Printing machine model numbers on Cleveland schools invoices are phony
This was reported yesterday in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Printing machine model numbers on Cleveland schools invoices are phony, sheriff’s detective says.
Not only did the Cleveland schools fail to receive six printing machines at the center of a state and county investigation, but a detective says the equipment never existed.
Model numbers on the invoices are similar to some used by Ryobi, the company listed as the manufacturer. But the numbers are phony, Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Detective David Lisy said.
State auditors and sheriff’s detectives are investigating no-bid purchases that the district made from Toledo-based Superior Offset Supplies. The company received $148,500 for the machines, plus $11,700 for consulting. No charges have been filed.
Those following the saga related to former Toledo Public School Board employee, Dan Burns, might want to head over and read the article in full…
What’s also of interest is:
Auditors also are examining Superior Offset’s dealings with the Toledo schools, where Burns was assistant to the business manager and then business manager until he retired in 2006. The Lucas County prosecutor’s office is assisting, said John Weglian, chief of the special-units division.
Superior Offset Supplies is not authorized to sell the printers in this state, Manley (Chris Manley, president of Graphco) said. He said his company has exclusive rights to sell Ryobi products in Ohio, western Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia.
John Briggle, a Toledo businessman with connections to Superior Offset, sold Ryobi equipment in Ohio years ago, when the state was carved up into smaller sales territories, Manley said. Cuyahoga County sheriff’s deputies seized documents from Briggle’s home in December.
Oh this can’t be good.
For Superior Offset Supplies, that is.
Oh, and Dan Burns too.
Wonder how many more will get sucked into this investigative vortex?
What is the chain of command for these purchases?
The purchase order verification and authorization person is?
Purchase order submitted to bidder, whom was S.O.S.
a bunch of shiny lights and vibrating music to dull the senses.
Purchase order fulfilled by whom?
Product delivered and received by whom?
Product inventoried and delegated to location by whom?
Product transported and installed by whom?
Purchase order closed out by whom?
Because this whole fiasco wouldn’t have seen the light of day unless these steps were taken, right?
And how many times have these series of events occured before someone got busted?
Because someone had to know what they were doing for this to even transpire.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:25 pmComes as no surprise, I have written before about concerns over purchasing at TPS going back several years. Also time for a comprehensive employee conflict of interest policy. TPS employees are regularly given “gifts” and there is no limits or reporting that I have ever found in any TPS policy manual.
Now the question that I have been waiting to be answered: Was there collusion between Burns and/or other employees and the vendor?
February 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pmBrian, great questions. Certainly the ones that I have been concerned about. So how much was TPS taken for when you realize that Offset Supplies billed TPS almost a million dollars in the 5 years Burns was the Business Manager? Hmmmm…….
February 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pmWell, let’s hope no printers were sold, since as the Cleveland article points out, Offset Supplies was not authorized to sell Ryobi printers….
February 28th, 2009 at 1:14 pmVery good questions.
I would hope that the school board here in Toledo will review the purchasing process and the chain of command for accountability for the inventory we purchase.
Steve…..almost a million dollars in five years. I wonder how much of that was for Ryobi equipment?
Dummy invoices…phony model information – this isn’t petty larceny is it…
February 28th, 2009 at 1:31 pmBurns should locked up for what all he has done in toledo at tps.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:39 pmLisa?
The initial report said that these Ryobi machines were purchased through S.O.S.
Invoices that The Plain Dealer obtained Friday show the district paid $160,200 to buy the six Ryobi offset duplicators from Toledo-based Superior Offset Supplies. The district paid $24,750 apiece for the machines and gave the company $11,700 for consulting on “copier-duplication requirements.” The company charged a $150 hourly consulting fee.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pmBrian I was referencing the million dollars in sales to them here in Toledo, since we know thanks to the Cleveland story that they were not an authorized Ryobi dealer if any sales of Ryobi machines took place it would create immediate questions.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pmWow, $150/hour to consult about copying. Sure wasted my time in school! Even if these contracts were legitimate, how do you justify this much money for consulting on “copier-duplication requirements.”
February 28th, 2009 at 5:56 pmRyobi would mayhaps under legal circumstances require a trained Ryobi-degreed technician to train and educate the purchaser for the full value of their product.
This ain’t no ABDick 1320 we’re talking about.
The value of this machine is more than the yearly wages of many employed within the confines of Toledo (after local taxes), and the technology involved would require a licensed tech to demonstrate this machine’s full capacity.
And them boys ain’t cheap.
Even if the work was done on machines that didn’t even exist.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:58 pmBurns was promoted well beyond his character and abilities when he moved into the TPS Business Manager position. The problem started with poor judgement on the part of adminstrators who promoted him into the position as a business manager. Problems like these occur because of lack of leadership, business savvy, courage to ask tough questions and lack of appropriate controls.
Who allowed Burns to violate good business practices at TPS by allowing him to sole source without an extensive evaluation? Who allowed him to pay a vendor to “study” the copy machine needs when this type of evaluation is considered part of sales process paid for by the copy machine vendor? Where were the internal controls that would have immediately red flagged the fact that the copy machines were never delivered? Who will be held accountable?
Why do districts who cry out for more money do such a poor job of managing what they have been given?
March 1st, 2009 at 10:12 amDoes anyone else see the irony that the company initials are actually S.O.S.???? I see it clearly….
Gene asked “Who allowed Burns to violate good business practices at TPS by allowing him….”
Why Gene, I’d suppose those would be the same folks that after flying to Cleveland orchestrated the Harner situation.
Someone had to stay behind to hide those skeletons, y’know?
March 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pmPhoney invoices… somehow I am not surprised. I am pissed that it has taken someone this long to figure it out, though.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm