Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mileage Reimbursement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears conflicting audit and FDLE findings as staff present evidence on disputed mileage reimbursements
Summary
At a workshop focused on the district udit, staff detailed fuel, toll and valet receipts tied to some travel claims and said FDLE found evidence for multiple vouchers but no criminal intent; board members debated whether to pursue an outside inquiry before deciding on restitution or reimbursement for former employee Mr. Bowling.
At a Putnam County School Board workshop, district staff presented a line-by-line review of travel reimbursements associated with an assigned district vehicle and described differences between the Auditor General—inding and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation.
Miss Whitehurst read the audit finding that "the district employee assigned the vehicle was erroneously paid $6,199 from mileage reimbursement claims" covering February 2020 through May 2025. The auditor lso noted one vehicle logged 31,149 miles in a 10-month period, and cited inconsistent monitoring of assigned-vehicle use.
Whitehurst said she gave the evidence the auditors used to FDLE and to Professional Practices, and that FDLE ssembled toll and valet records showing several reimbursements for which there is definitive evidence of district-vehicle use. She summarized FDLE's work in a later email from the Auditor General istrict director, Ivo, which the board read aloud: "Based on my understanding, [the FDLE report] does not appear to contradict our finding... it highlights the facts of the finding and two, draw a conclusion on their criminal investigation... The report appears to indicate that no evidence was developed during the investigation to establish criminal intent on the part of Mr. Bowling."
Whitehurst also said her own review identified five reimbursement incidents with definitive toll or valet evidence (she calculated those items at $81,572 when totaled together in her screenshot set) and others that were possible or lacked supporting fuel records. Staff characterized reimbursements as (a) definitive when toll or valet invoices showed the district vehicle in evidence; (b) possible when pump-odometer records were consistent with the claimed mileage; and (c) unsupported when no fuel or toll records matched the dates in the reimbursement.
Board members asked whether the auditor's $6,199 figure and FDLE's $64,253 figure referred to the same items and why the totals diverged. Auditor General staff said their audit scope and methods differed from FDLE's criminal-investigation procedures and that the two reports reviewed different documents and used different standards. "It does not appear to question or dispute the erroneous payment of $6,199 for mileage reimbursement claims noted in our report," the Auditor General's district director wrote in response to a board query.
Several board members urged caution before taking action. "If we're looking at doing anything with these monies... I think there would need to be an independent investigation," a board member said. Another member noted FDLE found "no evidence" of criminal intent, while the Auditor General treated the items as erroneous payments or policy violations. Professional Practices remains active and may pursue certification consequences for individuals separately.
No board vote occurred at the workshop. Members said the matter could be placed on a future regular meeting agenda once the board decides whether to require an outside review or rely on the two existing reports and the Professional Practices process.
What was not disputed at the workshop: former employee Mr. Bowling repaid $6,199 to the district before separating from employment, Whitehurst said. Beyond that repayment, board members and staff differed about the adequacy of documentation and the need for further independent scrutiny.
