Tim--hate to do this, but I beg to differ! I just posted this under "MichelleB," but I'll repeat it here:

I definitely didn't understand MichelleB as condoning the behavior, nor allowing it to go unheeded. What I saw was someone giving advice on how to handle a VERY delicate situation. Reporting the person once you have all the facts, and have exhausted all other means to get the person to come clean is definitely on one's "to do" list. But to go in with both guns blazing before you know what's there could mean shooting yourself in the foot, to say the least (pun intended by the way). There could be a number of factors that we on the outside are not aware of. Who knows, maybe the "thief" is the victim of an abuser, who takes the money then beats the crap out of the "thief" and threatens worse if they say anything or act as though anything is out of the ordinary. Maybe the "thief", in a VERY misguided move, is protecting an actual thief who took the money for a drug/other problem, and is hoping to fix the problem before they get found out. See what I mean? Mitigating factors are a part of life--they may not be right, but they are understandable. Judge not least ye be judged, and all that.

Sometimes people do stupid things (boy--am I living proof of that! [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). Sometimes the "stupid" thing is malicious and intentionally cruel and deserves a severe punishment. Sometimes "stupid" is just bad judgement, and the wrong-doer needs to see that they'll be forgiven, and the punishment that follows is more sublime.

Whatever the case may be in Bertha's situation, WE don't know all the details, and because of that MichelleB wisely didn't advise to report the situation to the proper authorities, yet. The fallout from a situation like this can be tremendously horrific for EVERYONE involved, and I agree with MichelleB that it's best avoided if at all possible.

Personally I don't think that "sweeping it under the rug" or "keeping it quiet" is why so many groups are being victimized--I think they're being victimized because the people who organize and volunteer for these groups tend to be very generous and kind-hearted people, and as a result, sometimes tend to be more trusting. They assume that others, since they're in the group, think the same way they do. It's an easy mark for the thief. But just because someone is kind and generous DOESN'T mean they are more likely to "keep quiet" when someone is doing them, and worse yet their children, wrong. If anything I feel they are more highly motivated to act.

In the perfect, theoretical world you seem to live in, everything you say IS true, and truth be told, I've lived in that place. But in the real town I live in now, what you're saying is rhetorical at best. This town is known (in these parts) for the political, PUBLIC nastiness that goes on. The police are NOT known for their subtle tactics and professionalism, and in fact, quite the OPPOSITE is true. I would NEVER rely on them for a situation as personal as this unless I HAD to. Situations can get MIGHTY ugly, quickly, and boy, try restoring your good name once all is said and done!! Your innocence doesn't count for much once you've been exonerated.

I DO agree with you, however, that this sort of behavior (stealing from friends and children) is reprehensible, and if proven to be true, should be punished--severely. It's one of the lowest things you can do. Once this type of trust is ruined, gaining it back is next to impossible. Statistically, and sadly so, the person in Bertha's case probably stole from the group, and it's just a matter of time before things are put right. But until you KNOW....

I think it's safe to say that we agree to disagree--and thank goodness--it's what living in America is about!

[ 04-24-2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: kmamom ]

Again, couldn't disagree more.

Going to the police is a long way from "charging". The police will only charge -- and things will only go public -- if there's evidence of a crime.

But the police are the professionals trained in how to uncover if it was a crime. If there is no evidence of such, police won't charge and there won't be any public record/notification.

State PTA doesn't have the authority (it's the local's money 100%) to make charges and doesn't have the real know-how or people trained to investigate embezzlement.

The best way to build trust is to avoid even the appearance of cover-up or insider dealing or sweeping under the rug.

Going to the police does not equal (at all) making a big public splash.

This kind of "sweep it"/keep it quiet thinking is exactly why so many groups are being victimized.

Tim

Protecting the reputation of the group isn't the only thing to consider but also the fact that this person, whatever is happening in her life, has children and those children attend this school and parents talk in front of their children and watch the news, and read the papers and children can be very mean.
Rockne- Yes, it is the kids money but as altruistic as it sounds, if the police find that there has been no wrong doing- Will it be proclaimed as loudly as the accusation is? (In your own article, you reference those that have been charged, not convicted- www.ptotoday.com/1002embezzlement.html will you print a statement on the ones that were acquitted? Would it be a cover story?)If there is wrong doing, then it can be kept under control if people aren't talking about it in the halls and around the water coolers and often times, these things can be handled without having to involve the law. Melloweers idea is fine because they are asking for an escort but you are suggesting file charges and dig for answers later. Also, Bertha has already stated that this person has taken a long time to turn over funds before but they have always eventually gotten them. Plus if the state has gotten involved, they will pursue criminal charges. They won't just sweep it under the rug. But they will keep Joe Gossip and his wife from running around town singing "Thief". Remember the pass it on game? The group will get a reputation. I have seen it happen with two schools here. One, it has been 3 years since the embezzelment, the person was arrested and convicted and all new board members have been in place and parents still say "they can't join a group that steals from their kids"
This does not mean the parent gets away with it by any means. It just means that those around it aren't made to suffer also(this person's children, other family members, and the group)

[ 04-23-2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Michelle B ]

I agree with Rockne here you need to get the police in there ASAP. Don't let this one incident turn into a big fiasco.

Stop it now while you can... your membership and the children deserve the best from the board.

You have reached out to her and given her the opportunity to reply and she didn't.

A week? No way.

I disagree with the MichelleB on the police part of this. This is the kids' money (or money for the kids) that we're talking about. Parent group leaders have a responsibility to zealously protect it.

I think there's a much greater danger of "reputation harm" from any sniff of cover up or clique-ishness (protecting one's own). The police are professionals at this. If this person has done nothing wrong, then the police will know that and your problem will be solved and there will be no public effect. If she is doing or has done something wrong, then time is of the essence and the police are trained at investigating and recovering. You aren't. When spoken about the correct way, parents at your school will understand and appreciate that the problem was with one leader, and it was taken care of quickly and professionally.

If it's theft, then it's the worst kind of theft. Every day that goes by increases the chance that this person will get away with something and you won't get your money back.

I don't see where you even have a choice. It's been two months.

Tim

Yea I'm still up for the cop bit though. I'd go over to her house and if she is not there then leave a note saying you have a week to hand over the money and paperwork or we will contact the State level pta and or the coppers. I think the woman spent the money because what other reason would there be to avoiding it. She don't have that money.