The Lehighton Area School District was harshly criticized in an audit performed by the state's Department of the Auditor General.

The audit claims the district was paying a retired superintendent his full-time salary plus benefits for three months for consultant services it might not have even received.That superintendent "did not attend any meetings involving personnel, on-going contract negotiations, or building and grounds, and had no dealings with the district's daily operations," during that period, the audit says.It also states, "From April 1, 2012 to July 1, 2012, when the board appointed a permanent superintendent, the agreement cost the district $46,490.During this three-month period, it paid the consultant $16,650 in wages and mileage to manage the district's daily operations and it continued to pay the former superintendent $29,840 in full-time salary and benefits to act as a district advisor.""These monies would have been better spent in the district's classrooms," said the audit.Although his name isn't mentioned in the audit, the retired superintendent the report makes reference to is James A. Kraky of New Tripoli.Consultant hiredThe audit says that not only did the arrangement have the district pay for services it didn't receive, it also violated the Public School Employees' Retirement System's regulations during that three-month period.That's because the district continued to report Kraky's wages as a full-time employee, when he was working less than half-time, according to the audit.The period covered by the audit was Jan. 29, 2010 to March 5, 2013.On Feb. 27, 2012, the board entered into an agreement with Kraky that his last regular working day would be March 30, 2012.At that meeting, the board hired longtime LASD teacher and administrator Dr. Terence Maher as a consultant to manage the school district in the transition following Kraky's retirement, beginning April 1.The board said at that meeting that Maher would become acting superintendent on July 1, and Kraky's last date as an employee would be June 30.A memorandum of understanding with Kraky stated that during that three-month period, Kraky would "remain as an employee with full benefits of the district and work from home to finish his duties with the district, including using all remaining vacation and personal days," the audit said.It added that he should not be required to be physically present in the district during the period unless specifically requested by Maher, who was handling day-to-day affairs.Maher was expected to work a maximum of 12 days per month while a consultant.No transparencyThe audit says the district's description Kraky's duties "suggest that he was working less than full-time and perhaps even less than part-time."However, the district continued to pay him as a full-time employee and continued to report his wages to the Public School Retirement System's as though he were still a full-time employee," the audit says.Only employees who work five hours or more a day, five days a week or its equivalent, can be considered full-time under the retirement system's rules.The board "failed to make its reasoning for this arrangement transparent to the public," according to the audit."Likewise, the board should have publicly justified why it continued to pay the former superintendent a full-time salary and benefits when it curtailed his duties significantly. The board should also have documented its reasoning in the board meeting minutes."District responseThe district provided a response to the auditor, stating that it hired the Pennsylvania School Board Association to conduct a superintendent search.The district was advised that such a search could take months, with the possibility a superintendent would not be located "until possibly the end of the year and might cause difficulty concerning the proposed district-wide building program," the district said.The board admits that, in hindsight, hiring a consultant "was unnecessary as a superintendent was found quicker than advised by the PSBA."The district defended Kraky."The former superintendent fulfilled all his duties as required under his contract and state law and was accessible to the district via telephone, email, and when necessary in person for the last three months of his contract as he used up accrued vacation and personal days."The auditor concludes, "While we can appreciate the challenges created by the district's need to transition between two superintendents, such a shift in leadership should not require the district's taxpayers to pay two individuals for the same position."Furthermore, the district's taxpayers should not be expected to pay an employee a full-time salary for less than full-time work."Kraky took 18 vacation days and two personal days during the three-month period, according to the audit.Civil suit filedIn a matter not related to the audit, on Jan. 14, 2013, Kraky filed a civil suit in Carbon County Court, claiming the district underpaid him for sick days he was due and owed after his employment ended.Kraky alleges in the suit that he is owed an additional $14,539.50, and "any and all other relief this court deems warranted and just."A call to school board attorney William Schwab was not returned in time for today's publication.