This is the proposal for the performance audit that the board approved at their last meeting. Even then, some board members and some members of the public were expressing skepticism about its focus and scope. Before proceeding further, I certainly hope that the board will take a hard look at this proposal and address some of its obvious weaknesses. There is no point in spending this money if the audit is constructed in such a way that its only purpose is to exonerate the superintendent and bamboozle the public.
There are several things I find troubling in this proposal:
1) On the first page, the superintendent urges the board to consider "the key issue . . . what do you expect the outcome to be which will help with the politics?" He seems to be suggesting that the intended outcome should guide the process, as if the whole process will be constructed in order to yield a desired outcome. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that has led us to a place of deep mistrust. A rigorous and systematic process needs to be developed first; only then will the outcome be reliable.
2) The project manager (i.e., Mike Maloney) will decide who the auditors will interview. But it's his management that is in question! Why will he be allowed to control the evaluation of his performance?
3) At no point in the document is the issue of cost effectiveness addressed. Instead the project performance will be measured in terms of being within the original budget and schedule. We already know it wasn't really under budget since they had to borrow an additional $2 million. But beyond that, we want to know if our money was spent wisely. Did we pay more for some things that we should have? Did we make the most of every dollar? This audit will not tell us that.
4) The proposal does not explicitly address the FF&E purchases which have been the subject of many questions. It was FF&E purchases that were missing the required bid documents in the financial audit. All of the FF&E purchases need to be carefully scrutinized to be sure that they complied with mandated bid procedures. We also need to know just how much we paid companies like Saxton Bradley for their services as purchasing agents.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Either do the performance audit correctly or don't waste any more of our money.
One huge red flag for me is in the final presentation. If it is only presented once and only to district administation and staff or the board of directors how will the public ever get a true picture? This has been a huge problem with Hunter and Stoops style, they do not want to share anything with the public. We, the taxpayers, will be paying for this and we have a right to know the results and talk with the auditors.
ReplyDelete