I'd hope so too, but it really doesn't show on CCAP that they even arrested him or filed to freeze any assets. Here's to hoping that they do so.

i would HOPE they've frozen his ASSets and cancelled those travel plans for him!

Wow! I'm sure the judge has no idea about all these rules and regulations!

I believe Mr. Keirns hiring had to be approved by the same school board that approved Chinese without knowing it was mandatory, approved the hiring of an AP at Marshall who is now a Dean instead because he does not have certification/a license to be an AP yet, and on and on and on. I'm sure we will continue to discover more and more mistakes as time goes on. Doesn't really matter who is to blame, these things shouldn't be continuing to happen.

"And then, while this is a bad situation, why isn't more made of the situation going up the chain of command; using him as a scapegoat."

How is Keirns a "scapegoat", if he set up the shell companies and withdrew the money?

How hard is it to believe that he did this by himself? All he needed was approval from the business manager (his boss) to buy the software. There could have been money available in the budget, so nobody besides the business manager needed to know about it or approve it. The business manager was probably incompetent for not verifying that the cost was reasonable, but Keirns might have provided bogus alternate "prices" also, to justify the cost.

Considering nobody else has been charged yet, there is no evidence to support a conspiracy, just a lack of oversight.

thehafemann's point is that he suspects this is just one aspect of a wider conspiracy or widespread corruption. There's been nothing justifying that suspicion reported as yet, though. But Keirns allegedly personally benefited from this fraud, which means he is no scapegoat. If there was knowledge or abetting by anyone else that would present an obvious bargaining chip for Keirns.

If all of this is true, This is wrong, this is wrong, THIS IS WRONG! Make no mistake where I stand.

I am trying to lead you along here, but I guess I just have to lay it out there.

You have two options, either you can believe that this IT person did this by himself or not.

If you say he did this by himself, you are essentially saying that all the checks and balances up the chain of command have failed, pointing to apathy, incompetence, poor judgement..... And then, while this is a bad situation, why isn't more made of the situation going up the chain of command; using him as a scapegoat.

If you think that others knew what was going on as mentioned by other commenters, then we have a whole other set of issues.

Either way, I believe the buck doesn't stop with him. This doesn't give him a free pass either.

I would like to see more detail on the inflated prices. I have a hard time assuming that with a contract price for that amount that it was an apples to apples comparison. There should have been a lot of eyes that seen this. Again, if it really was and apples to apples comparison, seen by many, there are issues beyond Mr. Keirns. Is it responsible journalism to say these things without presenting the facts? Nonetheless, this whole thing will be interesting as it continues to unfold.

thafemann,
Why use analogies? Why not stick to the facts?

In your useless analogy, you leave out the exchange of goods at inflated prices, kickbacks, and the use of shell companies to hide the fraud.

Hello again,

Let me play this out for you.

I am the lunch person at the school. I suggest and get in contact with a milk distributor who would like to get the school's milk business. I contact the Administration of the school and and ask them to consider a bid from this milk distributor.

Ultimately, the new distributor gets the milk contract. It is then learned the lunch person's significant other is a driver for the milk distributor, their uncle and nephew are farmers for that distributor, and their daughter is the sales person for this milk distributor.

Wrong? Who was wrong? Employee, Administrator, both?

If this is wrong, we'd better start buying our milk from California because I don't know many districts who have employees who don't have someone working in the the dairy industry, either directly or indirectly. :)

He does not have to be an officer or administrator. The statute reads "Any public officer or public employe". Since he was an employee of the Janesville School District, he was a public employee and subject to this law.

Hey Mr. Freeradical,

I think we are on the same page on this, with a few exceptions.

Again, I base my opinion on the idea that Mr. Keirns was NOT an official "Administrator" of the district.

Let's take the school out of it and talk about private industry for a moment.

In an LLC, Sub-S Corp, or a Corporate structure, only the Board of Directors have any legal authority to purchase and enter into contract on behalf of the company. Internally, the company will delegate this authority to trusted people for the company operations including to purchase items. Ultimately, however, every check and contract MUST be signed by one of the Directors or Officers.

Now, if this "trusted" person does something like enter a purchase for a company that they own, they are really only doing it on behalf of the Directors. The trusted employee has to be dealt with internally, like being fired. Ultimately, it was one of the Directors, usually the CFO who has their name on the signature; and their signature on the check.

Taking this same view in the school, I am confident that the name on the check was not Mr. Keirns. While he may be a convenient scape-goat with whom trust was abused, it goes much higher in the chain of command.

It's scary how many people here don't seem to think this is a crime. It's kind of like having insider info on the stock market. Well that's a bad example. But if a guy KNOWS he can buy the same thing for 20$, but instead buys it from his friend for the overhead of 100$, while only spending 20, and able to pocket the remaining 80...dont you see the crime here!?! It is stealing money! If your boss gives you a 20$ bill to guy buy him lunch, then you come back and say-yeah, it was 19.48$,heres your 52 cents-when it was really 5$....isn't that stealing from him? Its the same principle. No different than taking 1000$ to buy something for someone, then spending 200, and telling them you spent it all to pocket the difference. lol I'm actually a bit flustered that it seems like everyone doesn't see anything wrong here. Are you all in on it? =)

Mydesk- If you really have evidence of people embezzling money or "redirecting" it. I think it is your DUTY as a citizen to go farther and report it! That's our money too! EIther you did something else to get fired, or the person you reported to was in on the cut. Either way, if you actually have any sort of substantial evidence for this, I think you should see it as your DUTY to REPORT IT!!!

It is a crime because he artificially infalted to value of products, had his friend use a business as a cover, and charged more than was necessary to the school, then took the leftover money for his own monetary gain! How can you question if this was legal or not? What are you not getting? He essentially stole money from the IT department/school funds. He said he was using X dollars for Y equipment, and in the end He took X dollars, subtracted Y for equipment, and pocketed Z money. How hard is it to understand? Haven't you heard of embezzlement?

Let me set a few things straight.

Does this whole thing stink? YOU BET.
Do I think there is more to this story than what is being printed? YEP.
Do I think what has happened, and continuing to happen is right? No way!

On the other hand.

Does not this gentleman deserve his day? Last I heard we still have that right.

There are some loopholes, and maybe this is a good time to take a look at them.

I hope this reporter is diligent through this process. :D

MikeF,

Thank you for your information. This is exactly what I though.

However...here is the beef.

Most technical IT Directors in the state of wisconsin are not "officers" of the schools. There is no licensure for Technical Directors. Only the "Instructional Technology Directors", those who hold a DPI licensure, are officially directors. The only official DPI license of officer status that I know of that does not require teaching degree is that of the Business Manager.

If this person does hold a DPI licenseure, then by all means, we have a legal issue.

If, however, he is like most of the technology directors and technology administrators throughout the state who do not have any sort of association with the DPI, there really can be nothing. It is no more than a suggestion, albeit a strong suggestion from someone with a huge influence, to purchase software from this company. If he is not a DPI licensed administrator, he "officially" does not have any authority or liability to spend any money. Therefore, the Business Manager (who would be licensed by the DPI as an officer) and the District Administrator (also licensed by the DPI as an officer) are the folks who make the decision to purchase the software. Since they did not, seemingly, benefit from the purchase, no crime.

Again, my thought is that this person is not licensed by the DPI and therefore not a officer of the organization.

And therefore, the suggestion to purchase XYZ product from ABC company is merely a suggestion to the folks who are the officers of the organization. It would be no different than the lunch lady telling the District Superintendent to purchase a needed van from her husbands dealership. Would the lady benefit from the purchase, yes, indirectly. But again, she does not control the budget/spending. And if this person in the article is not a DPI "Administrator", then neither does he.

I know it is a stretch but it is reality.

mydesk - I'm sure that's how it went down.

I got news for the district; there are more people taking advantage of the system then this guy. They aren't depositing checks they are scamming other ways. The district needs to dig deeper. I tried reporting happenings and was terminated for it.

"Is there some law that says you can not purchase things from employees' businesses?"
Yes, WI State Statute 946.13(1)(b) Private interest in public contract prohibited. Any public officer or public employe who does any of the following is guilty of a Class E felony:In the officer's or employe's capacity as such officer or employe, participates in the making of a contract in which the officer or employe has a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, or performs in regard to that contract some function requiring the exercise of discretion on the officer's or employe's part.
The crime is that he personally gained from a contract that he negotiated with public funds in his official capacity.

Also, would anyone have cause of issue if this person would have saved the district $30k? Did the school get everything that it paid for in the contract? While shady and unethical, along with all the other stuff that has gone down pointing to incompetence, with this alone, what is the crime?

Reading it again, I ask in ernest, did he do anything technically wrong? Ethically, SURE! Is there some law that says you can not purchase things from employees' businesses?

I can see an issue with purchasing an exact product for more money. Again, technically wrong or just ethically wrong.

Now, getting to the Antivirus stuff, I am pretty sure this is more tricky. But again, while a volatile issue, does purchasing Antivirus from his own company constitute a crime?

I think this could open a pandora's box, not only for IT people, but every staff member of a district who either owns, or spouse owns, or distant relative owns a company that does business with a district.

I wonder what the legal issues this is addressing. As I understand it, unless you are licensed by the state as a teacher or administrator, you are an at-will employee.

When I was a member of the board of directors for a company, I had a legal obligation to the company. Along with that, my position, therefore I in that position, could be legally liable for ethical/legal violations pertaining to the company. Whereas, the same legal obligations did not apply to others who were not directors of a company.

As a director, I could enter into contracts on behalf of the company. I had budget/spending authority that would hold up in a court of law. If I decided to spend 1 billion dollars on a toothbrush, as the IT Director in this company, the contract would be created as the IT Director who has authority to enter into the contract, and the company would be liable for that contract.

Not that I think this guy shouldn't get a good swift kick, in short, unless this Director is licensed as an administrator with budget authority, doesn't the funding issue ultimately fall on person(s) responsible for the budget?

I know that if I sign a contract right now, the arguement could and should be, "He does not have authority as a entity representative to enter into any contract."

Food for thought.

This is really a lot to swallow. Nepotism, fraud and the fact that it was kept quiet for so long. $18,000 ,,, A MONTH. This didn't raise an eyebrow or two?

In the end though this was a good catch by the new IT manager. Yet another hat he gets to wear - "CSI"
.
Disregard my post below... I was hasty to press the submit button

So... a couple of questions: Why didn't they catch this sooner? Who's running the show now?

Actually this thing doesn't suprise me out of Brandon. Knew him in school and he was always getting away with things because of who his mom was. I feel bad for the tax payers of Jville, but I think it's funny that he finally got caught and his mom can't get him out of it.

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." -- United States Supreme Court, Coffin v. United States (1895)

Well, I've heard about this presumption of innocence thing, and I don't like it. Sounds unconstitutional if you ask me.

Innocent until proven guilty, I regress. But it's hard not to assume when he has a friend who happens to be on almost every transaction and record, so it sounds. I don't see where it says it's a trojan, sounds to me like this guy just said that software "A" cost "B" dollars when it cost half of "B". Then he just put the difference in his account. Not even high tech, just taking some off the top. If he had 50 or 60year old overseeing his expenses, there's a higher chance those big bills will go unchecked, because new tech can be ridiculously expensive. Just spitballin' here. Not trying to stereotype.

It's real easy to make harsh accusations and insults and jump to conclusions when you don't have all the facts and you don't have to face the person you're judging. I realize this article is WRITTEN as if the case has already been investigated and tried, but notice the first sentence says he's wanted on SUSPICION of these charges. Maybe things are what they seem, and maybe there's more to the story than what the "all-knowing" readers and writers of this article are aware of yet... or may ever hear of once this "news" stops being sensationalized. But we're ALL supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right?

This loser got hired because he didn't have a criminal record in his background check. Bet that background check doesn't come clean for his next job.

I work with viruses, mail-ware, spam, etc. & I'll bet the farm that this BoZo quit when he did because he knew someone smarter then he was going to enter the picture, sooner, rather then later, so he took the money & ran. He apparently ran with the hopes that the interm replacement wouldn't catch his scheme for a while, which is exactly what happened. Having said that, we can't blame the replacement for not moving any quicker to find the thievery, or blame the IT employees for not fixing that trojan, because its my belief the IT manager, Slick hands Keirns placed the trojan in the school system network for personal profit. He's not the only one in the country to do it, & he won't be the last. What needs to happen here is "over sight." Its clear to me that when humans are put in place of other peoples money, in a good percentage of the cases, said humans are untrustworthy. If i had over-sight over Mr Brandon during his tenure, I think i would have been suspicious when he was buying software from one or maybe two companies. Suspicious enough to at-least check out why he's not shopping for the best prices.

This guy stole money from children, & needs to have his gluteus maximus thrown under the jail. The fact that he's on the run tells me, Keirns knows its very possible a judge might think so also. Too bad firing squads, or the electric chair's were outlawed in Wisconsin.

Go get em JPD!

Remember this is the same team of morons who spent weeks attempting to remove a 'virus' and did not have proper backups of certain systems in place.

Disgraceful.

AND.....??

This Brandon is the son of retired principal Susan Masterson...
Nice!

Teachers have to go through all sorts of checks and balances if they want to purchase simple school supplies, but the district can ok a young kid's/new hire's purchase of software/service at $18,000 a month.

Perhaps we will some day know the truth behind all this: Dr. Evert's early retirement, Business manager, Doug Bunton's retirement!

Wonder what would've happened if the new IT guy never got in contact with Avontur, because they had abruptly gone out of business? We are lucky we caught him, this could have easily slipped through the cracks if they'd have done it right. Especially with all the businesses closing all the time right now anyway!

Ya know, with all the levels of administration that we have running the school system a person would like to think we would be on top of these kind of things. It seems that they are about as efficent as the program that distibutes the money for child care in the state. PEOPLE, do your jobs!

He was the son of a building principal. And that principal was in Evert's inner circle, so they could do know wrong! How has no one put 2 and 2 together and get that THIS is why Evert was forced out early? This has been in the works since last spring!

I'm not saying that Keirns isn't at fault (because he most certainly is) but shame on you school distric...how many times does something like this have to happen before you put standards in place? WE'RE the ones that are going to pay for this now...there goes my taxes...again

Now the district is setting up a way to avoid these scams in the future. Seems like the JSD is constantly looking at how to do things differently after they discover employee mistakes or scams. Seems like the JSD needs to start finding ways to be more proactive versus reactive to situations.