‘Mower-flipping’ allegations in Ohio district showcase systemic ‘debilitating’ school fraud, mismanagement

Selling public-school lawn mowers as trade-ins, then personally buying them back and reselling on Facebook Marketplace for more than double their trade-in value?

These allegations are dogging Akron Public Schools in Ohio, which recently called on state and federal officials to investigate a former district facilities director, Steve Keenan, after he resigned last month amid termination proceedings.

“A two-month investigation by a school district-hired attorney found that Keenan … and at least one other Akron Public Schools employee significantly profited from the traded-in lawn equipment,” reported the Akron Beacon Journal.

While this case made headlines, educational analysts warn graft, embezzlements and other cases of financial fraud often go unchecked in U.S. school districts – exacerbated by the recent outpouring of COVID-19 pandemic relief.

“We know from experience that the vast majority of public educators are honest and that few school districts have Roslyn- or New Orleans-level chicanery,” wrote Jonathan Butcher and Robert Maranto in a commentary for the Heritage Foundation. “But we also know that public school corruption is common, with perpetrators rarely held accountable.” 

‘Incompetence, bad accounting and administration’s inability to say no’ 

As previously reported by The Lion, an increasing number of public-school districts nationwide have disclosed last-minute budget gaps even as this academic year began. 

“It is really incompetence, bad accounting and administration’s inability to say no,” said Ruth B. Turner, superintendent of Montclair Public Schools in New Jersey, when discussing the district’s $18 million shortfall – outstripping the $11 million originally estimated in late July. 

At least 15 other districts from California, Oregon and Washington to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois have admitted to similar budget deficits – sometimes in the hundreds of millions. 

Meanwhile, the credit rating agency Moody’s has lowered its outlook for K-12 public schools from stable to negative, citing higher costs, lower enrollment and declining revenue. 

“A main factor for slow revenue growth, Moody’s said, is the expiration of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief allocations that helped schools recover from pandemic setbacks,” explains K-12 Dive. 

“American Rescue Plan allocations under ESSER — which at a total of $121.9 billion were the last and largest of the three COVID emergency aid packages approved by Congress for K-12 schools — must be spent by Jan. 28, 2025, unless districts receive a spending extension.” 

Instead of using the pandemic relief to secure their financial footing, too many districts launched “spending sprees” to build theaters, sports facilities and other projects in addition to expanded hiring and benefit packages, the Center Square reported. 

“According to Moody’s and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, public education employment now exceeds pre-pandemic levels, and compensation growth in K-12 has outpaced the private sector,” K-12 Dive noted. 

‘Systemic corruption’ often dismissed as ‘singular examples’ 

However, public schools were drawing scrutiny over their financial practices even before the pandemic from both sides of the political aisle. 

In addition to the Heritage Foundation’s 2020 commentary, The Progressive magazine called out multiple financial scandals within the public education system in November 2019. 

“A recent series of investigative articles I reported for Our Schools, an education project of the Independent Media Institute, found numerous instances of school purchases and personnel being steered toward decisions that rewarded opportunistic leaders and well-connected companies rather than students and teachers,” wrote Jeff Bryant, lead fellow of The Progressive’s Public Schools Advocate project. 

“Even though a number of such exposés suggest systemic corruption, media accounts generally frame these scandals as singular examples of corrupt behavior.” 

Part of the problem stems from a mindset of suppressing criminal acts rather than addressing them publicly, according to analysts. 

“Education intellectuals avoid researching public school corruption; some prefer cover-ups to clean-ups,” Butcher and Maranto argue. “For example, in Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips, Gene Glass writes approvingly that corrupt acts in public schools ‘are usually dealt with in subtle ways that protect the dignity of the individuals involved while protecting the integrity of the school.’” 

One recent example involves Tulsa Public Schools, where internal records suggested the district’s leaders had been aware of a major embezzlement scheme for months before disclosing it to law enforcement. 

Officials arranged an exit plan for Devin Fletcher – former chief management and equity officer convicted of embezzling more than $824,000 – using “secret payments” to a private consultant more than six months before police were notified of the embezzlement, the Frontier reported. 

“According to the documents, the arrangement to pay (the consultant) directly through the foundation was designed ‘to avoid Board approval, keeping the project confidential’ and violated district procurement policy.” 

Furthermore, many school boards fail to note conflicts of interest and “insider schemes” by administrative leaders, which the Progressive explores in greater detail. 

“Superintendent of Seattle schools, Maria Goodloe-Johnson, was accused by board members of having numerous ongoing conflicts of interest and ultimately fired when an audit found that $1.8 million in contracts awarded through a program she administered ‘provided no public benefit or were questionable,’” Bryant notes of one instance. 

“Another popular scheme involves organizations that serve as intermediaries between school districts and businesses that sell school-related products and services. The result is a pay-to-play scheme in which school leaders are paid to meet privately with companies who then receive inside tracks to strike lucrative new deals.” 

Proposed solutions involving school boards 

Both the Heritage and Progressive commentaries highlight the potential for school boards to take a more active role in addressing financial fraud and mismanagement. 

“Though the vast majority of school board members are honest, the nation’s 13,500 district school boards could do far more to ferret out corruption,” Butcher and Maranto concluded. 

“In some states, school board training is run in cooperation with school administrator associations, so few board members gain the expertise needed to hold administrators accountable, or even comprehend schools’ complex budgets.” 

Butcher and Maranto also highlighted the limitations of mandated audits “designed to find moneys spent out of category, not misspending within categories.” 

“Investigators often uncover incidents of fraud in school districts that have already been warned that their accounting practices do not comply with industry standards, warnings of which school boards should be aware,” they noted. 

Meanwhile, Bryant emphasized the “critical” need for board members to avoid conflicts of interest from school leaders and outside firms while growing their knowledge of school finance and administration. 

“Even when opportunistic school leaders and exploitative businesses have horrible academic results, as they often do, they still make a lot of money in a short amount of time,” he wrote. “And taxpayers – and school children – are worse off for it.”