Education, Careers & Professional News
School Audit In Westbury Finds Flaws
Monday, February 21, 2005
State audit of the Westbury Union Free School District has found a lack of internal controls, which resulted in inappropriate reimbursement to school officials - including the superintendent - for travel and unused sick time.
The audit by State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, which was released yesterday, also criticized the way the district handled perks. It did not, however, find any fraud.
The district is the third on Long Island to be audited by Mr. Hevesi`s office after the scandal in the Roslyn school district last year. Three Roslyn school officials have been indicted since the discovery that millions of dollars in district funds were unaccounted for. Audits by Mr. Hevesi`s office already completed in the Baldwin and Plainedge school districts did not find any fraud or significant wrongdoing.
The 50-page Westbury audit released by Mr. Hevesi covered the period from July 1, 2002, to Aug. 31, 2004. The audit raised questions about the district`s lack of adequate documentation for more than $10,000 in credit-card reimbursements and more than $80,000 in refreshments for Board of Education meetings and other gatherings.
The audit also found that Superintendent Constance Clark had received $15,700 in cash payments for unused sick time, in violation of her contract, which permits such a cash-out only if she leaves office.
The report noted that Dr. Clark had provided auditors with written approval of the cash-outs from various presidents of the Board of Education and that last month the board voted to ratify the payments.
“The school district should not provide officials with any employee benefits that the Board of Education has not approved in employment contracts or by resolution and written policy,” the report said.
In a telephone interview yesterday, Dr. Clark said that she had acted completely above-board and had received the money with the board`s approval. She accused the auditors of looking for fire where none existed. “I just felt it was a very petty way of doing an audit,” she said. “The big thing here was there was no fraud.”