Suburbanites Saving Seats At Pritzker: The New Dibs?
Could Palin Put Kirk Over the Top? More Importantly: Would She?
Oprah's Leaving Chicago?
Strollergate 2009: Doubts Raised
Abortion Notification Law Cleared
An all-star principal for CPS is facing embezzlement charges. Mirna Diaz Ortiz pleaded not guilty to a 42-count indictment that charges she forged checks and stole $35,000, but her lawyers aren't arguing that she didn't do these things--they're arguing she's not criminally liable.
Her attorney, Steven Hunter, said Diaz has paid back $23,000 and plans to pay back the rest. "We expect that when the trial is concluded, and both sides have been heard, that she'll be exonerated,'' he said. "There were extenuating circumstances.''Diaz "received money that she was not entitled to. She recognizes that, and is taking steps to return it to the public schools. However, we are not conceding that there is criminal liability,'' Hunter said. "
The inspector general launched the investigation based on an anonymous tip. Diaz Ortiz has been accused of 36 counts of forgery, four counts of official misconduct and two counts of theft. She's also been accused of using school funds for personal items, including a laptop for her daughter and three TVs.
Diaz Ortiz was until February the principal of Alfred Nobel Elementary School, a position she'd held since 1988. She doubled the school's test scores and was cited in two different studies as a model principal. And she's the fourth CPS employee and third principal to be accused of theft in the last few years, according to the district's inspector general.[Trib, S-T]
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
She double the school's test scores and was cited in two different studies as a model principal.
She's also been accusing using school funds for personal items, including a laptop for her daughter and three TVs.
these are always fun in education posts.
The nonprofit industry is actually rife with embezzlement and fraud, much of which is not prosecuted due to the desire to avoid bad PR and to prevent their 501c3 from being revoked. Only huge cases like United Way are generally prosecuted (this case I would count as being a relatively small amount and therefore an exception).
This is what nonprofits get for mimicking business!
@ dig: as someone who works for a nonprofit - i must call you on your crap statement.
we are so insanely careful of this stuff - fraud and the like - that it frequently inhibits our efficacy. complete transparency is demanded by funders, public and our boards. seriously. we're also monitored and vetted by many third party organizations/groups, such as charity navigator, guidestar and the BBB. many nonprofits go through thorough accreditation processes. and then we're held to the ethical guidelines of the professional associations we belong to (like the association of fundraising professionals, etc). we receive grants and are forced to produce outcomes and measurements to every funder. we're raked over the coals. everything is vetted and then vetted again. that's what the nonprofit "industry" has to deal with.
corporations are the ones with the back office of cutthroat lawyers and strategy experts paid to skirt the law. trust me, nonprofits don't have the money for that crap even if they wanted to be shady - which they don't.
so it looks like you have no idea what you're talking about. but thanks for being cynical! it's a real help.
She double the school's test scores and was cited in two different studies as a model principal.
Now she can serve as a model inmate.
If she doubled the test scores for real without any faking the scores or unethical means Im all for giving her an extra 35k and sending her to other schools to teach the other principls.
Well, I also work for a nonprofit for which I handle the accreditation process in addition to working with the auditors that come in yearly (among other things), so I know of what I speak.
You work for A nonprofit, and cannot be expected to answer for all of them, as I also cannot. What is undeniable is the fact that nonprofit practice has been increasingly informed by that of business, with the resulting slip (or was this always the case) in ethics.
Part of your need to prove efficacy or causality - as you put it, "raking over the coals" - is a good example by which nonprofits were made answerable to their funders as a for profit is to it's stakeholders. A good plan, but not every program has demonstrable results.
Do you think there was no catalyst for the explosion of charity watchdogs and the increased scrutiny by the IRS? Do you know who fills out those BBB forms? The organization employees!
The statement above is not to tarnish the reputation or undermine the work of nonprofits, but the industry can't be naive or anything less than critical when it comes to itself. Just because your org is nonprofit doesn't mean SOME individuals within it aren't motivated by just that.
Dig: I appreciate you clarifying your comment.
I'm sure, after reviewing your first comment you can understand why I took such issue with what you said. It was written in the same broad generalizations as you accuse me of. ("The nonprofit industry is actually rife with embezzlement and fraud.") I would put a lot more money on my statement - that nonprofits are rigorously monitored and ethically compliant - than yours, which is dangerously dismissive and accusatory across the sector.
You and I must both know that in this financial climate, those of us in nonprofits should avoid inflammatory remarks like yours, because in addition to perpetuating incorrect information, it has the potential to seriously shake the public's trust of our stewardship of their money, and affect our ability to raise funds thereby detriorating our ability to make the substantive contributions that we make to the community. So when you say that "the statement above is not to tarnish the reputation or undermine the work of nonprofits," it's ironic, because that's exactly what you carelessly did.
As someone who fills out the BBB form, I'm aware that some reporting rests with individuals. I also know that people who go to work for organizations that pay a fraction of the salary that corporations offer for the same skills are usually doing it because they are rooted in good morals and benevolence and the mission of their organization. are you? or are you just a cynic biding his time until wall street calls?
moral of the story? be careful what you say. seriously. the job you save might be your own.
I get your point, celerysalt. I'm coming from the perspective that those of us invested in the nonprofit industry need not be scared of criticising ourselves. Regardless, you're probably correct that this isn't the appropriate forum.