Then why doesn't our district report those figures any where in the Financial Report Clancy?
Just because they aren't on the "books anymore" doesn't mean the district should not be held accountable for reporting expenditures made to them, to the taxpayers?
Really? Is that your argument. Is that your stance?
And catch up, the $100,000 payout was a "hypothetical situation", hypothetically after the termination of a naughty, naughty male administrator. Something like a secret payout could happen. Hypothetically.
And hypothetically, this naughty man proclaimed he was not going to go down silently. But hypothetically he did.
But what if, hypothetically, he didn't remain silent, and often bragged of his extra check, signed, sealed and delivered from the district to keep quiet?
And from the way our district does not comply with accounting practices, PER THE AUDITOR'S REPORT, something like a hundred thousand dollars paid to a POST employee would never be brought to light.
You would be okay with that?
You would expect the taxpayers to be okay with that?