to close

(Discussion – Everyone)

Sharpnack – This is the recommendation of the Auditor.

Sroka – “Absolutely”

Brant- Well I guess my question would be if we table this until January and we have Cypher come in January…

What would he say in January that would prompt you to take some action that you don’t otherwise take tonight?

Is he going to back track from his own advice? 

I guess…

Elmo – No, I don’t believe that he would to answer your question.

(Brant Nodded)

Chris – There is a possibility the funds would go to the Capital Project Fund as opposed to the General Fund as the document says it should.

Brant- And I’m operating. . and It’s an assumption of mine. . that our Auditor who is a professional also… is aware of this (holding up the document)

account bulletin GASB 2010-02 and in spite of this…  is still making a recommendation to us. A professional recommendation to take this action. (Keep in mind that Brant signed off on PDE-2028 which indicated the intent to transfer the money.  At the time of this meeting (December 2010), it was still not clear who recommended the action.  A meeting with Cypher was requested months earlier, but Sroka did not set up the meeting.)

Brant – I’m saying if we wait until January to have him come in to tell us why….

I don’t think he’s going to have a reversal of his position…except that we delayed it a month.

Brant-  But that’s my….

Sharpnack – I called the question on the motion to table it. 

Brant – Motion to table

Brant – All in favor of tabling…  Please signify by saying Aye

(Chris and Jamie said “Aye”)

(Everyone else was opposed…)

(Sroka did roll call)

Brant- We do have a motion and a second on item 16 transferring funds… 

Any other questions?

Brant – All in …

Chris – What’s the dollar amount?

Sroka – The dollar amount is $707,576.54

Brant –  707,576.54   “Approximately”

Brant – All in favor please signify by say “Aye”.   All opposed?

Roll Call

(Jamie White and Chris Lauff voted “No”)

(Everyone else voted “In Favor”)

Brant – Last one is the motion to adjourn.

December 2010 – After the vote, the Annual Financial Report was submitted to the PDE showing the transfer of the money from Capital Reserve to the General Fund.  (At this point, the Board is still not clear on the legality of the transfer of the money.  According to the PDE, the money previously held in Capital Reserve was to be reclassified as Capital Projects, not transferred into the General Fund.)

January 2011 –Cypher attends the Board meeting to present the 2010 audit.

Mr. Cypher was asked straight on about the legality of the transfer of the money out of the Capital Reserve Fund.

Cypher’s response, “What does it matter?  It isn’t hurting anyone”.

Quite an interesting response coming from the school auditor, especially when you consider that it ranks number 7 on a list of “ethical hazard” warning signs. . .

Essentials of Business Ethics

Collins, Denis

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

p. 94

Surely the transfer of money from the Capital Reserve to the General Fund, a direct violation of municipal law, would raise a red flag with the PDE . . . So how was the transfer out of Capital Reserve explained in the yearly audit?

Take a look at page 17 from the Cypher & Cypher 2010 Independent Auditors Report:

http://www.fortcherry.org/170310111811173687/lib/170310111811173687/_files/Annual_Financial_Report.pdf

To avoid alerting anyone to the transfer of money out of Capital Reserve, it appears that Dinnen and Sroka renamed the “Capital Reserve Fund” to “Equipment Reserve Fund” in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” portion of the audit. 

Sly . . .  anyone looking at the official audit would have no idea that a transfer out of Capital Reserve had occurred.

However, it’s the auditor’s job to keep the District in compliance . . .

Cypher, who has performed the fiscal audit for years, should have recognized the error, questioned the renaming of the fund, and corrected it.

Instead, Cypher just went along with Dinnen and Sroka.

Now take a look at what happened to the fund the next year . . .

June 2011 – PDE-2028, 2011-2012 Final General Fund Budget, was submitted to the PDE.  Signed by B. Miller, Sroka , and Dinnen, this budget indicated the intent to transfer the money from Reserve for Technology in the General Fund to a Committed Fund.

October 2011 – The Annual Financial Report was submitted to the PDE showing the transfer of the money from Reserve for Technology in the General Fund to a Committed Fund.  This was done without a board vote or board resolution as required by the PDE.

Bottom line – our tax money was moved without board approval.  Board approval is required by municipal law.

Now Dinnen and Sroka are trying to “legalize” the move of the money by saying that the vote in December 2010 was actually a vote to move the money into a Committed Fund.

This is the item the board voted on in December 2010, taken directly from page 4 of the December 2010 minutes.  The word “Committed” does not appear anywhere in the motion.

“Action to transfer all remaining funds from Special Reserve for Technology to the General Fund Technology Special Reserve, thereby closing the Special Reserve for Technology fund and establish a Reserve for Technology in the General Fund, in accordance with GASB 54”.

http://www.fortcherry.org/17031051991440767/lib/17031051991440767/_files/Dec_2010_Reorganization.pdf

From this public notice, placed just 4 days before the meeting, it seems that Cypher will be presenting an “Audit Report” at 7:00, on Monday, March 19, just before the regular scheduled Board meeting.

It will be interesting to hear how Cypher explains the movement of the money without Board approval.

It is the auditor’s job to keep the District in compliance with municipal code.  To do that, the auditor is to review the minutes of the board meetings to ensure all actions have board approval.  To date, there are no official documents showing board approval to establish a Committed Fund – no meeting minutes, no board vote, and no resolution.  Even the “Account Summaries” that Sroka prepares to list current fund balances do not show an established Committed Fund.

The “Account Summaries” can be found here:  (http://www.fortcherry.org/17031051991440767/lib/17031051991440767/_files/January_2012.pdf).

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

There appears to be a pattern of the Administration taking action without board approval. 

Our elected School Board Directors are to direct Dinnen and Sroka; instead Dinnen and Sroka direct the board.

The solicitor and auditor are to keep the board in compliance with municipal law; instead, it appears they find loopholes to legitimize Dinnen and Sroka’s actions.

This “going behind the Board’s back” has been going on ever since Dinnen came on board in 1998, beginning with this letter, “signed” by then Board Secretary, William McNamee.

This letter evaluates Dinnen’s performance at FC and was critical in enabling Dinnen to obtain his Letter of Eligibility; however, the Board never evaluated Dinnen.  The letter itself went out without the Board’s approval or knowledge.

This letter went out without the Board’s approval or knowledge.  It’s one of the very first examples of the Administration (Dinnen) taking action without board approval.

The McNamee letter was the beginning . . . it continues to this day.

How many other actions have occurred without the Board’s knowledge or approval since Dinnen came on board at FC in 1998?

Read more about the McNamee letter, shown below, in the August 9th post, “Strange?. . . Questionable?. . Fraudulent?. . The Beginning of the End of Truth, Honor, and Integrity, continued.”  http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/08/strange-questionable-fraudulent.html

 

 

 

What's Up with the Trib and W-2 Appeals . . .

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_780729.html#

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

From Commonwealth Court’s ruling:

“Here, such an analysis was undertaken by the Honorable John E. DiSalle of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, filed July 26, 2011, in Fort Cherry School District v. Acton, No. 2010-719, and we find no basis to overturn his decision.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order on the basis of that opinion.”

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge,

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge and

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge.

FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ACTON

Fort Cherry School District, Appellant,

v.

Robin Acton and/for Trib Total Media and Pennsylvania Office of Open Records.

No. 842 C.D. 2011.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: November 14, 2011.

Filed: February 8, 2012.

Commonwealth Court’s Ruling available in its entirety here: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20PACO%2020120208584.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

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

The authors of this blog agree with Trib’s attorney, David Strassburger, "In our view, this has been a dispute that really should not have gone this far."

This has been nothing more than a drain on school finances, and to what end?

Once again, the administration is doing its best to keep public information from the taxpayers of this school district.

Taxpayer money was expended to file these appeals, yet the board has never voted to approve this expenditure in a public meeting.

Once again the school solicitor has encouraged the board to enter into a legal dispute and then reaped the benefits of billing the district for legal representation.

In the past few years, Maeillo, Brungo & Maeillo has represented the District and the administration in multiple lawsuits - many of which were unnecessary had the school simply done the right thing instead of challenging residents for various reasons.

In the Trib case, MB&M and the District have maintained that FC cannot provide the information in electronic format.  However, the certified computer examiner from the Trib has proven that the information is readily available.  The certified computer examiner’s affidavit attesting to the availability of the information is shown at the end of this post.

The issue isn’t whether the District is able to provide the information . . . the real issue is whether the District wants to release the information at all.

This is the Trib’s RTK request.

All documents requested by the Trib are public documents.

The Trib requested documentation that could provide greater insight into many of the issues brought up on this blog.

Using the limited resources available to the authors of this blog, many of the administration and board member’s questionable practices have been brought to light.

Just imagine what the Trib could uncover with its available resources.

Trib’s RTK:

1.      “Payroll/salary information for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years that would include the names and positions of all district employees, teachers and administrators, their base salaries and their actual salaries, including overtime payments, bonuses and payments for additional duties, coaching or sponsoring teams, clubs or other activities.”

Blog:

A resident made a right-to-know request for administrative payroll/salary information.  This information was presented in previous posts:

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/06/fort-cherry-school-board-using-taxpayer.html

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/10/whats-up-with-w-2s.html

On February 23, 2012, Judge Robert Simpson of Commonwealth Court overturned the Court of Common Pleas order to release the W-2s and 1099s of FC administrators

Judge Simpson’s opinion can be found here:  http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1038CD11_2-23-12.pdf

This is a win for MB&M, the school board, and Dinnen, but a loss for the taxpayers.  Thousands of taxpayer dollars were expended to keep administrative compensation information from the public – something that we, as FC taxpayers, have a right to know.

Trib’s RTK:

2.      “Names of district employees or board members permitted to sign checks.”

Blog:

Questionable checks were presented in a previous post:  http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/07/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-email-me.html

Trib’s RTK:

3.      “Names of district employees or board members who are bonded, those bond amounts and the annual costs of those bonds to the district.”

Blog:

Questions about the bonding were presented in a previous post:  http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/10/fc-school-board-practicing-prudent.html

Trib’s RTK:

4.      “Line item budgets showing actual revenues and all expenditures, including all checks written for the 2005-2006, 2006-07, 2007-2008, 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.”

Blog:

Questionable accounting practices have been brought to light in this blog using some of the very same documentation the Trib is requesting.

The documentation shows that Dinnen, Sroka, Craig, and Jacoby have been very creative with the accounting codes.

Could it be that the release of “line item budgets showing actual revenues and all expenditures” would completely expose how they have been abusing taxpayer money?

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

The Trib is requesting public documents about public money – our tax dollars.

Why has the District spent well over $12,000 of our tax dollars to fight the release of this public information?

What is in that public documentation that the District does not want to Trib and the public to see?

What is the District trying to hide?



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

Affadavit from the Trib’s certified computer examiner:



This Post Brought to You by the Letter "Q" and the Letter "A" and the Number "500"

Questioning . . .

     . . . the Audit . . . and

Questioning. . .

     . . . the Quarterback Club’s $500 check  . . .

Fort Cherry School Board

• Date: Jan. 24

• Action: The board unanimously approved, with one director absent, a motion to install aisle rails on the high school gymnasium bleachers, provided the cost does not exceed $6,500. The board tabled a motion to approve the results of a workplace dynamics survey while directors collect more information.

The board also tabled action on a request from Dawson Geophysical Company to conduct geophysical survey operations on school property. Directors expressed concerns regarding legal issues, such as clearances for Dawson employees and the timely removal of equipment from school property, business manager Paul Sroka said.

A request for the school's participation in a University of Pittsburgh friendship study failed to receive a second motion.

• Next meeting: 7:30 p.m. Feb. 21 at the elementary school library

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/01-27-2012-meeting-roundup

The Observer failed to send a reporter to the meeting and simply contacted Sroka for the meeting highlights.

This post will give you more meeting highlights as well as clarify the information provided in the article.

·        Remarks by Visitors:

Several residents admonished administrators and Board members for their behavior at the Committee Meeting of January 17, 2012.

During the Committee Meeting, the public saw accusations fly, especially during the “Board Reports” segment of the meeting.

·        Personnel and Curriculum:  Workplace Dynamics Survey.

Board President Chris Lauff asked Dinnen to provide the Board with the results of the survey for the January 17th Committee Meeting.  Dinnen gave the Board an undated letter from Workplace Dynamics instead.  When further questioned by Lauff, Dinnen became belligerent.  It could be said that Dinnen’s replies were full of disrespect and insubordination.  Lauff then asked Dinnen to contact Workplace Dynamics for a summary report for regular Board meeting of January 23, 2012.  It appears that the Board members were given something from the company at this meeting, but not what they were looking for.  The survey was discussed in a previous post – “What Changed?” (http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-changed.html). 

·        Finance:  Fiscal Audit

The Board tabled action on the approval of the fiscal audit which was presented by Mr. Cypher at the January 17th meeting.

The Board voted to table approval until they receive Cypher’s explanation of the transfer of money out of the Capital Reserve Fund into a “Committed Fund”.  This transfer was reported to the state in 2011 by Dinnen, Sroka, and B. Miller, but occurred without Board approval or official Board resolution as required by law.  This was discussed in the January 15th post, “A Shell Game?”  (http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2012/01/shell-game.html)

Take a look at the discussion – you will see that the action befuddled Brungo . . . who, by the way, clearly stumbles over the definition of “resolution” . . . and take note of the three people responsible for the move . . . B. Miller does not show up for the meeting . . . Sroka hides his face . . . Dinnen flees from the room.



Also disclosed in the audit presentation at the January 17th meeting . . . Cypher reported that the District ordered the football uniforms last year without going through a proper bid process - just as discussed in a previous post - “FC Tax Dollars - Being Used for Our Children's Education or Administrative Perks?” (http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/09/fc-tax-dollars-being-used-for-our.html)

·      Policy:  Creation of a Committee to Review Policy 249 –  Bullying/Cyberbullying.

Board member Darnley will chair the committee.

·         Policy:  Anti-Cyberbullying/Bullying Resolution

This item did not appear on the agenda until the day of the meeting.  Board members expressed concerns that the resolution violates the First Amendment.  The language of the resolution encompasses not just students, but school board members, staff, and faculty.  The resolution was not read in the public portion of the meeting.  Copies were not provided for public viewing.  Several board members felt that the resolution should be incorporated into the policy, not passed as a separate item.  As with other items that have appeared on the agenda at the last minute, this item was pushed through for a vote and was approved, despite concerns.  Board member Jamie White stated that he would send a copy of the resolution to his constituents; however, a copy has not been released to the public.

·     Miscellaneous:  Request from Dawson Geophysical Company to conduct geophysical survey operations proposed to cross Fort Cherry School properties.

This was tabled to give the solicitor time to negotiate with Dawson.

·        Bills for Payment:

Board members questioned a $500 payment made to the Fort Cherry Quarterback Club. 

Sroka explained that the payment was for “parking services” provided by the Quarterback Club.  He went on to say that if the Quarterback Club did not provide this service, the custodians would have to do so at time-and-a-half pay.  According to Sroka, the money is returned to the school in the form of equipment donations.

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

This practice appears to occur yearly. 

These checks were mailed directly to the home of the President of the Quarterback Club, who was a member of the School Board at that time.

Check #206207 was signed by the former President of the School Board, who is also a member of the Quarterback Club and related to the Quarterback Club President.

Let’s take a look at the invoice for the $750 “payment” shown on Check #206207:

Sroka used this expenditure code on the bill.

10-3250 001 000 1000 390

Here’s that expenditure code as defined in the PDE’s Chart of Accounts:

10  - GENERAL FUND

3250 - SCHOOL SPONSORED ATHLETICS

School sponsored activities under the guidance and supervision of LEA staff, designed to provide opportunities to students to pursue various aspects of physical education.

390  - OTHER PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Expenditures by the LEA for these services not classified elsewhere in the 300 series of objects.

The PDE defines Object 300, “Purchased Professional and Technical Services” as:

300 - PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Services that by their nature require persons or firms with specialized skills and knowledge. Included are the services of architects, engineers, auditors, dentists, medical doctors, lawyers, consultants, teachers, accountants, tax collectors etc.

Purchased professional services?

The people providing the “parking service” are not paid.

It’s a group of volunteers who are recruited by the Quarterback Club to show up before the football game to direct traffic in the parking lot.

vol·un·teer (noun) somebody who works without being paid

Parking services are not required for graduations, concerts, plays, musicals, Open House, or even other sporting events - only football.

So, how is it determined that football needs parking services when all other organizations and public events do not? 

Could this be a way to justify a “donation” to the Quarterback Club?

It appears that each year, Fort Cherry taxpayers have been unknowingly donating $500 to $750 (or possibly more) to the Fort Cherry Quarterback Club.

Why does this matter?

No other FC booster club is afforded the luxury of an automatic donation every year.

If parking services are truly necessary, why not rotate the clubs or organizations that provide the volunteers to do this at the football games? 

Not every car parked is for parents or family members of football players.  People may come to the game to support the cheerleaders, band members, or majorettes; yet those boosters do not benefit from this “service”.

Finally, no matter how you label it, this “donation” or “payment” was not revealed to the public until it was questioned by Board members this year.

·         The volunteers were unaware of the donation.

·         The public was unaware of the donation.

And even though Sroka stated that the money is returned to the school in the form of equipment donations, the public has no way of knowing that.

Going back to the way the expenditure was coded . . .

By coding the bill as a “professional service” instead of a “donation”, the money budgeted for the expense was buried in over $30,000 budgeted for “professional services” . . .

. . . instead of sticking out like a sore thumb in the line item with the $4000 donation to Heritage Library . . .

. . . so members of the public would never notice or question the “donation” when looking at the budget.

It’s probably safe to say that only a handful of people were aware of the “donation”:

·         members of the Board who are also members of the Quarterback Club

·         Sroka

·         Dinnen

These “payments” have been consistently approved by the former Board.  Not one Board member abstained from the vote, not even those who had a conflict of interest.  To do so may have drawn attention and possibly revealed the deception.

Creative accounting . . .

 . . . abuse of taxpayer dollars . . . ???

This is but one example from one line item.

There are many more . . .

When working on the new budget, Board members need to look at each and every expenditure from each and every budget line item to ensure that our tax money is properly accounted for. 

To do so will require an itemized list of expenditures from each budget line item – not the total expended from each line item – an itemized list of each expenditure.

Stay tuned . . . more on the budget to follow.