City Investigating Systemic Shortages in Municipal Court Deposits
An analysis of Municipal Court receipts by the city's auditor showed receipts were short an average of 3 percent.
City officials are investigating what appears to have been a systemic problem of missing money from Municipal Court receipts.
City Auditor Jim Prescott told the City Council Monday night that a review of 146 days of deposits and 123 deposit sheets in the last fiscal year showed 71 of those sheets showed variances and "a large majority were shortages" ranging from $464 to $1.
On average, deposits from Municipal Court from the review period showed a 3 percent error rate.
City Finance Director Robert Strom told the City Council that the same person had been doing deposits during that period of time. He said if the auditors "found out anything that is a variance like that" to "go ahead and pursue them."
Deputy City Solicitor Evan Kirshenbaum soon took over the podium and said the person doing the deposits is "no longer with the city" and could not comment on the matter at this time.
City Council President Anthony Lupino said he was concerned if the city came to find out there were shortages in the Municipal Court deposits and no action was taken.
"If there's an imbalance and we're having the same people make the same deposits, [shouldn't] we try to get someone new to make some of those deposits?" Lupino asked. "What was the definition of insanity?"
Councilman Emilio Navarro was surprised to learn that the court takes cash payments. He originally asked how there could be a disparity if the deposits were in the form of checks.
"We take cash?" he said. "I guess my question was answered."
"They've got a whole box of rubber checks, if you want to look at it," Lupino said.
Municipal Court collects money from parking and traffic tickets and fines paid by people convicted of violating local ordinances.
This is a developing story. More details will be posted soon.
Suzanne Arena
8:53 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
I think we have a right to know what actions are going to take place. Because it was a City worker and the public has a right to know. Only if allegations prove guilty. I wonder why the worker is no longer there...idk.
Joe Jones
10:43 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Smells fishy to me! Funny about many times we the public are not allowed to know because of this that etc...but need $$$ and we the public hear it loud n clear!
I think they need an outsider to llok at that dept. and reveal the truth!
David Lafleche
5:15 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Besides, if you're going to rip off the taxpayers, why not just go for a double-dip "pension" like everyone else?
Joe Richer
8:17 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Under what statute are the names of the involved people being withheld? This is the people's government and there is no right of anonymity for employees doing the people's work.
To the government officials quoted above - by not using the name of the person you suspect is involved...you make this look like a coverup.
Suzanne Arena
10:37 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
ABSOLUTELY Joe!!! I am home today with a sick daughter...will write a letter and follow-up later.
Bustthetrolls
1:57 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
If charges have not been filed why drag someone's name through the mud. What happened to "innocent until proven guity". They're investigating this, of course they're not going to comment. Some of you have the ability to think this through. Their are reasons details aren't released when there is an investigation. That does'nt mean there is corruption.
Bustthetrolls
1:58 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
*There*
Joe Richer
8:29 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
We prevent corruption by doing the people's business in public. Also, police records are a public matter. We know who is has been arrested long before they are tried or appear before the grand jury. We often know WHO is under investigation long before any arrest. Again - the business of the people MUST be done in public. There are, and should be, exceptions for minors and some others.
Indeed - this does not mean there absolutely is corruption...who said it did?
By not speaking openly about details officials make things appear to be corrupt. Why not name names and then add - "this may all be a simple procedural error. We will get to the bottom of it."?