There was a comment about my post on November 19th

Budget Workshop “We’ve got to find that money. Where’s it going, out the door?”

1 COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...

Nice work Jim - What a mess. Right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Cavalier attitude about 'we'll get to it later' by the City yet the taxpayers are the ones who are getting screwed. Just amazing the amount of apathy in this town.

NOVEMBER 21, 2010 2:53 AM 

POST A COMMENT

This is a new Coatesville City Council. I believe that any possible “cavalier attitude” among the city staff is left over from the “Bloc of Four” council.  This new city council called for a forensic audit of the city’s finances:

A resolution to allow the Chester County District Attorney’s office in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to immediately conduct a forensic audit of the City of Coatesville’s finance and reality transactions for the purpose of determining evidence of obstruction of justice, misdirection of funds, willful negligence and actions of criminal intent by the city administration and or council." Coatesville City Council Vice President Karl Marking at the January 4, 2010 reorganization meeting of the Coatesville City Council

The missing $162,000 figure allegedly shows up in both the forensic audit and the audit of the 2008 Budget that Thornton Barbacane will present on Monday evening.

Below is a part of the discussion at the Budget Workshop of Thursday November 18, 2010:

Mr. Simpson, “I guess my point is that if you’re not reconciling and it’s matching every day there’s obviously an opportunity for that money to just disappear. And with what you’ve provided, the information that you’ve provided to the press last week, I’d be one of the first places that I would look. And I’d try to get it settled and get to where… You went to the press and said there’s $160,000 that you think is missing somewhere.”

Ms. Bjorhus, “Well that was in the audit.”

Mr. Simpson, “So if the audit says there’s $160,000 and we don’t know where it’s at. And now you have an opportunity where these two aren’t matching. I would start there and say, well let’s get this fixed first. Because the longer we go the more opportunity there is for someone to abuse the system."

At the Coatesville City Council meeting of March 22, 2010 there was a discussion and vote for Action Item number 5. Receive and consider changes for installation and monthly charges for Vector Security Contract. 
At the time of the March 22^nd meeting the safe combination in the Finance Department had not been changed for 13 years.

You can listen to selected portions of the discussion of the Vector Security Contract here:

A transcription of the recording is here: 

Ms. Oxendine, “The one with the safe we put in a new pad."

Ms. Bjorhus “A new punch pad?"

Ms. Oxendine, “Right”

Ms. Bjorhus, “So is that swipe also?”

Ms. Oxendine, “No, you still have to punch numbers into the pad.”

Mr. Marking, ”One of the things that we were originally trying to alleviate was that very issue because you could give codes very easily to people and you can’t control or record accurately whose card accessed that. So I have concerns about that."

Mr. Simpson, “I thought we were going to have the card swipe on the safe.”

Mr. Oxendine, “Well with the pad you still have to put a number in the pad but you also have to have a combination to the safe. So it’s two. You have to have both to get in."

Mr. Simpson, “Again, like Mr. Marking had said; for somebody, it’s very easy to give somebody else, well here’s my code and we don’t know. Well, whereas if you have the swipe and your contact is the swipe then we know who was in there."

Ms. Bjorhus, “Everyone has Id punch pad. Everyone has their own punch pad code to get into the save.  I have mine."

Mr. Marking, “Yes, but…but if you gave your card to somebody and you say you gave your card to somebody you’re fired."

Ms, Bjorhus, “But if by punching 1234 to get in and there’s a problem then Vector is going to say it was, you know it’s the same thing whether it’s a still individually coded it’s still.”

Mr. Marking, “But you have a problem with the controls that are in those punch numbers and cards; if you give your card to somebody, we were agreeing that the updated policy such that if it’s your card then you’re on the hook for that. A pin number whether it’s six digits or whatever we also I thought realized that they could not be controlled tightly as we could."

Later in the discussion Mr. Marking said, “As the motion stands…I’m really familiar with this particular project. I’m OK with all of this, with this particular project. I’m OK with it as it is. I have concerns with the safe because it’s not quite up to speed the way we are.  I understand about you need the card to get into the Finance Department. The fact that the safe combination hasn’t been changed for 13 years is a concern. I think we have room for improvement.  I would personally feel confident in continuing as it is; do the tour and then switching. We kind of have a hole right now."


The entire Vector Security Action Item discussion is here: