So why do we need another audit, that overlaps the dates of the audit that was just finished? Probably because the allegations in the new audit were not included in the audit
engagement letter. Well, what was included in the audit engagement letter? All of the issues brought up by the Taxpayer Demand:
- Intentional avoidance of the Oklahoma Bidding Law by use of blanket purchase orders
- Overcharging by AA
- “Stonewalling” other vendors from bidding for services
- Conspiring by employees to allow Air Assurance to bill for services that had not been requested, filling in work orders later to match the invoices
- AA billing again based on work orders that were created based on their original invoice (in effect billing twice for the same work order)
- BAPS employees creating a staged quote to provide fake proof of proper procedures to the superintendent
(Astounding how closely the news reports of the leaked “audit” resemble this list of accusations. How is it possible that the sponsors of this Taxpayer Demand were unable(or unwilling) to provide any evidence whatsoever when asked by the District? How is it possible that Sisney was unable to provide any proof of any of these crimes in his deposition, and was in fact unable to provide any idea what the crimes were until the audit came out and told him? Why didn’t he provide the alleged split POs signed by Gerber, and the staged quote allegedly done by Gerber? When asked what crimes he thought were committed, why did he say he didn’t know but would find out when the audit told him? Couldn’t he just bring a copy of the Taxpayer Demand?)
So if these issues and others – remember the audit letter said it would include these issues but not be limited to them – were already covered in the state audit, what issues will the new audit cover? What other criminal activity is being investigated?
The article says they’re going to try to start the new audit this week. No telling how long it will take, but it’s probably in Burrage’s best interest to get it done quickly. Not only has he already been criticized for the length of time the BA audit took, but he probably doesn’t want these issues to remain unresolved going into the election.
So, just putting some facts together in light of this new request to audit exactly the years Sisney was in charge of the District, including making sure proper bidding was done, and
presenting PO’s to the board for approval.
2003 – 2009 are the Sisney years for the most part. Sisney was gone in October 2008, but Updike was still there through 2010. She joined the board in 2000.
Sisney claimed in his lawsuit that people said he was “stealing from the district”. He brought up a fund balance issue that he blamed Trish Williams, the former CFO for, and refused to allow the board to discuss certain budget issues in board meetings (that was one of the items he wouldn’t put on the agenda). Updike had a rental house business; many of the properties had mortgages far exceeding their value. 9 months after Sisney was fired, Updike filed bankruptcy, with 4 million dollars in debt.
These are all facts, not rumors. Make of them what you will.
Burrage better take care of this one himself, and watch carefully who in his office gets access to it.