Will Co. (ECWd) –
“I will fully acknowledge that I identified the wrong commingled deposit on my earlier response” Quote from Ron Sawin FOIA response
Let’s start first with the fact he acknowledges a line entry for deposits as being “commingled”. Data entry for basic 101 accounting teaches that you do not “commingle” deposit entries.
The information provided in the previous FOIA and written about in this article was the reason behind the new request and his claim a line entry deposit was for both a rent payment from Dave Ernst ($500.00) and a rent payment from the College Board ($500.00) that totaled $1,000.00 for the deposit. (See last page of spread sheet for Sawin note on the rent deposit)
Considering I had asked for copies of the rent payments and he only provided a spread sheet of deposits, I knew something was not right. Between the commingled deposit entry claim and the fact his spread sheet showed only 4 rent payments from Ernst it was clear I was not provided all the records. That in itself is yet another FOIA violation by the so called Business Manager of D210.
Two specific items I asked for:
- “Copy of College Board Refund payment dated 11-20-15. I am seeking an actual copy of the payment, not a spread sheet showing the payment. The payment was entered into the kids activity fund and such deposit made would be with a bank the school is in fact contracted with. If you are not in possession of this specific record you are required to obtain the record from the bank.”
- Copy of the bank deposit slip reflecting the deposit of the College Board refund.”
I wanted the actual payment and deposit to see if it was really a $500 payment received and deposited as claimed. Turns out my suspicions were correct. The so called “commingled” payment was not commingled. The deposit was in fact for $1,000.00 and his claim that December rent was part of that payment was either a serious screw up or an outright lie as Ernst did not pay any rent in December of 2015.
I also asked for the actual copy of the rent payments as the spread sheet is NOT a copy of the rent payments. Today’s documents provided by Sawin should put the Richter scale off the charts.
Reviewing the documents found below you will notice that signatures have all been redacted with a black box over them. I, Kirk Allen, am responsible for those redactions of people’s signatures as none of the records Sawin provided had any signature redactions, meaning I could see each and every signature on each check provided to D210. That in itself shows how irresponsible the FOIA officer is.
Rent Payments by Dave Ernst in order by date:
- 7/15/2014 – $500.00
- 8/20/2014 – $500.00
- No September payment!
- 10/15/2014 – $500.00
- No November Payment!
- No December Payment!
- No January Payment!
- 02/15/2015 -$500.00
- No March Payment!
- 04/04/2015 – $500.00
- 05/04/2015 – $500.00
- 06/02/2015 – $500.00
- No July Payment!
- 08/25/2015 – $500.00
- No September Payment!
- 10/01/2015 – $500.00
- 11/13/2015 – $500.00
- No December Payment!
- 01/04/2016 – $500.00
- No February Payment!
We must assume, Ernst has been renting this home for twenty months based on the information provided by D210 that reflects the first rent payment was in July of 2014. We have no way of knowing when he actually moved in so we will work with that date as the start date. In 20 months D210 has collected $5,500.00 in rent from Dave Ernst.
That equates to a rent of $275.00 a month!
Yes, $275.00 a month!
Did we mention this home also has a Basement?
Electric payments made by the taxpayers on behalf of the renter during this same period – $2,061.25 (Click here for copies of electric bills) Note that many payments were past due, thus the taxpayers paid late fees.
Gas payments made by the taxpayers on behalf of the renter during this same period – $857.97 (Click here for copies of gas bills)
- Lawn Care service paid for by the taxpayers $$$???
- Snow removal service paid for by the taxpayers $$$???
- Water bills possibly paid for by the taxpayers $$$???
- Property Tax obligation paid for by the taxpayers $3,695.12
At a minimum, Lincoln-Way District 210 taxpayers are paying $1,114.34 to let a person live in the home on their property. Simply take the rent received, $5,500.00 and subtract the total expenses being paid by the taxpayers, $6,614.34, and we find they are taking a loss of $1,114.34 over this 20 month period.
Who in their right mind takes a $1,114.34 loss for the purpose of letting someone live at this property? The fact of the matter is the real loss is even higher as the taxpayers are paying for lawn service, snow removal, and possibly water.
This is yet another example of why certain people need to be FIRED from this district and board members replaced at the next election!
Again we urge each and every taxpayer to stand up and demand accountability from their local officials. What is exposed here is a perfect example of what happens when you put your trust in your elected officials and never verify their actions.