The former director of the agency that provides Head Start for preschoolers in Somerville and Cambridge freely used the agency’s credit card for personal expenses, racking up more than 100 personal charges in a single year, according to an independent audit that apparently cost Kimberly Smith-Cofield her job.
As the audit was being finalized, Smith-Cofield abruptly resigned as executive director of the Community Action Agency of Somerville in June, followed closely by the agency’s finance director and later four members of the board. Agency officials declined to release or even describe the audit findings, calling them confidential.
Comments
Thievery.. It's going on in all federal, state & local agencies/offices/organizations, etc. It seems that stealing more, on top of an already generous salary, is the norm...no regard for laws; man's OR God's.
This comment has been removed.
SHOCKER!!!!!
Why do they always blame the "accounting syatem" rather than the executives who steal?
Because the executives put in the incompetent "accounting system" to allow them to steal. If you have a competent financial executive, using the appropriate accounting system, reporting to a Board that's doing its job, this stuff wouldn't happen. It sounds exactly like the Chelsea Housing Authority.
Not for Profit is is free range money. Executives of these outfits are like perverts who take those jobs because they knoe of the easy pickings.
So, she continued to steal from the non profit ... "after repeated requests to stop" so . how does that work anyway? ... they catch her stealing , they confront her , and they ask her to stop ... then they find that she is continuing to steal money , and once again they ask her to stop ... so how many "repated requests " does one get , I always thought it was ONE !!!
Nice that she's essentially stealing from the poor. A real credit to the human race. Also like the part where the former Chairman of the Board made a "deal" with Smith-Cofield signing a nondisclosure agreement with her when they both resigned. Amazing. Should toss them both in jail. Maybe if the consequences were worse people might think twice about behaving like this. More often than not this stuff gets covered up because the political hacks that put these people in authority can't afford the bad press. This is what one-party rule can do to a state. And I'd be saying the same thing if MA was dominated by Republicans. Balance is good and leads to the necessary checks and balances that don't exist in MA. Currently it's a free for all.
Another reason to eliminate welfare. The state should beat every dime out of her.
So how would you help those who truly need assistance? Welfare doesn't need to be eliminated, just better managed. It seems like any time there's tax dollars involved, scrutiny goes out the window. Hire people who know how to manage programs instead of the unqualified political appointees that all too often are put in a position of authority. I'd be interested to hear how Smith-Cofield came to be head of the Community Action Agency.
This is the Obama way and more freeby social programs for looting are on the way!
i broke a fingernail ... it is Obama's fault.
I wonder how many state agencies would hold up from an independent audit? While people rail against the thought of privatizing current government-provided services, since those private companies would be motivated by profit, they fail to grasp that the competition between private companies to provide those services would improve the quality of those services. Competition improves services and products. Government agencies are no different than a monopoly and monopllies are never good for customers. On a different note, the part of this article about the current board coming down on employees for credit card use is laughable. Granted, I don't know the innner workings of this agency but I have trouble underrstanding why employees of this agency would need credit cards in the first place. Couple that with weak financial oversight and you're inviting misuse of funds. It's common sense.
"Granted, I don't know the innner workings of this agency" -- Exactly! Nor do we know all the facts of the situation. Basically, it sounds like she (and others) misused the agency credit cards for personal use, but paid the funds back, so, to save face, they negotiated her resignation, along with a confidentiality, non-disclosure agreement.
Redglare2, despite the fact that, as you point out, we don't know the inner workings of this agency, given what what the agency is there to do is there any reason you can come up with for employees to have credit cards? As I said, coupled with lax financial oversight you're asking for misuse of funds.
We will never know how many were hired based on their qualifications or for the quest for "diversity" and
Affirmative Action.
There are many, many non-profit agencies doing exemplary work and that are very well-organized. Please do not tar them all with the brush of this case. We rarely hear about the many successful agencies; we always (appropriately) hear about the ones where things go wrong. Oh, and believe me, having worked many, many years in the private sector, I can tell you there are way more "derelictions" and scandals worse than this out there, usually covered up more effectively by the private sector. Bad behavior is certainly not restricted to the non-profit arena, not by a long shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do agree, though, that these non-profits need quality boards of directors who can ask the right questions and oversee their hired employees effectively. That is often where the problem lies.
Please note the non-profits that are doing the exemplary work you speak of? I agree with the broad brush stroke comment but when you have the lack of oversight that goes on in this state I have a hard time thinking there are many that are well run. When the bar isn't held high bad performance follows. I'd also like to hear about the derelictions you speak of in the private business sector. I've spent my whole life in the private sector. While there's certainly issues in the private sector, they pale in comparison to what we read about in the public sector. And those privatye sector businesses that are poorly run go out of business. It's survival of the fittest, i.e. best managed! Again, the public sector is set up as a monopoly and monopolies are never good for consumers.
Right off the top of my head, here is one that's currently in the news for very different reasons: The American Red Cross. Or how about the United Way? Another is ABCD in Boston, which operates a number of social programs throughout the city, including some of the same types of programs that the CAAS (the one in this article) operates in Somerville. There are many more, of varying sizes and structure, that operate throughout the Commonwealth and the country, for that matter. They have dedicated staff who don't steal from their agencies and who are as dismayed as anyone when this type of news comes out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I claimed that all American private sector companies were as bad as Enron or Lehman Brothers, that would be as foolish as claiming all non-profits are as bad as Somerville CAAS or the Chelsea Housing Authority. These agencies may be bad, but thankfully they're in the minority.
Thanks to the Globe for continuing to expose this, public sector, greed. My experience with all too many "non-profits" are that they are VERY profitable to those who run them. High salaries for administrating very little, with little accountibility for performance (or lack thereof) is an awfully sweet deal for those who are inclined to corruption. Naturally, the state does precious little oversight. I mean, aren't many of these programs run by pols or their pals? The state has "regulators" for all kinds of private sector malfeasence, rightly so in many cases. The blind spot for public sector and non-profit greed and mismanagement, however, is nearly complete. "Non-profits" should have their books, pay and other financial details completely transparent to the public if they want to call themselves non-profit. Logically, one would imagine the altruists who are involved in these operations would be happy to be transparent....the more to prove the value of their work. I won't hold my breadth for this development, however.
"Non-profits should have their books, pay and other financial details completely transparent to the public" -- They almost always are. They are required to have annual audits and to submit them to the state, where they are available for all citizens to review (which is how the Globe got this information). In addition, the agencies often have the information locally available to citizens or funding contributers; these days, the audit summaries are often posted on an agency website. Ironically, there is far more transparency in the non-profit sector than in the private sector.
Redglare2, these were the findings of an independent audit, not from any oversight group.
As a local social worker, I have worked with Melissa, Daniel and Gleisson- who workin the housing program which is under CAAS and upstairs from Head Start. They provide free legal advocacy to underserved families facing eviction and they are very good at what they do. They have helped countless families maintain housing, undoubtedly receiving a fraction of what lawyers get paid. It is very tough working in the social services, and brutal when agencies are struggling with beaurocratic issues. It was sad to read this article, which did not mention the quality work they have tirelessly been doing, in spite of all these programmtic issues.