A(nother) Taste of Vallas
More than the audit, Vallas’ attitude towards the federal government’s regulations, requirements, “definitions” of documentation is worth noting here:
The audit contends the [Philadelphia School District] failed to follow federal rules in spending the grants in 2005 and 2006. It calls for the district to repay about $17.7 million to the Department of Education and provide “adequate documentation” to justify an additional $121 million.
“Nowhere in the report does it suggest officials engaged in the misappropriation of federal funds during the audit period,” [former chief executive of the Philadelphia School District] Paul Vallas said Thursday.
Vallas, now schools superintendent in New Orleans, said the federal government had been encouraging schools “to use grant money in more flexible ways.” [Flexible? To-ma-to, to-mah-to?]
During his tenure, Philadelphia test scores soared, and the district had one of the greatest increases in graduation rates in the nation, he said.
“It happened because the dollars were used creatively to fund programs that were having the greatest impact,” Vallas said. ["Creative use of funds" can sound fishy to someone supplying the cash and not seeing where it went except for some test scores being flapped in the face.]
During the audited period, the district received $245 million in federal aid toward its $1.9 billion budget.
The audit, among other things, alleges that the district improperly used federal aid to pay for salaries and programs that should have been covered by local and state money. It also cites the district for failing to show what work some employees performed and inadequately explaining how some of the money had been used to pay for food, training materials, equipment and class trips.
Vallas said the district had documented the spending of the federal money in ways that were often more reliable than the government required. [Huh?]
“This is not about the district not spending the money on the right things. These preliminary findings reflect a difference of opinion on what constitutes proper documentation,” he said. “It’s not about fraud.”
The question isn’t documentation but whether federal funds were used in ways they should not have been. This should not be a new concept for a school district. And “failing to show what work some employees performed” sounds more serious than “a difference of opinion on what constitutes proper documentation.” Documentation isn’t new either. Standards are there. Like it or not, if you want and use the money, it comes with the paperwork and documentation. Why blow it off?
No, it doesn’t sound like fraud. It does sound like arrogance mixed with splashes of disrespect and disdain for “government.” Not a good combination in a public servant.
____
Wood, Sam. “Former Phila. schools CEO disputes federal audit findings.” Philly.com. Jan. 25, 2010. Web.
