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!

Fort Cherry Taxpayer Theme Song?

Bob Seger on YouTube . . . . 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoOsYSEYqHc

Hmmm . . . . sound familiar?

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/4755522-74/district-charges-cherry#axzz2g6ZnxVgt

More to come!

More on FC's District Credit Card . . . .

This article was published in today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/4755522-74/district-charges-cherry#axzz2g6ZnxVgt

District's credit card records probed

Investigators are looking into allegations that someone used a Fort Cherry School District credit card for thousands of dollars in personal expenses, including tickets to a Florida amusement park.

The Pennsylvania Auditor General's Office received documents related to the charges on the American Express card as part of an audit, and the Washington County District Attorney's Office recently sought financial documents regarding the transactions, current and former school board members told the Tribune-Review.

“I'm not saying anyone has stolen any money,” said former board member Victoria “Vicky” Lauff, 54, of Robinson, Washington County. “They are saying no public money was used, but I haven't seen any proof.”

School board member Leann Darnley raised the issue publicly in December. She wants an explanation, as do residents who run the “Fort Cherry Info” blog, which tracks expenditures and other happenings in the McDonald district.

“The fact is we weren't provided any documentation to show how it was repaid one way or another,” Darnley said of questionable charges in 2012.

Both women filed right-to-know requests with the district to get documents related to the credit card use. Both said they want an independent investigation and forensic audit of district accounts.

Superintendent Robert Dinnen said he isn't worried about what an audit would reveal.

“I feel more than confident,” Dinnen said. “Agencies from the outside have looked into it.”

Other than the school district's longtime auditor, Cypher & Cypher, Dinnen declined to identify which outside agencies participated in an investigation he conducted “about this time” last year.

“That investigation was concluded as far as the district is concerned,” he said. “There were no district funds spent inappropriately.”

Dinnen wouldn't identify the subject of his investigation, citing personnel privacy protections, but said records prove no public money was spent on personal expenses. He said he could not provide records because he was attending a conference in Harrisburg.

Dinnen told the board Sept. 16 that a district attorney's detective recently requested documents related to American Express accounts, Darnley said.

District Attorney Gene Vittone could not be reached.

An email the Tribune-Review obtained shows in June copies of the American Express documents went to Elizabeth Wagenseller, deputy auditor general for external affairs. The auditor's office acknowledged it is conducting a normal review of Fort Cherry accounts.

“Could credit cards be part of that? Yes,” said agency spokeswoman Susan Woods.

School board President James “Jamie” White said the charges in Orlando were not related to district business.  He said the board has not reviewed all documents related to the credit card investigation, but White said he is confident of Cypher's findings.

“We asked the auditors to verify no school funds were spent, and those were their findings,” White said.

Dinnen said the district canceled its American Express card and “has no credit cards outstanding.”

The Trib obtained documents for a Fort Cherry account with American Express showing two cards in the name of Paul R. Sroka, Fort Cherry's business manager.

“My name is on the card,” said Sroka, 48, of South Fayette. “But that doesn't mean the charges were made by me.”

Sroka said his name appeared on many district credit cards and charge accounts because of his position. He refused to say if he made the charges and accused his critics of waging a “public relations witch hunt.”

“Those people have been harassing me for years,” Sroka said. “I will not have my professional reputation dragged through the mud.”

District records for an American Express card from July 2011 through December 2012 compiled by the Fort Cherry School District and dated March 18, 2013, showed $5,633.91 in charges for general supplies, a telescope case for the science club, and a hotel room and rental car for the 2012 state wrestling tournament.

Separate statements show 38 charges on an American Express card in Sroka's name from July 29 through Sept. 28, 2012, totaling more than $1,900. The balance was paid.

Those statements include:

• Eight charges totaling $330.74 at a Get-Go station on Washington Pike in Bridgeville

• Eleven charges at the Giant Eagle Market District grocery store in Settlers Ridge totaling $417.75.

• Charges at a pizzeria and Wal-Mart in Athens, Ohio, on Sept. 6, 2012, the day Ohio University records show Sroka officiated a football game between the Bobcats and New Mexico State.

• Charges for a trip to Orlando, Fla., from July 26 through Aug. 3, 2012, that included a Payless Car Rental and $277.98 for admission to Universal's Islands of Adventure theme park.

Jason Cato is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7936 or jcato@tribweb.com.