YSA vs. MLSD
..by Richard Gideon
Lately there has been a vigorous discussion on this Blog concerning the Youth Sports Alliance (also called the Youth Sports Association in various publications), a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity, and its commitment to contribute $30,000 a year toward the upkeep of sports fields owned by the Mt. Lebanon School District, but maintained by the Municipality.
On 1 May 1999, the School District, Municipality and Youth Sports Alliance (YSA) entered into an agreement to improve the quality of athletic fields owned by the School District. That original agreement had been renewed, but is set to expire on 30 June 2012. According to an earlier post on this Blog, "The School District pays Mt. Lebanon $83,300 per year for both infield renovation work and maintenance of the turf grass athletic fields. The Youth Sports Alliance contributes $30,000 each year to the School District for the services." But has YSA actually made its stated contributions? This question was first raised when public information available on the web site GuideStar.org, which publishes IRS 990 forms for 501(c)(3) organizations, seemed to contradict statements made by YSA officials that their organization has kept up its end of the agreement. GuideStar.org shows the following YSA 990-EZ forms:
YSA 990 2008 Line 28 shows $3597 contributed towards agreement
YSA 990 2009 Line 28 shows $30,000 contributed towards agreement
YSA 990 2010 Line 28 shows $10,000 contributed towards agreement
YSA 990 2009 Line 28 shows $30,000 contributed towards agreement
YSA 990 2010 Line 28 shows $10,000 contributed towards agreement
Year 2011 is not yet available on GuideStar.org.
Mr. Chip Dalesandro of YSA paid a personal visit to Elaine Gillen, owner of the Lebo Citizens web site and the Lebo Citizens Blog, on 10 May 2012 and stated that "..all the fees for the joint maintenance agreement are paid in full. They have been paid in full every year." He advised Ms. Gillen that Jan Klein, Director of Finance for the Mt. Lebanon School District, could verify this information. I decided to write to Ms. Klein and ask her to verify this statement. In writing to Ms. Klein I stated that, "I am not part of any organization in Mt. Lebanon that has any connections with either the District or the Municipality. I am concerned about where my tax dollars are going, and whether my local governments (i.e., the Municipality and the District) are being used for the purposes of advancing the agenda of various, private, organizations; and being used either willingly or not. I also have a pardonable curiosity about these reporting matters as the result of my profession as a registered Federal Contractor, which requires me to deal with the Department of Defense Financial Accounting System and the Department of the Treasury on a daily basis." I asked Ms. Klein the following questions:
1) Has YSA contributed $30,000 each year for the years 2008, 2010, and 2011?
a: If the answer to #1 is yes, is this amount delineated in the District's annual financial statement?
b: If the answer to #1 is yes, will you provide me with written proof of these payments?
2) If the YSA has NOT made its stated contribution amount for the years 2008, 2010, and 2011, are you accruing that amount in anticipation of payment?
a: if the answer to #2 is yes, did you disclose that on your annual financial statement?
b: if the answer to #2 is no, have individuals contributed funds in the name of the YSA sufficient to make up the difference between what YSA reports in filing years 2008 and 2010, such that the total amount credited to YSA is the required $30,000?
In asking these questions I was trying to determine whether there was a discrepancy between what YSA is reporting and what is on the District's books. Since calendar year 2009 does indeed show that YSA contributed the agreed upon $30,000 it was not at issue. If the District was showing $30,000 for each year in question I wanted to know if the accounting method was accruing that amount in anticipation of payment - a common technique in business. I also wanted to leave as much room as possible for the benefit of doubt and honest mistakes, and I did not accuse either the YSA or the District of any shenanigans. Ms. Klein answered my inquiry on 14 May 2012, in part, as follows:
In response to your questions, we received the following payments from the YSA since December of 2007:
7/27/2009 $30,000
3/10/2010 $10,000
7/27/2012 $30,000*
All of the above amounts have been recorded in our Annual Financial Reports as part of our revenues for the appropriate fiscal year. They are not recorded in a separate line on the report, but rather grouped with other misc income. Such amounts are subject to annual audit. No additional amounts have been accrued. No donations from others on behalf of the YSA obligation have been received.
*In a follow-up exchange of messages Ms. Klein wrote that this was, as I suspected, a typo - since this is still May of 2012. The correct date is 1/27/2012 (27 January 2012).
Noting that the year 2008 was missing (and at first suspecting that 7/27/2012 should have been 7/27/2011) I asked the following question:
Should I then assume, based on your breakdown, that you did not receive any money from YSA in 2008? They are showing $3597 contributed towards the agreement in that calendar year. Since your figures are calculated from December, 2007, and your table shows the first payment since that time as being on 27 July 2009, I would like to be sure about this.
Ms. Klein replied, "Those are all of the payments made to the District." I must admit that I was a little disappointed in this reply, since I felt my follow-up question could have elicited a "yes" or "no" response.
What may be surmised from the preceding discussion is this: 1)The District did not receive a $3597 payment from YSA in 2008 (otherwise their figures would not come out to an even $70,000 for the period of accounting from December, 2007 through 27 January 2012), and 2) there was no contribution made by YSA to the District in 2011, since YSA's 990-EZ forms are based on calendar years, and the last $30,000 payment to the District was made in January of this year. Since the District has been paying the Municipality the contracted $83,300 per annum for field upkeep the taxpayers have been subsidizing YSA's missing contributions.
The years 1999 through 2007 are subjects for investigation as well. I did not ask Ms. Klein about them because I had no 990-EZ evidence to use as the basis for formulating questions. However, this is something that should be investigated.
I think it is important, at this juncture, to point out that I am not accusing either Ms. Klein or Mr. Dalesandro of any malfeasance. Ms. Klein was polite and extremely professional in her replies to me. Mr. Dalesandro is purported to be an honest man with a heart for kids' sports. But Mr. Dalesandro is not an accountant and, by his own admission, does not get into the "financials." What is abundantly clear is that there is a tangled mess of contradictory information concerning the YSA's relationship to the District and the Municipality. And while it is quite possible all of this "mess" is due to benign neglect, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it would behoove the YSA, and the District and/or Municipality if necessary, to make corrections to their accounts so that the public may have confidence in what it hears or reads from these sources.
Update May 16, 2012 7:30 a.m. I have been able to obtain a copy of the Joint Maintenance Agreement Extension
-Elaine
Update May 16, 2012 7:30 a.m. I have been able to obtain a copy of the Joint Maintenance Agreement Extension
-Elaine
Nice post!
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing the legwork. It'll be interesting to find out where all the YSA money went?
Who are the past treasurer and president of the YSA? Are they the ones that are screaming loudest that the YSA demands turf because they pay fees every year?
They should take their cancelled checks over to Jan Klein if there is an error.
But right now it is not looking good for the YSA.
Albert Brenneman
It seems to me that two of the parties to the Joint Maintenance Agreement have defaulted on or breached the Agreement for years 2008 and 2010; and, it took the public to discover and expose it. The cumulative amount of the YSA default that has been uncovered thus far based on the Post is $50,000; and therefore, the amount of taxpayer dollars the District has misapplied (rather than applying full contractural payments from the YSA) in annual $83,300 contractural payments to the Muni amounts to an unbudgeted and approved $50,000 so far !
ReplyDeleteThe Muni has publicly acknowledged receiving the required annual payments from the District. Was the Muni at all aware of what was going on here between its Agreement partners ?
The year 2008 is particularly disturbing and needs further investigation. The YSA, in their calendar year Form 990-EZ filing with the IRS, claim they paid $3,597 to the District. The District claims no such payment or any payment was received from the YSA, or any organization or person(s) acting on behalf of the YSA. And, if you will look at the 2008 Form 990-EZ filing for the Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association, for example, you will find that Baseball paid $12,500 to the YSA for "field maintenance" in 2008.
There is more being held for a subsequent comment. In the meantime, something is very, very wrong here that needs to be addressed and resolved out in the open, in public, by all parties to the Agreement, including the various involved youth sports organizations. The public has been deceived and lied to by all this. We deserve far better.
Bill Lewis
"Dave Franklin, who also attended both meetings, estimated there are 4,000 youth sports registrations in Mt. Lebanon annually. He is a coach and a board member of the baseball and football associations."
ReplyDeleteAdvertising considered to pay for Mt. Lebanon programs
At $12 a registration, where is the money?
Elaine
Just a guess, Albert. Wouldn't the former Allegheny County Controller be able to get this right?
ReplyDeleteChelsea Wagner has this on the county website:
"As the County’s top fiscal officer, Controller Chelsa Wagner leads the fight against inefficient and inequitable spending, working to root out fraud, waste and abuse in County government. Chelsa brings a fresh, outside perspective focused on making County government more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. Chelsa ensures the Controller’s office is a direct, effective advocate for Allegheny County, this region, and most importantly, the taxpayers."
Elaine
This begs the question "What else don't we know?"
ReplyDeleteThe reason municipalities and school districts go through painstakingly public budget preparations each year is to assure residents that tax dollars are being handled properly.
Mr. Lewis is correct: we do deserve---and are owed---better.
Thanks to Mr. Gideon for his timely and well-composed letter.
Maddie Miller
Ms. Gillen, FYI registration fees for youth baseball are as follows:
ReplyDelete2012 Fee Schedule
Rates subject to change
T-Ball Age 6 $100
Pinto - Coach Pitch Age 7 & 8 $115 Minor Age 9 & 10 $130
Major Age 11 & 12 $150
Pony Age 13 & 14 $180
Colt* Age 15 & 16 $200
Legion/Palomino** Age 17 & 18 $250
Don't know about the other sports. Plus there is merchandise sales and spomsorship money.
I was under the impression that YSA collects $12 per child from each of the sports groups. Yes?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Dave Franklin wrote to Blog-Lebo on August 16, 2010 at 12:20 p.m. under the post "Beach, Climbing Wall in Plans for Mt. Lebanon Pool."
ReplyDelete"I believe the general rule is that each association contributes $12 per participant annually. "
I don't know what to believe anymore.
Elaine
A friend recently appealed her Mt. Lebanon property tax assessment and the school district sent a representative to the hearing to dispute her and make sure that they squeezed every last possible dime out of her. My friend lost the appeal. Can you spell "Double Standard"??
ReplyDeleteMy dear friend next door moved yesterday on advisement from her financial planner. Her living here was financianally unsustainable, she was going to start dipping into retirement funds before retiring given the tax increases and new assessment. I am holding on to her dog until she settles in. She has been a good neighbor and a wonderful friend these past 14 years, and is another example of the collateral damage resulting from our local authorities and their fiscal decision making.
This failure to enforce a financial agreement described by Richard Gideon is one example of nobody "minding the store" around here. One has to wonder how many more there are!
-Charlotte Stephenson
Charlie was just picked up by my dear ex-neighbor’s son (close friend of my son), along with his rugs, bed, bowls and bones. I will sorely miss your funny beagle howling, Charlie, and your dear family. I wish it didn’t have to be this way. May your family rest comfortably in peace of mind knowing that the wolf will no longer be at the door.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless You All,
Charlotte Stephenson
I have been looking for the actual agreement but only have the agenda and minutes Agenda passed and May 2010 Minutes
ReplyDeleteElaine
I have been able to get an actual copy of the Joint Maintenance Agreement Extension. I am posting it here as well as an update to Richard Gideon's letter.
ReplyDeleteJoint Maintenance Agreement Extension
Elaine
This is in regard to the Update May 16, 2012 linking the actual Joint Maintenance Agreement dated July 1, 2010.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, which of the "legally bound" parties have lived up to their end(s) of the Agreement; and conversely, which have not.
1) The only proven fact thus far is that the YSA did not live up to or it breached contractural provision number 5.. And in so doing, this resident taxpayer strongly suggests that the privilege accorded the YSA in provision 9. be revoked until full financial responsibility in arrears be brought up to date and satisfied. This would also apply to the Agreement period 1999 through and including 2007.
2) Because the Municipal Manager replied in the affimative to my question in a recent public meeting as to whether the District had paid the required $83,300 per year called for in provision 4., at least for the recent period, the District has seemingly complied with the Agreement. What is not known is whether full compliance occured according to terms in effect during the period 1999 through 2007 inclusive.
Although not a condition or requirement of the Agreement, the issue of the District using tax funds, be it local, state or federal, to make up the YSA shortfalls or non-payments without public disclosure and appropriate approval(s) is a serious consequence and matter that needs oversight and regulatory attention. And, what are the facts for 1999 thruogh and including 2007 ?
3) Did the District live up to responsibilities clearly defined in provisions 6.,7. and 8. ? Based on all the public complaints raised by field sports organizations in recent years in various venues, they definitely have not.
I personally believe, however, that that the members of the various field sports groups are not fully aware of or clear on which entity is responsible for precisely what field work (i.e. Exhibits A & B v. Provisions 6., 7. and 8). Further, I think there is a lack of understanding of the important distinction between repair & maintenance or R&M (an operating general fund activity and expense) and a reconstruction or major renovation (capital improvement project and capital expense, perhaps requiring debt financing). The Agreement really calls for R&M, while the loudest complaints and demands by the youth sports groups about current fields speak to apparent needs for renovation, rebuilding or reconstruction capital projects far beyond the Agreement.
Well then, what has been done about that ? Simply put, Commissions have not approved funding for capital solutions to existing municipal fields proposed in CIP's, and instead have funded Twin Hills (secretly for a field in the back end) and McNeilly; and, tried ever so hard to facilitate the Terrace Park soccer field misadventure.
And what did the District do about their 13 athletic fields, save for the stadium's artificial turf field ? Basically nothing.
4) So now that leaves us with the question as to whether the Muni lived up to respobsibilities defined in provisions 1., 2., 3. and 9. ? Without definitive proof but long knowledge of and experience with Public Works, I believe they have up to the funding limits of their defined duties. And, one also presumes they too have been blamed for problems and field deficiencies not of their making or responsibility due to a lack of knowledge and misunderstanding within and amongst the greater public. One has to assume Provision 9. was fulfilled. A very general question arises as to whether the Municipal Recreation Department ever asked or asks the YSA whether all YSA members requesting field assignments are dues paid-up members. And whether the YSA in turn has ever prevented field assignments to sports groups who have not paid their dues to YSA ?
5) It is extremely interesting to note that there are absolutely no penalties included in this binding legal contract for non-performance, non-compliance or breach by any or all parties.
Where do we go from here, sports fans ?
Bill Lewis
For the protection of all taxpayers, Bill Lewis and Richard Gideon should in charge of negotiations for any future agreement(s).
ReplyDeleteDebacles such as this tarnish our dubious reputation as a well-run community/school district.
Carole Brown
Carole, we would be a lot better off if Bill and Richard handled everything.
ReplyDeleteIt sure is quiet here! You can hear a pin drop. ;~)
Elaine
Of all the carping and complaining, this is the first truly actionable item I've seen. I hope someone sends this to the Us attorny with a full write-up, along with copies going to the newspapers and national media.
ReplyDeleteHow about you, Taxman?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Taxman,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you call the Attorney General's hotline and suggest an audit of all the sports groups' books to see how much they paid to the YSA and how much the YSA paid to the school district.
I'm disappointed that Chip Dalesandro hasn't taken an interest in the YSA money trail since he is a signatory on the YSA Agreement. Scott Foor should also be interested since his name is on the Agreement too.
It is amazing how individuals in Mt. Lebanon can ask for millions of dollars when they can't keep track of $30,000 payments.
Chip and Scott: If we can't trust you with money, why should we trust you with our kids?
John Ewing
You must have been reading a different blog than I have, Taxman, because this one has uncovered quite a few questionable actions...especially so because this town/school are supposed have such high standards.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Miller
Chip's name was on two years' 990s. Former county controller was on two years' 990s. Scott Foor's name was on all three years' 990s. That last name is so familiar. Isn't the executive director of Mt. Lebanon Foundation for Education (MLFE) Jackie Foor? Are they related? Isn't MLFE going to benefit from the PK feasibility study?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine, Chelsea Wagner's father is familiar with what goes on in Mt Lebanon Auditor General Cites Mt. Lebanon School District for Costly, Confidential Buy-Out of Superintendent Contract (which sadly was less than a slap on the wrist). The thing is, I don't think this really her jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteThe PA Attorney General may be interested. I think this is the form to file a formal compaint Filing a complaint with the Charitable Trusts and Organizations Section. I think you would have more ground to stand on from a formal complaint standpoint if you were a member of the YSA or had paid dues to them. Even if it's not, I've had to deal with the Attorney General's office before and they were good in helping point me in the right direction.
Charlotte, I fought my assessment last time. MLSD sent their attorney. She presented 1/2 of the evidence, omitting the parts that showed the large holes in their case. I was expecting more from a lawyer for Mt Lebanon. Once I presented "the rest of the story," it was clear that they were going to lose. At the end, the MLSD attorney wouldn't even shake my hand (everyone in the room shook hands except her shaking my hand). I won. I felt great satisfaction in both winning and knowing that the MLSD's lawyer was such a small person she couldn't even extend common courtesy.
I should follow up my post with the "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer (although I played on in that assessment hearing).
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on winning your assessment dispute. My friend isn't a lawyer either, she's just a Mom who went back to work last year to help with her kids' college expenses. What sunk her was that she didn't have interior pictures of a truly comparable home that she cited as an example. Somehow, she was expected to get those.
The reaction you described by the MTLSD attorney was much less than professional!
-Charlotte Stephenson