Friday, February 7, 2014

Is FC on its way back to “Truth, Honor, and Integrity”?


The authors of this blog would like to thank the FC board for taking care of three agenda items at the January 27th meeting that will greatly impact the future direction of Fort Cherry.

Foremost was the board’s formal acceptance of Superintendent Robert W. Dinnen’s retirement.


Subsequently, and wisely, the board invoked Section 1073(b) of PA School Code which states:


By formally accepting the resignation and invoking Section 1073(b), the board fulfilled the terms of Dinnen’s contract.  Formal acceptance also ensures that the board secretary include the vote in the official minutes of the board.

Additionally the board did not renew the contract of the school auditor, Cypher and Cypher.

The motion to renew failed to get enough votes, thus opening the door for a new set of eyes to be used on Fort Cherry’s finances.

Those voting to keep the status quo and Cypher were Cindy Gaskill, Larry Heinrendt, and Jamie White.

Those voting for change by seeking proposals for a new auditor were Tina Cottril, Melinda Errett, Chris Lauff, Jodi McKay, Jeanine Miles, and JoAnne Wagner.

Although no one from the Observer-Reporter attended the meeting, it appears O-R staff writer Emily Petsko called FC’s Administrative Office after the meeting to learn some details.

The O-R quotes Dinnen as saying:

“We’ve advanced the academic achievement of our students, instituted numerous professional development activities for our staff, created a collaborative process with parents and moved technology to state of the art … and went from $20 million in debt to debt-free.”


Let’s think about that statement.


Dinnen:  “advanced the academic achievement of our students”

That’s an easy claim to make, but do the test scores back up the claim?

Joanne Wagner created a blog while running a successful campaign for school board. 

In Ms. Wagner’s April 30, 2013, post, she pointed out in 2013 that FC is not “advancing the academic achievement of our students” as Dinnen claims.  She references the Pittsburgh Business Times 2013 School Guide which shows FC’s statewide rank dropped:





Dinnen:  “created a collaborative process with parents

Typically, Dinnen spins things to make himself sound and look good.  A man who has no trouble claiming another's career and achievements as his own (as he did with Lt. Col. Yelk and Mattoon JROTC**), most likely would have no qualms using another's ideas and claiming them as his own.

Interestingly, Ms. Wagner also states in her 4/30/13 post, , “. . . we need to acknowledge our problems in order to start a dialogue in the community about how to fix them. . . . This is a shared responsibility between the community and the school.  We can solve these types of problems by developing collaborative relationships and working together, not ignoring them or fighting about them.”


Dinnen:  “instituted numerous professional development activities for our staff”

“Professional development” for the administrators at FC seems to have taken a front seat, in front of our children’s education.  As documented in this blog, “professional development” has consisted of lavish meals, travel, and entertainment for administrators.

Under Dinnen’s tenure, the Administrative Compensation Plan (Act 93) has been modified to include a $5000 yearly bonus for a doctorate degree – a degree obtained with 100% tuition reimbursement thanks to FC taxpayers.  In addition, the Act 93 gives administrators who sign off on a grant a 5% cut, even if a teacher or parent has put the work into applying for it.  The administrator simply signs off on the application, and 5% goes to the administrator.


Dinnen:  “moved technology to state of the art”

Sure, FC has state of the art technology, but is it curriculum-driven?  Former board member Leann Darnley asked that very question last May when the board was considering technology purchases.  Administrators did not respond.  Has FC been purchasing state of the art technology for the sake of bragging rights, or has an educational need truly been established?


Dinnen:  “$20 million in debt to debt-free”

FC would have paid off the $20 million debt last year, with or without Dinnen at the helm.  The district took out a bond to renovate years ago and was required to make a $1.6 million yearly payment.   Furthermore, FC is not debt-free.  The district took out a $4.5 million dollar bond almost immediately after paying off the old debt and the board is discussing the possibility of increasing that bond to $31 million


Also of interest in the O-R, was this quote from business manager Paul Sroka:

“Dr. Dinnen has been very helpful to me in my professional development and mentored me in understanding school finance.”


Sroka:  “mentored me in understanding school finance”

One would think that an understanding of school finance would be a prerequisite for employment as a school business manager, not something you learn on the job.  Did Dinnen’s mentoring include lessons on dubious coding of inappropriate expenditures and commandeering the district’s corporate AmEx card?


--------

With the board’s decisions to hire a new superintendent and retain a new auditor, we are cautiously optimistic that FC is on its way back to “Truth, Honor, and Integrity”.

This board faces many challenges.  Proposals from auditing firms need to be considered.  Decisions over the renovations are looming, along with a decision to increase the bond to as much as $31 million.  Hopefully prudence and good judgment will prevail.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Will Fort Cherry do what is recommended by the PDE?


Cypher& Cypher’s contract is up this year.  The Board must decide whether to keep Cypher, the auditor for the past 20 years, or obtain a new auditor to set a fresh set of eyes on FC’s finances.

Board member Jodi McKay voiced that it would be a good idea to look for new auditors.  Board member JoAnne Wagner agreed.

Lo and behold, the PDE agrees:  

School Finance 101
PA Department of Education


But board members Jamie White and Cindy Gaskill did not agree.

White and Gaskill are happy to keep the status quo.  Both praised Cypher’s work at FC.


Let’s review a few things that have occurred under Cypher’s watch:
  • FC business manager Paul Sroka commandeered the school’s corporate credit card, making unauthorized personal purchases.  To date, the board has not had it confirmed that public funds were not used to pay for Sroka’s purchases.
  • In 2010, FC administrators violated school code when they transferred over $700,000 out of the 1432 Capital Reserve account.  Instead of instructing the administrators and the board to adhere to school code, Cypher stated publicly that “it didn’t hurt anyone”, made excuses for the administrators, and misidentified the fund in the yearly audit so as to not call attention to the violation.
  • Cypher has ignored years of inappropriate coding by Sroka, enabling the administration to misuse public tax dollars for administrative perks.


For that they deserve praise???

Jamie White not only praised Cypher, he went on to state that Cecil Township, pleased with Cypher’s work in the investigation of former police chief John Pushak, renewed Cypher’s contract.

Really, Jamie??? . . .



Here are the facts:

On January 6, Cecil supervisors approved a new township auditor.  That information appeared January 7, 2014, in the Observer:
“During the reorganization meeting, the board approved Hosack, Specht, Muetzel & Wood LLP in Pittsburgh as the new township auditor, replacing Cypher & Cypher Certified Public Accountants in Canonsburg.”

Cypher did not discover the discrepancy in the Cecil Police Department’s finances.  According to the December 30, 2013, Observer:
The investigation began in mid-January when a Cecil Township resident, who asked to remain anonymous, contacted authorities about money potentially missing from the police department’s evidence room.”

As reported in the January 7 Observer:
 “Our residents do not trust our local government,” said (Cecil) resident Shirley O’Donnell. “It is vital to restore trust and relieve the concern of our citizens through a forensic audit.”


The same thing applies to FC’s administrators and those who are compensated with our tax dollars to watch over them, like the auditor.  This blog has shown time and again that the superintendent and business manager have not been honest with the board.  They are not to be trusted.  And Cypher, by ignoring the indiscretions of the administration, appears to have lost its independence when dealing with Fort Cherry.

Cypher has been the school auditor for over 20 years, well over the PDE’s recommendation of 5 to 6 years.

It’s time for a new set of eyes on Fort Cherry’s books.  

Monday, January 6, 2014

Tis the season . . . Santa says, “Ho, Ho, Ho” . . . and Sroka says, “Ha, Ha, Ha” to FC taxpayers.


Things you will more than likely find hanging on the FC Business Manager’s Christmas tree:


.
.
.


.
.
.


.
.
.

Due to the inaction of the FC School Board, FC Business Manager Paul Sroka maintains possession of the district’s corporate Amex card.

Will FC taxpayers foot the bill for Sroka’s merry Christmas?

The board can do right by the taxpayers and initiate an independent investigation and forensic audit of the finances of the district; or, the board can hide behind Dinnen’s botched “investigation” of the credit account takeover by Sroka.

Which will it be???

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

Dinnen's contract is set to expire at the end of this school year.  

The board has three choices:

1) Do nothing and let the contract roll into another 5 years of Dinnen being in charge, thus having no positive change to the district.  Keep in mind Dinnen has not been truthful with the board and taxpayers.

2) Open the superintendent position and contract and interview other (and surely superior) candidates for the position.  This would give the Board the opportunity to improve the contract, striking the many taxpayer funded personal perks (money that could be better used for programs for the students).

3) Allow Dinnen to retire.  Caution with this choice!
This must be done with a written agreement from Dinnen stating that he will retire early or at the end of the school year.  Without this in writing by the January 27th meeting, the board has no guarantee that Dinnen will retire, and the board will miss the opportunity to open the position in accordance with policy and the terms of Dinnen's current contract.  (A full copy of Dinnen’s contract can be found here:  http://www.fortcherry.org/Page/9)
The contract should be opened this month regardless of any promises from Dinnen to retire.



From Dinnen's current contract......


Saturday, November 9, 2013

FC Board Not Acting Responsibly . . . Why?

As taxpayers know by now, the forensic audit was not approved by the board.
This blog applauds the efforts by Board Directors Chris Lauff, Jodi McKay and Leann Darnley to initiate an outside investigation of Fort Cherry’s finances.  All three voted for a forensic audit.  However, Tina Cottrill, Melinda Errett , Elmo Cecchetti, Brant Miller, Larry Heirendt, and Jamie White voted no.
For the past year the board has been mulling over the events surrounding the misuse of the district’s AmEx credit card by its Business Manager, Paul Sroka.  His direct supervisor, Robert Dinnen, did a shoddy job of investigating the incident and still has not provided the board with evidence that no district funds were spent to pay off the card.
Even if Sroka repaid the district for the inappropriate purchases, he still acted inappropriately and deceived the public and the board.
So why didn’t Cottrill, Errett, and the others vote for a forensic audit when there is clearly enough evidence of wrong-doing to warrant a forensic audit and outside investigation?
What would make the board members vote against doing the right thing?
Possibly, those who voted no fall into one of two groups:
  • Complacent
  • Afraid

The board, with legitimate concerns that should have resulted in a forensic audit, failed the taxpayers by voting down the motion.
Some of those who voted no may have done so because they have had positions on the board during the years of Dinnnen and Sroka's tenures.  This list would include Cecchetti, Heinrendt, Miller, and White.
In their complacency, could it be that they would be held culpable for any financial indiscretions that occurred during their time in office?  
This blog has discussed the board’s complacency in previous posts, but afraid?
What could board members possibly be afraid of?
That can be best summed-up in a quote from PSEA Attorney Todd Parks.  In 1997, Parks represented New Brighton School District librarian Marjorie McNie in a federal civil rights lawsuit against Dinnen, who at that time, was acting superintendent of New Brighton.  Speaking of NB board members and Dinnen, Parks said:


It may be that Dinnen has brought his habit of using taxpayer money “to pursue . . .  personal and political vendettas against anyone who has the courage to challenge . . . numerous violations of laws, regulations and policies” to Fort Cherry and that Sroka is following his lead.
Since obtaining seats on the board, FC board members Cottrill, Errett, Darnley, Lauff, and McKay have been questioning Dinnen and Sroka’s actions.
So, why would Cottril and Errett vote down a forensic audit?
We can only assume that Dinnen, Sroka, or both have threatened the board with legal action, possibly for workplace harassment, if a forensic audit is pursued.
Did Cottril and Errett succumb to Dinnen and /or Sroka's threats?
Dinnen and Sroka are the two with the most to lose if an investigation ensues.  If they have nothing to hide, why are they not welcoming an audit?  If they are innocent of any wrongs, an audit would clear their names.
All discussion surrounding the forensic audit occurred in executive session, so the authors of this blog do not have proof that the board members were threatened.  However, the board’s inaction speaks for itself.
With all evidence pointing to the need for a forensic audit, for what other reason would the motion fail?
Even if you put the credit card issue aside, the district desperately needs a forensic audit
Here’s one recent incident that illustrates that need:
At the August 26, 2013, meeting, board member Darnley asked Sroka about a discrepancy between the Bills for Ratification and the July 2013 “Account Summaries” regarding the T Lee Carter Fund.  (Sroka’s “Account Summaries” page can be found here:  http://www.fortcherry.org/Page/11)
Sroka told Darnley that the discrepancy occurred because one of the checks did not clear and that there was a fee to transfer the money from the associated CD.
A fee to transfer money from a CD?  Really????!!!!!

With Darnley’s prompting, board treasurer Errett looked into the matter.  Turns out the fees were actually OVERDRAFT fees due to insufficient funds in the checking account.

So, Sroka, who is in charge of millions of our tax dollars, bounced a check.

Sroka, caught in the lie, changed his story and blamed Washington Federal for not transferring the money from the CD in a timely manner.

Even if that were true, wouldn’t  a competent business manager ensure that the money was transferred before cutting a check?

Furthermore, if you think this was a one-time occurrence, documentation proves otherwise.  Shown below are bank statements from 2010 and 2011 which show bounced checks from both the T. Lee Carter and the FFA Funds.

Record keeping , such as maintaining a checking account, is taught to FC students in Financial Math.   Debt and credit cards are also part of the curriculum.  Perhaps Sroka should sit in on a few classes.














Monday, October 28, 2013

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