The article states they learned of this in early 2006. The complaint was filed in March 2007. I never heard of this complaint until this thread and it appears as though none of you had either. My question is why?
quote:
Before the district could negotiate a renewal of its lapsed policy, an employee incurred $400,000 in medical bills over multiple hospital stays, according to the lawsuit. As part of the renewal agreement, the district was required to pick up $250,000 of that cost, the suit says.
It's our money that was used to pay the $250k cost. It's our money that's now being used to fund a lawsuit. D41 pays a over $100k for a Communications Director and they can't readily inform their shareholders? As far as I'm concerned this is the same tactic Vivoda used when cutting Riebock a check which included the sales commissions of her home. Sure that check was publicly available, if you were willing to spend countless hours trolling. This is utter nonsene.
I understand why they didn't inform the public prior to March 2007, but why not after? D41 treats our money like it's their own while bearing no market accountabilty. A worthwhile article by the Herald would explain why this hadn't been disclosed by D41 to its shareholders while paying a $100k salary to its Communications Director.
"You shouldn't soil your Sunday pants, like those other foolish ants."
Originally posted by bitterboy: D41 pays a over $100k for a Communications Director and they can't readily inform their shareholders? As far as I'm concerned this is the same tactic Vivoda used when cutting Riebock a check which included the sales commissions of her home. Sure that check was publicly available, if you were willing to spend countless hours trolling. This is utter nonsene.
I understand why they didn't inform the public prior to March 2007, but why not after? D41 treats our money like it's their own while bearing no market accountabilty. A worthwhile article by the Herald would explain why this hadn't been disclosed by D41 to its shareholders while paying a $100k salary to its Communications Director.
Oh, come on now, bitterboy, let's cut her some slack. Look when the suit was filed. That was just about one month before the "most historic day in D41 history" -- the ref. Our highly compensated communications director was, no doubt, very busy writing all those referendum updates to send home in the backpacks, and preparing for community forums, etc. The district has its priorities, doesn't it?
By the way, did the weakly paper have an article on the suit?
That's my point. Why not send this home in the backpack as well? Hell, they could even spun this as though they are some kind of hero. Kind of like...by going after a "fraudster", were showing you what good stewards we are of your money type thing. Where's the transparency?
Althoug I disagree with Ron on most issues outside of D41 stuff , he hit in the nail on head when he wrote this:
quote:
And really, when you are expanding administration the way you are, who can really keep a handle on counting the number of employees in your insurance group? 150 here. 150 there. As long as those premiums paid were lower than they should be, who's counting?
"You shouldn't soil your Sunday pants, like those other foolish ants."
Does anyone know if the District attempted to make a claim against Benefit Brokers' errors and omissions insurance coverage? Sorry if it was discussed elsewhere, I didn't see it.
The Communications Director earned here keep, IMO. Was able to keep this hidden prior to the referendum vote...and nearly a year afterward. That's the very definition of discretion. If it weren't for the genius SchoolWatcher...we still wouldn't know.
Bitterboy is having a good week! First, no smoking signs are posted on the benches in our CBD. Now I see Virchow Krause & Co presented info regarding upcoming industry changes to the audit process including increased attention to internal controls. Wow! You mean somebody is actually going to try and determine whether huge sums of money can be or have been spent by D41, without Board approval. Like when Vivoda was able to cut an "under the table" check for $37k to Riebock. According to D41 "Board Highlights" this stems from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I quote "These changes particularly affect public entities such as D41 that are without an internal control department, which school districts typically do not have." Isn't this grand? I can't wait to read their report regarding their "one-time" internal review.
"You shouldn't soil your Sunday pants, like those other foolish ants."
If we are not careful around here and watch our money closer, we may end up like the folks in Mountain Park, OK. Might have to have a bean dinner fund raiser at Ann's house.
Originally posted by bitterboy: According to D41 "Board Highlights" this stems from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I quote "These changes particularly affect public entities such as D41 that are without an internal control department, which school districts typically do not have." Isn't this grand? I can't wait to read their report regarding their "one-time" internal review.
I don't know about reading the report, but the short version, in the minutes of the February 25 meeting (see page 12 of the board packet) is that District 41 is not in compliance with the standards. I believe what I heard the auditor say is that there are transactions occurring where the same person is involved throughout the entire process.
Clam, rather than a bean party, I'm kind of partial to a tea party, it seems more fitting.
Yep, just like I stated to Vivoda back in the day "there are no internal controls, are there?". However, he insisted that there are/were and that they even worked in the case of him cutting the check to Riebock. His theory was that he informed the Board after the fact, they said it was not ok, she refunded the money and everything worked well. IIRC, he stated that system of checks and balances worked. You believe that? I think I saved his email.
Based on the '07 report, Virchow discovered that D41 is out of compliance with the new standards. Wow, really? So now, the Board recommended to hire the firm for $20,150 in order to conduct a risk assessment and IC review. Look, IMO, a review is totally different than an examination specifically tailored to uncover wrongful payments and abuse of authority. In addition to conducting a "review", they need to expand their scope and concentrate on the actual, which has already happened. A review is forward moving. It's one thing to conduct a review of risk, it's another to actually examine underlying documents specific to a problem. I'll wait and see what happens, but on it's cover, looks like a joke.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: bitterboy,
"You shouldn't soil your Sunday pants, like those other foolish ants."
I know that their are a lot of people that want to say that these records could be stored at The Mews. But don't...that joke would be too cheap. So, you know...don't say that the records could be stored at The Mews.
Hey Clam Man: The bean fund raiser is hoping to defer about $25.00/month per household in Kiowa IA in extra costs due to the embezzlemnt scheme. How much has/will the phase in and insurance fiasco cost us on a monthly basis? You'll need a good calculator on that one.
Originally posted by Clamato: I know that their are a lot of people that want to say that these records could be stored at The Mews. But don't...that joke would be too cheap. So, you know...don't say that the records could be stored at The Mews.
Oh, my God. That is funny.
Hysterical...you break bread with the man then you break his balls. His "three time elected board member" balls. What's for dinner tonight?
I am a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lay awake at night wondering if there is a dog.
, he hit in the nail on head when he wrote this:
According to D41 "Board Highlights" this stems from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I quote "These changes particularly affect public entities such as D41 that are without an internal control department, which school districts typically do not have." Isn't this grand? I can't wait to read their report regarding their "one-time" internal review.
