Reports trickling in to Miss Fortune indicate that Mark Noss, head of Full Spectrum Management and benefactor of convicted felon Steven Ingersoll, recently issued two emails to Grand Traverse Academy staffers that don't bode well for decent salaries and benefits at the Traverse City charter school.
Noss paid himself a management fee of $850,000 last fiscal year and has contractually locked in that amount for the upcoming school year. An accountant formerly employed by Noss at Full Spectrum sent an email to the Grand Traverse Academy board March 15, 2016, blowing the whistle on a covert two-year pattern of five-figure monthly cash payments from Noss to Steven Ingersoll.
Most recently, Noss has promoted enrollment at the Grand Traverse Academy based on a proposed 29,700 square foot math and science building. Although a ceremonial ground breaking was held in March, and Noss repeatedly promised construction would commence during the summer, his MDN Development never began work on the project.
So here's the thing: I'm very interested in receiving the information contained in those Noss emails.
Here's a way you can send me the information, under complete cover of anonymity: submit an anonymous comment to this story.
Copy and paste the emails in the comment box, and I'll receive your information to moderate and publish.
And I'll never, ever know who sent me the information — even after I publish it!
Here's why you should consider providing the emails: even the Grand Traverse Academy board admits Steven Ingersoll owes the school nearly $2.0 million!
According to a supplemental sentencing briefing filed February 11, 2016 on behalf of Steven Ingersoll by his defense attorney, Jan Geht (poised to join the TCAPS board this fall), the Grand Traverse Academy "has submitted to the Court what appears to be a request for restitution. However, it is likely the oddest request ever received by the Court."
Wait, the “oddest” request ever received?
In the filing, Ingersoll's attorney maintains that the Grand Traverse Academy was not a victim, citing Brad Habermehl's October 21, 2015 sentencing hearing testimony to make his case!
(If Ingersoll held Habermehl any closer, they'd have to share a cigarette!)
"As explained by GTA Board’s President in court, GTA does not believe it is a victim but if the Court disagrees with that belief, GTA would like to be paid."
In the brief, Ingersoll maintains the "GTA does not qualify as a “victim” for two independent reasons.
First, by its own repeated admissions, GTA was not “harmed” by Defendant Ingersoll.
In fact, GTA has continued to thank Defendant Ingersoll unequivocally for keeping the school afloat and takes the position that it is possible that were this matter to be litigated, it may be found liable to SSM for the difference between $2.8 million in foregone legitimate management fees and the remaining $1.6 million in unpaid cumulative rebate.
Even if the Court accepts GTA’s argument that some of the $2.8 million claim would otherwise be barred by the six-year statute of limitations, there is no dispute that Defendant Ingersoll continued to perform services and continued to promise rebates in reliance on GTA’s continued promises to at some point make him whole."
So will someone please explain why then is a virtual wage freeze is necessary if the GTA is not a "victim"?