TUCKER, FISCO, PETRAMALE TAKE A STAND Remember the recent headlines that dominated the local media: "Saugerties School District Reveals Lack of Adequate Control over Purchasing and Claiming," and "Saugerties Schools are on the Hot Seat," regarding the New York State Comptroller's Audit of the Saugerties Central School System? The determination had been made in that audit that the District had not established adequate internal controls, citing failure to enforce compliance with policies relating to bid solicitation, quotes, claims authorization, and payment of unsupported travel and entertainment expenses. The audit also found that District officials had not established adequate controls to protect capital assets and inventories. Well, guess what? At Tuesday night's school board meeting, officials were prepared to respond to the recent State Comptroller's Audit Report detailing the corrections that had been made with respect to the Audit. Included in their response was a portion that indicated that the "board" was in disagreement with the Comptroller's Office with respect to the $160 Superintendent Rhau was inappropriately paid for mileage to attend a conference in Boston (the Audit contained the suggestion that the improper amount be repaid). When board president Brennan called for a vote to approve the letter, he was met with a challenge from members Tucker and Petramale and Fisco regarding the letter which had been "pre-written" and contained language stating that the "board" disagrees with the Controller's Office---when, in fact, the board had not even discussed it! Brennan nervously and cautiously attempted to justify the letter. Although board members Tucker, Petramale and Fisco agreed with the corrections contained in other parts of the District's response, they didn't agree with the portion that stated that the Comptroller's Office was wrong regarding the $160. They felt that the Comptroller's Report was clear when they said, "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 use of his personal vehicle, but was still reimbursed separately for his actual vehicle mileage to attend a conference, suggesting that the Board should consider obtaining reimbursement from the Superintendent for the inappropriate $160 travel reimbursement." To avoid any misunderstanding, Tucker suggested that the board vote on the section separately, explaining that voting on the letter "as a whole" would be unfair to the board members who are opposed to the portion that indicated the board (as a complete entity) disagreed with the Comptroller's Office about the $160. Unfortunately (and typically), Tucker's suggestion was rejected and Brennan called for a vote to send the letter "as written." The motion passed by a 5-3 vote, with Tucker, Petramale and Fisco dissenting. However, true to form, Rhau's cronies McCaig, Buono, Kovac, and Parisian sat there just like obedient little soldiers and in full support of Rhau, cast their votes against the Comptroller's recommendations. It should come as no surprise to anyone---after all, wasn't it one of Rhau's cronies who took out that twenty-dollar bill as a gesture to help pay the $160 for Rhau. I must admit, however, I was particularly surprised that Brennan voted with the "cronies," since I recall a conversation I had with him several months ago in which he appeared to agree that Rhau was not entitled to that $160 (and this was before the Audit was released). Brennan claimed he contacted the school attorney with a view toward having the lawyer put pressure on Rhau. Although he asked the attorney not to reveal the call to Rhau, that request was not honored according to Brennan. When I mentioned that the school attorney appeared to be working for Rhau rather than the District, Brennan responded, "Oh, he is, definitely." In fact, Brennan insisted that he was "not thrilled" with the way the school attorney was "handling the District with Rhau," and that "right after the teachers' contract was settled," he would be requesting proposals from other law firms. Incidentally, this is the same attorney who rendered the pro-Rhau "opinion" regarding the $160---the "opinion" that appeared as a paid ad in the Saugerties Post Star last week. He is also the same attorney who negotiated the current contract between the District and Rhau. Ahh, such warm, fuzzy relationships. I was surprised initially, but as I thought, it didn't take me long to figure out just why Brennan might suddenly take that different position: he's trying to land a teaching job for his daughter and Rhau is the person who makes all the recommendations. Could it be? Could this be the reason? Sound logical? You be the judge!
Cell Phones Also during Tuesday night's board meeting Superintendent Rhau attempted to justify the use of the 47,450 air minutes used by the Districts 25 cell-phones which also are capable of being used as walkie-talkies. Rhau claims the calls were made during an 18-month period which averages out to about six calls each per week. He said the phones assigned to administrators and building offices are necessary for emergency situations and for better communications. What Rhau failed to address is: why Messrs. Farris and Price made 525 cell-phone calls during the months of July and August when school is not in session; nor why 210 calls were made from the Jr. High office cell-phone to Mr. Farris's cell-phone when there were plenty of landline-phones available. Rhau also failed to explain why Price and Farris made approximately 200 calls to places such as Daytona Beach, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Hilton Head, South Carolina, Virginia, California, Massachusetts, Williamston, New Jersey, Michigan, golf courses, etc. (many of which were made on weekends) and failed to explain why Mr. Price had to call his home in Columbia County over 500 times (sometimes 5 to 6 times in the same day) and failed to offer an explanation as to why he had called Waltham, Massachusetts on Christmas Day and Williamston, New Jersey, and Vineland, New Jersey on July 4th, or why Farris called Atlanta, Georgia, on Christmas Day. Also not addressed is why Mr. Farris called Daytona Beach, Florida, Tahoe City, California, and Richmond, Virginia, on New Year's Eve. Rhau could have, and certainly should have, explained why he, himself, called Folsom, California, four times on Christmas Eve and three times on Christmas Day. And, why did Senior High Vice-principal Fred Hirsch make 3,324 cell-phone calls using up 7,236 air-minutes when he has access to many landline phones? And the list goes on and on. Are these calls all related to District business or emergency situations? Again, you be the judge. If there is any doubt about the validity of my allegations, please view the phone bills in detail for yourself (Go to the box at the top of this page and click on log you wish to view). The bottom line is this: certain members of the administration are taking advantage of the situation and using the District cell-phones as their own personal equipment. During the public comment period (Tuesday night's board meeting), I offered my opinion that if it were up to me, I would introduce a resolution to change the District cell-phone policy to read that, except for justifiable emergencies, cell-phones are to be used for District business only. Since the board took no action to revise or amend its current policy with respect to cell-phones, and until such time that the majority of the board takes the initiative to make a change, the saga will probably continue, and certain members of the administration will continue to take advantage of the situation …seizing every opportunity to abuse the liberal privileges the District allows, all at our expense. In the meanwhile, I will continue to FOIL for the phone bills and make them available to the public. Stay tuned…
George D. Heidcamp, Sr. February 22, 2007 |