Board excuse for keeping mum on missing funds "flimsy': Kircher

“Flimsy” and “absurd” are some of the words local resident David Kircher is using to describe the Rainy River District School Board’s answers following his presentation to the board earlier this month over the hundreds of thousands of dollars that went missing from Fort Frances High School over a three-year period and led to former FFHS head secretary Fawn Lindberg being charged with theft over $5,000 in October, 2007.
“The response I got is pretty much what I thought I would get,” said Kircher, who presented a petition signed by members of the community and questioned the board on its policies and procedures concerning the management of school funds by administration at the board’s Nov. 4 meeting.

Kircher had requested that the board publicly respond to his questions by Nov. 14.
The board’s bylaws required that the reply be made to the individual who makes a presentation, although the board’s official response to Kircher also has been posted on its website at www.rrdsb.com
The board has been transparent, accessible, and accountable, stated board chair Dan Belluz.
The board’s responses pointed to policies and procedures publicly available through the board’s website, or, for certain procedures (as per Section 207 (4) of the Education Act), through the board’s office for a fee.
“If detailed information about the actions of employees has not been publicly provided, it is due to the board’s obligations under laws that prevent disclosure in certain circumstances [i.e. Freedom of Information Act],” Belluz explained.
“There are also real and serious concerns relating to ongoing prosecutions referenced above,” he added. “Legal counsel has advised us that the details of evidence and comment on the case should be avoided as public statements about evidence that employees may later give in court should not be disclosed.”
In the board’s response, the possibility of future civil claims also was listed as a reason why more information cannot be disclosed.
But these policies, and the legal situation, are not a good enough explanation, Kircher charged.
“They’re using the court case, the criminal prosecution, as an excuse not to respond and it’s pretty flimsy,” he said. “The board is not involved with any litigation. They’re not apprised of what’s going on in any criminal case.
“The production order is a public document. Any information in there is out in the open and is available for anyone to read,” Kircher noted. “So to avoid that is odd.
“In terms of civil cases, I can see where there would be several, and I would say it’s incumbent upon the board to ensure that the statute of limitations don’t expire on any of those potential cases,” added Kircher, noting the board could seek restitution from those involved, even inadvertently, with the loss of funds.
“Because the board truly is the victim in this,” he stressed. “They’re the injured party, they’re the one who have money taken. But the board represents the true victims, which are the students, and the parents that raise the money and generally the taxpayers.”
By keeping the issue private with such things as in-camera sessions and responding to him individually, not to the broader public, Kircher said the board isn’t representing these people, but instead management and administration.
He pointed to not being able to find any mention of the missing funds or comment on it within the school board meeting minutes as an example of this lack of transparency and openness.
In response to Kircher’s question concerning how, over a three-year period, funds could go missing without detection, the board responded by stating that, “Without going into the details of the case, it was, in fact, the procedures that were in place that detected the missing funds.”
It’s a statement Kircher called absurd.
“On average, there was $100,000 a year going missing from an account that had a budget of $300,000 a year,” he said. “So anyone who could add or subtract can figure that one out.”
Policies which the response referred to, such as 8.24, were enacted as of January, 2008, said Kircher, noting he specifically had asked for policies that had been in place prior to the discovery of the missing funds.
“If you delete 8.24, which wasn’t there in 2007, they only have two policies,” said Kircher. “And they’re pretty thin in terms of any sort of descriptors.”
And while questions still remain unanswered, Kircher said some steps have been made forward.
“What I feel we accomplished was getting the RRDSB, as trustees, to, for the first time that I’m aware of, in public acknowledge that there are missing funds from the Fort Frances High School,” he said.
“In addition to that, I also now have the board acknowledging and accepting the Fort Frances Times article and all the information that it contained as being part of their knowledge as a board,” Kircher added, referring to the Fort Frances Times article published on Jan. 23 that reported on information submitted to Justice of the Peace Pat Clysdale-Cornell on Dec. 31, 2007 in order to obtain a production order (an order that is used to compel evidence to be brought to court).
“It’s up to the board to decide to look at things,” said Kircher. “I know that each trustee has a copy of the production order. We e-mailed it to them back in September.”
The submitted information, gathered through preliminary police investigation, showed that close to 150 pre-authorized blank cheques were made out to Lindberg and “cash” totalling $312, 426.45 from March 3, 2004 to Oct. 18, 2007.
Lindberg currently is awaiting trial, with her next court appearance slated for Nov. 25.
The document also disclosed that as head secretary of Fort Frances High School, Lindberg had access to a stamp of principal Gord McCabe’s signature, and had duties that included handling petty cash, paying invoices, and controlling of the account.
The document also outlined how public school board administration first became aware of, and handled, the discovery of the missing funds.
“This board needs to scrutinize all those things and if there’s accountability, they should take a look at it, and assess it, and determine what it is,” said Kircher.
The board has filed an insurance claim and has recovered more than $260,000 to this date, Belluz noted, adding the board continues to work with the insurance company.
At this point, Kircher plans to continue pushing the board for answers on the missing funds and how they have dealt with it.
“My next step is to keep this public as open and as transparent as possible and push this board, in my opinion, to start acting for the people they represent, not management and administration,” he stressed.