State Auditor stumped with simple change of name.

July 8, 2008

Brian Sonntag
sonntagb@sao.wa.gov

Dear Mr. Sonntag,

Thank you for your recent response to a concerned member of our community. Your response was forwarded to me for an opinion. While I have already weighed in on the strength of your other responses, your response regarding space rentals and Mr. and Mrs. Noble is shocking. To think that the Washington State Auditor is prepared to hang his hat on such a feeble set of arguments is baffling.

Space Rental

Clearly you have lost your mind. The organization that you claim "disbanded prior to 2007" merely changed their name from "Powerful Partners" to "Powerful Tutors". They have the same staff, the same space in the administration building and continue to use the name "Powerful Partners" when they require name recognition - like when they endorsed the District's Tech Replacement Levy late last year. [Bottom right corner of page 2]

By your reasoning, it would be appropriate for criminals to legally change their name and have all prior criminal activity instantly vanish. If our county prosecutors used this approach to combating crime our prisons and jails would be empty. Who would have guessed that the bookkeeper that pilfered funds right under your nose for years could have just walked to the courthouse next door, paid $65 and avoided spending thirteen months in prison?

Additionally, you have been making recommendations to the District to refine their monitoring of facility rentals and leases for years. Your guidance is clearly landing on deaf ears, or perhaps no one takes your audits seriously. Based upon the strength of your findings, it is likely the latter.

Board Policy Violation

First, "It is the policy of the Edmonds School District that non member of the Board" should read "no member of the Board".

Second, your interpretation of the referenced RCW opens a larger issue that needs to be explained. Can a school district adopt board policies that are inconsistent with state law? Can a school district adopt policies that are more restrictive in an effort to remove any possibility of future conflicts of interest? Can a school district adopt policies that seek to create and maintain an elevated standard?

Your argument weakens the quality of elected school boards across the State of Washington, when clearly it was the intent of the voters in the Edmonds School District to remove any possibility of the corruption that may routinely occur elsewhere in the State.

Furthermore, Board Policy 1260 has nothing to do with Board Policy 6810. Board Policy 1260 pertains to contractual work performed for the District where a board member may be affiliated in a non-salaried capacity. Meaning, the board member cannot receive any financial benefit from any business transaction between an employer and the District - unless this relationship is specifically disclosed and recorded in board minutes. The policy essentially sought to exclude conflicts between board members (spouses and dependents included) and entities providing services to the District.

In case the Conflict of Interest provisions were not entirely clear in Board Policy 1260, earlier, more enlightened boards specifically called out a circumstance that would be a clear conflict. It is contained in Board Policy 6810 and reinforces the conflict described in Board Policy 1260. The inconsistency is not between Board Policy 1260 and Board Policy 6810 but rather between these board policies and the conduct of this board.

So, now the Edmonds School District will revise board policies to specifically allow clear conflicts of interest to exist. Would such a revision be in the best interest of the public?

Board minutes have also reflected the Board's intention to revise policies contained in the 1000 series, when in actuality; any revisions in that series would be meaningless without altering the intent of Board Policy 6810. Maybe this board intends to eternally postpone any action on Series 1000 until Gary and Kay Noble have milked every conceivable advantage in maintaining this conflict.
[Discussion Topic 1 on Page 2 of the Board Agenda]

I look forward to your response to the many other concerns I have forwarded.

Sincerely,

Mark Zandberg