Thursday, May 12, 2022

Board Expenses through 4/30/2022

Thanks to FOIA, here's the information that the superintendent didn't want you to know. If fact, he didn't even want one trustee to know what the others were spending.

In the School Year 2021-2022 each trustee is allocated $7,000 for travel, training and some other listed expenses.

How much has each spent?

Agostini                   $2,516.43 (San Diego conference to be added)

Caution-Parker        $2,117.97

Holmes                   $9,726.37   OVER $2,726.37

Manning                 $7,172.60    OVER $172.60

McFadden              $6,606.76

McKie                    $7,444.83   OVER $444.83

Scott                       $9,938.15   OVER $2,938.15

TOTAL                 $45,523.11

Who recalls hearing Supt. Davis say that the trustees, as a whole, had exceeded the total amount allocated for training and travel? Wouldn't that be $49,000? $7000 x 7? Not true, was it?

In fact, $49,000 is listed as Total Annual Board Travel Allocated to Board Members

$49,000 - $45,523.11 = $3,476.89 Remaining as of 4/30/2022

Trustee McFadden has $393.24 remaining, as of April 30. She certainly could have transferred to $150.00 to Trustee Scott. Why wouldn't the superintendent allow that? 

The worksheet is very clear about showing the total spent and the remaining amount. The question is, why didn't District controls kick in to prevent over-reimbursement?

The Board has never approved an increase to the total allocated for travel, training, etc. And it should not. The District should recover monies overpaid to trustees.

District Reimbursement Form

(Click to enlarge)

Here is the Treasure Chest. This is travel reimbursement form that trustees complete in order to draw on their annual $7,000 travel and training allowance.

There must be a procedures manual that goes with it, but I did not request that.

At the top right is wording that directs the employee (or trustee) to fill it out after they return. Near the bottom an "approved Travel Request Form" is mentioned. In the body of the form a Travel Advance line is shown, along with a P-card line.

Already I can see that at least one trustee will find her mental powers and arithmetic skills heavily taxed to complete this form correctly.

How often have trustees requested money in advance for travel? Who has dipped in before traveling? Why?  How much has been requested? How much was advanced?

Somebody down in the bowels of the Accounting Department should be watching each trustee's spending. No funds should be advanced, if the trustee's total is pushed over $7,000. 

When the Reimbursement Form is submitted, that same "somebody" should first look to see if the amount requested will push the trustee's account over the $7,000 limit.

If it does, only the amount should be paid that will bring the total up to $7,000. The employee should be informed that no excess reimbursement will be made.

BUT in School Year 2021-2022 the Total for all trustees has already been exceeded, and at least one trustee has been told she won't be able to spend funds remaining in her own account. 

At the bottom of the form are lines for signatures of the Approving Supervisor and the Finance "Approver". Who are those Distreict employees who approve trustee spending? Why did they approve excess amounts for one or more trustees?

The form is deficit in that it does not ask the trustee (or employee) how much remains in her spending account before the trip? Each trustee should know where to look for that information. How much is left in the Pot of Gold?

Is the attitude of some of the trustees that it doesn't matter; it's just taxpayer money?

I am awaiting the District FOIA response with the individual totals already spent by each trustee. Then we'll know who blew through the top of her spending budget. 




Which is it? (A) or (B)

Which is it? (A) or (B)

So far, it's not clear with which alleged "crime" Lashonda McFadden has been charged. The penalty range differs beetween (A) and (B).

The P.R. bond granted by the judge leads me to believe that Section 16-3-1040(B) is the one.

Is there anyone who believes that Holmes actually felt threatened? Listen to her taunt Lashonda. If Holmes had actually been fearful, wouldn't she have fled from the room and dialed 9-1-1?

Didn't Holmes know exactly what she was doing by continuing to engage in the argument and especially by announcing how many times she was "threatened"? Why didn't Holmes take control as Board Chair and regain control of the meeting? And, if she couldn't, she could have declared a recess and walked out of the room, ending the argument.

Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses

CHAPTER 3

Offenses Against the Person
ARTICLE 11

Miscellaneous Offenses

SECTION 16-3-1040. Threatening life, person or family of public official or public employee; punishment.

(A) It is unlawful for a person knowingly and wilfully to deliver or convey to a public official or to a teacher or principal of an elementary or secondary school any letter or paper, writing, print, missive, document, or electronic communication or verbal or electronic communication which contains a threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the public official, teacher, or principal, or members of his immediate family if the threat is directly related to the public official's, teacher's, or principal's professional responsibilities.

(B) It is unlawful for a person knowingly and wilfully to deliver or convey to a public employee a letter or paper, writing, print, missive, document, or electronic communication or verbal or electronic communication which contains a threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the public employee or members of his immediate family if the threat is directly related to the public employee's official responsibilities.

(C) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A), upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(D) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (B), upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

When did 4/28/2022 executive session start?

When did the executive session on April 28, 2022 start?

The starting time is important, in order to determine whether the disagreement that became public should be in the public record.

When the motion to go into executive session was made by trustee-elect Amelia McKie and seconded, the board voted to go into executive session, and the school board members rose from their seats. That moment is when the executive session started.

Why? Because the board chair did not declare a recess for the purpose of moving to another room.

This timing is important, because the disagreement arose during executive session. And the information is privileged. Everyone was duty-bound to hold the contents of the executive session in confidence. No one should have recorded any portion of the meeting. No one should have spoken about what happened in that room. And certainly no one should have delivered the recording to the sheriff's department.

On the other hand, if the executive session was illegal, then nothing is confidential. And everything becomes immediately and publicly available.

It can't be both ways.

Why might the executive session have been illegal?

The motion made by McKie was faulty. She stated the purpose of the executive session was for a "safety and security meeting". In other words, they were going into a meeting for a meeting. State law requires more detail.

Holmes wrote to the trustees on May 9, 2022, in part: "Lastly,  executive session had not technically started yet. Dr. Davis was just going over what we were going to cover.  The guest for the meeting had not been called in yet, which, was the purpose of executive session.  Additionally,  when a crime has been committed, as it was here,  by Mrs. McFadden with her repeated threats to do me bodily harm, it has come to my attention  that, confidentiality,  can be waved [sic] in these type of events."

Holmes often speaks at board meetings about her truth. That's her truth. Did she write truthfully?

1. The executive session HAD started.

2. If the superintendent is speaking to them, the executive session definitely had started.

3. Presence of an invited guest doesn't make it an executive session. When McKie made the motion, she made no reference to a guest.

4. Whether Mrs. McFadden committed a crime will be determined in court. Teresa only alleges a crime. Teresa fails to report her own participation; i.e., her own condescending remarks that added fuel to the fire. 

5. Holmes failed, as acting Board Chair, to detach herself from the argument and restore order.

5. Teresa puts forward an unsupported claim that confidentiality can be "waved" [sic].

Teresa touts her pride as a "product" of Spring Valley High School. Is that where she learned to write? Look at the spacing, the punctuation, her wording. Didn't she ever learn that the unfamiliar word she was stretching for is spelled "waived"?

Did she believe on April 28, 2022 that she could violate the confidential requirements in Board Policy and State law, when she went to sheriff's department? Or did that "come to (her) attention" later, when she was trying to figure out how to avoid having violated Policy and law?