Sunday, April 22, 2012

FC Administrators . . . What rhymes with wine and dine? . . .




“Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.

In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.”

All lyics in this post from The Beatles, “White Album”, lyrics by George Harrison


Here’s the latest from Corbett’s office:



Fort Cherry is in the process of putting together the budget for next year.  The governor is counting on the individual school boards to focus “on things that directly benefit students.”

On March 26th, the Fort Cherry School Board discussed at length the amount of money that should be set aside for administrators to use for travel to conferences, etc.  The board voted to cap expenditures at $900, inclusive . . . conference fee, lodging, meals  . . . $900 for everything.  A request to spend anything over $900 would require prior board approval.

This is a very big step in the right direction for Fort Cherry, where the spending by the administrators has been out of control.  It appears that they behave as though they have an open checkbook to party and play rather than work for the taxpayers and our children.

At the April 16th meeting, Trish Craig gave an impassioned appeal for board “endorsement” and permission to apply for two grants that focus on professional development – Race to the Top and Whole Child Network of schools.  According to Craig, the grants were fully funded with the exception of meals.

However, both grants require administrative travel: Race to the Top requires two administrators to travel to Harrisburg; Whole Child requires five team members to travel to Chicago.

The pressure was on for board “endorsement” to be granted that night.  According to Craig, the deadline to apply for Race to the Top is May 11, and the deadline for Whole Child Network is due in “two weeks”.  It was apparent by her zealous appeal that Craig wants to get those applications in!

The board needs to be very careful when it comes to endorsing any type of travel for the administration, even something that appears harmless, like meal expenses . . .

Take a look at Craig’s submission for reimbursement for the EPLC (Education Policy and Leadership Center) meeting in Harrisburg.  This meeting was attended monthly by Craig, Jacoby, and Dinnen.

Here’s the reimbursement form Craig submitted to the district:


 
Note that Craig charged this meeting to “tuition” (code 240), which would be completely invalid as nothing on this reimbursement pertains to payment for tuition.  The coding was changed to “travel” (code 580), but there is no way to determine if  the change made back in November 2009, or in August 2011, when the right-to-know request for administrative reimbursements was submitted.

Take a close look at this receipt for the administrators’ “dinner” . . . pepperoni, cheese balls, gouda, grapes, chilled shrimp, cannoli . . . $64.47 . . .

 . . . add a nice bottle of wine and you have a party.

Remember, Dinnen, Craig, and Jacoby were staying in a hotel in Harrisburg . . . where was this food consumed . . .

. . . in Craig’s hotel room? . . . Jacoby’s? . . . Dinnen’s?

It looks like Craig has a “savings card” for the store . . . do the pennies she saved justify the expense?


“Have you seen the bigger piggies . . .
 . . . In their sties with all their backing” . . . 



 
Here’s Dinnen’s reimbursement submittal for the June 2010 EPLC meeting in Harrisburg:


  “You can see them out for dinner “ . . . 







“With their piggy wives” . . .

With just 33.65 miles remaining on the drive home, the three stopped in Belle Vernon to eat dinner at The Back Porch.  According to their website, The Back Porch was voted “one most romantic restaurants in Pittsburgh”.  (http://www.backporchrestaurant.com/)


Due to this mostly illegible receipt, you can’t tell exactly what was consumed at this meal, but it cost the taxpayers $163.69.  The total cost to taxpayers for two days of food - $334.77.



 
Next, let’s look at submissions by Sroka and Jacoby for administrative functions.  Dinnen justifies these “administrative meetings/retreats” as a time for the administrators to bond . . . in other words, party and play.

We will start with Sroka’s reimbursement form.  It looks like they had an administrative meeting at the Trolley Museum in Washington, and then went on their way for lunch and dinner.


 
Seven people (all administrators?) met in Washington at 10:41 a.m. for the “meeting” at the Trolley Museum.


 
Then those seven had lunch at Mallorca on the Southside.

According to the Mallorca website, “We offer the finest Spanish Continental Cuisine, an award winning wine list and world class service.” (http://www.mallorcarestaurant.com/)

Mallorca’s prices reflect that claim.

Keep in mind that 40% of Fort Cherry students are on the free and reduced lunch program.

“In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around“ . . .




 
Looking at the credit card receipt, the group left Mallorca at 3:19 p.m. . . . 



 
. . . and went to “dinner” at the Cheesecake Factory  at 3:31, exactly 12 minutes later.



 

Ten desserts for seven people = $249.66 for lunch.

“Everywhere there's lots of piggies”

Now on to Jacoby .  First, the reimbursement form . . . another day of party and play for the five people who attended.



 
The receipts shown below were charged to expenditure code 580 – “Travel”.

This is the PDE’s definition for “Travel”:

580 TRAVEL
Expenditures for transportation, meals, lodging and associated expenses incurred by staff members or students traveling on behalf of the LEA. Per diem in lieu of reimbursement of actual expenses is also charged here. Include in this object travel to and from conference sites. Training fees and associated training costs should be recorded to object 324.

The definition doesn’t say “day of party and play”, but then again, if you are coding your expenditures creatively . . . 


 
Looks like the five went to Phipps, had drinks and snacks, then off to the Aviary, and finally stopped at the Double Wide Grill for drinks and appetizers . . . 



 
The last item on the reimbursement form was a $461.05 receipt from Giant Eagle. 

It is impossible to determine exactly when this considerable amount of food was purchased because the date and time has been redacted from the receipt.  As with the food bought in Harrisburg, where was this large amount of food consumed? . . . 

. . . maybe a party at Dinnen’s? 

Was all this food for five people . . . for one meal?

Were others included . . . perhaps spouses . . . fed with taxpayer funds????

“What they need's a damn good whacking”




 
The $461.05 spent at Giant Eagle was charged to “General Supplies”.

This is how the PDE defines “General Supplies”:

 
600 SUPPLIES
Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorate in use; or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. (Charges are not recorded to this account but to the following sub-accounts.)
610 GENERAL SUPPLIES
Expenditures for all supplies (other than those listed below) acquired for the operation of the LEA, including freight and cartage. Consumable teaching and office items such as paper, pencils, forms, postage, blank diskettes, blank CD-ROMs, blank videotapes, and other supplies of relatively low unit costs, necessary for instruction and / or administration should be included in this category. (A more specific classification is achieved by identifying the function chargeable.)

 
Food is not a consumable teaching or office item.

The board needs to be very careful when it comes to endorsing any type of travel for the administration, even something that appears harmless, like meal expenses.

 
“Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.”

 
It’s time to clean up the pig pen and focus “on things that directly benefit students”.

“ . . . local school districts and school boards will be fine if they focus “on things that directly benefit students.” . . . Corbett spokesman Tim Eller.
 

Sunday, March 18, 2012

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.






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 questionMr. 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:



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”.

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.

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