No Surprise---School Officials Downplay Audit By now, I'm sure all who are interested have had an opportunity to read the recently released New York State Comptroller's Audit Report on the Saugerties Central School District. I think you will agree that most everything addressed in that report confirms what has been said about failure at the District for several months. Indeed, as pointed out in prior Heidcamp Reports, the facts speak for themselves, and the essence of mismanagement is evident right at the top. Yet, in spite of headlines such as: "Saugerties School District Reveals Lack of Adequate Controls Over Purchasing and Claiming" and "Auditors Criticize District's Oversight, and Saugerties Schools are on the Hot Seat," individuals remain who are more sympathetic toward the Administration and have downplayed the Audit, stating that "It contained nothing particularly harrowing," or "It was like reviewing a student's report card." What? A report card? If it were "like reviewing a report card," I believe the District should definitely receive an "F." Then, of course, there is Superintendent Rhau with his attempt to downplay the Audit by saying that the District should be "pleased with the audit" because there was "no embezzlement or theft!" Is that now the acceptable "gold standard" for the Saugerties District, its measure of "success?" While there may not have been any outright theft or embezzlement, the slipshod way finances are handled in this District could easily lead to it—read the Audit. It's the responsibility of the administration and their staff (who, incidentally, are paid more than a half-million dollars annually) to administer the school district in accordance with policies and procedures, and it's the school board's responsibility to make policy and then make sure the administration does its job by following that policy—it's called "accountability" and "checks and balances." Heretofore it has been lacking at the Saugerties Central School District. I remember asking once whether Buono was "asleep at the wheel." Just where was he?, all this happened on his watch!
Claims Processing Education Law requires that school districts audit and approve each and every claim before making payment. The Board has formally appointed a "claims auditor" (Don McCaig, brother of board member Bob McCaig) who is paid $2,500 per year to audit and approve District claims. The claims auditor is charged with auditing each claim to determine whether it is properly authorized and accurate, and whether the purchase represents a valid District expense for goods or services that were actually received. For their audit, the Comptroller's office reviewed forty-four paid claims (totaling $292,368) and found that only two of the forty-four were supported by complete purchase packets. It's the internal claims auditor's responsibility to review each purchase packet to verify that all required information is complete, correct and properly supported before paying the claim. Unless the claims auditor thoroughly audits claims, the District could pay for costs that are not authorized or valid District expenses, make duplicate payments, or pay for goods and services that were not actually received. One might expect that an administration that costs us more than one-half million dollars each year might be a little more productive and have a better grip on school affairs. I guess the "coast-to-coast trips" were more important than managing the District! And, where was former board president Vince Buono during all of this? Again, all this happened on his watch while he was at the controls—did he fall asleep at the wheel again? And why were ceratin board members kept in the dark about what was going on? In hindsight, if Buono had been more attentive to his responsibilities as president, making sure that the administration followed proper policy and procedure, instead of spending time eating those free lunches (at our expense) with the superintendent at Chowhound, perhaps the District might have received a more favorable report from the Comptroller. While I've never gotten an answer from the Board regarding my concerns about these matters, I've now gotten one from the Comptroller's Office, and it is a little more serious than a "student's report card."
Reimburse the District It should be stipulated–and I think all will agree, the school's attorney should look out for the best interest of the District. However, in one incident, the school attorney defended Rhau who had been improperly reimbursed $160 for actual travel mileage to attend a conference while he had simultaneously received a $450 monthly stipend as compensation for use of his personal vehicle in the conduct of District business. In my opinion, that raises suspicion about the relationship between the attorney and Rhau. In fact, I recall a conversation with board member Brennan a while ago. He told me that he had contacted the school attorney and presented him with information with a view toward having the lawyer put pressure on Rhau to address my complaints. Brennan claims to have asked the attorney not to reveal their conversation to Rhau but, unfortunately the request was not honored (according to Brennan). As a result, Brennan, "not thrilled " with the attorney's handling of the District and Rhau, mentioned that he wished to look elsewhere for a different law firm for representation. You be the judge–did the "District's attorney" fail to represent the best interest of the District? Did he ignore the Board's wishes and, instead, defend Rhau at his client's expense? Regardless of the position taken by the "District's attorney," the Comptroller's Office took a much different position, stating: "Regardless of the District's position and its counsel's opinion on this issue, the fact remains that the Superintendent received $450 a month for the use of his personal vehicle, but was still reimbursed separately for his actual vehicle mileage to attend a conference." The Audit contained a recommendation that the Board consider obtaining reimbursement for the "inappropriate" $160 travel reimbursement made to Superintendent Rhau. Some will undoubtedly defend Rhau and claim that $160 is "no big deal," but it's not the money it's the principle. Rhau was not entitled to that money—it belongs to the taxpayers, and he should do the right thing by returning it to the District. He shouldn't even have to be asked. I think the Comptroller's Report was a embarrassment to our community. Stay tuned...more to come George D. Heidcamp, Sr. January 11, 2007 |