Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alleged Missing Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter alleges $1.8 million missing from cafeteria account; urges extraordinary audit
Summary
A community speaker told the board there is an allegation that $1.8 million is missing from a cafeteria plan account at BAC Community Bank and asked the board to order an extraordinary audit; the district made no immediate public response during the meeting and the claim remained unresolved.
During the public-comment portion of the meeting, Frank Gayaldo told trustees he had received messages alleging that about $1.8 million from a cafeteria plan account (BAC Community Bank account ending in 8255) is missing and that district officials "wrote it off" in August 2023. Gayaldo said he did not know whether the money was in fact missing but urged the board to request an extraordinary audit of the cafeteria plan.
Gayaldo referenced a sequence of events he said were relevant: the alleged August 2023 decision to "write it off" involving district leaders (he named Dr. Rodriguez and an interim chief business official), and a California Department of Education designation on Oct. 5, 2023 that labeled the district as high-risk for fraud. He also said BAC provided a letter indicating one of the district's signers had appeared on an OFAC list.
Gayaldo concluded his remarks by asking trustees to commission an extraordinary audit of the cafeteria account and asked the board to look into the matter. The board did not make a directed response or announce a follow-up action during the meeting record; the matter remained an allegation in public comment.
What the transcript records: Gayaldo explicitly requested an extraordinary audit and provided specific account and timeline details (bank name, alleged write-off date, Oct. 5, 2023 CDE designation). The board did not state a response on the record at this meeting; the claim is unresolved in the transcript.
Note on sourcing and status: This report reflects only what was said at the meeting. The allegation is attributed to a public commenter and was not investigated or validated during the session; follow-up reporting or an independent audit would be required to substantiate or refute the claim.
