Missouri Auditor's Office threatens Springfield Public Schools with legal action | Springfield News-Leader | news-leader.com

Missouri Auditor's Office threatens Springfield Public Schools with legal action

School district has been slow to give auditors documents, counsel says.

ZOOM

Chief Litigation Counsel Darrell Moore sent a letter threatening subpoenas this week after repeated, alleged foot-dragging by the district.

"The auditors would characterize it as there has been difficulty. We've had to jump through hoops. The auditors are feeling frustrated," Moore said Friday. "It's just one of several incidents where the auditors struggled to get documents. It pushed the envelope."

He would not detail the incidents but not all involved personnel records.

In an April 12 letter to the district, obtained by the News-Leader through a Sunshine Law request, Moore set a noon Friday deadline to produce roughly 19 personnel files requested as part of the ongoing state audit of district operations.

District spokeswoman Teresa Bledsoe said the district received the letter April 13 and quickly complied with the request.

"We did provide those records this morning," she said Friday. "...Frankly, we were surprised by that harsh language given the fact that we, at no time, refused to provide the documents."

Bledsoe gave the News-Leader an April 5 e-mail from Parker McKenna, human resources manager, to the auditors. In it, he asked for proof the auditors had the authority to see the documents.

"As you have hopefully experienced thus far, it is our intent to cooperate with your processes and provide you information ...," he wrote. "This is the first request of this kind that we have received from your office and we feel that we need more information before responding. Please provide me with the legal standing, including reference to any regulation, statute, or case law that the Auditor's Office uses to justify its expectation that public entities release closed records, including personnel files."

In this week's letter, Moore said it was important to view the documents.

"Our audit team advises me that you are refusing to allow them access to personnel files that they need to review to ensure compliance with federal and state hiring laws and school district policy," he wrote.

He also made it clear the auditors had the authority to view confidential documents, records and materials to verify compliance with state and federal law as well as district policy.

"There is no statutory or case law authority that allows you to deny the auditor access to these personnel files."

Moore noted in the one-page letter that "our auditors are legally obligated to keep confidential any matters they learn during an audit."

"These confidentiality requirements grant the state auditor access to information that is otherwise confidential and not a public record."

The auditor's office has the authority to issue subpoenas but they're not common -- neither is the letter sent this week. Moore said only one similar letter, to a state agency, has been sent since he joined the office in January, when Auditor Tom Schweich took office. Moore also said the practice has never been commonplace for the auditor.

"It gets to the point where auditors get frustrated," he said. "The goal is not to be harsh, it's be be factual and to get the district to comply."

Bledsoe said the tone of the letter -- the first threatening a subpoena -- was unusual, especially because the district made a "reasonable request" to safeguard employee privacy.

"Given the fact that this is the first time we've gone through a state audit, we needed a little guidance."

Audit history

Board President Tom Prater said he was aware of the correspondence and, along with Superintendent Norm Ridder, wants to take another look at the exchange.

"We've asked our legal counsel to look at the whole matter to see if we have complied," Prater said. "The burden is on us to make sure we're handling it appropriately.

In late 2009, a taxpayer coalition -- led by chief petitioners Tom Gargus, Fred Ellison and Carl Herd -- started collecting signatures to compel the audit. They submitted 5,202 verified voter signatures, 136 more than required.

The audit officially started in the fall and was initially expected to take a year. However, the audit team assigned to the district is still requesting documents, asking questions and meeting with employees.

A team of up to five auditors has been working out of a room in the west side of the Kraft Administrative Center since October. They are not expected to comment on the process until the final report is done.

"We expect to continue fieldwork through June," said Gary McElyea, spokesman for Schweich. "We anticipate the audit report will be released before the end of the year."

Schweich took over the audit of Springfield schools started by his predecessor, Susan Montee.

The estimated cost of the audit will be paid for by the district. No payment is required until the process is done.

"Although we aren't limited to it, the current estimate is still $120,000-$180,000," McElyea said.

Gargus said school districts funded with taxpayer dollars must be as open as possible.

"Personnel information, I know, has to be handled with sensitivity, but these aren't just any schmucks off the street. These are the state auditors," he said. "The district needs to be compliant."