A Nevada
County Civil Grand Jury report released June 26
that cited excessive spending on Nevada County Office of Education-issued
credit cards and a lack of financial oversight by the county’s Board of
Education “contains a lot of errors” and misinformation, said Nevada County
Superintendent of Schools Holly Hermansen.
“It’s a public embarrassment
that inaccuracies have been provided and stated as truth and fact, and the whole
story isn’t provided,” Hermansen said.
The grand jury investigation,
which was triggered by a citizen complaint received in 2014, found eight
instances between 2008 and 2014 in which alcohol had been purchased on
Hermansen’s office-issued credit card, a direct violation of board policy, as
well as 11 instances in which purchases on Hermansen’s credit card appeared
excessive and were not all accompanied by proper documentation.
The report also concluded that
Office of Education policies for expenses and reimbursement were “nonspecific,
inadequate and ambiguous” and were not posted online for easy public access,
and recommended that the county’s Board of Education assume oversight and
approval for Hermansen’s credit card charges.
But in a Tuesday interview, Hermansen
disputed claims that the credit card purchases itemized in the report were
inappropriate or lacked detail, saying information her office provided to the
grand jury contradicts the report’s findings.
“None of this (spending) is
excessive or out of the ordinary or inappropriate,” Hermansen said.
Despite the report’s findings,
Hermansen said no alcohol has been purchased on an office-issued credit card.
She said sometimes alcohol purchases appear on credit card receipts — for
instance, one of the purchases highlighted in the grand jury report occurred
when she used the wrong credit card to purchase wine at a local market, and
another occurred when a drink ordered at a superintendent’s dinner was not put
on a separate check — but said any time alcohol is charged to an office-issued
credit card, the cost to the Office of Education is reimbursed with a personal
check, a process that is allowed under state education code.
She also questioned the 11
credit card charges that the report detailed as examples of excessive spending,
which ranged from $250 to $949.34. Five of the 11 charges, Hermansen said, were
for quarterly dinners she hosted as the chair of the regional group of the
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association.
Though the meals were charged
to her card, she said the NCSOS office received a portion of the membership
dues paid by each of the 10 county of education offices that compose the region
to cover the costs of those meals.
Another credit card charge the
report listed as excessive was a $538 gift for a retiring employee; Hermansen
said although the gift was charged to her card, no public funds were used for
the gift, as the attendees of the party reimbursed the Office of Education for
its cost.
All of the charges listed in
the report, Hermansen said, were accompanied by an explanation of the expense.
She said her office provided
that information to the grand jury, and that any confusion about the reason for
the expenses was a result of the grand jury’s review process.
“Either they didn’t ask for
(the information), they didn’t see it in what they asked for or they didn’t
understand it,” Hermansen said.
Though she agreed with the
grand jury’s finding that Office of Education policies need to be updated and
posted online — she said her office and the Board of Education began that
process last September and are finalizing policy updates — Hermansen said the
Office of Education has “incredible documentation” for tracking expenses and
reimbursements.
She said when employees receive
monthly statements for their office-issued credit cards, they note what each
expense was for and attach receipts for each expense. Hermansen’s reports are
reviewed and approved by the office’s associate superintendent of business
services; Hermansen reviews and approves expense reports of any other employees
with office-issued credit cards.
The Office of Education’s
financial statements are audited by an outside agency each year; Hermansen said
that the agency has not found any issues.
“I think that if our policies
are updated and online and our procedures are made more clear, then that would
provide greater transparency to the public,” Hermansen said. “But the level of
back-up we provide and the systems we have in place are very strong.”
She said submitting information
to the grand jury and responding to its report is not only costly, but also
diverts staff attention from supporting school districts and carrying out the
office’s other essential tasks.
“By the time we’re finished,
it’s going to be thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, much more
put together than the items that they identified (in the report),” Hermansen
said. “So if they’re truly concerned about efficiency, if you take a calculator
and add up everything they’ve identified here, the cost to our office of
responding and dealing with this is so much more.”
The report requests a response
from Hermansen on one of its recommendations by Aug. 24, and a response from
the county Board of Education on six of its recommendations by Sept. 24.
Board President Trevor Michael
said board members are also reviewing the report and gathering information to
prepare the board’s response.
He declined to comment further,
saying the board hasn’t yet met to discuss the issue and he had to “let the
process run before I do any public comment or step forward in front of the
issue.”
The county Board of Education,
which is responsible for oversight of the Office of Education budget, has voted
to give Hermansen’s expense reports minimal oversight over the past couple of
years. From September 2012 to December 2013, Hermansen submitted her expense
reports monthly for board review.
However, after determining that
the reports did not have any significant issues, the board decided to stop
reviewing them.
A motion that would have
required Hermansen to again begin submitting her monthly expense reports for
board review was voted down 3-2 at a July 2014 board meeting, with former board
members Jack Meeks and Marianne Slade-Troutman voting in favor of the review.
Trustee Bob Altieri proposed a
similar motion in August 2014, but no other member of the board seconded the
motion, so it was not voted on.
When asked
whether he was satisfied with the board’s level of oversight over Hermansen’s
expenses, Michael said he was “confident in the actions of the board. I’m part
of that board, and I don’t have any misgivings about the record of the board
and the results of the board.”
July 1, 2015
The
Union of Grass Valley
By
Emily Lavin
No comments:
Post a Comment