Dan Damon in his Plainfield Today post gives links to previous postings on the issue; Plaintalker posted on 8/18/10,9/5/10 and 9/8/10 including an OPRA report with a copy of the Investors Bank Check of $15,000.00 for Fireworks on July 4th. It is probably as coincidental as is the existence of the tooth fairy that the Mayor's first request from the City Administrator Bibi Taylor was for a $14,000.00 check for WBLS and a $6,000.00 additional check.
What stood out from Taylor's testimony was:
- The Mayors insistence that conversations be held on personal cell phones, not city land line or cell phones.
- Taylor's repeated references to the Mayor's use of expletives in her multiple conversations.
- Taylor in reply to Attorney Rivera's specific questioned stated that she felt threatened by the Mayor.
- The use of funds from the Information Technology & Media account line with out Council approval of transfer to another Administrative line was not according to legal requirements.
- That the Investors Savings Bank Check for $15,000.00 conveniently issued on July 30, 2010 when the Mayor was frantically searching for funds was for July 4th Fireworks and to the Recreation Division. If that money was used for any part of the WBLS payment what was the authority
- Were Purchasing Supervisor Spaulding and Acting CFO Cummings aware that they were participating in a possible irregular transaction? Were they forced to do so or if aware willing accomplices?
- Unanswered in public session was what advice the Corporation Counsel gave to Taylor and the Mayor. This would be the subject of the closed hearings.
The testimony of the three other subpoenaed persons is needed before any decision can be made.
However it appears as of today that there has been in at least one instance improper use of Municipal funds. Should it be determined that there was a concerted effort by multiple individuals to this end is a criminal investigation justified?
Since where there is smoke there may be fire; the Council should demand a forensic audit by the State for at least FY 2010, 2009 as well as at least the first six months of FY 2011. If there are gross irregularities then in should be backdate to include the entire years of the present administration. The City Auditors should be questioned about all unreported irregularities they found.
As much as I support a forensic audit...it would take the City Council well into August 2012 to agree to get one done.
ReplyDeleteI just pray the Mayor takes advantage of the opportunity to be on center stage so we have the weeping and hear her say,
"Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to?
Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street? "
The city undergoes an extensive audit every year. Whether or not the administration and the council insist audit recommendations are adhered to is surely questionable. Nevertheless, the audit is publicly disclosed. A forensic audit would be a waste a time and money Also,it would be perceived as a political hack job.
ReplyDelete5:20pm; Yes there is an annual audit and report which the Council Members certify that they have received it but not necessarily read. The same major faults are repeated yearly and not corrected, including controls and lack of CFO plus sloppy bookkeeping. This audit is dependent on the material supplied and like most annual reports the auditors accompany it was a disclaimer (A CYA if you wish).
ReplyDeleteA forensic audit would be one in complete depth with the veiw of making sure that there was no misappropriation or "maluse" of funds. Iy would also go in to detail on the methodology of awarding contracts and perhaps identifying those that should have been awarded through competitive bidding process or through the loop holes for which NJ is notorious.
It would only be perceived as "a political hack job" by those who may have abused the system.