Balanced Nutrition: Where it all currently stands

We’ve been talking about Mark Robinson, Yolanda Hill, and Balanced Nutrition for a long, long time.  The story includes the strong possibility of mishandling large sums of tax dollars.  The kind of stuff that used to derail professional and political careers.

The Raleigh drive-by media has been mostly uninterested.  They’ve been fixated on a website called Nude Africa and stuff Mark Robinson might have posted on it which might have offended friends of the drive-bys who are members of certain preferred, protected demographics.

There are also questions out there about: (1) who paid the $30K per week bill for the Robinsons’ Virginia Beach getaway, (2) whether Balanced Nutrition improperly received federal paycheck protection loans, and (3) whether the Robinsons paid all the taxes they and / or Balanced Nutrition have owed.   *I guess we’re going to have to wait until the drive-bys spot a shiny object that distracts them from Nude Africa.*

The last time we saw official action on Balanced Nutrition was September 16 when Yolanda Hill showed up at DHHS offices with her lawyers to partake in a something called an “informal conference”.  The purpose of the conference was for Hill and her team to respond to the July letter from DHHS alleging some problems with Balanced Nutrition’s finances and assessing a $132,000-plus penalty against Hill and her team.

Neither the public nor the media were allowed in the September meeting.  Hill’s lawyers submitted some documents to DHHS officials.  Those same DHHS officials tell us they will issue a written summary of the meeting’s events – including some of their findings resulting from the meeting – once they’ve carefully reviewed the submissions from Hill and her attorneys.

It’s been nearly a month since that meeting.  Some are suggesting a run-out-the-clock strategy is in place.  We might hear something new on Balanced Nutrition after the election.  There are apparently concerns about the matter interfering with the November 5th election.  (Remember, this current  interaction with DHHS has been dragging along since the first week of April.)

We did get a copy of the nine-page submission from Yolanda Hill’s lawyers to DHHS officials. Here is the full document, and what follows are some highlighted portions of the linked document:

 […] We are writing in response to your letter dated July 26, 2024, notifying Balanced Nutrition, Inc. (“BN”) that NCDHHS (the “Agency”) has concluded the compliance review process for 2024. Your letter summarizes a number of disallowances associated with the findings from the FFY 2023-2024 Compliance Review that was conducted earlier in 2024. You also sent a July 24, 2024 Notice of Serious Deficiency to BN (the “Deficiency Notice”).

NCDHHS professes “equity” as an animating principle, meaning “consistent, fair, and just treatment and outcomes for all persons in the workplace at personal, interpersonal, cultural, and systemic levels.” NCDHHS, Health Equity Portfolio Common Terms, https://www.ncdhhs.gov/about/strategic-goals/health-equity-portfolio/health-equity-portfolio-common-terms. The Agency’s treatment of BN to date has been anything but consistent, fair, or just.

To a startling extent, the findings presented by the Agency that allegedly support the disallowances and deficiencies issued against our client are meritless. Copious documentation is available, and has already been provided to the Agency, to rebut the claims made against BN. Our client has waited for months for the Agency to explain why the documents BN has already provided are insufficient to address the Agency’s concern to no avail. As we detail below, many of the alleged issues should be resolved from a straightforward review of these materials, which your inspectors had access to and should have reviewed during their audit.

BN is prepared to address DHHS on the merits of the “reviews” our client has labored under. Regardless, we are also very concerned that the Agency targeted BN because it is operated by the wife of Lt. Governor Mark Robinson. The egregious behavior of a CACFP consultant who was permitted to lead the 2023 Compliance Review of BN is but one example of the Agency’s bias and the impact of such bias on BN’s treatment.

The Agency’s treatment and “review” departed drastically from its past reviews of our client immediately after the Agency’s staff person “discovered” our client’s connection to Lt. Gov. Robinson. With this political connection in mind, the Agency applied different weights and measures to BN that it  has or did to any other CACFP sponsoring institution. This was no accident. Finally, the Agency has failed to timely respond to our client’s public records requests made months ago, but at the same time has distributed its accusations against our client to the press in real time.

[…] 2023 Review

At the end of 2022, Ms. Hill learned that BN had been scheduled for another review in February 2023, set to occur less than twenty-four months since the 2021 review. The Lead Consultant scheduled for this review was Joyce Bonner, a consultant who had not previously reviewed BN. Ms. Hill emailed Mercedes Sanders, Program Supervisor, to state that their review had originally been scheduled for the following year, in accordance with the policy for sponsoring organizations of their size. (Bonner Folder, pp.538-540). When inquiring with the past and current consultants regarding this schedule, Ms. Sanders noted that “this institution is listed as one with more than 100 facilities therefore are on a 2-year review schedule.” Id. This information was incorrect, as BN never had more than 100 facilities. Despite that fact, Ms. Bonner opined that they should just leave BN on the schedule “since they are already on our list,” and Ms. Sanders decided to allow that. Id.

Ms. Hill prepared for the review as she typically did, but this review did not follow the same pattern as previous CACFP reviews. In response to the notice of CACFP Compliance Review, she sent an email on January 12, 2023, to Ms. Bonner requesting a desk review because she had concerns about the increase in COVID-19 numbers and the potential risk, as Ms. Hill was the primary caretaker of her high-risk mother. In her response, Ms. Bonner addressed her as Ms. Robinson, which was unusual to Ms. Hill, who operated the charity under her legal name of Yolanda Hill. […]

Apparently — according to Hill’s team — workplace relations got a wee bit ugly:

[…] During the facility-visits portion of the review, Ms. Bonner and a colleague, Sherri Piurowski, each visited and reviewed about the same number of the sampling of providers’ facilities, prior to the in-person meetings at BN held the final week of February 2023. As had occurred in prior reviews with the other consultants, Ms. Piurowski spent her time on-site at BN interacting with Ms. Hill, requesting documents if she could not find them, and asking for clarification on various matters. Ms. Bonner did not interact with Ms. Hill during her time on-site; she simply requested the relevant notebooks for independent review. Compared to those presented by Ms. Piurowski, Ms. Bonner reported a vastly disproportionate number of findings, many of which Ms. Hill believed were either incorrect or inconsistent with the typical standard of reviews conducted by CACFP. In fact, Ms. Piurowski even commented to Ms. Hill that many of Ms. Bonner’s findings would not hold up in court.

As had occurred with prior reviews, both during and after the actual meeting, Ms. Hill followed up by providing requested documentation to the consultants. (See, e.g., February 21 & 23, 2023 emails from Ms. Hill to Ms. Piurowski, Piurowski Folder, pp. 599-609). For example, during the meeting on February 23, Ms. Piurowski asked Ms. Hill to provide a timesheet to document her payroll hours. When Ms. Hill explained that she did not have one because she was a salaried employee, Ms. Piurowski instructed her to fill out a timesheet showing 173.33 hours per month (though Ms. Hill generally worked more than that). Ms. Hill submitted that timesheet, a “Payroll Hours Calculation,” to Ms. Piurowski at her request.

Later, an email exchange between Ms. Bonner and Glynnis Acklin-Newkirk, a CACFP Finance and Business Compliance Analyst, on March 8, 2023, documented the clear disdain and disrespect Ms. Bonner and some of her colleagues had for Ms. Hill, as well as their unprofessionalism.Ms. Bonner forwarded that timesheet to Ms. Acklin-Newkirk, indicating that the timesheet was not signed and dated, so it should be disallowed. Ms. Acklin-Newkirk responded, “Denied!!!”

Ms. Bonner affirmed, “Exactly,” and then Ms. Acklin-Newkirk followed up with, “And what kind of timesheet is that anyway? A HOT Mess!!!” Ms. Bonner replied, “One she made up herself because she did not have one…”

Ms. Acklin-Newkirk then instructed Ms. Bonner to pull the regulation, “go through that before you even tell her that it is disallowed. God don’t like ugly!!!” Ms. Bonner confirmed, “You know I will.” […]

We also got a copy of Yolanda and her attorneys’ responses to DHHS’s findings from the review of Balanced Nutrition.  Click Here to read that document.