School board policies reviewed after incident

An incident that involved Harvey High School Principal Van McWreath raised questions about policy and procedure.

Jane Timonere, who is the attorney representing McWreath, said when the Harvey High School weight room was being remodeled and restocked, McWreath along with other school employees were asked by the company removing the equipment if they wanted it, because it was going to be discarded if it could not be given away.

“Mr. McWreath and some of the others who were approached agreed to take portions of the equipment,” she said.

Timonere says the old equipment became the company’s property by virtue of the contract with the School Board.

However, Superintendent John Shepard issued McWreath a letter of reprimand after the completion of a thorough investigation of the weight equipment and its disposal.

“First I would like to express my disappointment with the lack of professionalism shown by your actions,” Shepard stated in the letter of reprimand. “You have placed the district and the project in a negative appearance of impropriety. The vendor per contract was responsible for removing and disposing of any former weight room equipment. Any equipment not removed by the vendor is subject to proper disposal procedures clearly outlined in Board Policy and Administrative Guideline (7300, 7310, 7450, and 7454).”

Shepard said taking items from the district was not only improper, but unprofessional.

“It is an unfortunate situation, but my job is to protect tax payer dollars,” he said. “I have to protect that investment. I have a duty to report.”

In addition to conducting an internal investigation, the incident was reported to the Painesville Police Department and the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Professional Conduct.

The police found that no unlawful activity occurred.

McWreath maintains his innocence, saying the equipment was ethically and legally removed from the property.

In a written rebuttal to the letter of reprimand he states, “I disagree that any misjudgment took place.”

Board President Chuck Tackett said when the weight room was being considered by the administration, it followed Board Policy 6320 and solicited quotations for the equipment.

“The renovation of the Harvey High weight room was discussed in a public meeting on July 28, 2015. Subsequently, the board entered into a purchase order for new weight equipment,” he said. “As part of the purchase order, the district disposed of the existing weight room equipment by trading it in to the vendor and received a credit of $4,763.00 for the old equipment. Once the new equipment was installed, the vendor owned the old equipment. Since it now owned the equipment, it had the right to dispose of the equipment in whatever manner it chose.”

Yet Tackett said when he first learned about the issue, he was surprised, disappointed and frustrated.

“It raised issues of management and oversight that made all of us, administrators and board members alike, aware that we need to do a better job of following up on the processes we use to conduct the district’s business,” he said. “I asked for the administration to perform an audit of our property inventory to determine what equipment we still had in our possession and compare that to what was felt we should still possess.”

Shepard agreed that this incident proved that district needed to improve the inventory process.

“The board and administration recognized immediately that a situation like this, where there was no wrongdoing, but board policies were not strictly followed, can give rise to the appearance of impropriety and ultimately reflect poorly on our district,” he said. “We emphasized to the administration the importance of faithfully following adopted policy and procedures and were very clear that we all need to do a better job of protecting the assets of the district.

The board required that a comprehensive inventory be completed for all district buildings and property. We also requested that all appropriate personnel receive training on the proper procedures for the disposal of district property. This was completed throughout the remainder of the (2016) school year and at the beginning of this school year. Further, we emphasized the need for future contracts to provide specific descriptions of property to be transferred to or from the district.”