No kidding.
First, we have to assume that the contractor was pretty iffy to begin with
since he had to have known he wasn't supposed to be paid the extra $400K,
but cashed the check and spent the money anyway.
Second, there are supposed to be checks and balances in place, and one
would expect that kind of thing to already be implemented in any city even
the size of Montpelier well before 2000, let alone 2005.
Third, if the city is paying auditors I think they should ask for their
money back, since a $400K overpayment should have been a pretty glaring
thing that any auditor worth their salary should have caught.
And I have to assume the city didn't exactly push any of their options
before, since I would have thought a municipality would have at least some
weight in getting some pro-rated money for their mortgage on his NH
property, and in being repayed from the auctioning of his business.
I suspect they kept it quiet and didn't push for anything because either
they had "slipped" him the money, or they slipped up and wanted to cover
their own butts for the huge mistake. Either way, this sort of behavior
from the mayor and council should be completely unacceptable to all
Montpelier residents.
--On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 01:33:18 PM -0400 David Hardy
<[email protected]> wrote:
The city council here and the mayor need to be throughly investigated.
Not
the first time the council has pulled shenanigans like this. And how do we
know if the minutes are accurate, let alone the annual report? These
people, at this level, and, of course, higher and much higher levels, just
do whatever the hell they want and are apparently unaccountable to anyone
for our tax dollars.
I think we'll slide by that meeting tomorrow night.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Stanley Brinkerhoff
<[email protected]>wrote:
> All,
>
> I know this list has members in the Montpelier/surrounding areas.
Incase
> you missed the articles -- apparently Montpelier overpayed a contractor
in
> ~2005 to the tune of $400,000. It wasn't noticed until ~2006, and the
city
> council, nor the mayor have been entirely forthright about its
occurrence.
> They do cite that they their legal requirements by putting it in their
> counsel minutes (only available on paper via request) and in the "annual
> report". They also note repayment was ongoing from the vendor who was
> over-payed, which made them feel as though the "issue was resolved".
>
> *Appropriate links*
>
>
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091010/NEWS/910109998/
> http://www.montpelier-vt.org/story/241.html
>
> *City Council* meets this Wednesday to review the situation "publically"
> http://www.montpelier-vt.org/community/313.html
>
> Stan
>
