Who's confused?
My email to Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director - City of Edmonds
Dear Mr. Hines,
Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report.
I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue".
The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report also lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674162, instead of #674159, in the amount of $53,603.44. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which again I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
Now, I will admit, this does seem very odd, but how is a citizen supposed to make heads or tails out of this? Does the City have the ability to issue manual checks with the same check number as a computer generated check? Can two different computer checks be issued with the same check number?
Please explain how two checks, each with the same check number show up as Cleared on the original report you provided. Please also explain what the "isolated software issue" that you refer to is and how it could have only affected the Vendor Master Report.
Complicating matters is the fact that the "Check History Listing" report you subsequently provided lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 for $28,483.76 and invoice # 674162 for $25,705.22 totaling to the amount of $54,188.98. Under "Status", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
So now, I am up to 3 checks, all numbered check number 111583, that City reports appear to indicate have all cleared the bank for 3 different amounts. I am more confused than ever.
Further complicating this is the fact that the May 5, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate:
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18.
While reviewing these approved claim checks, I couldn't help but notice Check number 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 related to invoice # 674159 and invoice # 674162. This really confuses me. Check Number 111413 is not on the "Check History Listing" provided, so I have no way of knowing whether or not this check cleared or was voided? There is a column on the "Check History Listing" for "Clear/Void Date", so a reasonable person would expect this check to be on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated, assuming the check was in fact voided. You claim that Check 111413 was voided. As such, why was it not included on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated? Note the April 30th check #111413 was approved by the City Council on May 5th 2009 and duplicated check issued on May 7, 2009 and approved on May 19th 2009 by the City Council. How do you report voided checks to the City Council so they are aware that a check they have approved was subsequently voided?
There is a similar confusing sequence of transactions in July, 2009. I won't go into all of the details of those transactions. Rather, I'll wait for your detailed explanation during our meeting to discuss all of the above.
Finally, please disclose whether or not the City owes any monies for legal services performed since January 1, 2007 through the current date and are unpaid and outstanding invoices. It is very important that the public have this information.
Thank you for your assistance with these matters.
Finis Tupper
Dear Mr. Hines,
Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report.
I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue".
The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report also lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674162, instead of #674159, in the amount of $53,603.44. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which again I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
Now, I will admit, this does seem very odd, but how is a citizen supposed to make heads or tails out of this? Does the City have the ability to issue manual checks with the same check number as a computer generated check? Can two different computer checks be issued with the same check number?
Please explain how two checks, each with the same check number show up as Cleared on the original report you provided. Please also explain what the "isolated software issue" that you refer to is and how it could have only affected the Vendor Master Report.
Complicating matters is the fact that the "Check History Listing" report you subsequently provided lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 for $28,483.76 and invoice # 674162 for $25,705.22 totaling to the amount of $54,188.98. Under "Status", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
So now, I am up to 3 checks, all numbered check number 111583, that City reports appear to indicate have all cleared the bank for 3 different amounts. I am more confused than ever.
Further complicating this is the fact that the May 5, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate:
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18.
While reviewing these approved claim checks, I couldn't help but notice Check number 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 related to invoice # 674159 and invoice # 674162. This really confuses me. Check Number 111413 is not on the "Check History Listing" provided, so I have no way of knowing whether or not this check cleared or was voided? There is a column on the "Check History Listing" for "Clear/Void Date", so a reasonable person would expect this check to be on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated, assuming the check was in fact voided. You claim that Check 111413 was voided. As such, why was it not included on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated? Note the April 30th check #111413 was approved by the City Council on May 5th 2009 and duplicated check issued on May 7, 2009 and approved on May 19th 2009 by the City Council. How do you report voided checks to the City Council so they are aware that a check they have approved was subsequently voided?
There is a similar confusing sequence of transactions in July, 2009. I won't go into all of the details of those transactions. Rather, I'll wait for your detailed explanation during our meeting to discuss all of the above.
Finally, please disclose whether or not the City owes any monies for legal services performed since January 1, 2007 through the current date and are unpaid and outstanding invoices. It is very important that the public have this information.
Thank you for your assistance with these matters.
Finis Tupper
Comments