Any money raised had to be donated as designated. Any undesignated donations will still be set aside. What is left (about $200,000) will go back into the general fund. Of course it doesn't make sense. This is what we were screaming about back in 2012. It is all here on the blog. Elaine
I don't see how. Just another feel good statement by the Administration. Did you catch what Bill Cooper said? Another Cooperism! I love Mike Riemer's come back. Elaine
Ain't gonna happen, 8:36 AM. That is how our blood thirsty neighbors were able to allow deer killing on their properties and remain anonymous. They "donated" their properties, even though no ownership was transferred. Elaine
Glad you caught Jan’s statement that the $710,000 will be paid back. It’s a perfect example of how the school board operates. Not one director or the superintendent queried exactly how that would be done.
The Administration says the $700k+ in taxpayer funds spent on the Capital Campaign will be recovered. This is GOOD NEWS. Why must the haters on this blog curse GOOD NEWS? That's a lot of money that the District will certainly put to good use and this is a BAD THING? SHUT UP!
Actually, I believe that statement was backtracked near the end of the discussion. It was clarified that WHAT WAS LEFT would be transferred back into the general fund, which is about $200k. It doesn't sound like the entire $700k will be "recovered".
On another note, how does Cissy get away with just sitting in these meetings texting the entire time? It's absurd.
8:29, no one is complaining IF the $700,000 is recovered! That would be fabulous. The question is and will always be with the Capital Campaign cancelled where will the money for the recovery come from? Do you know the answer 8:29? Please share it.
8:29 and 9:00 am, just so everyone is on the same page. The district put $910,000 from the district’s General Funds into the Capital Campaign which initially Klein called it a loan. All through the campaign she insisted that irregardless of what the $910,000 was called, it was to be paid back. She now states the campaign will be putting $200,000 back into the district’s’s General Funds. Leaving $710,000 that needs to be paid back.
That doesn’t seem to jive with Mr. Cooper’s assertion that the district netted $200,000 from the Capital Campaign.
This comment isn’t meant to malign the generosity of the donors that contributed to the Capital Campaign, but something just doesn’t add up with it’s financial statement and comments made at the board meeting.
I’m no mathematician so someone please show me where I’ve made a mistake.
-$442,593.87 Disbursements ——————— -$399,849.11 A negative balance!
Even crediting the $234,465 in outstanding pledges - which may or may not come in - that leaves the campaign still $165,380.11 in the red.
Add in the $910,000 the district loaned, seeded or whatever at the start from General Funds and the campaign is in the hole for over $1,000,000 by my math. Ms. Klein states $200,000 of the $910,000 will be going back into the General Fund and the remaining balance will eventually be paid back. From where we don’t know and apparently 8:29 pm doesn’t think taxpayers have a right to ask.
How does Ms. Cappucci figure there is any donor money left to be spent as the donor’s directed? They only took in $774,453.09 in revenue and they spent $731,708.33 running the campaign. That left only $42,744.76 to spend on disbursements. Somehow though they spent $442,593.87 on disbursements. Where did that noney come from?
The donations cant be spent on salary, mailings, software, etc. Donor money can only be distributed to help the projects or programs it was donated to. The "loan" of $900k is what covered all the expenses. That's why there's only about $200k getting transferred back. That's all that's left.
Frankly, the board and district had no idea how fundraising works when they came up with the crazy idea of doing this loan and saying it could be paid back. Legally, unless they found a donor who specifically said they wanted to pay for campaign expenses, that could never happen. It was completely unethical to say any of that money would be paid back.
3:28, so what you are saying is that the board spent over $731,000 of taxpayer money to get a little less than $450,000 from private donors. Wow, did taxpayers get taken for a ride.
Unethical you say! Basically if what you say is true 3:28, Klein and the board have been lying to taxpayers for six years and there are no repurcussions for it.
3:28, I can’t access the original PG article so I’m relying on this comment from this blog.
“September 15, 2017 at 3:40 PM It's been reported on this Blog that Ms. Klein says that the "General Fund loan to Capital Campaign for start up $923,530.02" is not a loan but an "investment." Then I read the following from Janice Crompton in the Post-Gazette: "Jan Klein, district business director, told the board that the campaign began with $923,000 in startup money from the district that is to be paid back." Excuse me, but when one gives money to someone or something with the expectation that it will be paid back, the proper word for that transaction is LOAN.”
If you are correct 3:28 and the “loan” can never be paid back unless a donor directs their donation to so, why was the business director allowed to lie? Like when did the $923,000 change to $910,000? Shouldn’t auditors be all over this?
Superintendent Steinhauer’s complete bungling of this effort is absolutely beyond belief. Shame on him. The donors and the taxpayers should be outraged.
I can't speak to as why there are no repercussions. But no one on that board or in the administration had any idea what they were getting into as far as fundraising and what you could or couldn't do. I believe they really thought it could be paid back, but that it was just total ignorance on their part. Fundraisers don't raise their salary or expenses any more than superintendents or executive directors do. Their salaries and expenses are part of the normal operating budget, unless perhaps they're being funded by a particular grant, but usually those are termed positions. If they had done their due diligence, they would have known this. The way they embarked on this adventure was misguided, and the wool they pulled over taxpayers eyes for the last 6 years has been unethical, at best.
I did a search for "capital campaign" on Lebo Citizens and came up with all kinds of goodies. https://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/search?q=capital+campaign Keep in mind, that other results pop up if you search for "Century of Excellence," "Lebo Gives," and whatever else this "Million Dollar Heist" has been called. Check out "Spin Class 101" from 2012. Check out "We hit pay dirt!" from a year ago. Coincidentally, the minutes show a $200,000 loan, the exact amount that will be going back into the General Fund. THE SCHOOL BOARD NEVER VOTED ON THIS. Somehow, almost a million dollars was transferred into this capital campaign.
I have been blogging about this crap since 2012! I have taken so much shit from the haters here over this. It has been hell, but I persisted. I need to thank my friend Nick Meduho, who dedicated his final year of life to exposing this fraud. Elaine
Absolutely Elaine, thanks to your blog this fiasco, and it is a fiasco from the very first meeting when certain directors and administrators believed they could actually raise $30 million in donations. They continued to perpetuate this train wreck on the taxpayers by saying taxpayers would be thanking the board in 100 years for initiating the campaign. The trouble is that Larry, Elaine, Steinhauer, Cooper miss one important fact about Mt. Lebanon taxpayers. Historically, Mt. Lebanon taxpayers have always stepped up to finance and give our students the best in academic and extracurricular opportunities. Through that “giving” the district has earned its Blue Ribbon reputation.
Sorry directors, you never established a “need” with your constituents - the first rule in creating a fundraiser and for this lack of planning you should show a little contrition instead of bestowing accolades on those that lead this financial failure.
The very least the board could do is admit that it should have paid more attention to Elaine’s blog and Mr. Meduho.
If one listens to the closing board conversation on whether the district will still be able to accept donors’ gifts Steinhauer admits that it will be able too. It always had that capability— there was no need to spend nearly a million dollars to create a fundraiser.
The Almanac finally does some accurate reporting. ““Lebo Gives” was first announced in March and was previously said by co-chairs Noelle Conover and Bill Moorehead to be an ongoing, volunteer fundraising effort as opposed to finite campaign like the “Century of Excellence,” for which a staff member was hired. The proposed “reset” of the campaign stemmed from a financial loss it incurred in pursuit of a $6 million goal.”
27 comments:
LEBO.GIVES.UP.
I am financially supporting the School District. See Mr. Joe Senko.
So it spent more money than it raised?!? How was it able to make the donations? This does not make sense.
Any money raised had to be donated as designated. Any undesignated donations will still be set aside. What is left (about $200,000) will go back into the general fund. Of course it doesn't make sense. This is what we were screaming about back in 2012. It is all here on the blog.
Elaine
At about 47 minutes the finance person says the $700,000+ spent on fundraising costs will be recovered. How?
I don't see how. Just another feel good statement by the Administration.
Did you catch what Bill Cooper said? Another Cooperism! I love Mike Riemer's come back.
Elaine
58:48, Elaine. Nothing positive, Mr. Cooper.
Perhaps public shaming is in order for the outstanding pledges ?
Ain't gonna happen, 8:36 AM. That is how our blood thirsty neighbors were able to allow deer killing on their properties and remain anonymous. They "donated" their properties, even though no ownership was transferred.
Elaine
Glad you caught Jan’s statement that the $710,000 will be paid back.
It’s a perfect example of how the school board operates.
Not one director or the superintendent queried exactly how that would be done.
The Administration says the $700k+ in taxpayer funds spent on the Capital Campaign will be recovered. This is GOOD NEWS. Why must the haters on this blog curse GOOD NEWS? That's a lot of money that the District will certainly put to good use and this is a BAD THING? SHUT UP!
Actually, I believe that statement was backtracked near the end of the discussion. It was clarified that WHAT WAS LEFT would be transferred back into the general fund, which is about $200k. It doesn't sound like the entire $700k will be "recovered".
On another note, how does Cissy get away with just sitting in these meetings texting the entire time? It's absurd.
8:29, no one is complaining IF the $700,000 is recovered! That would be fabulous.
The question is and will always be with the Capital Campaign cancelled where will the money for the recovery come from?
Do you know the answer 8:29?
Please share it.
8:29 and 9:00 am, just so everyone is on the same page.
The district put $910,000 from the district’s General Funds into the Capital Campaign which initially Klein called it a loan.
All through the campaign she insisted that irregardless of what the $910,000 was called, it was to be paid back.
She now states the campaign will be putting $200,000 back into the district’s’s General Funds.
Leaving $710,000 that needs to be paid back.
That doesn’t seem to jive with Mr. Cooper’s assertion that the district netted $200,000 from the Capital Campaign.
This comment isn’t meant to malign the generosity of the donors that contributed to the Capital Campaign, but something just doesn’t add up with it’s financial statement and comments made at the board meeting.
I’m no mathematician so someone please show me where I’ve made a mistake.
$774,453.09 Revenue generated
-$731,708.33 Campaign Expenditures
———————
$ 42,744.76 Balance
-$442,593.87 Disbursements
———————
-$399,849.11 A negative balance!
Even crediting the $234,465 in outstanding pledges - which may or may not come in - that leaves the campaign still $165,380.11 in the red.
Add in the $910,000 the district loaned, seeded or whatever at the start from General Funds and the campaign is in the hole for over $1,000,000 by my math. Ms. Klein states $200,000 of the $910,000 will be going back into the General Fund and the remaining balance will eventually be paid back. From where we don’t know and apparently 8:29 pm doesn’t think taxpayers have a right to ask.
How does Ms. Cappucci figure there is any donor money left to be spent as the donor’s directed?
They only took in $774,453.09 in revenue and they spent $731,708.33 running the campaign. That left only $42,744.76 to spend on disbursements.
Somehow though they spent $442,593.87 on disbursements. Where did that noney come from?
The donations cant be spent on salary, mailings, software, etc. Donor money can only be distributed to help the projects or programs it was donated to. The "loan" of $900k is what covered all the expenses. That's why there's only about $200k getting transferred back. That's all that's left.
Frankly, the board and district had no idea how fundraising works when they came up with the crazy idea of doing this loan and saying it could be paid back. Legally, unless they found a donor who specifically said they wanted to pay for campaign expenses, that could never happen. It was completely unethical to say any of that money would be paid back.
3:28, so what you are saying is that the board spent over $731,000 of taxpayer money to get a little less than $450,000 from private donors.
Wow, did taxpayers get taken for a ride.
Unethical you say!
Basically if what you say is true 3:28, Klein and the board have been lying to taxpayers for six years and there are no repurcussions for it.
3:28, I can’t access the original PG article so I’m relying on this comment from this blog.
“September 15, 2017 at 3:40 PM
It's been reported on this Blog that Ms. Klein says that the "General Fund loan to Capital Campaign for start up $923,530.02" is not a loan but an "investment." Then I read the following from Janice Crompton in the Post-Gazette: "Jan Klein, district business director, told the board that the campaign began with $923,000 in startup money from the district that is to be paid back." Excuse me, but when one gives money to someone or something with the expectation that it will be paid back, the proper word for that transaction is LOAN.”
If you are correct 3:28 and the “loan” can never be paid back unless a donor directs their donation to so, why was the business director allowed to lie? Like when did the $923,000 change to $910,000? Shouldn’t auditors be all over this?
The number was changed because an attempt was made to pay down the debt. Big deal.
Elaine
Superintendent Steinhauer’s complete bungling of this effort is absolutely beyond belief. Shame on him. The donors and the taxpayers should be outraged.
I can't speak to as why there are no repercussions. But no one on that board or in the administration had any idea what they were getting into as far as fundraising and what you could or couldn't do. I believe they really thought it could be paid back, but that it was just total ignorance on their part. Fundraisers don't raise their salary or expenses any more than superintendents or executive directors do. Their salaries and expenses are part of the normal operating budget, unless perhaps they're being funded by a particular grant, but usually those are termed positions. If they had done their due diligence, they would have known this. The way they embarked on this adventure was misguided, and the wool they pulled over taxpayers eyes for the last 6 years has been unethical, at best.
I did a search for "capital campaign" on Lebo Citizens and came up with all kinds of goodies. https://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/search?q=capital+campaign Keep in mind, that other results pop up if you search for "Century of Excellence," "Lebo Gives," and whatever else this "Million Dollar Heist" has been called.
Check out "Spin Class 101" from 2012.
Check out "We hit pay dirt!" from a year ago. Coincidentally, the minutes show a $200,000 loan, the exact amount that will be going back into the General Fund. THE SCHOOL BOARD NEVER VOTED ON THIS. Somehow, almost a million dollars was transferred into this capital campaign.
I have been blogging about this crap since 2012! I have taken so much shit from the haters here over this. It has been hell, but I persisted. I need to thank my friend Nick Meduho, who dedicated his final year of life to exposing this fraud.
Elaine
Absolutely Elaine, thanks to your blog this fiasco, and it is a fiasco from the very first meeting when certain directors and administrators believed they could actually raise $30 million in donations. They continued to perpetuate this train wreck on the taxpayers by saying taxpayers would be thanking the board in 100 years for initiating the campaign.
The trouble is that Larry, Elaine, Steinhauer, Cooper miss one important fact about Mt. Lebanon taxpayers. Historically, Mt. Lebanon taxpayers have always stepped up to finance and give our students the best in academic and extracurricular opportunities. Through that “giving” the district has earned its Blue Ribbon reputation.
Sorry directors, you never established a “need” with your constituents - the first rule in creating a fundraiser and for this lack of planning you should show a little contrition instead of bestowing accolades on those that lead this financial failure.
The very least the board could do is admit that it should have paid more attention to Elaine’s blog and Mr. Meduho.
If one listens to the closing board conversation on whether the district will still be able to accept donors’ gifts Steinhauer admits that it will be able too. It always had that capability— there was no need to spend nearly a million dollars to create a fundraiser.
The Almanac finally does some accurate reporting.
““Lebo Gives” was first announced in March and was previously said by co-chairs Noelle Conover and Bill Moorehead to be an ongoing, volunteer fundraising effort as opposed to finite campaign like the “Century of Excellence,” for which a staff member was hired. The proposed “reset” of the campaign stemmed from a financial loss it incurred in pursuit of a $6 million goal.”
The campaign WAS a financial loss.
Post a Comment