DEL MAR — Two Canyon Crest Academy seniors who published an investigative report about their school foundation’s financial practices are standing behind their work despite strong opposition from administrators and foundation leaders.
At the same time, many parents and community members are applauding the students’ efforts and now demanding that the district examine how high school foundations manage their finances.
The 15-page report, titled “Ravens for Transparency,” was written by Kevin Wang and Litong Tian, both 17 years old and members of clubs supported by the Canyon Crest Academy Foundation. Wang is involved in the robotics club, and Tian is involved in speech and debate and several other activities.
The foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports programming at Canyon Crest Academy, located in the affluent Pacific Highlands Ranch area and one of several high schools in the San Dieguito Union High School District.
Wang said that as a business officer for the robotics club, he had access to all the club’s financial statements from the foundation and had long been frustrated with how the foundation appeared to take money from the club without explanation. Over the summer, he decided to investigate it further alongside Tian.
“When I looked at those, it was clear that they were basically ripping us off,” Wang said.
After looking at financial statements, reviewing foundation documents, and speaking with various club coaches and students at CCA and other district schools, the two students published the report on Sept. 8. It immediately spread like wildfire, Wang said.
“Our aim with this report is to increase awareness about the Foundation’s unacceptable practices and pressure the Foundation into making necessary reforms,” the report stated.
The students’ investigation focused on several areas of the foundation’s finances, claiming there is a lack of transparency in reporting where money is allocated, as well as the salaries of foundation leaders.
Financial concerns
The report focused heavily on the salary of former Executive Director Joanna Couvrette, which has been much higher than that of executive directors at other school foundations, and the lack of past IRS salary disclosures for Couvrette and Finance Manager Gina Mahmood.
Both have been involved with CCAF for 12 years, with Couvrette departing the foundation in May for unknown reasons.
According to Form 990s filed by the foundation, Mahmood has not filed a salary disclosure since 2015, and Couvrette did not report her salary from 2015 to 2020. As of May 2024, Couvrette’s salary was over $161,000, and she was listed as the foundation’s only paid employee on the foundation’s Form 990.
In a statement rebutting the report, CCAF claimed the IRS does not require officers, directors or trustees to report their salaries in Form 990 if their annual salary is less than $150,000.
However, federal law requires organizations to file a Form 990 to list all current officers, directors and trustees when reporting executive compensation, regardless of their income.
When asked about this by The Coast News, the foundation sent the following response:
“CCAF relied on the advice of our professional CPA firm who prepared our filings. The CCAF Boards have always been composed of parent volunteers. We hired outside professionals to handle these matters, and it was reasonable to rely on their expertise,” said CCAF Board President Sandra Sincek.
The report also explained that in 2023, the foundation itemized around $674,000 worth of expenditures as “Other Program Expenses” without explaining what this included. The report said “Other Program Expenses” have amounted to over $3.5 million over the past 10 years.
“Miscellaneous expenses relating to the Foundation’s duties should be placed into the other categories for transparency, especially since it totals millions of dollars. Donors should not accept that the Foundation’s largest expense is left completely vague,” the report stated.
Wang and Tian also raised concerns about money being allocated away from clubs to other areas by the foundation.
CCAF donors have the choice between an unrestricted donation to the Raven’s Fund, which supports multiple school programs, or a restricted donation to a specific STEM, athletics or arts program.
With the latter, an individual club or program receives 75% of the direct donation, and the foundation puts 25% into a larger fund for the program’s department (either STEM, athletics or Envision) to fund improvements that benefit all students in the department.
This policy, which CCAF says has been in place since 2006, has been controversial among some parents, who argue that they cannot control where their donation goes. Foundations at other district high schools, including Torrey Pines and San Dieguito Academy, appear to allocate 100% of donations made out to specific programs to only that program.
The report also states that the foundation has taken a percentage of the robotics club’s revenue at the end of every year to cover foundation management expenses. The foundation has access to all student club funds and has not provided an explanation as to how these funds are calculated.
For the Aluminum Narwhal robotics team, the report claims the foundation has taken around $150,000 over the past six years through the 25-75 donation structure and for management overhead expenses, with only $10,000 of the Foundation’s STEM Fund going back to the robotics team for their expenses.
Meanwhile, Couvrette has been the highest-paid executive foundation director in the district, with the next-highest-paid executive director at Torrey Pines making a salary of around $30,000 less in comparison, the report states.
“In summary, it is evident that the Foundation takes significantly more from many school clubs than it invests in them, which explains how it can afford to pay its director a six figure annual salary. As a result of these exorbitant fees, many clubs like the Robotics team have become dependent on Summer Camp programs to fund their operations, as the foundation has relatively less influence over the revenue generated from these camps,” the report states.
In addition, the report noted that clubs often wait months to receive reimbursements from the foundation for club expenses.
Wang and Tian initially published their findings anonymously in order to prevent retaliation. However, this changed after Wang was called into the office of CCA principal Brett Killeen last week.
During that meeting, Wang said Killeen confronted him about the report and accused him of defaming the school. The next day, Wang said Killeen also set up a meeting with his parents to try to get them to convince him to take down the website.
“It seemed very intimidating. He was trying to get us to take it down,” Wang said.
Killeen did not respond to a request for comment.
School, foundation pushback
Days after the report was published and began to draw intense attention from parents and students, the CCA Foundation and Killeen released statements discrediting Wang and Tian’s report.
Killeen called the report “grossly erroneous and misleading” but did not identify specific misinformation in it.
In statements from the foundation last week, they called the report an “attack on CCAF” and criticized the two students for not speaking with them directly about their concerns. They also claimed the report could severely damage the foundation’s ability to garner money for student needs.
“There is an opportunity to learn and grow, but growth will only be possible with accountability, a recognition of the harm caused by the document and website, and a desire to move forward constructively in service of the CCA community with truth and integrity,” the foundation’s statement read.
Wang and Tian said they did reach out anonymously to the foundation with their findings before publishing but did not receive a response. Instead, Killeen responded to the email and told them to come address him in person, they said.
In their rebuttal, the foundation addressed the large amount of funds in “Other Program Expenses,” stating that this covers “rolled up” costs not otherwise allocated to a program with its own line item. This has included facility improvements such as new furniture, flooring and sound systems, as well as spending on camps, clinics, and coach stipends.
The Coast News also asked about the students’ claim that the foundation charges a percentage of clubs’ revenues for management expenses at the end of each year. The foundation stated that management/salary overhead costs are shared between all programs based on the revenue they each bring in.
“For example, the management/salary overhead for a large robotics team is typically between 9-11%,” Sincek said in an email to The Coast News.
When it comes to the 75-25 split for donations, the foundation said it is a gross misrepresentation to describe the 25% contribution to the department funds as a “fee” or being “taken” from clubs.
However, Tian said this has long been the feeling among students involved in clubs funded by the foundation.
“The frustration among the student body was palpable. Someone had to do something,” Tian said.
Since the report’s release, CCAF said they are open to having a new independent audit performed by another firm this year, in addition to the yearly audits done by a different firm for the past eight years, in order to restore community trust.
They also stated that they will form an audit committee to “review and share results” and hold financial open houses in the coming months to provide more information. They also urged parents, students and donors to contact them for more information if they have questions about the foundation’s finances.
Just days after it was published, several parents spoke at the Sept. 12 meeting of the San Dieguito Union High School District Board of Trustees to share their support for the students and thank them for calling for more transparency from the foundation.
“I’m impressed by the students who were brave to ask questions about CCA foundation financials,” said former CCA parent Hong Wu.
Other speakers criticized Killeen for his response to the report.
“Without much investigation, the principal already decided the document is misinformation. He took a student from his class to principal office and made the student scared and withdraw the document and website. I don’t think this action is appropriate,” said Ming Zu. “In fact, many parents have questioned the CCA foundation for several years.”
The report also initially alleged secrecy surrounding Couvrette’s departure from the foundation. However, the students clarified later that the foundation mentioned her departure in its newsletter.
10 comments
As a past president and board member of the CCAF, I believe these students claims have merit and should be investigated.
When I served on the CCAF board, we provided details regarding the shared expenses so donors would know where the money was spent and there certainly was no intention for salaries to be taken out of the shared expenses or from the teams. Those salaries should be paid out of the Ravens Fund, the unrestricted account.
Now, it appears that the shared expenses are shielded from donors and salaries are deducted on TOP of the shared expenses.
Something is awry. If the CCAF has nothing to hide, then they should disclose these expenses. And the fact that they are NOT disclosing anything makes it appear as if there is something to hide.
There is so much money in the bank ($2.4 million), it makes you wonder why CCAF is taking money away from student programs. I think the CCAF has lost sight of its purpose.
I am disappointed with the administration’s reaction to the students investigative report. These students should be praised and not vilified. If nothing else the students brought forth the fact that the executive director was grossly overpaid. The ED recently left the Foundation without explanation; what is the story behind her departure; further explanation and disclosure is required. ‘Audited financial statements’ do not provide the detail of expenditures that most people want and can understand. The Foundation website should include the monthly board directors package including agenda, attachments, financial reports and minutes of meetings; the website should report the annual tax filings, forms 990 and 199 – that’s the Integrity, Governance and Transparency the website speaks of but falls woefully short of.
“And I Would Have Gotten Away With It Too, If It Weren’t For You Meddling Kids” – Joanna Couvrette
The best!
It is critical to note that the so-called “report” these students have published has changed many times in multiple material ways without people being notified. The students are not doing their due diligence before publishing their claims, many of which are still false now, and there were many more that were false when the document and website was broadly communicated. As just some examples of statements in the report that are still false:
– That the Foundation didn’t announce its Executive Director’s departure, which it did in its public newsletter – despite the fact that the students mentioned that later in another place, it is STILL not mentioned in the report document or website page.
– That there was any “misappropriation” of donations
– That the 25% re-allocation of donations is a “fee” when it is, as the article indicates, just a publicly disclosed re-allocation among programs.
As a parent concerned by the accuracy the allegations, I collected a full audit trail of the various versions of the documents, with links so anyone can see for themselves, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FBMP2LZx9E9w8lQuz8wNzfQIA81cYSvfxkcxQb0ARes/edit?usp=drive_link
The Google Doc report was edited at least 13 times (as of Sep 20) from when it was first published and communicated on Sep 8/9 (see activity log files)
IMPORTANT: The original version of the Google Doc published and communicated on Sep 8/9 is what most people saw. There were 15-20 people in the Google Doc simultaneously much of that first day. It was not edited after that until the evening of Sep 10 and then 13 times thereafter (as of Sep 20), however at none of those times was it communicated at all that information had been updated and so the original viewers have had no way of knowing which claims have been revised. Note that there have been only 0-3 people in the Google Doc at any given time recently.
Non-exhaustive list of example changes (just some of many more):
– Initial accusation title called practices “illegal” but was changed to “shady”
– Claim that Executive director was “fired” was changed to “quietly removed”
– Claim of “misconduct” was changed to “questionable conduct”
– Claim of “actually spend on management salaries” was changed to “allegedly spent on management salaries”
– Claim of “wrongdoings committed under Joanne Courvrette” deleted
– Claim of “many incidents of misconduct” changed to “many incidents. Questionable activity”
– Claim of “not publicly reporting salaries in violation of federal law” changed to “not publicly reporting salaries that appears to be a violation of federal law”
– Claim of “However the Foundation uses these donations to pay for excessive salaries” changed to “However the Foundation uses these donations to pay for what appears to be excessive salaries”
– Claim of “The reality is that a significant portion is simply pocketed by the foundation” changed to “the portion of money spent on management fees is beyond the norm compared to all other non-profit Foundations in the district.”
– Claim of “These high salaries are largely made possible by charging on-campus organizations extremely expensive fees.” changed to “These high salaries could be made possible by charging on-campus organizations seemingly outrageous fees.”
Further example of a change in the accusers’ response Google Doc (see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DtatZV98Iz9_h2BwQw0q9niLe9aqnnjZJer5Hg2opV0/edit ) is that there is a note at the bottom that says “Note: we previously included a section regarding the Foundation’s restricted funds. We have since deleted it as we found out the issue we mentioned was actually normal practice.” In other words, they acknowledge that they first published a claim before verifying the relevant facts.
While it is accurate that Torrey Pines does not have a 25% designated fund for Arts, STEM or Athletics, it is not accurate that 100% of donations go to a specific program. There is an approximately 10% administrative fee for all donations and programs. To my knowledge, this is true for all Foundations. Reporting it in the manner it is here is misleading.
Further, do we know how long the students gave the Foundation to reply to their anonymous inquiry? Speaking personally, I don’t know that I would have responded to an anonymous and detailed inquiry such as the students for fear they were trying to entrap me or misrepresent the financials of the organization for which I worked (something that has been attempted in both 2017 and 2022). Ironically, in 2017 it was students on the speech and debate club who vigorously defended CCAF.
Speaking of defending the foundation, where are the interviews of the many students, teachers and parents who support the foundation and it’s decades old 25% practice. Why not interview Board members who started that policy and why they did it? Where’s the accurate and complete reporting on just how much of those “general” funds the robotics team has specifically benefitted from?
As to Mr. Ingraham’s defense of this newspaper’s coverage of SDUHSD’s exploding legal fees – an investigative look at all of the fees over the last four years that are all publicly available via the SDUHSD website and agendized meetings will give you all the information you need. Matter of fact, there are some in our community who have the logs of legal expenses for the last several years that reveals jaw dropping increases. Those legal expenses have been put into charts that were openly shared in the last Board meeting. The creators of those charts and the raw data behind them would be happy to share them with you even if you do not have time to collate the information yourself. Perhaps your reporters were not in the meeting by the time those charts were revealed – it was at the very end.
I also have not seen any kind of investigation or reporting on Michael Allman’s egregious abuses of the PRA system in this District – something that is also publicly available in multiple places, but also available from some of us in the community who have done the investigative work (including teachers and staff of the District because the news media doesn’t seem all that interested when it comes to exposing Michael Allman for just how divisive and destructive he’s been in our District). There is also raw data and charts with this information. Additionally, where is the investigation into how many PRAs have been done by alleged alias’ of Michael Allman and that no one can prove is an actual person? Or the identity of T.Nguyen, the submitter of the gerrymandered map. Where’s the investigation and questioning of that?
And to Ms. Charat’s point about the pool – where is the investigative reporting and research on Prop AA and the re-routing of funding where voters specifically and painstakingly EXCLUDED a pool? Where is the investigative reporting on all of the things pointed out by Trustee Young that are not being built or upgraded including facilities at SDA, Diegueno, Oak Crest and LCC? A huge deal was made of a minor upgrade to LCC’s athletic facilities, but there are many facilities that will not be updated or upgraded or even built because there is now no funding to do that. Matter of fact, one of the facility upgrades now tabled is the TPHS administration building that is 50 years old and still has actual phone booths in it. The SDUHSD Board, despite multiple requests by Trustee Young to do so, did not conduct a comprehensive and transparent facilities workshop prior to the approval of the pool that would have given the community a thorough and balanced look at what they are giving up in order to build the pool. There were no community focus groups to show each area and constituency what it would be giving up for the Torrey Pines pool. The media didn’t look into it either. And again, there are individuals in the community who have all the information needed to expose what is really going on – matter of fact, one of those individuals tirelessly and often all alone, made comments in the Boardroom warning of facilities and deferred maintenance that will not get done because of the pool. Also on the pool note – where’s the investigation into how many facilities require millions of dollars of private fundraising to maintain? Where is the investigation (by students or otherwise) into whether we can actually afford the pool if that fundraising doesn’t come through? What foundation will be tasked with raising that money? The TPHS foundation that serves all of our athletics programs – will they be responsible? Or will there be yet another foundation created that will be subjected to scrutiny and claims of mismanagement? And, where’s the investigation into the fact that the chair of the SDUHSD pool committee is actually Michael Allman’s campaign treasurer? Where’s the questioning that the timing of the pool groundbreaking right at 2024 election time with the chair of that committee serving as the treasurer of a politician who has already used video clips from the groundbreaking in campaign ads? Where’s the questioning of not disclosing that relationship to the community?
Mr. Ingram, I appreciate your defense of reporting on one very significant and egregious area of mismanagement by SDUHSD (Special Education), but it is not accurate for you to claim that you have done a thorough job of reporting (or even trying to report) on all of the things happening behind the curtain of SDUHSD. It has been left to teachers, staff and private citizens to do so, and we have had little help or support from you or the Coast News in those efforts.
I applaud these students for spending months investigating the foundation, but when their investigation did not include spending hours with foundation staff and the principal discussing their allegations and claims, and their initial document didn’t include any “balanced” reporting of the Foundation explanations, but was instead a complete blindside where there has not even been an interview with the accounting professional upon which the Foundation relied for its salary reporting, that is not an investigation, that is taking recycled and previously explained and refuted information and using it to irresponsibly and irreparably harm a well respected administrator, a successful foundation and its volunteers and staff. And to what end? So that CCAF and every other foundation or fundraising effort in this District (including for the pool) can’t move forward? I still just don’t see what the purpose was here – in an already divisive election year.
I thank the students for getting the media attention they did, at least it has opened up the conversation. I just hope it does not destroy our Foundations or community in the aftermath.
Out of curiosity, why doesn’t this article mention or quote the parents who publicly supported CCAF during the board meeting?
And why doesn’t this article mention that student sentiment on campus is very opposed to the defamation and libel in the anonymously published piece?
Lastly, when is Coast News going to report on the soaring legal expenses at SDUHSD, including the $85k per month it spends on managing the district’s PRA requests? That seems far more concerning than itemizing new furniture, campus improvements, lab equipment and more at one school—none of which is funded by the district, which has more than doubled its legal expenses since the 2020 election and now has to redirect funds to pay for a $21m pool plus yearly management.
When will Coast News work on these concerns?
Thanks for your question. We have covered this matter fairly extensively and recently. Please check out our latest article published just last month on the district’s legal expenses in special ed litigation: https://thecoastnews.com/san-dieguito-under-scrutiny-for-special-ed-litigation-spending/
We also covered the case of SDUHSD fighting a Del Mar mother and her special needs child in court, highlighting the district’s tendency toward litigation with parents: https://thecoastnews.com/sduhsd-ends-lengthy-legal-battle-against-del-mar-family/
Despite several requests, the school district has refused to supply a full accounting of its litigation expenses. We will continue to probe this matter and report our findings.
Regarding the students’ investigation, are you suggesting the story was unbalanced? In case you missed it, the story features the foundation’s strong and exhaustive rebuttal to each allegation in the report. I’d encourage you to read the story for those responses. If you are looking for more student/staff reactions to the report, we will continue to follow the story and hopefully, we can get some more of those voices in our future reporting.
Thanks again for your comments.
Thank you for your reply. I actually asked more than one question.
I have read your articles, including this one, which I commented on. I don’t comment on something without reading it. So I asked multiple questions.
If you are having difficulty getting the district to provide comprehensive information, does that suggest a problem to you? It does to me.
But you could find the answers to the questions about legal expenses in the board agendas and packets. I will email you some findings that are publicly available and originate with the 2020 election. They are shocking, much like the way district chose to handle the Ogawa case.
And yes I am suggesting your article is unbalanced. You use terms like “appears to” and “pushback” about CCAF’s response. You have elected to include language that undercuts the responses and suggests that the Foundation is “ripping off” students.
The Foundation is run by a board of parent volunteers who have worked to build an amazing school site with incredible facilities and opportunities for students.
You have quoted some parents and students who are determined to tear down the CCAF, much like the recent extremist CFER newsletter has instructed, featuring the misinformation about CCAF and saying, “The prospects for success can seem dim at times, especially in places like California. But we must bear in mind that the progressive orthodoxy spent at least four decades in meticulously hijacking the institutions, gaining power and influence. It will take a long time for us to reclaim the lost battlegrounds and institute meaningful redress for the problems of dumbing down and indoctrination…. If we follow the money trail and organize to champion the cause, more parents, taxpayers and community members will be united and energized to fight in the local school district.” CFER claims to be a foundation. They are local. The address is Box 26935, San Diego, CA 92196. When will you study their finances and how they spend their money?
You have not quoted parents and students who prize and value the CCAF for the reputable and effective organization it is.
And you got some of your facts dead wrong about other school foundations too.
Bottom line is you and your reporter lack a comprehensive understanding about how fundraising works on each of our SDUHSD campuses, and you have taken a sensationalized, libelous, defamatory Google doc which was circulated, not “published” as you have stated (which is also wrong), and you have contributed to the attempted destruction of an organization that has helped tens of thousands of local students.
Yes, your article is unbalanced. Thank you for continuing to follow this issue by talking to students, parents, teachers, and staff who will provide counterpoints to what you have written. You have left them out of your piece above.
Thanks again.
We disagree but respect your viewpoint. Thanks for your thoughts.