Dinnen dreams . . . will the Board be duped?

“A budget is a dream; accounting is a reality.”

FC Superintendent Dinnen

FC Budget Hearing

May 14, 2012

At FC, the only “dream” associated with the budget is that administrators “dream up” what appear to be acceptable budget numbers.

Unfortunately for our students, staff, and taxpayers, the “reality” has been the prior boards’ unwillingness to question the numbers and irresponsibly permitting the administrators’ deception . . . year after year.

This year may be different.

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

Fort Cherry School Board is in the process of preparing the 2012-2013 budget.

Last week, board members asked the board secretary/business manager, Paul Sroka, for a breakdown of “line item expenditures”. 

Line item expenditures are vitally important in the budget process as they give a true picture of exactly how the budgeted money was spent.

Line item expenditures will break down the amounts shown in the “PROJECTED” column of the budget.  (The “PROJECTED” amount is the actual amount of money expended.)

Showing how much money was spent, and what the expenditures were for, will enable the board to see where cuts can be made.

This blog has repeatedly shown how the administration wastes taxpayer money.  A breakdown of line item expenditures will make that wasteful spending evident.

During this year’s budget hearings, Dinnen stated that if money is not available in a specific line item, then Sroka does not permit the expenditure.

This post will prove that to be untrue.

The 2012-2013 Preliminary Budget

The Preliminary 2012-2013 budget includes approximately $37,635 for travel.

The board needs to take a good hard look at the money budgeted for travel.

In what they claimed was an effort to save the district money, in June 2011 Dinnen and Sroka recommended that the district furlough teachers and cut vital programs.  The board agreed.

At the same time, Dinnen vehemently argued to keep the travel budget virtually intact.  The board agreed.

The 2011-2012 travel budget gave the administration over $40,000 to party and play.

So much for saving the district money!

Immediately after furloughing teachers and cutting programs, Dinnen, Craig, and Jack Okorn, the Technology Coordinator, spent close to $3,000 on a five-day trip to Philadelphia to attend an International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) conference.

What is ISTE? 

ISTE’s website defines the organization as “the premier membership association for educators and education leaders engaged in advancing excellence in learning and teaching through innovative and effective uses of technology.”  http://www.isteconference.org/ISTE/2011/about_us/

The expense reimbursement forms for the three administrators, Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn, are shown below.  

A few things to note on the reimbursements:

1.  The Account Codes

All three split the cost of the trip between these two codes:

10-1100-580-212-10-200

10 General Fund – 1100 Regular Instruction – 580 Travel – 212 PA Accountability Grant – 10 Elementary – 200 Elementary School Building

10-1100-580-212-30-800

10 General Fund – 1100 Regular Instruction – 580 Travel – 212 PA Accountability Grant – 30 Secondary – 800 Senior High School Building

What do those numbers mean?

This is why line item expenditures are so important.

Instead of the trip coming out of the respective budgets of Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn, the three dipped into the Accountability Block Grant money (code 212) that was designated to be used by our teachers for “Regular Instruction” (code 1100).

In other words, money that should have gone to the children’s education was used by the administration to party and play.

Was administrative travel a valid use of ABG money?

Travel is not part of the description of the initiatives of the ABG found on FC’s website.

Is it possible that the state does not permit ABG money to be used for administrative travel?

That would explain the dubious coding.

The state allocated ABG money to be used to improve student achievement, using basic initiatives, like tutoring and extra instruction for struggling students.

Instead of spending the money on the basic initiatives for our students as directed by the PDE and outlined on FC’s website, FC administrators spent the money on themselves. 

 

Did administrative attendance at the five-day conference improve student achievement?

Did the administrators return from Philadelphia with anything of use to our children?

How should Accountability Block Grant (ABG) Funding be used? 

According to the PA state website, “The ABG funding should be allocated for expenditures directly related to improving student achievement, including but not limited to: learning materials and resources; instruction (including salaries and benefits, where permitted) consistent with the13 limitations in sections 2599.2(b) and (e) of the ABG legislation; professional development (including coaching); technical assistance; strategic partnerships with community organizations, universities and parents and direct services to students.”

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1242065/pa_pact_guidelines_new_3_pdf_%282%29?qid=33120090&rank=4

What are Fort Cherry’s initiatives for the ABG?

According to FC’s 2010-2011 Annual Report to the Community, “The Accountability Block Grant is a state-funded initiative that provides funding to a school district to be allocated to eleven different educational initiatives.”

“In general, the Fort Cherry School District has allocated its funding to the following strategies:

·         Tutoring Before/After School (grades 7-12),

·         Intensive Instruction for Struggling Students During the School Day
(grades 7-12),

·         Science and Applied Knowledge Skills (grades K-12),

·         High School Reform (grades 9-12),

·         New Curricula/Course Offerings (grades 7-12),

·         Social and Health Services (grades 7-12),

·         and Research-Based Improvement Strategies (grade 1).”

http://www.fortcherry.org/170310818152923463/lib/170310818152923463/_files/2010_11_FCSD_Annual_Report.pdf

2.  Wasteful Spending

Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn took separate vehicles to Philadelphia, costing the district $1833.11 in mileage, tolls, and overnight parking fees.

·        1,926 miles @ $0.51/mile             -  $982.26

·         tolls                                                  -  $115.85

·         parking @ $49/night                      -  $735.00

Driving one vehicle would have saved the district $1,222.

3.  Who’s doing the math?

On the 2011-2012 budget, the line items for REGULAR INSTRUCT CONFERENCE/TRAVEL – BLOCK GRANT indicate that  FC spent $311 for elementary and $813 for secondary travel under the Accountability Block Grant from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.

The budget shows actual expenditures of $1,124 for REGULAR INSTRUCT CONFERENCE/TRAVEL – BLOCK GRANT.

The reimbursements show actual expenditures of $2,856.96.

The $1,124 budget number should match the $2,856.96 submitted by the administrators in June 2011 for reimbursement.  (Dinnen spent $854.07; Craig, $1,003.41; and Okorn, $999.48.)

Line item expenditures, like those requested by the board this year, would show that the administration actually spent $1,732.96 more than reported as spent in the budget.

Dinnen, Craig, and Okorn were all fully reimbursed, even though Dinnen stated that if money is not available in a specific line item, then Sroka does not permit the expenditure.

The reimbursement checks issued to the three administrators are shown beneath their reimbursement forms below.

4.  Repeating the Pattern of Waste

In June of 2010 the three went to Denver, Colorado, for the 2010 ISTE conference.

They spent $4,913.76 of ABG money.  The expense reimbursement forms for those expenditures are also shown below.

As in 2011, the budget shows a “PROJECTED” total of $1,124 actual expenditures from the two line items.  The administrators spent $3,789.76 more than reported as spent in the budget.

 

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

Sroka reimbursed the administrators, even though Dinnen stated that if money is not available in a specific line item, then Sroka does not permit the expenditure. 

Money that should have gone to the children’s education was used by the administration to party and play.

Student Success is our #1 Priority, but is Student Success the Administrators’ #1 Priority? . . . it does not appear so.

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

5.  Documentation

 

Dinnen 2011:

Craig 2011:

Note:  FC Open Records Officer, Paul Sroka, released the address of a public school employee on the document below.  In order to comply with the law, the authors of this blog redacted the address.

Okorn 2011:

Dinnen 2010:

Note:  FC Open Records Officer, Paul Sroka, released the address of a public school employee on the document below.  In order to comply with the law, the authors of this blog redacted the address.

Craig 2010:

(The bottom of this reimbursement form was omitted from the RTK response.)

 

Note:  FC Open Records Officer, Paul Sroka, released the address of a public school employee on the document below.  In order to comply with the law, the authors of this blog redacted the address.

 

Okorn 2010:

 

 

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:

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/04-15-2012-ElderlyCoupleKill--Briefs

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.