Continuing coverage
The Springfield News-Sun has provided unmatched coverage of the investigation into Brad Martin’s alleged misconduct at Tecumseh Local Schools ever since the news broke in December, including stories digging into his mileage reimbursements and emails.
By the numbers:
$5,973: Total cost of 4 purchase orders submitted for 10 iPads
$3,893: Checks made out to Brad Martin to purchase iPads for the district
10: Separate email requests to produce the iPad invoices sent to Martin from Oct. 6 to Dec. 5.
Tecumseh Local School District administrators tried for months to track down iPads and receipts for the devices before accusing suspended Superintendent Brad Martin of misappropriating the money meant for the purchase.
The district wants to fire Martin, who is accused of visiting casinos on more than 100 days that he was supposed to be at work, lying and falsifying mileage and sick leave documents, and stealing or misappropriating money meant for school support groups and iPads.
Records obtained by the Springfield News-Sun this week show Martin requested money for 10 iPads through four separate purchase orders over the past year. He was issued two checks to purchase at least seven of the devices over the summer.
In an email exchange that began in early October, district Treasurer Debra Schock repeatedly questioned Martin about missing invoices for the iPads and tried to find out where the devices were located so their serial numbers could be tagged to the purchase orders.
Numerous verbal requests were made for the invoices prior to October, according to acting Superintendent Paula Crew.
The district is working to make sure all proper procedures for handling cash are in place, she said, but didn’t respond to questions about whether Tecumseh will examine how administrators make purchases.
“I believe the system worked in a lot of ways,” said state Rep. Kyle Koehlor, who also addressed the issue at a joint government meeting with the school board on Monday. “I’m sure if there’s issues to be fixed, they will fix them.”
Throughout the email exchange from October through December, Martin’s story about the invoices changes multiple times.
At first he claims to have already turned in the receipts, but says he will look for them.
In November, he says he’s located them but they are in his car, which his brother is driving.
“I had everything in my car ready for you. He has my car,” Martin wrote Nov. 13. “He has to take his friend to Cleveland. I believe he is taking him to the Mayo Clinic for treatment.”
Two weeks later, after still not having produced the receipts and several more email requests, Martin says he has them.
“I have your receipts, but you were in a meeting this afternoon,” he writes to Schock. He says he’d like to get the receipts to her but he may take vacation the following day to go shopping with his wife.
The day before Thanksgiving, Martin said he couldn’t access his email at home to see Schock’s request that he bring the receipts on his day off. He says he will bring in the receipts over the weekend.
Schock asks for the receipts again the following Friday.
Martin says a few days later that he turned in two of three receipts. When Schock says she still doesn’t have them the following Tuesday, Martin says he will look in his truck.
State auditors have previously recommended that the district adopt a more formal purchasing procedure.
“The district’s purchasing policies do not mandate a formal purchasing process, or address receipt and distribution of goods. As a result, the policies are not consistent with best practices,” a performance audit released in 2014 said.
Martin and Schock’s response to the state mentioned the purchasing procedure briefly, saying, “The district has a purchasing procedure in place and the Ohio State Auditor reviews the procedures annually. We have the procedures in our Board Policy posted on our website.”
The board’s purchasing procedures available on its website contain only placeholder language. It does include requirements for when quotes or a bidding process are necessary.
“Quotes will be requested for any item or group of items in a single transaction costing between $3,000 and $24,999,” it says.
The board also requires at least three price quotes on purchases of more than $10,000 for a single item and board approval for any purchases of more then $25,000.
The four separate purchase orders completed by Martin for the iPads were in the amounts of $600 in August 2013; $1,198 in December 2013; $3,600 in February 2014; and $575 in September.
Two checks were written to Martin over the summer, one for nearly $2,400 for four iPads and one for about $1,500 for three more.
The district hasn’t provided records indicating that quotes were obtained from any vendors. During the email exchange, Schock indicates she does not know where Martin purchased the iPads.
“If you could tell me where you bought the iPads and the date and approximate time of day, I will contact the store and attempt to get a copy of the receipts (invoices), if you cannot find the invoices,” she wrote Nov. 7.
Schock also emailed teachers she believed had the devices and they told her they didn’t have any iPads.
Some parents in the district expressed frustration Thursday that money may be missing.
“People pay their tax dollars and nobody wants to see people embezzle it and go to waste and not be for the kids,” said Amber Bundy of New Carlisle.
Another accusation against Martin is that he misappropriated funds from various school support groups.
Crew didn’t respond to questions about the iPads or the audit Thursday but said in an email that the district has procedures and processes in place for “developing additional safeguards regarding the handling of cash during ‘booster activities.’”
The state auditor’s office continually offers direction on these procedures, Crew said.
“We have historically had individuals from the state auditor’s office provide accounting instructions to the booster groups and we plan to continue this practice in the near future,” she said.
Martin, who is currently suspended without pay, couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday. He and his lawyer haven’t responded to multiple attempts to contact them since he was placed on leave in December.
A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 11 with a state referee to review the district’s attempt to fire him.
About the Author