Tuesday, November 02, 2010

APS officials will neither confirm nor deny misleading State Auditor

An investigator from the State Auditors Office met with two APS administrators in August. The investigator was there to determine if I, and hundreds of other whistle blowers, were being denied due process by the APS School Board's failure to "review and approve" whistle blower complaints according to the requirement in School Board Policy.

The investigator, as far as I can tell, left the meeting with the impression that "317 out of 327 complaints had actually been "brought before the Audit Committee and resolved"".

I sent an email to APS' Director of Internal Audits Peg Koshmider and APS' Senior Auditor Sonia Montoya inquiring after the "mix up".

Mss Koshmider and Montoya,

It is my understanding that you both met with Patrick Stewart from the SAO on August 27th, 2010. It appears that during that meeting, Mr. Stewart came to believe that "317 of the 327 complaints then on file, were brought before the audit committee and resolved."

I am wondering if he got that impression from either of you. If so, I am wondering if you have any corroboration for that assertion, since it is my belief that the Audit Committee has not reviewed and approved of a single complaint; certainly neither of mine.

Please explain as completely as you are able; what is meant by "brought before the audit committee and resolved".

If neither of you is responsible for Mr Stewart's mis-impression; I would appreciate it if you could tell me how he came to that conclusion.
Both opened the email and neither has responded.

While there are other possibilities, silence, particularly from APS senior administrators, usually means cover up. It looks as though Koshmider and/or Montoya were integral in the SAO investigators coming to believe something that simply isn't true.

Koshmider was the ranking APS administrator at the meeting; it is reasonable to hold her personally accountable for the fact that the SAO believes that hundreds of whistle blower complaints have seen due process, when in fact, they have not.

photo Mark Bralley

No comments: