Armstrong’s decision to reduce his pay from $275,000 to $175,000 was detailed in a letter he gave to the foundation’s board of directors at its annual meeting Tuesday. A copy was obtained by The Times-Dispatch.
Foundation spokeswoman Carolyn Cuthrell confirmed yesterday that the reduction was effective immediately and said it was not the result of pressure within the foundation.
-Richmond Times Dispatch, September 15, 2005 (emphasis added)
Soon to be former VAPAF President & CEO Brad Armstrong must have counted on Chairman Jim Ukrop to keep his stocking full of goodies this Christmas - because jolly ole St. Nick wouldn’t have gone anywhere near it (coal is waaaayyy to0 expensive these days). Through documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act, it appears that Brad, Jim & Co. are still up to their same naughty games.
Despite the public pronouncement above, it appears that Brad was paid far in excess of an annualized $175,000 for at least several months thereafter. For those paid twice per month (as looks to be the case with VAPAF employees), an annual salary of $175,000 would work out to about $7,291.67 per paycheck. Bank statements obtained from the Department of Historic Resources indicate he was paid between $11,881 and $11,193 per paycheck (or approximately $277,000 annualized) in the months before the announced pay cut. These records show that in the months following the pay cut announcement he was paid the following sums:
September 14, 2005 - $11,193.25
September 29, 2005 - $11,012.13
$266,464.56 annualized for September
October 13, 2005 - $10,563.11
October 28, 2005 - $12,127.41
$272,286.24 annualized for October
November 16, 2005 - $8,901.11
November 30, 2005 - $8,901.07
$213,626.16 annualized for November
I can’t wait to hear the explanation for this one.
We also learned that the VAPAF may be trying to skirt Commonwealth regulations by:
1. Asking for (and already receiving some) state appropriation dollars without having completed the required grant application. The VAPAF’s original application indicated that its appropriation dollars would be used for capital expenses incurred during the construction of the proposed new PAC. The VAPAF never completed the part of the application that dealt with ensuring the Foundation was compliant with state regulations in its hiring of vendors. While “Attachment A” of the application states that “All of the application requirements must be met…before nonstate grant funds can be released,” somehow the VAPAF has already received more than $1.5 million. It does appear, however, that the state is tiring of the VAPAF’s antics, as seen in this exchange of letters.
2. Attempting to garner state appropriation dollars by identifying matching funds no longer in existence. These funds, which the VAPAF evidently had at different times during August, September and October, have long since been spent and are gone. This seems to pretty well run afoul of the appropriation act which requires funds to be “on hand and available.” Section 4-5.05 of the act states:
No allotment of appropriations shall be made to a nonstate agency until such agency has certified to the Secretary of Finance that cash or in-kind contributions are on hand and available to match equally all or any part of an appropriation which may be provided by the General Assembly, unless the organization is specifically exempted from this requirement by language in this act. Such matching funds shall not have been previously used to meet the match requirement in any prior appropriation act.
3. Using state appropriation dollars and matching funds in an unauthorized way. The grant application states that “the matching funds must be spent for the same purpose as the state appropriation,” and that “ineligible expenditures include those that are not directly related to the grant project, fundraising costs, the value of real estate or a lease, entertainment costs, etc. In determining match eligibility, federal grant guidelines will be used.” Since the VAPAF applied for funds for certain construction services (and obviously nothing has been built yet), and much of their matching funds have already been spent on salaries and other operations, it appears they have violated this rule. Also, as we have covered in previous posts, it looks like the VAPAF has been holding $1.5 million of state appropriation dollars in escrow to attempt to secure clear title to the Thalhimer’s block. This would seem to be an ineligible expenditure regarding the value of real estate.
One interesting item in the appropriation act spells out the authority of the Governor or JLARC (the state’s internal investigative agency) to demand an audit of nonstate agency grant recipients. I think it’s just about time for the state to get into the VAPAF audit game. As I recall that whole audit thing didn’t work out so well for the Foundation last time.
Oh, and finally, before I forget, they’ve now completely drained the Carpenter Center’s account!
Happy New Year Everybody!