In an effort to get to the bottom of this piano scam, I asked for the following: "One legible copy of any and all checks from the Seattle Piano Gallery dated after August 4, 2004."I received a copy of a check numbered 8277 from the Seattle Piano Gallery to the Edmonds School District in the sum of $4,617.36, dated August 31, 2005 for what is described as a Diapason #118506. I will confirm if this piano number might be among the pianos listed on the "lease" agreement between these two entities.
I also received a copy of a check numbered 8716 from the Seattle Piano Gallery to the Edmonds School District in the sum of $1,740.80, dated February 1, 2006 for what is described as "Profit refund on Diapason 118506". This check also had the following information printed on the reverse, "Negotiation of this check constitutes an accord and satisfaction and a release of all claims against maker."
The District's legal counsel states that check number 8716 was received but "not deposited or otherwise cashed by the District." I suspect it has everything to do with the statement typed on the reverse side of the check. Is there a problem? I thought Marla and Arnie were friends. Why would Arnie be reluctant to pay the appropriate amount due to the District? By my calculations he's just a bit more than $100,000.00 short.
Appeal to Counsel: This transaction doesn't look very good. Is there something for which I should be asking? Is there something missing? An "RCWs don't apply to me" card, perhaps?
4 comments:
Maybe the District sold the pianos directly - without going through Seattle Piano Gallery.
Wait a minute, selling pianos is not part of the District's mission.
"I do know Marla. She's a wonderful person. We've done business before."
I can see why Arnie thinks Marla is so wonderful. The District must have stopped asking for their money - or perhaps never planned to ask for it.
I thought the district didn't keep copies of checks? Remember the response to your request for Powerful Partners?
The interesting information is for you to receive a copy of the transactions (or what was actually processed) on both the expense and "revenue" sides, all debits and credits.
check out the minutes of the board meeting where marla addresses your public records request for the piano scam. Seems she thinks an explanation is required. Why would that be? Is it because it's an another issue she can't cover up?
She fails to mention it violated bid law, if nothing else.
Post a Comment