Hot off the presses today from the State Auditor's office (there's a place that could use some good news) comes the results of an audit of Port Angeles School District No. 121. Or more correctly, the Findings of said audit - as in, Official Findings, which aren't good things to Find at all.
The following is part of one of the Findings from the audit:
Schedule of Audit Findings and Responses
The District did not have adequate controls over Skills Center contracts to ensure amounts due from participating governments were collected.
Background: Port Angeles School District No. 121 hosts the North Olympic Peninsula Skills Center for the purpose of training students of the District, four neighboring school districts and Peninsula College in certain vocational skills. The Skills Center is located in abuilding co-owned by the District and Peninsula College.
The District allocates the Skills Center net loss to all participating governments based on factors outlined in the Skills Center interlocal agreement. Net losses totaled $712,839 for fiscal years 2012 through 2015.
Description of Condition
Contracts - During our review of the Skills Center contracts, we found:
* The District did not properly allocate enrollment slots to participating governments or prepare and annual budget covering the proposed operation and financing in compliance with the Skills Center interlocal agreement.
* The District and College were operating under the terms of a 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which included a third party that was no longer in operation.
* The District established the building as a condominium under the Condominium Act in 2004, but had not adhered to the terms of the condominium declaration, including establishment of an association, board and bylaws.
Allocation of Costs - Our review of the allocation of Skills Center net losses and building expenses found:
* Of the $712,839 total net loss for fiscal years 32012 through 2015, $61,314 had been allocated to the District, $283,111 had been billed to participating governments, and $368,414 had not been allocated. We were unable to determine the correct allocation of the net losses due to lack of enrollment slot allocation data.
* As of April 2016, the $283,111 billed to participating governments in 2014 had not been collected.
* The District under-billed the College for indirect costs...based on the designated square footage used to calculate direct costs...However, since the District did not periodically review or document the actual square footage used, we were unable to determine the amount under-billed.
* As of April 2016, the District had not billed the College for any costs incurred since July 1, 2015, although the MOU required expenses to be billed monthly.
Cause of Condition
The District did not monitor to ensure Skills Center contracts were current and being complied with.
The District did not establish and follow procedures to ensure compliance with the Condominium Act.
Staff members responsible for performing tasks outlined in the contracts were unaware of their responsibilities.
The District did not establish adequate procedures to ensure costs allocable to other governments were properly calculated, billed and collected timely.
The district does not dispute the conclusions noted in the finding and will take action to mitigate the conditions noted in the finding.
The district intends to review best practices for skill center programs and work with the skill center advisory board to determine the best course of action with respect to the structure of programs offered.
Whew! After all that, it's nice that "the district does not dispute the conclusions" of just how totally screwed up they are. And these people are supposed to be working, however marginally...in...education. Education. But it sure seems like they don't even know how to read, or do basic math.
So who is on this "skill center advisory board" anyway? They don't have it mentioned at all on their website. I found a listing that shows Lee Whetham is on it...But who else makes up this brain (mis)trust? And does anyone think that a big chunk of those $712,839 net losses weren't so much lost as they were...liberated along the way?