Who was that masked golfer?
by SCRGadmin on Feb.19, 2010, under Our School System
No indication was given as to what the money would be used for. The PTA is an honored organization and well known for their service to the schools and the students. A golf outing to be sponsored by the PTA was announced a little later. Only problem was, nobody informed the membership of the PTA. Very few members of the PTA Council were informed. Indeed, it would seem that nobody in the PTA was aware that they were sponsoring a golf outing in June to “support the Stow-Munroe Falls Schools”. There was no mention of the event or the sponsorship in the PTA’s minutes. No mention was made indicating what the money would be used for. After the June date was rained out, the outing was re-scheduled for August 14th. Click here to see the poster.
The PTA Council’s Treasurer’s Report for September 15, 2009 indicates that the Council took in $9,894.67 from the generous golfers. In the same report, the money, on September 4th was listed as an “expense” and sent somewhere. Some of the money was used to pay the bills for the golf outing at Fox Den golf course. A total of $8,072.67 was sent to oblivion. Then the heat got turned up.
The money was sent to the Stow-Munroe Falls Levy Committee! The PTA Council, in violation of their own by-laws, had just made a major donation to a Political Action Committee (PAC). The membership did not vote to hold a golf outing. The membership did not vote to disperse the money from the golf outing. And the membership certainly did not vote to put their organization in jeopardy with the Internal Revenue Service and possibly damage their tax-exempt status. Certainly, if anything was being done against the by-laws or the law, the membership of the council would have known (or should have known) to put a stop to it.
In their required 2009 financial report to the Summit County Board of Elections, the levy committee reported the amount of $8,072.67 was donated by the Stow Council PTA.
A complaint was filed with the PTA District 13 Advisor by the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government on December 3, 2009. Click here to listen to the resulting meeting.
In January, when the report to the Board of Elections became public record, an addendum had been added stipulating that the levy committee was returning the money to the PTA Council because the amount exceeded their permitted 5% of their budget.
We have questions. Questions for which we will probably never get an answer.
Why would the Superintendent ask the PTA Council to violate their own rules?
Why would the levy committee treasurer, a Certified Public Accountant, not question a large donation from a small group that normally funds only student related programs?
Would the PTA Council have been in violation of their tax exempt status if the SCRG had not intervened?
Why was the PTA Council reluctant to discuss this? Could it be that they had no information available to them?
Why was it necessary to involve the school district’s attorneys to rectify this situation?
Why did so few people in the PTA Council know of this whole event?
What will the PTA Council do with all this money?
Why did a School Board member lend his endorsement to a possibly shady deal?
Why was it necessary this year (2009) to disguise the golf outing as a PTA Council event , “for the schools”, instead of a levy committee function with virtually all the same contact people as was done in 2008 and before?
BUT MOST OF ALL, WE’D LIKE TO KNOW,
Who’s paying the legal fees for the PTA Council and the levy committee? The taxpayers?
7 Comments for this entry
-
Welcome to the new Stow Citizens For Responsible Government website!
Click here for Website Navigation Help
Please note as of the most recent post's date, NO ONE has stepped forward to challenge any fact presented on this website. The easiest way to stay updated is to subscribe to our RSS feed, send us a message, or join us on our Facebook page!
Loading ...
We use Digsby to manage our social networks.
What do you use?
We use 1&1 for our hosting!
February 19th, 2010 on 10:40 pm
Movie related. Very related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLKR9tCiwvA&feature=related
Movie contents:
1.) Golf cart
2.) A mysterious man
3.) Someone trying to do it the hard way
February 20th, 2010 on 3:08 pm
I can’t believe these people used historically one of the biggest and most loyal volunteer organization in the district for their own questionable purposes. How bold, how rude, how thoughtless. It just shows that no one is off limits to become victims of their egotistical machinations.
February 20th, 2010 on 11:23 pm
The golf cart video is dead-on. Those involved in planning the Second Annual SMFCD Golf Outing have found themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place both legally and financially.
The attorney told them to return $8,072.67 to the Council PTA thereby changing the scenery for the levy committee finances.
On December 31, 2009 the levy committee year-end financial report showed a balance of $10,611.07. In January 2010 the committee gave the $8,072.67 back to the PTA leaving them with ????? $2,538.40? ….guess it’s back to the drawing board.
February 20th, 2010 on 11:57 pm
Dr. Jones approached PTA Council months ago about hosting this golf outing. Yet, when asked during the last PTA meeting what the district planned to do with the money, he said he didn’t know because he just got the check. How does this make sense? At least six months after you ask an organization to have a fundraiser for the district, you still haven’t devised a plan for the bounty?
After the money made the rounds through PTA and the Levy Committee it finally has landed with the school district. Maybe the reason Dr. Jones had no plan for the money is because it was always his intent for it to build the Levy Committee’s war chest. He didn’t think anyone would be the wiser. Surprise – after shamelessly duping the PTA Council, the Levy Committee is alas no richer.
What did Dr. Jones really hope to accomplish with this foiled plan? At least the district attorneys are reaping the benefit of his folly.
February 23rd, 2010 on 7:23 pm
I imagine that Stow Schools is paying for it’s legal defense…so, yes, the taxpayers. PTA has not hired attorneys and, thus, is not paying for legal advice with anyone’s money. I must say, however, that there would be no need for any of these people to concern themselves with legal defense, if we could be more kind in our efforts to bring information to light. What good can come from intimidating a PTA to the brink of litigation—even in the name of enlightenment? It is always nice to BE right; but it is more important to DO right.
February 25th, 2010 on 1:27 pm
Do you really know what the facts are? Your comments indicate you do not.
February 25th, 2010 on 10:53 pm
I couldn’t agree more with grossandshocking – it is more important to DO right. That’s what this is all about. The district’s administration is not doing right by the community and has taken advantage of PTA. Remember, the intimidation you speak about started with the superintendent, as well as the litigation. Did the PTA membership understand what it was being asked to do, or did council leadership just unquestioningly support the superintendent’s scheme, putting their organization in jeopardy? No one is debating the dedication and contributions of our local PTA units. However, PTA Council should take this as an opportunity to review their bylaws and have discussions with their unit representatives before making such precarious decisions in the future.