State audit shows Ligonier Valley School District is owed $17K |

State audit shows Ligonier Valley School District is owed $17K

Jamie Martines
as used (descrip blah blah)

The Pennsylvania Department of Education owes Ligonier Valley School District $17,325, according to an audit conducted by the state Auditor General’s office.

The district under reported the number of students relying on school district transportation to get to nonpublic and charter schools during the 2012-13 through 2015-16 school years, the audit revealed.

Public school districts provide transportation to students residing in the district but who attend nonpublic or charter schools and are reimbursed $385 per student from the state, according to the audit.

Over that four-year period, the district did not report 45 nonpublic and charter school students relying on district transportation. The district’s director of transportation, who started in the position during the 2012-13 school year, was not aware of the correct reporting guidelines, according to a district statement included in the audit findings.

Now, the district each year will reconcile bus rosters and transportation requests, according to the district statement. In addition, the assistant principal at RK Mellon Elementary School will be designated to review transportation data before it is submitted to the state Department of Education.

Jamie Martines is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jamie at 724-850-2867, [email protected] or via Twitter @Jamie_Martines.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.