Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees expand inquiry of superintendent

According to my sources, the law firm could'nt find anything on Lewis that would satisfy the anti-Lewis contingent, with regards to the three areas the firm was hired to investigate. Hence, the suggestion was made that they thought maybe they were onto something in the area of finances and wanted to follow that lead.

A few things. First, Lancaster has already been audited, and no 'outstanding' fiscal irregularities were reported. Unless you subscribe to the belief that the reason the conservator is here, is because of just such a fact.

If that is indeed the case, then the job of said conservator is to monitor the districts finances, and insure that there aren't any continued 'outstanding' fiscal irregularities. Given the fact that neither the audit itself, or the conservator have reported of any fiscal irregularities, what then does the law firm hope to produce, that the aforemention two inquiring bodies have yet to uncover?

The skeptic in me concludes that the 'firm' has done all they can do with regards to their investigation but will continue to milk the district to the tune of $800 an hour for as long as they're allowed. In this case, til the end of the month. (Lead attorney is paid $300 an hr, the assts are paid up to $250, if memory serves)

If this investigation comes back 'empty' as it looks like there's a good chance that it will, how does this board put a spin on all the money spent in legal fees, when the budget is supposedly in such financial distress?

remoned Anonymous

1 year, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

" Lancaster has already been audited, and no 'outstanding' fiscal irregularities were reported. "

What's really interesting is that the audits have been audited. I mean, the TEA conducted a special audit of the annual compliance audit conducted by supposedly neutral, commercial, CPAs.

The deficiencies TEA noted were, I guess you might say, "IN-standing".

TEA griped that for the past several years LISD has failed to report their interest rate risk and credit ratings for accounts managed in their investment pools.

TEA notes for 2006-07 the total net assets declined from positive $3,467,847 to a deficit total net of -$3,042,679. (More than a $6 million change.

TEA wonders how, in a year with a deficit budget (expeditures exceeding revenues) the General Fund Balance mysteriously increased from $274,259 to $3,631,437. TEA also remarks that the reported fund "balance" is more than offset by that year's obligation of $6,000,000 toward repayment of Tax Anticipation Notes.

TEA notes the General Fund is hardly alone in deficit budgeting -- that the Child Nutrition Fund ( FEDERAL dollars) has for several years been reported with expenses exceeding revenues. This contrasts with Dr Lewis's reports to the board that the nutrition program is "self-funded". The TEA further notes that, to ensure continuing federal funding of school lunches, the Texas Department of Agriculture's Division of Food and Nutrition has been asked to follow-up with still another, targeted, review of LISD finances.

TEA remarks on the complete lack, in the CPA's compliance audit, of a required table "Exhibit L-1" regarding interest on Capital Appreciation Bonds. For the most recent year TEA estimates that, had the CPAs reported that interest correctly, the district's books would show another $5,870,190 dollar "correction." The TEA also notes this omission has been previously identified to the district without the district making the required corrections.

In short the TEA complains that year after year the financial reports emerging from LISD have incorrect, incomplete, and invalid.

This has got to be embarrassing to former trustee and former board president Nanette Vick. At the October 2005 board meeting, when the Financial Integrity Reports were reviewed, Vick was visibly angry to learn that for the --then -- third straight year LISD had failed the "data quality" measure. Vick specifically instructed Dr Lewis and the administration to get that problem fixed.

http://www.lancasterisd.org/sections/...

The minutes record Dr Lewis's assurance to the board that " There will not be another variance outside the parameters. '

The following year the data quality indicator exceeed the parameter (4%) again -- posting a 142% variance.

http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/First/...

Allowed variance 4% -- measured "irregularity" of 142%, after Dr Lewis defied specific instructions from a SUPPORTIVE board president to get his financial controls in line.

No wonder the voters retired Vick in hopes of getting a stronger board president. The wonder is that Ed Kirkland didn't learn from Vick's example.

jefmelch Anonymous

1 year, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Maybe the CPA's had aligned themselves. ;o)

remoned Anonymous

1 year, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Remoned:

The conservator's latest report to the TEA shows several areas of concern that are marked "continuing concern." It identifies other "new areas of concern." Not one area of concern is marked "resolved."

If the issues were as minor as Remoned would have us believe, one would think that at least one of the most insignificant areas of concern would have been resolved by now. But, the longer the conservator stays, the more issues of concern he seems to identify.

interestedcitizen Anonymous

1 year, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

The trustees cancelled the public hearing for Oct 27th regarding their Financial Integrity Rating. (FIRST) This is the latest in a series of such cancellations. Originally publicized for October 13th, the hearing was intended to be part of the regular board meeting. That board meeting was itself postponed until the 14th, but the FIRST hearing was dropped from the revised agenda.

jefmelch Anonymous

1 year ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal