IN THE CIRCUIT THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ROMAIN DALLEMAND, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff MAULDIN JENKINS CPAC LLC, Defendant ik COMPLAINT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS 1. The Plaintiff Romain Dallemand is an individual and at all times relevant to the facts set forth herein was a resident of Naples, Collier County, Florida. 2. The Defendant Mauldin Jenkins CPAS LLC, (Mauldin Jenkins) is an auditing ?rm which has a principal of?ce in Atlanta, Georgia and within such state the acts complained of as set forth herein took place. At all times relevant to the facts which follow Mauldin Jenkins was also doing business in the State of Florida as a Limited Liability Company with a branch of?ce in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court inasmuch as at all relevant times relating to the claims set forth herein and facts asserted with respect thereto the Plaintiff was a resident of the State of Florida and the Defendant in doing business in the State of Florida had at all times and still has suf?cient contacts within this State. PREDICATE FACTS 4. That on or about February 1, 2011 the Plaintiff who was then a resident of Macon, Bibb County, Georgia was appointed as Superintendent of the Bibb County School District by the Bibb County Board of Education. 5. That subsequent to such appointment in or about December 16, 2011 the Plaintiff in his capacity as Superintendent as a result of a singular incident evidencing ?nancial abuses within the school system had grave reservations relating to the integrity of the ?nancial practices conducted therein and thereby caused a forensic ?nancial audit to be conducted of the Bibb County School District in lieu of retaining the services of the Defendant Mauldin Jenkins which had conducted audits for the past 11 years in such District opted instead to retain the services of McGladrey, L.L.C. (McGladrey) to accomplish the auditing task. 6. That McGladrey on or about March 23, 2012 in Phase I of its audit found by implication that the Defendant was culpable of both misfeasance and malfeasance and negligence relating to the use of credit cards by principals of the District for questionable personal expenses. In addition, McGladrey as part of its audit determined that certain employees of the District were compensated for work never performed. 7. That the Bibb County School Board (the Board) subsequent to Phase I of the audit dated March 23, 2012 unanimously voted for McGladrey to perform yet another audit to unearth further abuses in the system. 8. 10. 11. 12. That accordingly, in or about July 5, 2012 McGladrey as part of Phase II of its audit further found that an individual by the name of Gary Bechtel while he was a Board member was involved in bid rigging as evidenced by the surfacing of emails relating to such transgressions and improprieties. That ?nally in or about September 20, 2012 McGladrey determined without limitation that there were a host and myriad number of instances where contracts were awarded without the issuance of 1099?s to independent contractors on at least 53 occasions and that on yet another 56 occasions non-employees were paid for work never performed without contracts under the supervision of Ron Collier (Collier) as the School District?s Chief Financial Of?cer who was subsequently demoted by the Plaintiff in part for the ?ndings of McGladrey and otherwise for insubordination. That several months subsequent to the foregoing events on February 25, 2013 the Plaintiff submitted his resignation for personal reasons. That on or about February 25, 2013 the Defendant was rehired by the Board to conduct and audit for the period July 1, 2012 thru June 30, 2013 the ?nancial practices of the District although the McGladrey had rendered a report in Phase II of its audit for the period July 5, 2012 thru September 20, 2012 as referenced in paragraphs 8 thru 9 above. That in or about February 27, 2014 the Defendant after its auditing ?ndings had been approved by Collier as Chief Financial Of?cer of the Bibb County School District and which ?ndings the Defendant in its own audit never took issue with or in any way rebutted the transgressions and illegal practices set forth in the McGladrey audits as referenced above in paragraphs 8 and 9, on such foregoing date publicly presented to 13. 14. 15. 16. the Board its ?ndings which were accusatory towards the Plaintiffs stewardship during his tenure as Superintendent. That more particularly the Defendant as part of its audit issued the attached so?called Bibb County School District Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013. gee Exhibit A attached herewith and incorporated by reference (the Schedule and/or Findings). That the Defendant utilized as its lodestar or criteria with respect to its delineation of Findings appearing on Exhibit A, pp. 121 thru 123 that the Board of Education?s approval was mandated in the ?rst instance relative to any bidding on any purchase orders or contracts for potential authorization for individual amounts in excess of $500,000.00. That as part of such Findings the Defendant for the time period July 20, 2012 thru December 18, 2012 falsely, intentionally and otherwise recklessly noted that the Plaintiff during his tenure as former School District Superintendent authorized, directed and coerced staff to execute a series of signi?cant transactions in violation of ?board approval? and ?bids and quotations? policies. See Exhibit A, Findings p. 121, para. 2. That with respect to the foregoing ?ctive charge the Defendant further asserted that notwithstanding that certain contracts were in excess of $500,000.00 and required Board approval prior to their execution that the Plaintiff did not obtain Board approval with respect to the execution of such contracts and that several contracts were not properly procured via required bids and quotations. ILL, p. 121, para. 2; and $3 paras (1) thru (9) appearing on pp. 121 thru 123. 17. 18. 19. 20. That in each and every instance as pertinent to the Defendant?s Findings with respect to its statements of non-compliance with ?board approval? and ?bids and quotations? policies as referenced above and as more particularly relating to the sub-?ndings set forth in paras.(1) thru (9) appearing on pp. 121 thru 123 of Exhibit A, the Defendant falsely and without a scintilla of factual basis sought to malign the Plaintiff to hold him out to public ridicule and opprobrium and to thereby injure him irreparany in his trade, occupation and profession. That indeed with respect to the Defendant?s ?nding as set forth in item (1) as relating to the execution of a memorandum of understanding in the amount of $19,3654.499.00 by the Plaintiff as former Superintendent, the Defendant falsely noted that the Plaintiff in his capacity as former Superintendent had committed the School District to $9,364.499.00 in excess of the $10,000,000.00 authorized by the original resolution, although such alleged excess was purely ?ctive inasmuch as such ?in kind monies? in lieu of cash related to prior contracts which had been previously approved by the Board. (emphasis added) That indeed in each and every of the foregoing cited 9 instances as the Defendant well knew the Plaintiff as the former Superintendent had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with such bids or quotations or the execution of any subcontracts which were solely within the province and authority of both the head of the purchasing department and the project manager or general contractor who had been previously duly appointed by the Board. (emphasis added) That consistent with the foregoing statement set forth in paragraph 19, sum, and as more particularly set forth and underscored in Exhibits and attached herewith it 21. 22. 23. was nose-on?the-face-plain that the Board of Education was not obliged to approve sub-contracts even if such sub-contracts were in excess of $500,000.00 which was a policy going back to the year 1999 and which the Defendant was well aware of or had to be aware of based upon its own past audits. In sum with respect to the foregoing and more particularly the Defendant?s ?ndings relating to the 9 contracts allegedly executed in violation of established procurement policies and procedures and the concomitant charge that the Plaintiff as prior Superintendent had ?agrantly jettisoned such established procurement policies relating thereto the Defendant although knowing full well that such ?ndings had absolutely no factual basis whatsoever and accordingly to be completely false and ?ctive, nonetheless caused such ?ndings to be published both in writing as part of its audit and further on or about February 27, 2014 unblushingly and recklessly orally presented in a public forum such ?ndings to the irreparable detriment of the Plaintiff so that he would be held up to ridicule and opprobrium and irreparany injured in his trade, occupation and profession and good name and reputation. Exhibit D. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I-LIBEL The Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1 thru 21 above as if fully stated herein. That the Plaintiff as a professional educator was a person of good name, credit and reputation and enjoyed the esteem and respect of his peers and the good opinion of his neighbors and others who knew him. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. That the Defendant knew of the good name, credit and reputation of Plaintiff and notwithstanding such awareness the Defendant caused to be published an audit setting forth on the redacted portion thereof false, scandalous, surreal and defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff in relation to his prior tenure as Superintendent of the Bibb County School District. Exhibit D. That on information and belief the Defendant was motivated by malice and ill-will towards the Plaintiff with respect to the publication of the referenced audit and more particularly the no less than surreal and ?ctive statements set forth in Exhibit D. That the Defendant?s intent in publishing the referenced audit was maliciously intended to injure the Plaintiff in his profession as an educator and his license in such capacity and to otherwise hold the Plaintiff out to public ridicule and disgrace. That the Defendant published the referenced audit notwithstanding that it knew the factual basis to be completely ?ctive and false and otherwise baseless. That as a result of Defendant?s unconscionable and egregious acts and conduct as described above the Plaintiff was irreparany injured in his good name, credit and reputation and brought into public scandal and disgrace. That the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant?s unconscionable and egregious acts and conduct as described above was and has been otherwise shunned by many persons with whom he previously had social and professional contacts with, has suffered anguish and has been injured in his profession as an educator by having lost his license and has experienced dif?culty in obtaining credit. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. COUNT II-SLANDER The Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1 thru 29 above as if fully stated herein. That on or about February 27, 2014 the Defendant in a public forum before the Bibb County School Board and members of the press and community spoke words to the effect that the Plaintiff during his prior tenure as Superintendent had abused and ?agrantly violated the policies set down for the awarding of contracts as more particularly set forth and encapsulated in Exhibit D. That by words quoted from Exhibit the Defendant intended to say and publish publicly that the Plaintiff was unethical and had been engaged in wrongdoing in not following the policies set down with respect to the awarding of contracts. That the public statements made by the Defendant were false and intended to degrade and injure the Plaintiff in his good name, credit and reputation and expose the Plaintiff to distrust, contempt and obloquy. That as a result of the foregoing unconscionable and egregious acts and conduct of the Defendant the Plaintiff was injured in his good name, credit and reputation and brought into public scandal and disgrace and has further lost his educator?s license and been otherwise shunned and ostracized by many persons with whom he previously had social and professional relations and has suffered mental anguish. COUNT WITH ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONS The Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1 thru 34 above as if fully stated herein. 36. 37. That at all relevant times the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff as a licensed educator in his capacity as the former Superintendent of the Bibb County School District enjoyed future opportunities for similar economic advantages in the same ?eld of education. That with full knowledge of the foregoing the Defendant intentionally and maliciously sought to interfere with the Plaintiff 3 economic advantages in the same ?eld of education with third parties by publishing a false, malevolent, libelous, and unconscionable audit with a conclusory summation that the Plaintiff was untrustworthy, un?t, incompetent, unethical and had been otherwise engaged in unlawful activities during his tenure as the former Superintendent while at all relevant times fully aware of the fact that the conclusions set forth in the audit had no factual basis whatsoever or for that matter legal nexus with the policies of the Bibb County School System. Exhibit B, Qf. Exhibit D. . RELIEF SOUGHT Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests the following relief: 1. That judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff relative to the claims set forth in Counts I thru 111 above and that the Court award commensurate damages suffered and to be suffered by Plaintiff in the future, together with punitive damages and interest and costs; That this Court award such further and other relief that it deems mete and proper in the circumstances. Respectfully submitted. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS A TRIAL BY JURY Romain Dallemand, pro 36 PO. Box 112103 Naples, Fl 34108 (860) 212-0525 EXHIBIT A BIBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 FINDINGS: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT 2013-01. Contracts Executed in Violation of Established Procurement Policies and Procedures Criteria: Customary and ordinary procurement policies, procedures and practices in any governmental environment require governing board approval prior to the execution of "large" contracts which may obligate a governmental unit. In particular to the School District, the Board of Education implemented ?board approval? and "bids and quotations" policies which were in effect prior to April 2013. These policies required Board of Education approval and bidding of any purchase orders or contracts for potential authorization for individual amounts in excess of $500,000. Condition: During our audit, and for the time period July 20, 2012 through December 18, 2012, we noted the former School District Superintendent authorized, directed and coerced staff to execute a series of signi?cant transactions in violation of ?board approval" and ?bids and quotations" policies. Meaning, certain contracts in excess of $500,000 did not obtain board approval prior to their execution, nor were several of these contracts properly procured via required bids and quotations. To further explain the nature of the non?compliance with the above referred to policies, please note the following nine (9) incidences representing $51,599,761 of School District contractual and procurement non- compliance matters: 1) July 20, 2012 A memorandum of understanding was executed by the former Superintendent committing allocations of resources of four (4) targeted schools and obligating the School District in the amount of $19,364,499 in match resources relative to the Macon Promise Neighborhood (MPN) grant initiative over a ten (10) year period. On June 27, 2012, the School District's Board of Education approved a resolution relative to the School District's participation in the MPN grant initiative. This resolution noted the Board of Education supported the MPN initiative, both philosophically and ?nancially up to $1,000,000 annually for the ten (10) year period resulting in a maximum obligation of $10,000,000. Therefore, the execution of the respective memorandum of understanding in the amount of $19,364,499 by the former Superintendent committed the School District to $9,364,499 in excess of the $10,000,000 authorized by the original resolution. However, the Board of Education did ratify the memorandum of understanding on October 18, 2012. 121 W1 neg: a} ?e??wyi .1 Wu may.? ?2w tum-L at}. that . i; wraith?; BIBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 B. FINDINGS: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT (CONTINUED) 2013-01. Contracts Executed in Violation of Established 2) 3) i. 4) 5) 5) Procurement Policies and Procedures (Continued) July 27, 2012 A lease agreement was executed by the former President of the Board of Education committing the School District in the amount of $5,750,000 over a ten (10) year period relative to the MPN initiative. The June 27, 2012 resolution (referred to previously) authorized and directed the former President and former Vice~President of the School District?s Board of Education together concurrently with the former Superintendent to execute such letters, commitments, applications, leases, contracts or agreements on behalf of the School District. However, the School District was not in compliance with the ?bids or quotations" policy prior to the execution of the of?cial documents obligating the School District. it should be noted that the Board of Education did ratify the lease agreement on October 18, 2012. October 11, 2012 A purchase order was issued for $6,555,876 to Diversi?ed Computer Solutions for cabling. A bid was issued; however, no board approval was obtained resulting in the School District not being in compliance with the ?board approval" policy. However, the Board of Education did ratify the contract on May 16, 2013. October 11, 2012 Purchase orders were issued totalling $4,232,992 to Layer 3 Communications for wireless local area network (lan) and other network electronics. A bid was issued, but no board approval was obtained resulting in the School District not being in compliance with the ?board approval? policy. However, the Board of Education did ratify the contract on May 16, 2013. October 11, 2012 A purchase order was issued for $6,988,894 to United Data- Technologies (UDT) for information technology equipment. The purchase order was subsequently modi?ed and reduced to $950,703. A bid was issued; however, no board approval was obtained resulting in the School District not being in compliance with the ?board approval" policy. October 11, 2012 A purchase order was issued for $500,000 to Progressive Consulting Technologies, Inc. for program management for the School District?s entire technology project. On December 18, 2012, this purchase order was amended with an additional $500,000 resulting in a revised purchase order of $1,000,000. Only the original purchase order amount of $500,000 was approved by the Board of Education. resulting in the School District not being in compliance with the ?board approval? policy relative to the succeeding purchase order. 122 BIBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 B. FINDINGS: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT (CONTINUED) 2013-01. Contracts Executed in Violation of Established Procurement Policies and Procedures (Continued) 7) December 12, 2012 A purchase order was issued for $692,300 to ADCAP NetWork Systems for respective information systems hardware and software. We noted this purchase order was ultimately voided and no payments were made; however, the School District was not in compliance with the ?bids or quotations" policy and no board approval was obtained prior to the issuance of the original purchase order. 8) December 18, 2012 A purchase order was issued for $3,768,000 to Comptech Computer Technologies for N-Computing devices and installation. However, the School District was not in compliance with the ?bids or quotations? policy and no board approval was obtained. 9) December 18, 2012 A purchase order was issued for $3,247,200 to Pinnacle for a district school management systems enterprise software suite. However, the School District was not in compliance with the ?bids or quotations" policy and no board approval was obtained. Cause: Apparent reckless disregard by the former Superintendent for existing School District procurement policies established by the Board of Education. Effect: Nine (9) contracts and, or purchase orders representing $51,599,761 were executed and entered into during the period July 20, 2012 through December 18, 2012 which were non-compliant with the Board of Education and School District?s ?board approval? and/or ?bids and quotations" procurement policies prior to their execution. Recommendation: We understand the Board of Education believes it is important to allow management to manage, and for members of the Board of Education to not micro-manage the operations of the School District. Further, we understand the Board of Education?s intentions, and recognize the Board of Education's genuine support for management?s initiatives, both philosophically and ?nancially. Nonetheless, in the governmental sector, even the best and most promising ideas for respective communities still must follow certain protocol for authorization and approval prior to specific actions. Procurement policies and procedures are established by governments for good fundamental reasons, and to provide solid internal controls to prohibit signi?cant and material actions (?nancial and non-?nancial) from occuring without: a) the exercise of proper due diligence; and b) the approval of such due diligence. Such internal controls should be observed prior to such actions and executions. and not via subsequent rati?cations. Further, we recommend the Board of Education be the responsible party to provide specific approvals for each speci?c signi?cant action prior to their execution, and the role of governance relative to approvals of such signi?cant matters should not be delegated to single individuals or any members of management. 123 ii! - i rm JinxEXHIBIT 2015.02.04 Response to Open Records Request Romain Dallemand Request - A list of any and all Capital Improvement projects including costs implemented by the Bibb Co Proiect Contractor Total Cost New Central High School Gilbane Building Co 37,326,686 New lngram Pye Elementary School Parrish Construction 9,164,498 New Northwoods Academy Chris R. Sheridan Co 6,958,352 New Southwest High School Parrish Construction 33,934,981 District?wide Athletic Improvements Gilbane Building Co 13,467,426 District?wide Safety 8: Security improvements Burke Elam Alexander Renovation Parrish Construction 6,923,112 Brookdale Elementary School Renovation Carter Elementary School Renovation Parrish Construction 6,843,802 Union Elementary School Renovation "x Williams Elementary syrool Renovation MEJA Construction Co 8,515,933 Welcome Center i/ Chris R. Sheridan Co 5 1,540,884 Westside High School Renovation Rutland High School Air Conditioning Central Office Chiller Replacement Piedmont Construction Co 7,385,851 New Heard Elementary School Chris R. Sheridan Co 15,719,102 Bus and Vehicle Replacement State Contract Vendors 8,359,652 Technology Upgrades and Network Operating Center Various Contractors 25,397,369 Request - - For every Capital Improvement Project over $500,000.00, please submit any and all sub cont The BOE does not approve subcontracts. EXHIBIT Policy level: Descriptor Code: Rescind: Code: BOARD POLICY . DIED DIED 9/21/98 "ripen? i I as; arm FISCAL AG 3 7 Effective Dani-73b 18. 1999 BIDS AND QUOTATIONS -- Purchases shall be made only solicitation of a reasonably-broad range of suppliers through the use of telephonic or written quotes, or issuance of an Invitation For Bid (1P3) or Request for Proposal (RFP) speedymg the nature of the purchase or and allowing reasonable time-for the receipt of written respomes. Procedures for purchases are listed below. Pluchases may not exceed given ranges without following proper bidding protocol. No requisition; shall be split or other action taken to circumvent the requirements for competitive bidding. Under no shall quotations be solicited for items which have been purchased in large quantities and stacked in the central of?ce warehouse for system-wide use. i $1 $200 Solicitation; of quotesrris not required. 8201 - $1,500 Items/service oleess than $1,500 total may be purchased through telephonic quotations. The school ?Pr deparunent desiring to purchase an itemlservice shall solicit a quote from rs. Every effort should be made to obtain at least three (3) responsive quotations. elephonic quotes shall be solicited using the same standards/speci?cations r. quote sheet orlistedonthe requisition showing the vendors called, price quoted, name of person giving quote and $1.501 - $6,000 Speci?cati us from the using department shall be sent to the purchasing department where quo will be solicited. Written quotes shall be obtained from at least three (3) vendors. If ee (3) quotations are not received, the Director of Purchasing will review the quotati and make the decision to award mqbid to the lowest, responsive bidder matching bid speci?cations or a re~bid procedure. $6001 Invitation Bid (IFB) or Request for Pmposal (RFP) documents will be prepared and mailedlpro to vendors. Speci?cations from the using school/department shall be sent to the department. Vendors will be given a minimum of twelve (12) working da from the date of the bid document to complete the bid and return it to the purchasing artment by the date and time requested. All be advertised in the legal ads ofthc local newspaper two (2) times during the twelve (12) day period to allow for the widest dissemination of solicitations; and-RFP?s will be opened and publicly read aloud at the time and date stated. 3 Page 2 .. DIED - BIDS AND quaranst The following items, regardless of may be purchased without competitive bids. a. Textbooks, ?lms, slides, video tapes, newspapers, library books, reference materials, or other instructional media the publisher, distributor or agent. b. Tests and test services of a standardized examination from the publisher or licensed agent. c. Agreements and re wal for maintenance services from the original vendor or authorized agent of installatiequipmentorproducts. Whena renewal agreement cost increase exceeds 5 percent 0 the current cost andthe services can be competitively bid, the renewal should be bid. d. Continuance of an xisting purchase agreement, rent, lease or purchase order when such continuance is authozized' by the Deputy Superintendent of Business Operations or Director of Purchasing. e. Additional purchases of the same or like equipment, material, supplies, services, rentals or leases previously bid may be made provided the additional order is at the same or lower price. f. Personal service contracts in value of $6,000 or less for professional technicians and consultants. 3. Grocery items to be used for classroom instruction, after school programs, educational workshops or any instructional or educational purposes. The Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids'and to waive informalities and technicalities. No person shall order the purchase (if any materials, supplies or services or make any contract for materials, supplies, or for services to be paid from funds exceptas provided by this policy. The Board will not be responsible for the payment of any bills submitted for unauthorized purchases. Emergency purchase orders may be dfbtained the Purchasing Department to protect the public health of citizens or when immediate repair is necessary to prevent further damage to public property. machinery, equipment, or work stoppage due to The need to expedite a purchase due to lack of planning, overlooked requirements, history and inadequate forecasting shall not constitute a bone ?de emergency purchase. I DIED BIDS Whenever it shall be hindeto with other equipmentor-with purpose, 1 an tainted by the Board ilb?inable from one *{eource from which it 1 bidsAll contracts for the purchase materials, supplies aha-services which exceed $500.000rshall be awarded by the board of or shall have the authority, within budget limitations other contracts for the-purclnigse'fof eqhipment, supplies and semices. An . 5 award shall be based on the loWestii'esponsiblc bidder the reliability of the bidder, conformity with speci?cations, thef?urpose'for which the the terms of delivery,jthe the product, the services-to lifter purchase, the} of, warranty placed on the and i in the school may Proiece awarding contracts for expansion (capital outlayprojcctisj .. . eqdiremenls for advertising, gb?ii? A .. 'f-fgovemed by the policies hereof. EXHIBIT School audit blasts Dallemand for policy violations, spending Local State Macon.com Page 1 of 7 Macon.com Sc 0 audit blagts Dallemand for policy vuo a Ions, spen mg By JENNA MINK and OBY BROWN Telegraph staffFebruary 27, 2014 - Facebook - Twitter 0 - Google Plus - More Linkedin Reddit YouTube E?mail Print 0 School audit blasts Dallemand for policy violations, spending Local State Macon.com Page 2 of 7 Bibb school board members have all eyes on auditor Miller Edwards as he reports Thursday that ?nancial policies and procedures were not followed during the ?scal year ending June 30, 2013. Interim Superintendent Steve Smith is on the left. BEAU CABELL bcabell@macon.com [Buy Photo .. School audit blasts Dallemand for policy violations, spending Local State I Macon.com Page 3 of 7 - Related Stories: - State, federal prosecutors part of Bibb school audit huddle - Other Related Content: - File: Read the Bibb schools? response to the audit Former Bibb County School Superintendent Romain Dallemand repeatedly violated school board policy by ordering more than $26 million in technology equipment and services without required, prior approval from the board, according to a 2013 audit of the school system. One of those purchases for nearly $3.8 million was for 15,000 virtual desktop devices. Now, more than a year after they were ordered, about 14,800 of the devices still sit unused in a Bibb County warehouse. The order was placed without competitive bids and without prior board approval, the audit said. But that's just a sample of the scathing findings, which accountant Miller Edwards presented to board members during a Thursday committee meeting. In some cases, the system is now trying to cut its losses -- involving millions of dollars from sales tax proceeds -- by trying to resell both hardware and software that it can't or hasn't used. Over the main months in question, Dallemand "authorized, directed and coerced staff to make transactions that were in violation" of board policies, said the audit for the ?scal year that ended June 30, 2013. The Telegraph obtained the audit through an Open Records Act request. The audit lists the cause of the violations as an "apparent reckless disregard by the former Superintendent for existing School District procurement policies established by the Board of Educa?on? After Edwards' presentation and board discussion, board members voted to look into options for investigating the violations and how they happened. Attempts to reach Dallemand, who left the school system a year ago after the board The Bibb county Sehee' Board was bought out his contract for $350,000, plus Presented PUblie'Y With its failure bene?ts, were not successful. The Telegraph *0 Properly minions 0f dellars 5" also tried to reach one of his former lieutenants, Purehesmg and other ?neneie' transeetiens- School audit blasts Dallemand for policy violations, spending Local State I Maconcom Page 5 of 7 I milt?.?i?n?wm?.t m?mumwmm?mav? r. Here's a closer took at the individual purchases that the audit cited: Mvm'm ms 3" . A neariy $7 million purchase order was issued on Oct. 11, 2012, for technology equipment. That amount was later reduced to more than $950,000. A bid was issued but was not brought to the board before making the purchase. 1? wrap-m u? E?i?u?u-m?n arm; tan-am?. WM-HM .ur u- A nearly $6.6 million purchase order was issued on Oct. 11, 2012, for cabling. A bid was issued but was not brought to the board for approval. The board later approved the contract Read the fun, searchable Bibb Schools on May 16, 2013. financial audit. Two purchases totaling $4.2 million were issued on Oct. 11, 2012, for a wireless computer network and networking hardware. A bid was issued but not brought to the board for approval. The board later approved the contract on May 16, 2013. -- A nearly $3.8 million purchase order was issued Dec. 18, 2012, for "Ncomputing" devices and installation. No bid was issued and no board approval was granted. A $3.2 million purchase order was issued Dec. 18, 2012, for a ?nancial software package. No bid was issued and no board approval was granted. A $1 million purchase order was made Dec. 18, 2012, for program management for the entire technology project. The amount originally was $500,000 when the purchase order was ?rst issued Oct. 11, 2012, but the purchase was tater amended. Only the initial $500,000 was approved by the board. Later, it was discovered that work had been completed without purchase orders. The district negotiated a total price of $1 .2 million for the work. A $692,300 purchase order was issued Dec. 12, 2012, to a network systems company. The purchase was later voided, and no payment was made. No bid was issued and no board approval was granted. Selling at a loss in questioning the purchases, auditors called a couple of them "strange." Some of the larger purchases did not include necessary services, are unusable within the Bibb County school system and are projected to be a financial loss for the system. Now, the district is looking to resell some of that technoiogy, but it expects to get only about half -- or less of what it originally paid. For example, Dallemand ordered the purchase and installation of 15,000 "NComputing" devices virtual desktops for almost $3.8 million, the audit said. Now, only about 100 to 200 are being used - at Northeast High and Springdale and Alexander ll elementary schools. The rest -- around 14,800 devices have been sitting in a warehouse for months. If they are declared as surplus items and can be resold, they are projected to sell at only 50 to 60 percent of the original price. That could mean a lost of nearly $1.9 million. Also, about $3.2 million was spent on unusable ?nancial software without involvement from the district's ?nance employees, the audit said. The software is inef?cient for the Bibb school system, School audit blasts Dallemand for policy violations, spending I Local State Macon.com Page 6 of 7 and the company has indicated it will buy the software back from the district for $1.1 million which would mean a loss of more than $2 million. The purchase would have replaced a system the district has used for more than 20 years, the audit said. Both purchases also lacked essential services. The purchasing contract for the ?nancial software, for example, did not include set?up, installation, migration or support services. The purchase agreement for the 15,000 computing devices did not include additional servers, monitors, keyboards or mice to make the devices work, the audit said. The money to pay for those items was wired on Dallemand's orders, a process that the audit also called "strange." The audit also criticized the way ?nancial commitments were handled for the Macon Promise Neighborhood project, beginning in June 2012. Dallemand executed a memorandum of understanding committing resources of four targeted schools, obligating the school district to nearly $19.4 million in match resources over 10 years, the audit said. That included $5.75 million, paid over 10 years, to lease space for the program at the former Ballard-Hudson Middle School on Anthony Road. A Telegraph investigation last year, however, showed that the total school system commitment to the Promise Neighborhood initiative was closer to $30 million, with the board offering up to $10 million cash over 10 years and nearly $20 million of in?kind contributions. The audit noted that the school district "was not in compliance with the 'bids or quotations' policy prior to the execution of the of?cial documents obligating the school district.? The school board rati?ed the lease agreement on Oct. 18, 2012. Facebook Twitter 0 - Google Plus - More 0 Linkedin Reddit 6 YouTube 0 E?mail 0 Print 0 Join The Conversation The Telegraph is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate Speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts. Commenting FAQS Terms of Service