Key Facts

Timeline of the Pennsylvania School District Record

The Pennsylvania Auditor General’s <a href="https://www.paauditor.gov/wp-content/uploads/audits-archive/Media/Default/Reports/GreaterJohnstownSchoolDistrict,%20Cambria%20County.pdf"> December 2016 performance audit of Greater Johnstown School District</a> examined the district’s finances, hiring practices, conflicts of interest and school safety.



Finding No. 3 was titled “Questionable Employment Contracts and a Separation Agreement Cost the District Over $136,000.”



Auditors found that the district entered into two employment contracts and a separation agreement involving a school board member’s relative. The position was newly created, was not publicly posted and did not involve consideration of other candidates.



The employee’s personnel file also lacked the standard hiring records auditors found in other personnel files. The missing records included an employment application, resume and district interview forms documenting an interview and evaluation. After auditors raised the issue, the district produced a resume that officials said had been held by the district’s solicitor.



The Auditor General concluded that the district’s actions lacked accountability, consistency and fairness. Status: audit finding.

What the Pennsylvania Auditor General Found

At its June 28, 2012 meeting, the board approved the hiring of a board member’s relative for a newly created project manager position. The contract listed a prorated annual salary of $54,870 for the 2012 to 2013 school year.



The position provided office support for supervisory staff at the district’s alternative school. Auditors described its responsibilities as largely clerical and classified the employee as support personnel.



The district did not publicly post the opening. It did not consider other candidates, conduct a documented competitive review or retain standard interview and evaluation forms in the personnel file.



That process gave the public no record showing:



&#8211; How the position was advertised



&#8211; How many people had an opportunity to apply



&#8211; Which qualifications were required



&#8211; Whether other candidates had relevant experience



&#8211; Who interviewed the applicant



&#8211; How the selected applicant was evaluated



&#8211; Why a five-year contract was needed for a support position



The board member disclosed the family relationship and abstained from the vote. The audit still found that the district’s broader hiring process created an appearance of favoritism and possible preferential treatment. Status: audit finding.

The June 2012 Hire Was Not Competitive

The first contract ran from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017. The Auditor General questioned the district’s decision to provide a five-year employment contract for a support position performing mainly clerical duties.



On May 28, 2014, only two years into the first agreement, the board approved a second contract. The second agreement covered July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019.



The employee’s title changed to project director for alternative education, but the audit found that the responsibilities, duties and salary structure remained substantially the same. The salary listed for the 2014 to 2015 school year was $59,348.



By approving the new agreement, the district effectively extended the original contractual commitment by two years.



The related board member abstained from the votes approving both contracts and identified the family relationship as the reason. The Auditor General reported that the abstentions complied with the law.



The audit’s criticism focused on the district’s decision to award lengthy employment protections without an open, competitive and documented hiring process. Status: audit finding.

Why the Two Five-Year Contracts Mattered

How the Separation Agreement Cost $136,615

Approximately 18 months after the separation agreement took effect, the district rehired the same employee as transportation coordinator.



The one-year contract began on August 2, 2016 and was scheduled to end on July 31, 2017. It carried an annual salary of $50,000.



The district again did not publicly post or advertise the position. It did not consider or interview other candidates.



By then, the district had adopted Board Policy No. 304 on January 19, 2016 and approved written hiring procedures on June 7, 2016. Those rules required an open, systematic and competitive process.



The Auditor General found that the August 2016 hiring decision failed to comply with those newly adopted procedures. The related board member again abstained from the vote and stated the family relationship as the reason.



The separation agreement did not include a provision preventing the employee from returning to district employment. It also did not require repayment of any portion of the $136,615 if the district later rehired the employee.



Status: audit finding.

The District Rehired the Employee in August 2016

The audit found that the rehired employee had no prior work experience in student transportation services. The district therefore continued using an outside vendor to provide transportation services and train the employee during the 2016 to 2017 school year.



The additional vendor cost could reach $40,000.



The employee’s $50,000 salary and the vendor’s authorized cost were separate amounts. They should not be added to the $136,615 separation total because they covered a different period and different financial obligations.



The Auditor General questioned whether the vendor expense could have been avoided through a competitive hiring process that considered applicants with transportation experience.



The financial issue was not simply that the district paid an outside vendor. The district rehired an employee without a competitive search and then paid an outside organization to provide expertise connected to the employee’s assigned duties. Status: audit finding.

Why the Outside Vendor Added to the Concern

The audit states that the board member appropriately abstained from the votes approving the first contract, the second contract and the transportation coordinator appointment. The family relationship was recorded as the reason for the abstentions.



That fact matters. It shows that the board member did not cast the recorded votes approving the relative’s employment.



The audit also shows why a final-vote abstention is only one part of a defensible hiring process. The district still had responsibility for:



Publicly posting the position



Considering qualified candidates



Conducting and documenting interviews



Maintaining a complete personnel file



Evaluating whether a five-year contract was appropriate



Protecting taxpayers through workable termination terms



Following its own hiring policy during the 2016 rehire



The Auditor General found failures in those institutional responsibilities. Status: audit finding.

What the Abstentions Establish

District management received two opportunities to respond directly to Finding No. 3 and its recommendations.



The response included in the audit discussed academics, public-record procedures, school safety and transportation. It stated that the district had improved transportation processes and hired a full-time transportation director.



The Auditor General classified the response as not relevant to Finding No. 3 or its recommendations. The office said management had chosen not to respond directly to the hiring and contracting issues and expressed concern that the district might not implement the recommendations.



The Auditor General recommended that the district:



&#8211; Follow its employment policies and procedures.



&#8211; Document every stage of the hiring process.



&#8211; Use systematic and unbiased candidate selection.



&#8211; Consult legal counsel on adequate termination provisions.



&#8211; Reconsider long-term contracts for support positions.



&#8211; Evaluate the financial effect of ending a contract early.



Status: audit finding.

The Institution’s Response

The audit establishes a detailed sequence of public decisions:



A newly created position was not advertised.



No other candidates were considered.



A board member’s relative received the job.



The employee’s starting annual salary was $54,870.



The first contract covered five years.



A second five-year contract was approved in May 2014.



The second agreement extended employment through June 2019.



A separation agreement took effect in January 2015.



The district incurred $136,615 in separation costs as of July 2016.



The district rehired the employee in August 2016 at $50,000 a year.



The second position was also not advertised.



The district continued paying an outside vendor up to $40,000.



The related board member abstained from all three hiring and contract votes.



Management’s response did not address Finding No. 3 directly.



The Auditor General called the process an appearance of favoritism, possible preferential treatment and family influence. Status: audit finding.

What This Case Establishes

Last reviewed: September 11, 2026



The December 2016 performance audit is complete. The available record reviewed for this page did not identify a connected pending prosecution or ethics proceeding.



Several administrative questions remain unresolved in the published audit record:



&#8211; How much the outside vendor ultimately received



&#8211; Whether any later review tested compliance with the district’s hiring policy



&#8211; Whether the district adopted stronger rules for family-related hiring



&#8211; Whether subsequent support positions were publicly posted



&#8211; Whether long-term employment contracts received additional financial review



&#8211; Whether later contracts included stronger termination provisions



&#8211; Whether any portion of the $136,615 was recovered



&#8211; Whether the employee remained in the transportation position after July 2017

What Is Still Open

The Arizona Auditor General’s March 2026 audit of San Simon Unified School District found that two employees did not disclose substantial interests and supervised close relatives, weakening independent review over work, leave and evaluations. The district reported implementing the recommendations. Status: audit finding.



The Pennsylvania and Arizona records point to several practical safeguards:



Require employees and board members to disclose family relationships.



Publicly advertise open positions.



Compare applicants against written qualifications.



Document interviews and candidate scores.



Keep connected officials out of hiring discussions and votes.



Prevent employees from supervising close relatives.



Review contract length and termination costs before approval.



Test corrective action through follow-up audits.



Read <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/are-weak-controls-in-democratic-led-arizona-school-districts-exposing-taxpayers-to-misuse/"> Are weak controls in Democratic-led Arizona school districts exposing taxpayers to misuse?</a> for the broader Arizona school district record.



The process for evaluating audit findings, referrals and adjudicated outcomes is explained in <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/from-allegation-to-conviction-how-democratic-corruption-claims-in-arizona-are-tested/"> From Allegation to Conviction: How Democratic Corruption Claims in Arizona Are Tested</a>.

What this means for Arizona

The Pennsylvania Auditor General found that a school district hired a board member’s relative without advertising the position, approved two five-year contracts, incurred $136,615 in separation costs and rehired the employee without a competitive search. The board member abstained from the relevant votes. Status: audit finding.



This page documents one Pennsylvania school district’s hiring, contracting and separation record; it does not catalog every public hiring decision in Pennsylvania. See <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/are-democrats-corrupt-what-the-public-record-shows-state-by-state/"> Are Democrats Corrupt? What the Public Record Shows State by State</a>.

What this shows about Democratic governance

Frequently Asked Questions

The Pennsylvania audit records a hiring process that failed basic tests of openness and competition. A board member’s relative received a newly created position in June 2012 at an annual salary of $54,870. The district did not advertise the opening, consider other candidates or maintain the usual hiring records.



The board later approved a second five-year contract carrying a salary of $59,348 for the 2014 to 2015 school year. Six months later, it approved a separation agreement that had cost taxpayers $136,615 by July 2016.



The district rehired the employee in August 2016 at $50,000 a year without posting the new position. It also retained an outside transportation vendor for up to $40,000. The related board member abstained from each vote, as required.



The Auditor General found that the district’s conduct lacked accountability, consistency and fairness and created an appearance of favoritism, possible preferential treatment and family influence. Status: audit finding.

The bottom Line

Taxpayers should be able to see when a position was advertised, how candidates were compared, whether family relationships were disclosed and why a long-term contract served the institution’s interests.



<a href="http://tpaction.com/Vote">Register to Vote</a>, <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/plan"> make a plan to vote</a>, and <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/getinvolved"> get involved</a>. Public participation gives voters a direct way to demand competitive hiring, complete records and responsible employment contracts.

Public Jobs Should Come With Public Answers

&#8211; <a href="https://www.paauditor.gov/wp-content/uploads/audits-archive/Media/Default/Reports/GreaterJohnstownSchoolDistrict,%20Cambria%20County.pdf">Pennsylvania Auditor General, Greater Johnstown School District Performance Audit, December 2016</a>



&#8211; <a href="https://www.paauditor.gov/search-audits/">Pennsylvania Auditor General Audit Search</a>



&#8211; <a href="https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/65/00.011..HTM">Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act</a>



&#8211; <a href="https://www.ethics.pa.gov/">Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission</a>



&#8211; <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/reports-publications/school-districts/san-simon-unified-school-district">Arizona Auditor General, San Simon Unified School District</a>

Sources

Examine a Pennsylvania school audit involving an unposted hire, two five-year contracts, and $136,615 in separation costs.

Pennsylvania: Is Nepotism Evidence That Democratic Institutions Are Corrupt? What the Evidence Says About Democrats

Key Facts

Timeline of the Pennsylvania School District Record

What the Pennsylvania Auditor General Found

The June 2012 Hire Was Not Competitive

Why the Two Five-Year Contracts Mattered

How the Separation Agreement Cost $136,615

The District Rehired the Employee in August 2016

Why the Outside Vendor Added to the Concern

What the Abstentions Establish

The Institution’s Response

What This Case Establishes

What Is Still Open

What this means for Arizona

What this shows about Democratic governance

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this an example of Democratic corruption?

How much did the employment contracts and separation agreement cost?

Did the board member vote on the relative’s contracts?

Why was the August 2016 rehire important?

What did the district say in response?

The bottom Line

Public Jobs Should Come With Public Answers

Sources

RioSlum Studio

Pennsylvania: Is Nepotism Evidence That Democratic Institutions Are Corrupt? What the Evidence Says About Democrats

Key Facts

Timeline of the Pennsylvania School District Record

What the Pennsylvania Auditor General Found

The June 2012 Hire Was Not Competitive

Why the Two Five-Year Contracts Mattered

How the Separation Agreement Cost $136,615

The District Rehired the Employee in August 2016

Why the Outside Vendor Added to the Concern

What the Abstentions Establish

The Institution’s Response

What This Case Establishes

What Is Still Open

What this means for Arizona

What this shows about Democratic governance

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this an example of Democratic corruption?

How much did the employment contracts and separation agreement cost?

Did the board member vote on the relative’s contracts?

Why was the August 2016 rehire important?

What did the district say in response?

The bottom Line

Public Jobs Should Come With Public Answers

Sources