All charg are set forth in Section 49-5-501, Tennessee Code Annotated. 1. Director County Public Schools did not solicit competitive bids through newspaper advertisement for the purchase ofa floor (3 payments of 6 800; and $26503 in combination with a payment from HMMS ($9960.5 0). The grand total for the floor exceeded purchasing laws of $10,000. School Department purchasing procetllores are governed by purchasing laws applieable to schools as set forth in Section 49-2-20.3, Tennessee Code Annotated, which requires competitive bids to he solicited through oewspaper advertsetnent on all purchases exceeding $10,000. As a result, the best and lowest price may not have been obtained for the purchase ofthe floor and material at Horace Maynard Middle School. Director Goforth neglected to fttliill the duties of his office and follow the law as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated. Director Got`orth's failure to bid competitively as set forth in Section 49s2~2tE3 is an obvious neglect of duty that resulted in the hseftioient use of Union County Putrlic School funds. His duty was to follow the process and he neglected this duly. Therefore, Director Wayne Goforth is charged with neglect of duty (49-5-501). 2. Director Goforth of Union County Public Schools did not solicit competitive bids through newspaper advertisement for the purchase of 133 ,612) and equipntent and o:l` .a telephone and intercom system ($19,826) for a new elementary school. School Depattrnent purchasing procedures are governed by purchasing laws applicable to schot :ls as set forth in Section 49-2-203, Tennessee Code Annotated which requires competitive bids to be solicited through newspaper advertisement on all purchases exceeding $10,000. Director failures to solicit conmpetitive bids through newspaper advertisement for purchases exceeding $1 0,0 00 again demonstrate his neglect of duty as the Director of Union County Public Schools. Dhector Goforth has dexnonstrated that he is inefficient; his repeated failure to bid competitively is below the Union County Board of Edueatiorfs rules and procedures. Therefore, Directorii Goforth is charged with inefliciency and neglect of duty (49-5-501). 3. Director Goforth of Union County Public Schools failed to comply with OMB Circular A-l33 of the School Nutrition Program under the State of Tennessee, Department of Education Per for ieral regulations, "Bad debts, including losses arising from Uncollectablc accounts. . .are uoallowablc." Therefore, unpaid lunch charges cannot be absorbed by the Srhool Nutrition Program, but must be repaid to the program lifonr other sources. Director t_'iofortI1 failed to follow local charge policy, which states that unpaid lunch charges will be repaid tothe program at the end of each school year. Director Goforth of Union County Public Schools did not follow the local charge policy and did not comply with lfcderal Regulations. The Director did fail to comply with the rules and regulations ofthe Union County Board of and the OMB Circular A-133 ofthe School Nutrition Program under the State of Tennessee, Department of Education The debt has not been paid in full and Director Goforth did neglect his duty to comply with the rules and regulations set forth by Union County Board of Education and the OMB Circular A-133 of the school nutrition program under the state of Tennessee, Department ofliducation. Therefore, Director Wayne Ctofortli is charged with neglect of duty 4. Director Goforth rr t' Union County Public Schools did allow expenditures to exceed appropriations approved by the Union County Board of Educadcu in the following appropriation cateptorics (the legal level of control) ofthe General Purpose School Fund: Special Education Promam $2,368 Vocationa I. Education Pregrant $12,500 Board ofifrlucation $923 Operation nf Plant $8,986 TI*ansportal,lon - $387 Section 5~9-401, 'tennessee Code Annotated, states that "All timds from whatever source derived, including., but not limited to taxes, county aid iimds, federal funds, and fines, that are to be used in the operation and respective progarns ofthe various departments, commissions, iustigfutions, boards, offices and agencies ofoounty governments shall be appropriated to such use by the county legislative bodies." These deiiciencies exist because Director failed to stay within the spending limits authorized by the Union County Board of Education which resulted in unauthorized expenditures in tive categories. Director Wayne Goforth is charged with neglecting his duties. Ilgiirecgior Wayne is also charged with being incompetent to carry out the duties of ce. 5. Director Gofortl1app1'oved and wrote checks for which there was not money available in the bank. The pasi oroccdtues of asking for a loan from the Union County Mayor's Office and Union fcunty Commission can not super cede the fact that the Union County Board of Education is empowered to make budgetary decisions and more importantly, the Mayor did not recoonnend that the loan amount of $800,000 be approved to the state comptroller. Direcsor Goforth did write the checks 1-mowing that the Mayor's office did not recommend The loan. The had to cover some ofthe checks then when the trustee's office Found out that there was no money to secure the checks and that the loan was not recommended, the trustee's office had to hold the checks and stop payment on them, As cbiel financial the Union County Board of Education, it is the Director's duty to tletelminc the revenues and authorize the expenditures ofthe Union County Public System. In this capacity, Director Goforth is duty bound to make sure that there are revenues available for any expenditures, including payroll. On or about July 31, 201 l, Mr. Goforth had authorized expenditures that exceeded the UCBOE ability to pay. This resulted in checks being paid with no money being available. Again this demonstrates Director G0fDI'il1'_3 neglect of duties to iizliill his fiduciary and financial responsibility as the chief operating oflicer ofthe Union County Board of Education. His cerminued lack of ability to manage finances demonstrates his to do his job. I Director Goforth has been unable to develop a balmtced budget and establish and maintain the linancial stability of Union County Public Schools. Therefore, Director Wayne Goforth is charged with incompetency in his perfomlence as Director of Union -f founty Public to carry out the duties of his ofice, and neglect 6. The Union County Board of Education was misrepresented when Director handling of a letter (that went out to all students on September 9, 2011 by principals) before County Commission caused the public and the Board of Education to question whether Goforth could work with the Union county board of education and the Union county commissiori. The UCBOE and the Union county commission look to him to be the leader, to guide them and direct them to make the decisions that are needed to represent the board in such a way that he communicates openly and e:ff`eetiveIy so that the veracity and the honesty ofthe school board is not questioned. On September 9 when addresshig the Union county commission, was asked about the origin end purpose of the letter. His avoidance and denial ofthe letter continued to build distrust and clishosesty regarding his ability to communicate effectively for the school system. Mr. actions during this meeting caused the Union County Board of Education to question whether other ir1f`onnation was factual or being misrepresented. A statement iiorn one board member in an open meeting said that he no longer knows what to believe. This is a direct reflection ofthe failure of Director Goforth to command the respect and to secure the cooperation of those with whom he must work. According to Tennessee Code Annotated 49-5-501 dishonesty is conduct unbecoming of a professional edueator and the representative ofthe school system, namely the Director ofSci10o1s. Director Wayne Goforth is changed with conduct unbecorning ofa professional educator, inefficiency, and neglect of duty (49-5-501).