So which will it be . . . forensic audit or playground? How about both?

In the last post the authors of this blog pointed out that money is available to pay for a forensic audit and an independent investigation.

In this post, the taxpayers will see that not only are funds available to pay for a forensic audit and an independent investigation, there’s probably enough surplus money in the General Fund to pay for the playground upgrade and more. 

Here’s why . . .

Fort Cherry administrators maintain a separate fund for technology purchases.  Each year the board approves the General Fund Budget, along with purchases which are to come from the Capital Projects Fund and the Technology Fund.  The Capital Projects and Technology Funds are in separate bank accounts from the General Fund.

In 2010-2011, the board approved $229,591 in technology expenditures.  Those purchases were to be paid from the Technology Fund.

Sometime during the 2010-2011 school year, Chris Lauff publicly questioned Paul Sroka about board approved technology fund purchases coming out of the General Fund instead of the Technology Fund.   At that same meeting, Sroka told Lauff that he would transfer the money from the Technology Fund back into the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year.

Let’s review:

• The board approved $229,591 in expenditures from the Technology Fund.
• Sroka used money from the General Fund to pay for the purchases instead.
• Lauff questioned technology expenditures coming out of the General Fund.
• Sroka told Lauff that the money would be transferred at the end of the year.

So, what’s the big deal?

• The money was never transferred.  The Technology Fund (held at Northwest Savings) remained intact, with interest credited, for the entire 2010-2011 fiscal year.
  
  
  

  July 31, 2010, ending balance is $708,526.94:

  
  

  

  
  

  July 4, 2011, ending balance is $712,087.35:

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Why does it matter?

  
  

  As stated in the last post, by law, the district must follow the budget as approved by the board.  In this case, the administration pulled $229,591 of expenditures that were not approved as General Fund expenditures from the General Fund.

  
  

  In addition, having $229,591 available in the General Fund for unapproved expenditures indicates a gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds.  Sure it’s always nice to have extra money available, but responsible budgeting dictates that revenues and expenditures balance out.  There should not be an extra $229,591 available in the first place.

  
  

  
  

  What does this mean?

  
  

  If the administration pads the budget in this manner, then more than likely money is available to pay for a forensic audit and outside investigation as well as playground upgrades.

  
  

  
  

  Why doesn’t the board just ask that the money be transferred from the Technology Fund into the General Fund now?

  
  

  The administration has not been truthful with the board concerning the 2010-2011 technology expenditures; and as of this date, the board has not required the administration to produce documentation to support their claims.

  
  

  At the June 3, 2013 budget meeting during the discussion of the 2013-2014 technology budget, Dinnen publicly stated that the board routinely spends around $160,000 per year on technology, except for the 2010-2011 year when “there were no purchases for technology due to the drastic cuts”.

  
  

  During the 2013-2014 budget hearings, Lauff asked Sroka for a list of technology expenditures for the past few years.  Here’s the total amount spent on technology each year, as presented to the board by the administration:

  
  

  • 2012-2013:  $176,777.99
  • 2011-2012:  $150,730.63
  • 2010-2011:  No Purchases
  • 2009-2010:  $92.922.92
  • 2008-2009:  $156,952.54

  
  

  How do the authors of this blog know the administration has not been truthful with the board?

  
  

  A resident, who is in possession of 2010-2011 General Fund bank statements (obtained through a RTK request), found $300,000 worth of checks written from the General Fund to pay for technology purchases (list of checks at the end of this post).

  
  

  This was brought to board members attention with this public comment at the June 17, 2013, meeting:

  
  

  At the last budget meeting, Mr. Dinnen stated that the board routinely spends around $160,000 per year on technology, except for 2010-2011 when “there were no purchases for technology due to the drastic cuts”.

  
  

  I am holding bank statements for the 10-11 fiscal year which were obtained through a RTK request submitted to the district.  In 2010-2011, the Technology Fund located at Northwest Savings remained intact, no expenditures at all.

  
  

  However, cancelled checks from the 2010-2011 General Fund account show a large amount of technology purchases.  According to these documents, which were obtained from the school district, from July 1 to October 31, there were over $214,000 in technology purchases paid for out of the General Fund. 

  
  

  I recall Chris Lauff asking Mr. Sroka about technology purchases coming out of the General Fund that year.  Mr. Sroka told him that he would transfer the money spent on technology from the Technology Fund back into the General Fund at the end of the year.  According to the 10-11 Annual Financial Report and the bank statements, that did not happen.

  
  

  I respectfully submit two questions to the board:

  
  

  If your administration is budgeting properly, how can you possibly have that much extra money in the General Fund to spend on items that were not budgeted for?

  
  

  Why isn’t your administration being upfront with you about the technology purchases made in 2010-2011?  Clearly, purchases were made even though Mr. Dinnen said there were none.

  
  

  
  

  In addition, this follow-up email was sent to board members:

  
  

  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  How did the administration respond?

  
  

  At the June 24, 2013, meeting, the administration admitted that there were technology purchases in 2010-2011, but Dinnen and Sroka claimed that the purchases were made with grant money.

  
  

  
  

  How did the board respond?

  
  

  The majority of the board accepted the administration’s excuse.  However, board member Leann Darnley asked Sroka for documentation supporting the administration’s claim that grant money was used.

  
  

  Although directly requested by a board member, Sroka never produced that documentation.

  
  

  Also, grant money or not, school code requires that the board approved Technology Fund purchases be written out of the Technology Fund.  Any grant money received would then replace the money used from the Technology Fund.  By law, administrators cannot override school code.

  
  

  It should be noted that Trisha Craig, who reports on all grants received by the district (no matter how minimal), never announced over $300,000 in grants awarded to FC during the 2010-2011 year.  Any grant or grants of that magnitude would have been a major achievement considering the cuts in state funding facing Pennsylvania school districts that year.  Such grants would also provide a significant increase in administrative pay – don’t forget, according to FC’s Act 93 Compensation Plan, administrators get 5% of grants they sign-off on – a potential $15,000 increase in administrative pay. 

  
  

  
  

  Can this situation be even more dismal?

  
  

  Actually, yes . . . back in May of 2011, near the end of the fiscal year that the administration pulled $229,591 or more from the General Fund to pay for technology, the administration convinced the board that cuts in federal and state funding as well as the low fund balance in the General Fund necessitated the need to furlough teachers and cut vital programs.  (So if the $300,000 was truly grant money, administrators were rewarded with a $15,000 pay increase while teachers and programs were cut.)

  
  

  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Were the furloughs and cuts necessary?

  
  

  In May of 2011, when the curtailment resolution was adopted, there was $229,591 to $300,000 of taxpayer funds sitting in the Technology Fund that should have been transferred into the General Fund and used to retain Fort Cherry teachers and programs.

  
  

  Did the administration purposely drain the General Fund of hundreds of thousands of dollars to advance an agenda to eliminate teachers and programs?  (This was also discussed in a previous post:  http://www.fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2012/01/shell-game.html)

  
  

  FC needs an independent investigation into the credit card abuse as well as a forensic audit into the finances of the district.

  
  

  There should be enough money for the audit, investigation, and a playground upgrade as well.

  
  

  
  

      - - - - - - -

  
  

  List of checks written from the General Fund for technology expenditures:

  
  

  CHECK NUMBER	DATE CLEARED BANK	DESIGNEE	AMOUNT
  205017	7/27/2010	COMPUTER RESOURCES LLS (MMS SOFTWARE)	$3,475.00
  205033	7/23/2010	SUNGARD	$4,246.96
  205044	7/30/2010	WIRELESS GENERATION	$1,560.00
  205067	7/30/2010	ORBIT SOFTWARE INC.	$2,940.00
  205069	7/30/2010	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  205144	8/11/2010	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  205213	8/31/2010	CENGAGE LEARNING	$2,871.99
  205221	8/30/2010	DELL COMPUTERS	$835.14
  205232	8/31/2010	??? SOFTWARE COMPANY	$1,400.00
  205235	8/31/2010	GOV CONNECTION (IT SUPPORT)	$32,900.00
  205288	8/31/2010	SMART SOLUTIONS TECH. (SMART BOARDS)	$28,125.00
  205301	8/31/2010	VERNIER SOFTWARE & TECH.	$1,098.32
  205337	8/31/2010	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  205212	9/2/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$13,522.00
  205219	9/2/2010	COMPUTER RESOURCES LLS	$2,622.00
  205262	9/3/2010	ONHAND SCHOOLS (SOFTWARE AND TRAINING)	$22,700.00
  205297	9/3/2010	THE UPGRADE PLACE	$1,045.00
  205423	9/22/2010	SMART FUTURES	$3,250.00
  205435	9/15/2010	NEW HORIZONS CLC PGH	$500.00
  205476	9/24/2010	RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS	$2,967.25
  205482	9/24/2010	SUNGARD	$1,000.00
  205492	9/28/2010	A.V. LAUTTAMUS COMM.	$167.26
  205495	9/29/2010	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$497.50
  205521	9/28/2010	BI TRONICS (PRINTERS)	$220.00
  205742	10/21/2010	QWEST BUSINESS SERVICES	$19.04
  205560	10/18/2010	MICROSOFT CORPORATION	$349.00
  205565	10/5/2010	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  205648	10/15/2010	ACHIEVE 3000	$13,105.00
  205650	10/18/2010	APPLE COMPUTERS INC.	$17,134.10
  205660	10/18/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$9,455.50
  205658	10/14/2010	CARNEGIE LEARNING	$12,301.45
  205667	10/15/2010	DVS DIRECT	$15,494.00
  205678	10/18/2010	INFORMATION WORKS	$194.00
  205682	10/15/2010	LANCASTER LEBANON IU13	$3,995.00
  205724	10/18/2010	WIRELESS GENERATION	$5,285.00
  205726	10/19/2010	A.V. LAUTTAMUS COMM.	$75.00
  205780	10/20/2010	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$3,990.00
  205823	11/2/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$994.00
  205883	11/2/2010	INFORMATION WORKS	$1,052.00
  205851	11/2/2010	ROSETTA STONE, LTD	$2,725.00
  205854	11/2/2010	SMART SOLUTIONS TECH. (SMART BOARDS)	$698.00
  205873	11/4/2010	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$62.50
  205891	11/4/2010	INFORMATION WORKS	$179.00
  205913	11/5/2010	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  205914	11/5/2010	SUNTEX INTERNATIONAL (ON-LINE MATH)	$1,249.50
  205951	11/12/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$7,999.55
  205961	11/15/2010	INFORMANT TECH INC.	$450.00
  205970	11/10/2010	PGH TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL	$99.00
  206003	11/17/2010	QWEST BUSINESS SERVICES	$16.84
  206005	11/17/2010	SUNGARD	$1,280.00
  206011	11/22/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$296.22
  206045	12/3/2010	AB CONSULTING	$111.00
  206047	11/29/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$1,723.00
  206068	12/3/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$23,550.30
  206098	12/6/2010	FOLLETT SOFTWARE CO	$106.67
  206112	12/13/2010	INFORMATION WORKS	$194.00
  206130	12/9/2010	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  206140	12/14/2010	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$2,271.00
  206155	12/13/2010	VISION OFFICE PRODUCTS	$269.45
  206218	12/22/2010	KC DISTANCE LEARNING	$7,356.00
  206256	12/27/2010	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$725.00
  206259	12/28/2010	CIMA SOFTWARE	$1,018.22
  206269	1/5/2011	KC DISTANCE LEARNING	$836.40
  206333	1/12/2011	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  206487	2/1/2011	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$4,725.00
  296537	2/3/2011	INFORMATION WORKS	$218.00
  206630	2/16/2011	SUNGARD	$1,297.92
  206698	3/11/2011	APPLE COMPUTERS INC.	$5,609.00
  206703	3/9/2011	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$308.00
  206708	3/8/2011	INFORMATION WORKS	$278.00
  206739	3/8/2011	SUNGARD	$1,349.84
  206741	3/8/2011	TREBRON COMPANY, INC.	$6,443.37
  206852	3/30/2011	PROSOFT	$1,494.00
  206864	4/1/2011	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$275.00
  206892	4/5/2011	APPLE COMPUTERS INC.	$2,003.00
  206896	4/6/2011	CDW GOVERNMENT, INC.	$235.00
  206910	4/5/2011	SMARTED SERVICES	$2,248.00
  206916	4/6/2011	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$512.00
  206926	4/5/2011	SUNGARD	$1,349.84
  206913	4/5/2011	VERNIER SOFTWARE & TECH.	$1,583.25
  206947	4/14/2011	A.V. LAUTTAMUS COMM.	$1,200.00
  206948	4/14/2011	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$684.90
  206970	4/15/2011	LANCASTER LEBANON IU13	$31.50
  207061	5/4/2011	LANCASTER LEBANON IU13	$166.50
  207125	5/10/2011	SUNGARD	$1,349.84
  207150	5/31/2011	MONOPRICE, INC.	$280.20
  207185	5/17/2011	BOZIC COMMUNICATIONS	$326.00
  207250	6/15/2011	GREEN SCREEN WIZARD	$170.90
  207253	6/9/2011	INFORMATION WORKS	$949.00
  		TOTAL	$308,776.66

  
  

Is FC Board's ignorance of the law bliss? Yes, for FC administrators, but not for the taxpayers . . . more about the $22,262 mentioned at the end of the last post . .

As stated in Fort Cherry School District Policy 612, and more importantly, PA School Code 609, school districts cannot spend taxpayer money on expenditures not appropriately allocated for in the budget.

FC School Policy 612 – Purchases Not Budgeted states that if a line item from the budget is allocated at $0, a legal transfer of surplus funds from another line item is necessary.

The board must approve the transfer according to procedures specified in school code. A legal transfer can occur only if money is available from another line item of the budget.

“When funds are not available for a proposed appropriation, a legal transfer from one class of expenditure to another may be made in the last nine (9) months of the fiscal year by the Board if it is apparent that the necessary surplus funds do exist in another appropriation and if the procedures specified in the School Code are followed.”

http://www.fortcherry.org/cms/lib03/PA01000874/Centricity/Shared/District_Policies/600_Finances/612-Purchases_Not_Budgeted.1.pdf

What are the procedures specified in school code?

PA School Code Section 609 states that school districts cannot exceed the amount budgeted in each line item, nor can the money allocated for a particular line item be used for any other purpose or transferred without a 2/3 majority board vote.

If a line item is budgeted at $0, the board must vote to approve a transfer of money from a line item with surplus funds.

School code also states that no expenditures can be made that will exceed the amount allocated in the budget.

“The amount of funds in any annual estimate by any school district, at or before the time of levying the school taxes, which is set apart or appropriated to any particular item of expenditure, shall not be used for any other purpose, or transferred, except by resolution of the board of school directors receiving the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members thereof.

No work shall be hired to be done, no materials purchased, and no contracts made by any board of school directors which will cause the sums appropriated to specific purposes in the budget to be exceeded.”

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1949&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=14&chpt=6&sctn=9&subsctn=0

Where did the money come from to fund $22,262 worth of expenditures?

School finance is not the same as corporate finance.  Even if there is money available elsewhere in the budget, by law, funds cannot be transferred and expended from a zero line item in the budget unless officially voted on by the board.

The board did not publicly vote to legally transfer the money for the expenditures, so the board and the public have no way of knowing exactly where the money came from. 

Although the board may be ignorant of the law, the superintendent and business manager should not.

How should a public vote for budget transfers be handled?

This page from Montour School District’s March 21, 2013, meeting agenda shows how it should be done:

http://www.montourschools.com/pages/Montour_SD/SchoolBoard/Menu/Meeting_Agendas

Why does this matter?

Permitting money to be spent on items that were not allocated for in the budget takes away the public’s chance to comment on the expenditures as required by law.

Per FC School Policy 604 and PA School Code 687, the budget is to be available for public inspection before approval.  Because the line items were $0, the public had no idea that the district planned to spend this money.

Spending money that was not allocated for in the budget undermines the Board’s responsibility to manage our taxpayer dollars.

As elected representatives, board members are to model responsible school governance and leadership.  Board members are duty bound to ensure the fiscal integrity of our school district.

To ensure the fiscal integrity of the district, the district needs an independent investigation and forensic audit.

Chris Lauff asked that a forensic audit be added to the October 21 agenda.  The board will vote on it at the October 28 meeting.

Taxpayers need to encourage all board members to pursue this course of action.

At the meeting, Sroka suggested floating an additional bond to cover supplemental necessary repairs.  An additional bond would incur another tax increase.  Doing so without making sure our finances are in order through a forensic audit would be a serious disservice to the taxpayers, students, and staff.

More from the October 21 meeting . . .

On the agenda was a request from elementary principal Jacoby for $14,300 in district funds for upgrades to the elementary playground.  Sroka said the money would be pulled from the Capital Projects Fund.

Considering the essential renovations underway (roof replacement, security upgrades, carpet replacement, and now the need for air conditioning in both buildings), would it not be wise to reserve the money in the Capital Projects Fund?

Lauff suggested that Jacoby find the money within her budget.  It is entirely possible, considering that last year $10,260 was found within the General Fund for Jacoby’s expenditures that were not approved by the board (budget pages shown at the end of this post).

Jacoby was not at the meeting, and therefore, not available to comment.

FC Board . . . Complacency + Inaction = Approval

Multiple news sources have reported on recent events at Greensburg Catholic High School.  Financial irregularities were found, and the principal of the school was placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired.  WTAE covered the story on October 11 (http://www.wtae.com/news/local/westmoreland/greensburg-central-catholic-high-school-principal-is-out/-/10932546/22093626/-/5af53mz/-/index.html).

Financial irregularities have also been found at Fort Cherry.  Let’s compare how the two schools have handled the issue:

Greensburg Catholic:

1.  Financial irregularities discovered.
2.  The offending administrator was placed on administrative leave.
3.  A forensic audit was conducted by an outside and independent auditing firm.
4.  Information was gathered from school employees
5.  The offending administrator was questioned.
6.  The offending administrator was fired.

This process started in late September 2013 and wrapped up October 10, 2013.

Fort Cherry:

1.  Financial irregularities discovered.  (An administrator used the district’s credit card for unauthorized personal purchases after being instructed by the superintendent to cancel the district’s credit card.)
2.  The offending administrator was investigated by superintendent.
3.  The superintendent claims that the incident was thoroughly investigated and that the offending administrator was reprimanded.  (Note that the board, which is in charge of both the offending administrator and superintendent, was not consulted as to what the reprimand should be.)
4.  None of the documentation used by the superintendent in the investigation was given to the board.
5.  One board member, Leann Darnley, requested the documentation be provided by the superintendent.
6.  The superintendent refused the request.
7.  Board member Darnley submitted a right-to-know (RTK) request for the documentation used in the investigation.
8.  The offending administrator (who is also the RTK Officer) denied the RTK request.
9.  Board member Darnley appealed the denial.
10.  Taxpayers burdened with legal fees incurred by offending administrator/RTK officer in the appeal process.
11.  Board member Darnley won the appeal.
12.  The offending administrator handed over some, but not all of the documents as required by law.
13.   Board member Darnley attempted to show RTK documents to fellow board members.
14.  Only one fellow board member, Chris Lauff, viewed the RTK
15.  FC citizen submitted right-to-know request for the very same documents requested by board member Darnley.
16.  Offending administrator (who is also RTK Officer) provided different documents to FC citizen than those provided to board member Darnley.  When FC citizen asked for the rest of the documentation, the offending administrator denied their existence.  According to the offending administrator, the documents could not be found in school records and could not be provided by AmEx.
17. FC citizen appealed the denial.
18.  Taxpayers burdened with legal fees incurred by offending administrator/RTK officer in the appeal process.
19.  FC citizen won the appeal.
20.  Offending administrator handed over some, but not all of the documents as required by law.
21.  FC citizen attempted to show RTK documents to board members
22.  Only three board members agreed to view the RTK (Darnley, Lauff, and Jodi McKay).
23.  Board member Lauff made copies of the documents for ALL board members and suggested the district initiate an outside investigation at the September 16, 2013, board meeting, but the board refused to take action on an outside investigation.
24.  Board members were given ample opportunity to see the financial irregularities with their own eyes.

. .. and
           . . . and
                       . . . and
                                    . . . NOTHING . . .

This process started in October 2012 and still is not resolved.

As elected representatives, board members are to model responsible school governance and leadership.  Board members are duty bound to ensure the fiscal integrity of our school district.

When the financial irregularities with the AmEx card account were discovered, was the offending administrator placed on administrative leave?     NO. 

Questions remain unanswered.

Does the board know why the offending administrator was asked to cancel the AmEx card in the spring of 2012?     NO.

Has the board been given PROOF that school (taxpayer) funds were not used to pay for the personal purchases made by the offending administrator on the district’s AmEx card?

NO. 

Has the board been given PROOF that all district credit cards have been cancelled?      NO. 

Taxpayers deserve answers.

The offending administrator used the district’s credit card for unauthorized personal purchases after being instructed by the superintendent to cancel the card.

In any other school district this would have been swiftly taken care of, as was done at Greensburg Catholic.

This has been going on for an entire year, and the board  . . . 

. . . has done NOTHING!

The board, in its complacency and inaction, is setting a precedent, making it possible to steal FC’s credit.

In addition, the board failed to adopt a comprehensive credit card policy as recommended by the auditor, opting instead to add one sentence to an unrelated policy as recommended by the superintendent.

The superintendent is protecting the offending administrator rather than our school district.

Due to complacency and inaction, board members are neglecting their duty to ensure the fiscal integrity of our school district.

Fort Cherry School Board members, past (including Cindy Gaskill who is attempting to get voted back in) and present, have failed the taxpayers.

The board has failed to adopt a comprehensive credit card policy and failed to take any action concerning the offending administrator who made unauthorized personal purchases with a district credit card.

The board is responsible.

Several board members have made it clear that the board will not spend money on an outside investigation and forensic audit, claiming the district does not have extra money to spend.

No extra money to spend?  The authors of this blog disagree.

Money was “found” in the budget to defend the district in the lawsuit filed by current board President Jamie White demanding district-wide elections.

Money was “found” in the budget for past board President Brant Miller to purchase new football uniforms that were not budgeted for and not properly put out for bid.

And, money was “found” just last year to pay for $22,000 worth of meals and miscellanies that were BUDGETED AT ZERO DOLLARS IN THE 2012-2013 BUDGET.

(The budget pages referenced below can be found at the end of this post.)

If money can be pulled from a “tight” budget to pay for administrative wants, then money can be pulled from a “tight” budget for something this district desperately needs:  an independent investigation and forensic audit.

The complacency must end.

Each and every member of the board who has “done nothing” is responsible for the gross misuse of Fort Cherry’s credit and the other financial irregularities that have been pointed out in this blog.

Fort Cherry needs an independent investigation and forensic audit.

So you think things are bad in Wilkinsburg? . . . .

You may have caught the reports on extravagant administrative spending at Wilkinsburg School District.  This link to a recent report on WTAE includes receipts documenting the expenses:

Wilkinsburg School District, among poorest in Pa., sparing no expense for consultants: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/investigations/wilkinsburg-school-district-spending-big-bucks-on-consultants/-/12023024/22216142/-/qx5emkz/-/index.html?absolute=true

So what does Wilkinsburg have to do with Fort Cherry?  Previous posts have shown the expensive administrative retreats and lavish meals enjoyed by FC administration and board members - paid for with our tax dollars - similar to Wilkinsburg.  This is reprehensible behavior by administrators from both districts.  What makes Fort Cherry even worse?

This is a receipt from Wilkinsburg which was attached to the WTAE article.  According to Wilkinsburg District Policy 331, “expenses shall be paid upon the presentation of an itemized, verified statement of expenses, including receipts. . . “

http://www.psba.org/districts_policies/W/670/POLWLKN331.pdf

It appears that no receipt was submitted for the $48.94 parking fee.  Therefore that amount was deducted from the reimbursement, as it should be according to Wilkinsburg Policy 331.

That's not so at Fort Cherry.

This is a document Superintendent Dinnen submitted for a $2,260 reimbursement.  This document was obtained through a RTK request submitted to Fort Cherry School District for administrative reimbursements.  The RTK asked for all documentation related to administrative reimbursements.

This document is a renewal invoice, not a receipt showing payment, and is simply labeled "PAID BY” and “REIMBURSE TO DINNEN".  No proof of payment is attached.

What method of payment was used - personal check? - personal credit card? – FC district check? - FC district credit card?

FC District Policy 331 reads:

“In all instances of travel and job related expense reimbursement, full itemization of expenditures shall be required”

http://www.fortcherry.org/cms/lib03/PA01000874/Centricity/Shared/District_Policies/300_Administrative_Employees/331-Job_Related_Expenses.1.pdf

One unsubstantiated document was submitted for a $2,260 reimbursement, yet Business Manager Sroka issued Dinnen a check for the full amount.

Note that the signatures on the check are stamped.  Only Sroka initialed the check – Sroka authorized the reimbursement, Sroka authorized the check.  Also note that school board approval was not part of that approval process.

Dinnen did not follow FC District Policy 331, yet the Business Manager issued a check.  Perhaps this is why the recent unauthorized personal use of the district’s AmEx card was handled so casually.

It’s important to note that by approving the reimbursement, the board approved the lack of proper procedure.

In fact, the board members have stated publicly that they are not given ANY documentation related to administrative reimbursements in their board packets.  Reimbursements, which are routinely paid out prior to board approval, are subsequently approved each month in the “bills for ratification”.   At a recent meeting, board member Leann Darnley asked that reimbursement receipts be included in the board packet, but board president Jamie White shut her down immediately.  White’s reason . . . he didn’t want to be bothered with more paper in his board packet.

Since the school board (collectively) doesn't want to see reimbursement forms or receipts, undocumented reimbursements like this are unknowingly approved.  Brant Miller publicly stated he believes he and his fellow board members have addressed administrative spending.  If that were the case, perhaps the administrator who used the district AmEx card for unauthorized personal charges would not have had the card in the first place.  Perhaps Dinnen, who himself was reimbursed even though he did not follow policy, would not have felt confident in presenting the inadequate AmEx card investigation to the board.

The Speaker Series subscription reimbursement shown here was approved under the tenure of current and past board members including treasurer, Elmo Cecchetti, Cindy Gaskill, Larry Heirendt, and Brant Miller.

To clean up unethical and sloppy business practice, FC needs new leadership in both the administration and school board.

The board can no longer claim ignorance to the ridiculous administrative spending.  By approving reimbursements without documentation, the board itself is responsible.

 - - - - - - - - - -

Here’ a little background on administrative attendance at the Pittsburgh Speaker Series:

Dinnen, Craig, and Jacoby have consistently attended these lectures along with a select few district employees.   Fort Cherry taxpayers foot the bill for the yearly subscription to the series as well as dinner for those who attend.

Although the lectures do not begin until 8 p.m., the administrators and guests consistently go out for dinner to “Olive or Twist”, a martini bar near the Benedum.  Alcoholic drinks, placed on a separate tab and paid for by credit card, were not submitted for reimbursement on the documentation we have seen.  Consequently, it is not known if a personal or FC credit card was used.

Administrators (Dinnen, Craig, Jacoby, Sroka) have taken turns submitting the dinner receipts for reimbursement.  Although not shown in this post, there are receipts for dinner for each and every one of the lectures – 7 lectures – 7 dinners per year.

The dinners are coded as “2270 Professional Development / 580 – Travel”.   The PDE’s Chart of Accounts defines professional development as something “designed to contribute to the professional competence of the school entity’s certified instructional staff”.  In contrast, the Speaker Series appears to be “entertainment”, especially when combined with dinner and drinks.  Click on the links below to see the list of speakers.


http://www.pittsburghspeakersseries.org/0809/
http://www.pittsburghspeakersseries.org/0910/
http://www.pittsburghspeakersseries.org/1011/
http://www.pittsburghspeakersseries.org/1112/
http://www.pittsburghspeakersseries.org/

Fort Cherry Taxpayer Theme Song? – part 2

Things to do today . . .

. . . . start with the serious stuff . . . .

1.       If you have not done so, read the article from the September 27th Tribune-Review titled “District’s credit card records probed”.

2.        Contact Fort Cherry school board representatives and ask them to initiate an independent investigation and forensic audit. 

Jamie White, president

Tina Cottrill, vice-president

Melinda Errett, treasurer

Elmo Cecchetti

Leann Darnley

Larry Heirendt

Chris Lauff

Jodi McKay

Brant Miller

As elected representatives, board members are to model responsible school governance and leadership.

Board members are duty bound to ensure the fiscal integrity of our school district.

There are still questions.

Taxpayers deserve answers.

. . . . now for a little fun . . .

3.       Get the tune to Seger’s Sunspot Baby in your head.

4.       Sing these lyrics!

He put on his ref shirt and he took off down the road

Left taxpayers stranded with the bills he owed

He skirted 'round FC's address

Took off with the American Express

Admin Baby

He sure has the board outguessed

He left us here stranded like a dog out in the yard

Charged up a fortune on FC's credit card

He used FC's credit rating

Didn’t even cost him a dime

Admin Baby

He sure had a real good time

He went to Orlando

Along with his girl

They went to a theme park, gave us the bill

Athens, Morgantown, Greensburg the list just goes on

Why does the board let him do us so wrong?

So he packs up his bags

And he takes off down the road

Big shot with taxpayer money, off he goes

Can’t get a card on his own

Chapter 7 will do that you know

Admin Baby

Will the board catch up sometime?

. . . Admin’s having a real good time!