Investigator, Porter address allegations
Investigator, Porter address allegations

By Wendy K. Kleinman

Published: January 7, 2008

There are 21 allegations against Oklahoma City Superintendent John Porter in the investigative report led by former U.S. Attorney Robert McCampbell.

Sixteen of them deal with concerns of misuse of taxpayer funds. The other five accuse Porter of personal misconduct.

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.

MCCAMPBELL: There are two issues here: 1) Should Porter be allowed to be reimbursed for meals consumed when he is not on travel? 2) There is no documentation that the meals were for business purposes.

PORTER: He would have provided itemized receipts if district officials had asked for them. He said the two more expensive dinners, each costing between $250 and $300 at Park Avenue Grill and The Museum Cafe, were with independent experts from the nationally renowned Broad Foundation. He thought it appropriate for the district to treat them to dinner since they came for free to support Porter, who completed their superintendent leadership program, and would normally charge thousands of dollars.

12. ALLEGATION: Porter failed to take personal days when away from the office on personal travel. He was away for seven business days but took vacation leave on just two of them.

MCCAMPBELL: Plane records verify when Porter was out of town. His contract states he gets 22 days of vacation per year.

PORTER: Staff members put in his time, and he has offered to have those vacation days subtracted now.

13. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for a car rental and fuel costs totaling nearly $1,850. He already receives an annual allowance of $8,500 for vehicle related expenses under his contract.

MCCAMPBELL: Porter turned in receipts for fuel as soon as he began. There is a concern he is being doubly reimbursed because of the $8,500 he already receives for automobile costs.

PORTER: He said he was not able to bring his car to Oklahoma City right away. He said the fuel costs were for a rental vehicle. He has offered to repay the entire amount. He also responded to questions from The Oklahoman about why there were two receipts, two minutes apart, at the same gas station on the same day — one for super gasoline and one for unleaded. They were not for two cars, he said, but rather he probably realized he had begun pumping a more expensive fuel and then switched.

14. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for a parking fee at Reagan National Airport outside of Washington totaling $240 during his first week on the job. Parking there costs $40 per day.

MCCAMPBELL: Porter’s other receipts indicate he was in Oklahoma City during the July 1 through July 7 time period when the car was put in and taken out of the airport parking lot.

PORTER: Although airline records indicate Porter came to Oklahoma City on June 30, he missed that flight and actually came on July 1, when he put left his personal car at the airport. His wife returned on July 7 without him and retrieved the car.

15. ALLEGATION: Porter was reimbursed for taxi fares totaling more than $170. Two of the three taxi receipts had no date or destination listed. The third was from Dulles airport on Aug. 11.

MCCAMPBELL: There is no indication the taxi fares were business related.

PORTER: Porter said he thinks these are reasonable expenses because they were incurred during his relocation from the Washington area to Oklahoma City.

16. ALLEGATION: Porter incurred excessive turnover in key staff positions during his first few months on the job.

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell said he did not know exactly what positions or exactly how many people this piece of the investigation concerns.

PORTER: The turnover is not excessive.

17. ALLEGATION: Porter has an unreasonably negative relationship with multiple principals. MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell noted this allegation draws in previous discussions revealed in The Oklahoman that at an Oct. 10 meeting, Hudson, Porter and a consultant discussed, among other feedback, critical comments from some principals who spoke with that consultant.

PORTER: Porter said those principal comments were anecdotal and not contained in a formal survey. He said it is reasonable to expect that some principals will be unhappy, but that other principals are satisfied with him serving as superintendent.

18. ALLEGATION: Porter has behaved inappropriately and abusively with some district employees. The Oklahoman spoke with several current or former employees of Porter’s administration on condition of anonymity because they each had personal concerns about having their names revealed. Their accounts were consistent with each other. They said Porter has been belittling, belligerent, verbally abusive, has cursed at employees, and has embarrassed employees in front of coworkers. One specifically said this accusation is valid, and another characterized working for Porter as a “horrible experience.”

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell declined to discuss personnel-related matters.

PORTER: Porter denied ever cursing at district employees. He said he always conducts himself professionally. He is a very direct person and some people can take that in a way he did not intend. He said he has had to acclimate himself to the position of superintendent and adjust how he interacts with people in his new position.

19. ALLEGATION: Porter failed to follow policies and directives from the board.

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell provided no additional comments on this allegation.

PORTER: Porter disagreed with this allegation.

20. ALLEGATION: Porter failed to adequately communicate with the board since missing a Dec. 20 board meeting.

MCCAMPBELL: McCampbell provided no additional comments on this allegation.

PORTER: Porter provided no new information beyond what already has been said, which is that he was away taking care of family matters.

21. ALLEGATION: Porter directed the district to use an unauthorized, higher pay scale for some employees without board approval.

MCCAMPBELL: Porter told several employees that they could be paid on a higher pay scale than other employees, which occurred. That was not authorized at the time Porter instituted the change, and the board must authorize a change in pay scale. The board later authorized the pay scale increases. The cost of the higher pay scale, beyond regular pay, from the time Porter instituted the higher pay scale to the time the board authorized the higher scale, total more than $25,000.

PORTER: One policy states that the superintendent must only inform the board. Porter said this is the policy he was advised of on his first day on the job when he was more reliant on his staff. He said he advised the board of the change, trying to get higher pay to attract people to the district. A second policy states the board must approve the funds first, which he found out later.

Your thoughts!