Public Hearings - Edmonds School District Style

I'm kind of old-fashioned. I always thought that a public hearing was something that was widely announced to the community, had materials available for review to the public well in advance and a well informed public would come with questions and comments in order to have an actual DISCUSSION of the issues. Well, I guess ESD does things a bit differently.

I heard about the "public hearing" for the State Performance Audit because I happened to be one of the 10 people that attend board meetings and look at the agenda before the meeting (I noticed that the Facilities Use Policy was NOT a point of discussion and magically turned up as BEING on the agenda - but that is another topic). There was no information to review, no links to what was to be discussed, zero, zip, nada. I checked my son's school newsletter and the school website (that provides me of important information about the school) and didn't see anything. Here we go again - if you don't tell people about a topic, then you can guarantee that the public can not provide comments that you might not agree with.

During the board meeting, Marla Miller went into great detail about how the audit was oh so wrong and misleading. Well, she said, we can ALWAYS learn something and we will try to improve on what makes sense, but for the most part, the auditors just don't know what they are talking about. No plans on what she was planning to look into, no expectations of time frame, no accountability, zip, nothing, nada.

Then came the Board, member after member lamenting how unfair the audit was and reminding the public that they were "picked on" (sarcastically) to receive special treatment by the State. Nothing that stated how they might actually consider learning or consider anything of value from the process, nothing, zip, nada.

So they opened public comments and asked if anyone wanted to speak. After quickly scanning the information provided 5 minutes before the "hearing" , I put a couple of words together on the fly (within my 3 minute time limit) and asked the board to consider directing staff to come back with some kind of recommendations on what COULD work to bring SOME Savings to the district (this after they spent hours trying to figure our how to charge non-profits maybe $50k per year to offset the budget reductions and why $50k was so important). The response? Well, a bit better. Some "head nods" up and down. Any direction? None, zip, nada, nothing.

To be kind, this was not a public hearing. It was a "check mark" to say that they "did something". Business as usual with the ESD Board.

Rick Jorgensen

Board is the final authority for its own violations.

[Mark Zandberg]

One year ago, you had an exchange of emails with a member of the community that forwarded the communication to me. It was an exchange regarding the status of a school board member in the Edmonds School District. The member was Bruce Williams and your advice was to take up the matter directly with the District.

The issue was raised and the board member ultimately resigned on September 11, 2007. He violated board policies and lied to the County Auditor when he filed as a candidate. He used an address that was not his actual residence.

Thank you for your direction in that case.

Presently, there is another issue of which you may not be aware. Gary Noble ran for re-election in November 2007. In July 2007, I contacted the school board to inform them that Mr. Noble was ineligible to occupy the seat and running for re-election demonstrated an utter disregard for board policies. Mr. Noble was in violation of a provision in board policies that prevented spouses and dependents of district employees from serving on the Board. My comments were disregarded. No action was taken at that time to revise the policies.

I continued to express concerns regarding the candidacy of Mr. Noble and in September 2007 sent a formal letter to the Board and the Superintendent. They responded in October 2007 through legal counsel expressing that Washington State law prevailed and essentially dismissed the validity of all board policies.

I then contacted the State Auditor who immediately added the issue to their list of audit issues for January 2008. When the State Auditor concluded their annual evaluation, they specifically directed the school district to follow board policies or revise them. The direction was included in their Exit Conference dated April 23, 2008.

In September 2008, the school board took action to revise board policies allowing conflicts of interest to occur. While the Board is well within their rights to modify or revise their policies, it does not change the fact that Mr. Noble was ineligible at the time of his "re-election".

On October 6th, 2008, two weeks after the board policy was revised, the State Auditor contacted me and suggested that I take up the matter with the County Auditor. That is the purpose of this letter.

I am concerned that the Board blatantly disregarded their own policies in allowing Mr. Noble to seek re-election when he was an ineligible candidate already.

The revised policy makes it possible for Mr. Noble to run for the position during the next election cycle, but his current status is in question.

I am gravely concerned about the many highly-qualified people that did not run for the board position because board policy prevented it. I am also concerned about the other candidates that expended personal funds to contest the election against an ineligible candidate.

Perhaps I am mistaken to believe that rules mean something, but when so many other people disqualified themselves in reading board policies, how can we allow an ineligible candidate to serve on the Board.

Again, changing the rules in September 2008 makes him an eligible candidate from that day forward but it does nothing to correct the injustice of an unfair election.

I seek corrective action from the County Auditor, as recommended by the State Auditor. The election of Gary Noble needs to be reversed and the options, in my humble opinion, include the following; 1. declare the election of Gary Noble invalid and declare the position vacant pending the next election cycle in 2009, or 2. declare the other candidate as the successful contender and move to have him seated immediately.

It warrants mentioning that the recent revision passed by the Board prevents the appointment of any replacement. All future board members must be elected.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Four days later...

[Mark Zandberg]

One small point of clarification. When the Board voted to revise their policies on September 23, 2008, allowing future conflicts to occur, Mr. Noble abstained from voting. The reason he abstained is because voting to allow his current conflict would have been a conflict.

Clearly, Mr. Noble is fully aware that his status violated board policy prior to the election of November 2007 and continues to be in violation - despite the recent revision.

The State Auditor and the Attorney General's Office have reviewed this issue and have recommended that I take the matter up with the County Auditor. If you prefer to take no action, I would like to know as soon as possible.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

[Carolyn Weikel]

Thank you for your e-mail regarding your concern over some of the actions by the Edmonds School Board. I would be interested in having a copy of the state Auditor's findings to try and determine why they would refer you to the County Auditor for corrective action. There is no statutory authority delegated to the County Auditor to invalidate a candidate and to declare a position vacant. There are statutory procedures to challenge a candidate's eligibility but there are specific timelines associated with that process which have currently all expired. In addition, any challenge to a voter's or candidate's eligibility based on residency must be initiated by a registered voter or by the Prosecuting Attorney not the County Auditor. If Mr. Noble was in violation of any school board policy that issue needs to be addressed directly with the school board not this office. If you wish to continue to pursue this action the only possible avenue I can think of would be to file a recall petition. (RCW 29A.56)

[Mark Zandberg]

It would appear that you agree with the District's legal counsel, that school board policies do not actually mean anything.

A recall petition is not a viable option. I am not seeking to remove a legitimately elected member of the school board.

Attached is the letter from the State Auditor's representative.

Fun Factoid: The State Auditor notified the Board of Mr. Noble's lack of eligibility on April 23, 2008 and directed them to adhere to existing policies or revise them, but the State Auditor waited until two weeks after the revisions were adopted to respond to my concerns in writing. The County Auditor is now saying that violations of board policy must be "addressed directly with the school board, not [the County Auditor's] Office."

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

From: Courtney Amonsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:59 PM
To: Sarah Johnson; Barbara Lowe; Kristina Brundage; Blaine Fritts; Lisa Erdman; Judy Perry
Cc: Cory Maki
Subject: From now on...

So, the Finance Director at Edmonds SD has given Cory a new name. From this point on he will now be called Spence as she has called him that the last two times she came in the room. So, just as Ian was given the name Lance, Cory will now answer to the name Spence.

Courtney Amonsen
Assistant Audit Manager
Washington State Auditor's Office
3501 Colby Avenue, Suite 100B
Everett, WA 98201-4794
(425) 257-2137 - Main Line
(425) 257-2149 - Fax
amonsenc@sao.wa.gov

From: Kristina Brundage
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:12 PM
To: Courtney Amonsen; Sarah Johnson; Barbara Lowe; Blaine Fritts; Lisa Erdman; Judy Perry
Cc: Cory Maki
Subject: RE: From now on...

Did Spencer have that audit before?

From: Courtney Amonsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:14 PM
To: Kristina Brundage; Sarah Johnson; Barbara Lowe; Blaine Fritts; Lisa Erdman; Judy Perry
Cc: Cory Maki
Subject: RE: From now on...

If he did it was at least 4 years ago. That is no excuse to call Cory Spence because Cory has been here for the last two years.

From: Barbara Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:54 PM
To: Courtney Amonsen; Kristina Brundage; Sarah Johnson; Blaine Fritts; Lisa Erdman; Judy Perry
Cc: Cory Maki
Subject: RE: From now on...

He doesn’t look much like a Spence either. When I think of Spence, I think of Doug Heffernan’s friend Spence.

"Friend" enriched through "poorly written" lease.

There are a few subtle problems with the manner in which the Auditor conducts their evaluations. While they are overly-focused on the technical nuances regarding this transaction, they fail to realize that the seller of these pianos is a friend of Tam Osborne and Marla Miller. With very little effort, public employees funneled business to a friend and propped up the entire transaction on shoddy work from legal counsel.

As one of our readers mentioned earlier, the District fully-intended to receive pianos from Seattle Piano Gallery. The "Lease" was the weapon through which funds were ripped from the hands of taxpayers.

What is also rather sad and pathetic is the second payment that was made "in error". This payment was intentional and the claim that it was made "in error" was to conceal an obvious violation in bid processes. [Just how easy do you think it is to get a check from Business Services for $40,000.00?]

Whether it's corruption or incompetence, the outcome remains the same. One of the District's friends made off with $109,511.00 in special treatment.

The following is from the State Auditor.

Piano Lease

The District was not able to ensure that they received the lowest reasonable price for 13 pianos the District received. The District entered into a lease agreement with the intent to receive 14 pianos for use during the 2006 – 2007 school year, and receive reimbursement for the full amount initially paid for the pianos. The District paid a total of $109,511 and were able to obtain possession of the pianos following the bankruptcy of the piano distributor, as agreed upon in the lease. Included in the total paid was a payment of $39,748 that should not have been paid. Due to miscommunication at the District this amount was paid and could not be recovered. Though the District is in compliance with the lease agreement they can not ensure that they received the lowest reasonable price for the pianos because they did not go through the bid process.

I talked to Marta [DeLeon] about this item as I was concerned that based on what they paid they were not in compliance with bid law. She looked over all the information and said that though the lease was poorly written they were technically in compliance with bid law requirements, but based on how they handled this situation they can not ensure that the lowest price was received. She didn’t feel comfortable reporting it as a finding, but was ok with a ML or an exit item. Based on the dollar amount paid, I thought a ML was appropriate, but wanted to confirm with you that that reporting level is consistent.

Thanks!
Courtney Amonsen
Assistant Audit Manager
Washington State Auditor's Office
3501 Colby Avenue, Suite 100B
Everett, WA 98201-4794
(425) 257-2137 - Main Line
(425) 257-2149 - Fax
amonsenc@sao.wa.gov

"Exit Items" reveal that Gary Noble must go.

There was an Exit Conference on April 23, 2008, where the Edmonds School District was notified of the following Exit Items. Among them is the issue regarding Gary Noble and his status on the Board.

The State Auditor "recommends" that either Gary Noble resign or that Board Policies be revised to allow this conflict of interest to occur.

Exit Items

General Disbursements - Segregation of Duties

The system where purchase requisitions and purchase orders are created (WESPAC) allows an individual with Level 2 Authority to both create and approve purchase orders. Additionally, those with the ability to approve may edit a Purchase Order created by another individual and approve the purchase order without a second level of review.

We recommend additional controls be implemented to create a segregation of duties between who creates and approves a purchase order.

Procurement Card Procedures

Credit card reconciliations and supporting documentation are not all reviewed by each employee's supervisor prior to payment, as required by District policy. The District's policy does not outline the maximum amount for meal expenses while an employee is in travel status, nor are there guidelines regarding maximum meal expenses allowed. Finally, online procedures do not always agree with the procedures in practice.

We recommend that each employee's supervisor review supporting documentation such as invoices, receipts and credit card statements and sign the credit card reconciliation before payment. We recommend that the District implement a policy outlining maximum amounts for meal expenses while in travel status and that the estimated meal expense is included on the B-100 Travel Authorization. We also recommend that procedures be followed or revised.

Board Policies: Conflict of Interest

Board Policies 6810 and 1260 conflict with each other. Policy 6810 allows no person to be employed by the District if they are a spouse of a Board Member while 1260 allows for exceptions as prescribed by law.

We recommend that the most stringent policy be followed or policies be revised.

Enrollment

The District is not correctly calculating FTE based on minutes of instruction and passing time, but is currently in the process of addressing the issue.

Auditor violates confidentiality, exposes whistleblower.

From: Sadie Armijo
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:31 AM
To: 'Miller, Marla (ESC)'
Cc: Courtney Amonsen
Subject: RE: Questionable Property Decisions at esd15.org

Marla,

Thank you for forwarding this information in case our office gets calls on this issue. I am sorry to hear that a disgruntled employee is causing you so much trouble.
But I appreciate you forwarding this message. On his blog he mentioned our office. Since he mentioned us on his blog, I can tell you he did contact our office regarding the Old Woodway property sale, but as we have previously discussed we did not find any problems with the sale of that property. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, I would gladly discuss it over the phone with you. I can be reached today at 425-257-2137.

Again thank you for forwarding this information.

Sadie Armijo
Audit Manager, Team Everett
Washington State Auditor's Office
3501 Colby Avenue, Suite 100B
Everett, WA 98201-4794
(425) 257-2137

The blog was only two entries old at the time this email was sent to Marla. While I did mention the State Auditor, that does not seem to justify a violation of confidentiality.

Read the first two entries and see for yourself:

Blogging for a better tomorrow
Sunday, June 17, 2007 6:25 AM

Mark Zandberg & Hansa
Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:56 PM

How can the State Auditor reveal the identity of a whistleblower and still expect others to step forward. Sure, Marla may have suspected the source, but why confirm her suspicions?

Thanks, Sadie, I owe you one.

Tech savvy, disgruntled employee wreaking havoc.

From: Miller, Marla (ESC)
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:27 AM
To: Christopher Cortines; Lou Adams
Cc: Sadie Armijo
Subject: FW: Regarding Diagnostic Survey

Good Morning, Chris and Lou,

I would appreciate your review and intervention in a situation regarding the diagnostic survey for Edmonds School District's performance audit. I'm forwarding to you an email correspondence our superintendent has had with Tatia, and would welcome an opportunity to talk with you sometime today, if possible.

Lou, I tried calling your number just now and received your voicemail message that you will be out of the office until next Monday. Chris, could you perhaps help take a look at this with me?

We have a tech savvy, disgruntled employee who has been wreaking havoc with the district since last June. He has a few supporters within the district office, and every e-mail sent to all employees is being posted on his blog, with sarcastic and ridiculous inferences. He has posted the link to the survey, and we do not believe the survey has integrity at this time.

Please feel free to look at the blog - a lot of it includes allegations about me that are not true, and I have no problem with anyone asking legitimate questions about the issues he raises. I have received numerous public records requests as a result of his unhappiness and his blog, and have responded to some but also am still pulling together documents for others. We are trying to get school open at the same time!

At any rate, I appreciate any help you can provide. My number is 425.431.7036. The blog is at esd15.blogspot.com.

I'll be in a meeting for a couple of hours this morning, but if you get this and have time to call, please contact my assistant Sherri at 425.431.7052, and she will pull me out of the meeting and I'll call you right back.

Thanks for any guidance and assistance you can provide. The employee currently has filed a claim and wants to be paid money by the district - I believe it's called blackmail, and we are not buying it. Our Risk Pool has gotten involved.

Marla

Cc: Sadie Armijo, Audit Manager

Blog: I find it perplexing how someone could claim they are being blackmailed when the potentially injurious revelations may have already been revealed. Blackmail normally involves the suppression of information in exchange for something of material value. Is there a correlation between the manner in which I was constructively terminated and the information revealed in this blog? Would payment of any kind result in the end of this blog?

Brossoit wanted diagnostic survey thrown out.

From: Brossoit, Nick [mailto:BrossoitN@edmonds.wednet.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:41 PM
To: Tatia Prieto; Bonseiro, Francis C.; Miller, Marla (ESC)
Subject: RE: Regarding Diagnostic Survey

September 14, 2007

Tatia and Frank,

To give you some idea of the danger of this blog site to the integrity of the performance audit. The web blog is hosted by a former and very disgruntled employee who features anonymous postings, many of which he creates and which report inaccurate information about the district and employees. He is very anti-district administration. He currently has filed a claim with the district which is being addressed by our district administration and Risk Management Pool legal counsel. His blog with this survey link creates a situation which allows unauthorized people to complete surveys and contaminate or distort input of the performance audit process. How do we address this in a responsive manner?

Sincerely,

Nick

From: Brossoit, Nick
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:40 PM
To: Tatia Prieto; Miller, Marla (ESC)
Cc: 'Linda Recio'
Subject: RE: Regarding Diagnostic Survey

Tatia,

This helps to understand how the survey data is used by you the contractor for the process, and we welcome any inquiry into any aspects of the district administration and operations. However, it is very troubling that this level of security and survey contamination by the non-employee "blog" link appears to be passing through into the process. If it is 1, 10 or 20 surveys that were not to be included due to the motive of the author(s), we would like some type of technological screen if you can do it to identify and exclude those from this source. I personally have 24 years of service in public education in the state of Washington with the most recent now going on 14 years as a well respected superintendent. I am not perfect and always open to have any constructive feedback for myself, any of the staff under my supervision, or for any system in which I serve. However, to consider that the performance audit survey results for our district will include the input from this former employee who has a claim filed against the district and who is promoting false and very disrespectful comments from anonymous sources about district employees, it is simply not acceptable to have the survey results in any form made public. Who is it with the SAO office that I would need to press this concern? I can understand the contractor doing other research in person with folks, that makes sense. I cannot understand how the contractor would allow any of the survey results to be posted. I also would think that the SAO office would take legal action against the owner of the "blog" for contaminating a state funded, and state controlled audit process. Please forward this to the SAO administrator responsible for the performance audit. If I need to take the matter to Brian Sontag or seek legislative intervention into this process to have this blog issue addressed as it has impacted our survey, I am very willing to move that direction.

Sincerely,
Nick

Blog: Just to be clear, Brossoit believes the survey results are contaminated but the new administration site isn't. I will post a pdf of the email traffic shortly. It contains these messages and several more.

Auditor dismisses whistleblower as disgruntled.

From: Miller, Marla (ESC)
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:05 PM
To: Hughes Val; Brossoit, Nick; Carter, Debby (ESC)
Subject: FW: [BULK] Questionable Property Decisions at esd15.org
Importance: Low

Just got a call on this ... Val, your colleague is working on a letter telling Mark to cease and desist using the esd15.org website. We may need to expedite that notification.

Marla

From: Miller, Marla (ESC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:42 AM
To: Sadie Armijo; Courtney Amonsen
Subject: FW: [BULK] Questionable Property Decisions at esd15.org
Importance: Low

Dear Sadie and Courtney,

I wanted to make you aware of a situation that is percolating here at the Edmonds School District. A disgruntled employee is using the Internet to cast wide allegations regarding district finances and the propriety of property transactions. He is mad at me for a personnel action.

I have issue the email message, below, to encourage people to go to the source regarding the audit review. I appreciate your work, and am sorry to have added to your load this spring. If you have any concerns or suggestions, please don't hesitate to let me know.

I will forward the e-mail that prompted my message, so you can see that as well. Nick asked that I send out a response to point people in the right direction.

Take care, and thanks again for your work in the district,

Marla

From: Miller, Marla (ESC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:43 AM
To: Sadie Armijo; Courtney Amonsen
Subject: FW: [BULK] Questionable Property Decisions at esd15.org
Importance: Low

FYI, and as referenced in my last message.

Marla

From: Sadie Armijo
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:31 AM
To: 'Miller, Marla (ESC)'
Cc: Courtney Amonsen
Subject: RE: Questionable Property Decisions at esd15.org

Marla,

Thank you for forwarding this information in case our office gets calls on this issue. I am sorry to hear that a disgruntled employee is causing you so much trouble.
But I appreciate you forwarding this message. On his blog he mentioned our office. Since he mentioned us on his blog, I can tell you he did contact our office regarding the Old Woodway property sale, but as we have previously discussed we did not find any problems with the sale of that property. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, I would gladly discuss it over the phone with you. I can be reached today at 425-257-2137.

Again thank you for forwarding this information.

Sadie Armijo
Audit Manager, Team Everett
Washington State Auditor's Office
3501 Colby Avenue, Suite 100B
Everett, WA 98201-4794
(425) 257-2137

Blog: What sort of investigation is going to occur when the Audit Manager is referring to the whistleblower as "disgruntled" within months of receiving the formal complaint and prior to an objective review of facts.

And another embezzler missed by Brian Sonntag.

Seattle - An assistant fire chief with South King Fire and Rescue is accused of stealing approximately $500,000 from the department.

"I think our entire department feels betrayed," said Chief Al Church.

Grant Gaspard was pulled over by federal agents in Fife Thursday morning and arrested without incident. At the same time, FBI agents were searching Gaspard's home in Olympia.

He is charged with three counts of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud.

According to an FBI affidavit, prosecutors say Gaspard used his position as chief financial officer with the fire district to initiate and approve phony invoices and purchase orders over a period of several years. Gaspard, 51, also allegedly submitted fraudulent documentation in support of thousands of dollars worth of improper purchases on his district-issued credit card.

His boss says he also admitted to buying high-end electronics, cameras and police-grade assault rifles for himself.

Prosecutors say the activity has been going on since 2005.

"The allegations are serious and so he takes them very seriously and we'll take a look at what the evidence is and go from there," said Brett Purtzer, Gaspard's attorney.

Gaspard was placed on leave and subsequently resigned on July 31. In a written statement, South King Fire and Rescue Chief Allen D. Church says the department is audited annually and that state auditors found no irregularities this past June.

Read more great articles at King 5.com by clicking here.

Blog: Another "Friend of Brian".

State Auditor fails to detect another embezzler.

ARLINGTON -- A recently retired Arlington city employee is under investigation for allegedly stealing nearly $800,000 from the city during the past six years.

Snohomish County sheriff's detectives are investigating the Arlington woman for possible first-degree identity theft, first-degree theft and forgery, Arlington city spokeswoman Kristin Banfield said.

"Everyone is just reeling from this," Banfield said. "It's a violation of the trust that the public puts in us. It's also a violation of the trust that we as employees put in each other."

The woman, 56, worked for Arlington for 30 years. She is a relative of at least one high-ranking city employee. Only the former employee is under investigation, Banfield said. All other city employees were cleared by police of any wrongdoing.

The woman allegedly spent part of her time on the job altering as many as 103 checks, depositing them into her own bank account, according to a search warrant filed Wednesday in Snohomish County Superior Court. Detectives also found evidence of a hidden marijuana-growing operation at her home.

Between February 2002 and June 2008, the woman is suspected of taking $775,753.98 from the city's general fund, the documents said.

Investigators believe the woman forged signatures and created false supporting documents that made it appear the checks were for employee retirement and other benefit accounts.

After the bank returned the checks, the woman at times used a typewriter to change whom the check was written to, detectives allege.

"It is clear this was a complex ongoing crime to defraud the city of Arlington," Snohomish County sheriff's detective Thomas Koziol wrote in the affidavit.

The woman is not under arrest and no charges have been filed. She could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

On Monday, detectives served search warrants at the woman's bank and her home.

In addition to bank and investment records, computers and other evidence, police also allegedly seized marijuana plants, scales and a ledger listing apparent drug sales, according to documents.

The Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force has assisted in the investigation because its detectives have expertise in sophisticated financial investigations, sheriff's Lt. Mark Richardson said.

While working for Arlington, the woman split her time between human resource work and finance functions, Banfield said. She retired at the end of May. On July 11, a city accountant found a suspicious check for $10,065.15 made out to the woman and notified supervisors.

At first, the employee believed the check was payout for unused sick time and vacation, but quickly learned no such payout had been made.

An investigation began and the city called state auditors, Banfield said.

Read the entire article at the Herald by clicking here.

By Jackson Holtz
Herald Writer

County Auditor doesn't actually "audit" anything

If you look up the term "audit" in any dictionary, there is nothing there that even remotely describes the role performed by Snohomish County's Auditor. You may see expressions like "official examination and verification of financial accounts", "critical assessment of financial status and decision-making activities", or "evaluation of buildings or facilities to improve safety, efficiency or the like".

The Snohomish County Auditor, by her own admission in a recent interview on Engaging our Communities, tracks marriages and pet licenses. She also manages the elections process and supervises animal control activities for the County.

The following is from the Snohomish County Auditor's website:

Rather than conducting financial or performance based audits as the name implies, my office provides regional services to the entire county in the areas of Licensing, Elections and Voter Registration and Document Recording. This wide range of services impacts more citizens of the county than any other county office.

The most compelling definition of what the Snohomish County Auditor does is reminiscent of my years in college. "Audit" can also mean "to attend classes without expectation of a grade or academic accountability".

So, for those of you relying on the Snohomish County "Auditor" to provide guidance into the manner in which public funds are expended locally, look elsewhere. There is no one providing oversight into how the Edmonds School District spends public funds, aside from the State Auditor, and the blog has already established how woefully insufficient that "oversight" has been.

Blog: To avoid confusion, it would be a good idea to remove the misleading title of "Auditor" from the realm of County government. Perhaps County Recorder would dispel any confusion.

State Auditor protecting District from public scrutiny.

August 1, 2008

Mark Zandberg
Mark.zandberg@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Zandberg:

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding Edmonds School District. Specifically, you request whether our Office will be reviewing additional concerns you have regarding the District.

It recently was brought to the attention of our Office that you are in litigation with the District. It is the policy of this Office not to interfere in matters being reviewed by the court system.

Thank you again for contacting the State Auditor’s Office with your concerns.

Sincerely,

JAN M. JUTTE, CPA, CGFM
DIRECTOR FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS

JJ:jc H-2007-132

August 4, 2008

Jan Jutte
JutteJ@sao.wa.gov

Dear Ms. Jutte,

Thank you for your letter dated August 1, 2008. I find it mildly bewildering as to why you would send the letter to an email account that I have never used in communicating with your office. I have always used mark@esd15.org and recommend that your office reply to the same address where an inquiry originates.

To be clear, the State Auditor is now opting to no longer investigate any whistle blower complaints levied against the Edmonds School District because of pending litigation not involving your office. The legal case filed in Federal Court pertains to wrongful termination and suppression of free speech by the Edmonds School District. It does not involve any of the items mentioned in the long list of concerns forwarded to your office.

In essence, you seek to defer the completion of your work to accommodate the needs of a public agency. More simply, you have decided to place the interests of a publicly-supported school district ahead of the public.

You also mention that it is the policy of your office to not "interfere in matters being reviewed by the court system". Withholding documents and refusing to investigate corruption and misconduct is clearly interfering with the mission of your office. It would appear that your refusal to provide requested information is clearly interfering with matters of importance to the public, like accountability.

Additionally, if the State Auditor applied this "policy" uniformly, it would appear that very few public agencies will actually ever be audited because so many of them are involved in litigation. Of particular interest is the legal case filed on behalf of the Edmonds School District against the State of Washington for the State's refusal to fully fund school districts. Perhaps this is the litigation to which you refer.

Furthermore, is it safe to conclude that the public records I have previously requested (and your office committed to provide by August 28th) will still be provided at that date or does this "policy" include all matters that may eventually hold public agencies accountable?

Sincerely,

Mark Zandberg
mark@esd15.org

Expensive, reconfigured cubes now sit empty.

A few months ago, the blog uncovered a reconfiguration within Facilities Operations (also known as Facilities AND Operations) intended to alter the work environment of seven individuals. The work was performed during the day and with all of the minor complications normally experienced with such an undertaking. No one stuck around to watch the reconfiguration take place, so no one on staff will ever be able to perform future reconfigurations without help from outside vendors.

It has come to the attention of the blog that the employees that were to benefit from this recent reconfiguration just relocated to the District warehouse, leaving their new, $11,000.00 cubicles vacant. So, not only was it excessive to blow $11,000.00 on reconfiguring space that will soon become Scriber Lake Alternative High School, the beneficiaries of this expenditure are no longer working in the ESC.

Perhaps the plan is to start a museum for government waste. Visitors could donate a dollar and walk through the new cubicles and experience the less-than-standard space that was constructed for Custodial Services staff.

Perhaps the plan is to absorb more board member pet projects. To complete the “Powerful” set, they could start up “Powerful Purloiners” and apply for grant funding. They could call it a “think tank” and concoct new and mind-teasing ways to pilfer public funds. If Sonntag ever loses an election, the District could tell the next real auditor that all of the corruption was actually just research. Powerful Purloiners could be geared toward crafting district press releases that constantly stretch the limits of creative writing. They could dream up new ways to bamboozle an unengaged public. They could assemble words into new and exciting ways to say “It’s for the Kids.”

To be honest, the cubes are probably empty because no one wants to work in such a depressing environment. The department has definitely gone through a radical transformation. The resulting climate must be terribly oppressive for staff to prefer working in a dark and musty warehouse. But then, I’m just speculating.

Don't take a ride from a blind cabbie.

For over 12 years WASL has been pushed as a "tool" to measure student learning in its own title: Washington Assessment of Student Learning. Often the word "accountability" is thrown around connected to WASL for students, parents, teachers and school districts. Where is the accountability for our state superintendent's office? In recent months, State Auditor Brian Sonntag has conducted audits on many of our school districts. Our governor is repeating the line "fully fund education according to our state Constitution" as part of her campaign. Everyone knows the WASL comes with an extremely high cost, but do we really know how much the taxpayers are paying for this flawed test?

The Pearson Educational Measurement contract is to be signed again in August. Shouldn't people know where we stand fiscally with our education dollar before the contract is a thing of the past? Isn't it time to focus an audit on the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction so we know where our money is being spent? How are we to make an educated vote without this important information?

Not only is the WASL contract coming up, but the State Superintendent's race is hotly contested, with a field of six running in the primary, one being the current superintendent. It sure would be nice to know if the self-proclaimed "Queen of the WASL," Terry Bergeson, is running the kind of tight ship the taxpayers of Washington expect. Shouldn't there be accountability for the office responsible for implementing our expensive "tool"? Do we really know if the taxpayers are fully funding education without being assured where and how our money is being spent? Forty-eight percent of the state budget is a big hunk of change. Mr. Sonntag needs to let us know if OSPI is a sinking ship. We already know the WASL is.

Rachel DeBellis
Marysville

Read this Letter to the Editor and many more great articles from the Herald by clicking here.

Rachel,

I wouldn't hold your breath for Brian Sonntag to audit OSPI. For the last 16 years, the Auditor has had little to no effect at tracking or preventing theft of public funds or holding public agencies accountable. Anything he happens to stumble upon is purely coincidental.

The blog at www.esd15.org has a long list of examples where our staff have pointed out problems and his staff have offered overly simplified dismissals for misconduct. He doesn't understand the mind of criminals or the societal impact of prolonged corruption.

Like many voters, I have no faith in Brian Sonntag and have little regard for the conclusions he draws that merely perpetuate the problems and guarantee continued work for his staff of simpletons. When public officials are not held accountable for their conduct, we all suffer.

Please take a few minutes and read the recent conclusions out of the Auditor's office regarding the Edmonds School District's Piano Scheme and immoral property transactions. Sonntag's priority is apparently to protect public administrators not public resources and his protection of OSPI will not be any different.

Mark Zandberg

State Auditor relies upon the Honor System.

Most people would agree that having the police around is a great idea. They exist to protect and serve the public and their role in society is at the heart of what keeps things together. Without the police, our neighborhoods would quickly slip away from the standards that our free society demands. The police play an important part in creating and maintaining happy and healthy neighborhoods.

Just what would happen if the police decided to stop issuing tickets? How many of us would start driving a little more quickly? How tempting would it be to sleep in a few extra minutes knowing that you could always make up some time going 60 through downtown Edmonds? Stop signs would be a thing of the past. Double parking would become the latest craze. School Zones? What are those?

Would it be necessary for the police to issue a press release announcing their decision to eliminate tickets? Would it be necessary to declare the motivation behind such a decision? What if such a new policy was the result of one person deciding that tickets infringed upon the rights of motorists? Would it make the consequences of lawlessness any more palatable?

While it may take several years before many of us realized the police have opted out of the ticket writing business, there are others that would be tipped off by their friends in local government. They would be busy zipping by me on a blind corner while I calmly hope for a police officer with a radar gun around the next bend.

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

State Auditor provides no legitimate oversight.

July 8, 2008

Brian Sonntag
sonntagb@sao.wa.gov

Dear Mr. Sonntag:

Thank you for your response to two of my many concerns regarding the Edmonds School District. Your response leaves me, and many others, appalled by what passes for an audit these days. If the Internal Revenue Service conducted personal audits in a similar fashion, no one would pay federal income tax but rather expect a meaningless letter to arrive more than a year after someone else decided to complain.

Piano Scheme

First, the evidence for conflicting interests is abundantly clear. Ms. Miller and Mr. Osborne met with Mr. Tucker numerous times outside of and prior to this piano transaction. They had an established relationship through the Edmonds Jazz Festival and connections through Rotary in Edmonds going back a number of years.

Second, the piano "lease" was crafted with the sole purpose of transferring ownership of a number of pianos from Seattle Piano Gallery to the Edmonds School District. Taking possession of these pianos under the auspices of a lease scheme was merely a ruse to avoid legally required procurement processes.

Perhaps your audit team never viewed a summary of the scheme drafted by the attorney for Mr. Tucker. It may also be found at www.esd15.org/henry.pdf

Recommending that the District use a legally required process for future transactions confirms that this transaction was, in your opinion and in fact, illegal. Why would any law-abiding entity have to be reminded to follow the law?

Purchase of Land

First, a point of clarification. I never stated a belief that the District "paid more than the asking price" for the new administration site. The District paid every cent of the seller's asking price of $5.6 million immediately after their own appraisal determined the value to be $3.3 million and without regard for obvious and documented contamination.

Second, the District's own Board Policy requires that a Site Acquisition Committee be convened, in writing, by the Superintendent prior to the purchase of land. That never happened. The closest thing to such a committee was a group of consultants all advising the District not to buy the property.
[http://staff.edmonds.wednet.edu/users/kernsj/5000/5200r1.htm]

Third, state law requires a review appraisal. WAC 468-100-103 "A qualified reviewing appraiser shall examine all appraisals…" A school board may be elected by voters and have the power to make decisions to buy property but the voters do not expect their elected officials to disobey the law.
[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=468-100-103]

If I wasn't a resident and taxpayer in the State of Washington, I would find it uncomfortably funny that the State Auditor stands behind the statement that an appraisal is required but need not govern the final purchase price. The State Attorney General has numerous published opinions that call such overpayments a gift of public funds.

As a public employee with continued involvement in the procurement of goods, services and property, I am flabbergasted by the lack of oversight provided by the State Auditor and, quite frankly, embarrassed by your dismissive attitude toward the misappropriation of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,

Mark Zandberg

Board needs to revise conduct, not policies.

Brian Sonntag:
We also found that District Board Policy 6810 is inconsistent with the Policy 1260. Policy 6810 states that “No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse of or dependant child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent.” We have recommended the District revise its policies to be consistent.

Mark Zandberg:
Board Policy 1260 has nothing to do with Board Policy 6810. BP1260 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 BP1260, earlier, more enlightened boards specifically called out a circumstance that would be a clear conflict. It is contained in BP6810 and reinforces the conflict described in BP1260.

The inconsistency is not between BP1260 and BP6810 but rather between these board policies and the conduct of this board. Don't feel bad Mr. Sonntag, three years in law school and several years of practicing law apparently wouldn't have made it any clearer.

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? Would such a revision be "For the Kids"? How do these board members sleep at night?

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 BP6810. 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]

BP1260 - CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

It is the policy of the Edmonds School District that no member of the Board, or any spouse or dependent relative of such member, shall receive or accept any compensation or reward for services rendered to the District or have any pecuniary interest in any contract to which the District is a party except to the limited extent authorized by law. For the purposes of this policy, such pecuniary interest shall not be deemed to exist by reason of a contract between the District and the employer of a Board member if: (a) the compensation of the Board member from such employer consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; (b) such employment relationship is disclosed and is recorded in the minutes of a Board meeting prior to the formation of the contract with the employer; and (c) the contract is approved by a vote of the membership for the Board sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote of the Board member employed by the contracting party.

BP6810 - CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent.

Theft prior to audit is just water under the bridge.

June 23, 2008
Dear [Anonymous],

Thank you for contacting our Office regarding your concerns about the Edmonds School District. You stated you believe the District was providing non-profit organizations with District space rent-free. You also stated a District Board Member, and his wife a teacher at the District, are violating Board Policy 1260. You also forwarded a concern that the District had violated state bid laws when purchasing land.

Space rental

You stated a non-profit organization working in support of District operations did not pay rent for its use of District space, which violated the agreement between the District and the organization. We determined the non-profit disbanded prior to 2007. Therefore, we focused our review on policies and procedures for rentals and leases and reviewed current leases and rentals.

We found the District does not have adequate policies and internal controls over the rental and lease receipting process. Its policies do not provide guidance on how to determine the type of rental or lease agreement, the rate to charge, or ensure proper monitoring of the agreements. Due to these issues, the District is not applying consistent rental and lease fees and is not obtaining sufficient information about tenants, such as their intended use of District space and whether it benefits the District, prior to deciding to rent to the tenant or draw up a lease. We recommended the District strengthen internal controls in order to decrease the risk of misappropriation, loss of revenue, or the ability to detect errors in a timely manner, and to ensure all rental and lease revenue is received.

Board Policy violation

You stated a School Board Member and his spouse are violating District Board Policy 1260, which bars the spouse or dependant of a member of the Board from being employed by the District. We reviewed Board Policy 1260 which states:

It is the policy of the Edmonds School District that non member of the Board, or any spouse or dependent relative of such member, shall receive or accept any compensation or reward for services rendered to the District or have any pecuniary [monetary] interest in any contract to which the District is a party except to the limited extent authorized by law.

RCW 42.23.030 (Interest in contracts prohibited—Exceptions) defines the exceptions allowed under state law and include:

…the letting of any employment contract to the spouse of an officer of a school district if the spouse was under contract as a certificated or classified employee with the school district before the date in which the officer assumes the office and the terms of the contract are commensurate with the pay plan or collective bargaining agreement operating in the district…

We confirmed the Board Member’s spouse began employment with the District on September 12, 1990, prior to her husband’s election to the Board in 2003. We also confirmed the spouse’s compensation was in accordance with the agreement between the District and Edmonds Education Association. The District appears to be in compliance with Board Policy 1260.

We also found that District Board Policy 6810 is inconsistent with the Policy 1260. Policy 6810 states that “No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse of or dependant child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent.” We have recommended the District revise its policies to be consistent.

Purchase of land

You stated you believed the District paid more than the asking price for property that will be used for a new bus barn. The District’s original appraisal valued the land at $3.3 million. A subsequent appraisal valued the land at $5.6 million, which the District paid. We reviewed state law (RCW 28A.335.090) which states:

…(2) Any purchase of real property by a school district shall be preceded by a market value appraisal by a professionally designated real estate appraiser as defined in RCW 74.46.020 or by a general real estate appraiser certified under chapter 18.140RCW who was selected by the board of directors.

While the law requires an appraisal, it does not say the purchase must not exceed that appraisal. We reviewed the District’s purchase and discussed the matter with legal counsel and determined the final purchase price was negotiated by the District and the seller and went through the proper approval process.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. If you have any further questions or comments, please call Chris Kapek, Audit Manager at (425) 257-2137.

Sincerely,


BRIAN SONNTAG, CGFM
STATE AUDITOR