Records show Barre officials were warned of problems with tax collector
"The town then hired Powers & Sullivan, who performed an investigative audit."
BARRE – Public records obtained by the Telegram & Gazette
reveal that selectmen were warned repeatedly for years about problematic
financial management before former Tax Collector Marcia Langelier was indicted in 2013 on embezzlement charges.
The newspaper obtained town audits completed by an independent accounting firm from the state Department of Revenue.
Ms. Langelier is charged with stealing $300,000, which prosecutors
say sustained an expensive gambling habit at Connecticut casinos. Her
case is pending in Worcester Superior Court.
The annual audits told selectmen that overdue property taxes were not being collected.
They described cash reconciliation performed once a year instead of monthly, saying, “the Collector’s deposits do not always reconcile to the total amount turned over to the Treasurer.”
The documents reveal no system was in place for the board or town administrator to periodically check her work, and recommendations to implement a system of periodic internal audits were, at the time, not followed.
“This has resulted in numerous unresolved variances,” auditors warned the town after completing the fiscal 2008 audit. That “can result in errors or irregularities occurring and going undetected.”
The same warnings were issued by an independent auditor, Melanson Heath & Co., the next year.
And again in fiscal 2010, when Melanson Heath stated: “The Town has not placed tax liens on any delinquent accounts in many years.”
The firm said, “we recommend the Town place liens on delinquent tax
receivable accounts in a prompt and regular manner,” and that “the Town
consider eliminating the Collector’s bank account and require daily
deposit of funds.”
Around that time, a corrective movement would begin, when town officials expressed alarm at $1.2 million in uncollected taxes; and the state Department of Revenue urged a change, which was adopted, making the tax collector an appointed position. Mrs. Langelier had been an elected official.
The town then hired Powers & Sullivan, who performed an investigative audit.
Results from the company’s forensic audit are being used by the Worcester district attorney to prosecute Ms. Langelier.
Requests by the Telegram & Gazette to the town, the district attorney and the state Department of Revenue for a copy of that document have been rebuffed.
“'Regarding your request for ‘any forensic audits ... related to the town of Barre,’ " the DOR said in response to a Telegram & Gazette public records request, the agency said it was “in contact with the Worcester District Attorney’s Office and determined that the document you have requested - Barre Forensic Audit - is exempt from disclosure."
The DOR said that is “because it relates to a criminal investigation by the Worcester district attorney and Barre Police Department. Those investigatory agencies have determined disclosure would compromise the investigation given that to the best of our knowledge, as of today, they continue to withhold the document from public disclosure.”
However, the DOR last week did provide the newspaper with Barre’s
annual audits from fiscal 2008 to the fiscal 2014 review that was
completed in September.
Town officials had previously refused to provide the audits, telling the newspaper a year ago the “FY 2005-2012 Audits ... are still being withheld pursuant to" the investigatory exemption, and said the state keeper of public records agreed with them.
“These audits encompass the period of time the investigation relates to,” Barre Town Administrator Heather Lemieux wrote on Jan. 29. “This is still being treated as an ongoing investigation.” She also said, in response to that request, that the forensic audit was not a public record.
Ms. Langelier resigned in 2011. Her next appearance in her court case is scheduled for Jan. 22; the trial has not begun.
The Powers & Sullivan audits show progress has been made, internal controls are taking hold and the new collector has made great strides collecting delinquent taxes, but that bumps in the road remain.
Among them, the newer audits show, were payments a former accountant made to the wrong vendors in fiscal 2013. Submitting required DOR reports more than a year late – resulting in a temporary suspension of state aid, and the need to clearly delineate money involving the town’s public sewer system, that is operated via an enterprise fund.[ Sound familiar]
The most recent audit recommended “assurance that the general fund is not subsidizing the operations of the enterprise funds, and that the Town has a documented policy that can be used to balance future budgets. If the Town does wish to subsidize the operations of the water and/or sewer enterprise funds, then this allocation schedule should also quantify and document the corresponding subsidy.”
The newspaper obtained town audits completed by an independent accounting firm from the state Department of Revenue.
The annual audits told selectmen that overdue property taxes were not being collected.
They described cash reconciliation performed once a year instead of monthly, saying, “the Collector’s deposits do not always reconcile to the total amount turned over to the Treasurer.”
The documents reveal no system was in place for the board or town administrator to periodically check her work, and recommendations to implement a system of periodic internal audits were, at the time, not followed.
“This has resulted in numerous unresolved variances,” auditors warned the town after completing the fiscal 2008 audit. That “can result in errors or irregularities occurring and going undetected.”
The same warnings were issued by an independent auditor, Melanson Heath & Co., the next year.
And again in fiscal 2010, when Melanson Heath stated: “The Town has not placed tax liens on any delinquent accounts in many years.”
Around that time, a corrective movement would begin, when town officials expressed alarm at $1.2 million in uncollected taxes; and the state Department of Revenue urged a change, which was adopted, making the tax collector an appointed position. Mrs. Langelier had been an elected official.
The town then hired Powers & Sullivan, who performed an investigative audit.
Results from the company’s forensic audit are being used by the Worcester district attorney to prosecute Ms. Langelier.
Requests by the Telegram & Gazette to the town, the district attorney and the state Department of Revenue for a copy of that document have been rebuffed.
“'Regarding your request for ‘any forensic audits ... related to the town of Barre,’ " the DOR said in response to a Telegram & Gazette public records request, the agency said it was “in contact with the Worcester District Attorney’s Office and determined that the document you have requested - Barre Forensic Audit - is exempt from disclosure."
The DOR said that is “because it relates to a criminal investigation by the Worcester district attorney and Barre Police Department. Those investigatory agencies have determined disclosure would compromise the investigation given that to the best of our knowledge, as of today, they continue to withhold the document from public disclosure.”
Town officials had previously refused to provide the audits, telling the newspaper a year ago the “FY 2005-2012 Audits ... are still being withheld pursuant to" the investigatory exemption, and said the state keeper of public records agreed with them.
“These audits encompass the period of time the investigation relates to,” Barre Town Administrator Heather Lemieux wrote on Jan. 29. “This is still being treated as an ongoing investigation.” She also said, in response to that request, that the forensic audit was not a public record.
Ms. Langelier resigned in 2011. Her next appearance in her court case is scheduled for Jan. 22; the trial has not begun.
The Powers & Sullivan audits show progress has been made, internal controls are taking hold and the new collector has made great strides collecting delinquent taxes, but that bumps in the road remain.
Among them, the newer audits show, were payments a former accountant made to the wrong vendors in fiscal 2013. Submitting required DOR reports more than a year late – resulting in a temporary suspension of state aid, and the need to clearly delineate money involving the town’s public sewer system, that is operated via an enterprise fund.[ Sound familiar]
The most recent audit recommended “assurance that the general fund is not subsidizing the operations of the enterprise funds, and that the Town has a documented policy that can be used to balance future budgets. If the Town does wish to subsidize the operations of the water and/or sewer enterprise funds, then this allocation schedule should also quantify and document the corresponding subsidy.”
http://www.telegram.com/article/20160118/news/160119182
No comments:
Post a Comment