Investigator, Porter address allegations

All raise tough questions that the board will have to consider at the Feb. 6 public hearing over the investigation. McCampbell said a significant concern of the board is the number of allegations, in addition to the tens of thousands of dollars the concerns add up to.

One central question, which remains unanswered at this point, is whether there is a standard procedure that outlines whether the superintendent is expected to know and only submit receipts for reimbursable expenses, or whether the superintendent is supposed to turn in all receipts and leave it to staff members to withhold receipts containing items not authorized for reimbursement.

Here is a breakdown of those allegations in the order they appear in the investigation, which is online at NewsOK.com.

Each allegation is followed by additional information from McCampbell and Porter, both of whom spoke one-on-one with The Oklahoman on Monday.

1. ALLEGATION: Porter did not competitively bid a $365,600 contract for a reading program called DIBELS produced by the company Wireless Generation.

MCCAMPBELL: Contracts do not have to be bid on when there is a sole provider of an item, but the vendor of the program in question provided specific names of at least four of its competitors.

PORTER: The Oklahoma Department of Central Services, through which most education purchases must be made, has declared that DIBELS is a unique enough program to be considered a sole-provider item. Also, the national Reading First program, in up to 10 city schools, uses DIBELS.

2. ALLEGATION: Porter misused more than $2,400 in administrative activity funds.

MCCAMPBELL: These misuses include reimbursements for personal travel. PORTER: Porter said he does not determine from which funds reimbursement money comes, but rather that staff members submit those requests.

3. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for three round-trip flights between Oklahoma City and his home in Maryland that totaled more than $5,000.

MCCAMPBELL: Porter made these trips on personal business.

PORTER: Porter said he did not consider the travel expenses unreasonable requests for reimbursement because he was still in the process of relocating to Oklahoma. He has offered to repay any money over these flights found to be inappropriate requests.

4. ALLEGATION: Porter flew first class.

MCCAMPBELL: There is no provision for using taxpayer money to fly first class.

PORTER: Staff members book his flights, and because of his schedule they often are full-fare tickets. Because he is a frequent flyer and full-fare tickets are similar to the cost of first class seats, airline employees have in some cases bumped up his status.

5. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for a round-trip coach-class flight his wife, Linda, took, costing about $685.

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell provided no additional comments on this allegation.

PORTER: This was a mistake. Because the district does not issue credit cards, he turns his receipts in quickly in order to be reimbursed to pay off his own credit card bills. Cash flow was an issue while transitioning to Oklahoma City. This receipt was included by mistake and Porter has offered to repay this amount.

6. ALLEGATION: Porter submitted reimbursement requests for possible alcohol purchases on six receipts totaling more than $750.

MCCAMPBELL: Public money cannot be used to purchase alcohol. Although the restaurant receipts in question are not itemized and therefore do not list alcohol, the board thought it appeared, based on the times printed on the receipts, that alcohol may have been purchased. Printing on at least one receipt, from Cafe Nova, appears to indicate the receipt was generated at the bar. It’s also not clear what the business purpose, if any, was for these meals.

PORTER: Porter said he does not always get an itemized receipt back after his credit card is run. He has never requested one because no one at the district ever told him he needed one. Staff members did not tell him these receipts were not reimbursable, and they have returned to him other receipts that included itemized alcohol purchases.

7. ALLEGATION: Porter misused activity funds to purchase meals for employee activities totaling about $3,340.

MCCAMPBELL: Activity funds are not to be spent on meals. He said such things could be funded by having people bring their own lunches, paying out-of-pocket, or seeking funds from a nonpublic source such as the Oklahoma City Public Schools Foundation.

PORTER: He felt entitled to have activities for his staff. “As superintendent I don’t ask where are you going to pull the money from; I say I want to have a breakfast (for staff members),” he said. Also, the board proposed a policy in November specifically disallowing activity funds from being used for meals, after which time Porter discontinued his practice.

8. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for a one-day pass at the Admirals Club at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport costing $50.

MCCAMPBELL: This receipt was dated June 7, before Porter had even begun as superintendent of the district. He was working as a consultant at the time.

PORTER: This was a mistake. Porter has offered to repay the money.

9. ALLEGATION: Porter misused district time by asking an employee to perform personal work during normal business hours.

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell provided no additional comments on this allegation.

PORTER: A longtime district employee considered the “Jack of all trades” for previous superintendents also helped Porter take care of a personal matter while he was out of town.

10. ALLEGATION: Porter misused district time that resulted in paying overtime because he asked an employee to perform personal tasks outside normal business hours.

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell said he does not fault the employee for receiving overtime pay due to him for outside work, although the question is whether the initial requests that resulted in overtime work are acceptable.

PORTER: The employee could have made up the time — for instance if an employee comes in to work early, that employee should be allowed to leave early.

11. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for personal meal expenditures totaling nearly $950 without providing itemized receipts. That includes $750 of the same receipts questioned for alcohol purchases.