OpenCdA’s post on January 16, 2015, told readers how easily an employee of the city of Pasadena, CA, was able to allegedly embezzle about $5 million from the city. We commented that a public entity’s supervisor(s) have a duty to competently and diligently administer their departments and supervise their subordinates so that kind of criminal activity can not occur.
In its article headlined Pasadena fires two ranking administrators amid embezzlement case, today’s Los Angeles Times is reporting that as a result of the arrest of former Pasadena employee Danny Wooten for allegedly masterminding the embezzlement, the city has fired Pasadena Finance Department Director Andrew Green and Public Works Department Director Siobhan Foster. The city’s spokesflack confirmed the firings were related to the alleged embezzlement.
It’s apparent that the city of Pasadena, CA, understands that when an employee has allegedly been able to carry on an embezzlement over a period of several years, the employer must look at the diligence and quality of supervision of the employee and administration and auditing of financial programs.
OpenCdA wishes Coeur d’Alene’s mayor and council had responded similarly after city Finance Department employee Sheryl Carroll was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to 40 months in federal prison in 2013. But as we’ve noticed in Coeur d’Alene, looking the other way is often easier and more politically expedient that acting responsibly and appropriately.
Was that laziness on the city’s part or was it they did not want the citizens to know there was a problem.
Many years ago a employee of the realtor association put their hand in the cookie jar. The
person in charge did not want to charge because of public opinion. (wonder if that is the case)
Comment by Sharon Culbreth — January 21, 2015 @ 9:45 am
Sharon,
You didn’t say which city (Pasadena or CdA), but in both I suspect it was a combination of incompetence, too much trust without independent verification, and employees who recognized how easily they could steal and then were dishonest enough to do it. Honest elected officials reveal what happened, but dishonest ones try to conceal it.
Comment by Bill — January 21, 2015 @ 11:15 am
One of the problems smaller communities have is that that nepotism and cronyism is alive and well. They vote for their neighbors, friends, or religious associates without considering their qualifications. Then, when elected, these very people hire support staff without fully researching their background because they are a neighbor, friend, or religious associate.
The excuses are made that “we didn’t even know there was an Idaho Code of which to abide by”. The city attorneys, again, appointed because they are a neighbor, friend, or religious associate, don’t take their position seriously or just don’t care.
Attempted recalls don’t work for the very same reasons; basically fear of reprisal and alienation.
It is time that citizens of our small communities stop making excuses for their comrades and demand them accountable, only then will this amateur behavior and incompetence end.
Comment by LucyA — January 21, 2015 @ 1:55 pm
LucyA,
Thank you for registering and for putting up such an informative first comment.
You’ve made some very good points.
Smaller communities often have difficulty getting candidates to run for local government and school district offices. In most instances I suspect those who do run start out fully intending to do the best they can for their community. Unfortunately, those who are well-intended do not necessarily have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform them at the level the law requires. Smaller communities are not exempt from state and federal laws and regulations, so an elected official may quickly learn that one who occupies what may have appeared to be a ceremonial position is not exempt from a duty to fully comply with all applicable laws and regulations. That obligation to comply with laws and regulations exists regardless and in spite of the officeholder’s personal beliefs.
Your comment about the jurisdiction’s legal counsel is very important. Some attorneys are very diligent and make every effort to educate their clients about their duties and responsibilities. Other attorneys are less diligent, and they poorly represent their municipal clients by assuming the clients know what to ask. Any citizen who believes he can substantiate a complaint that a city attorney is not performing his duties diligently and in accord with the Idaho Bar Commission of Professional Conduct can formally lodge a complaint with the Idaho State Bar.
Fear of reprisal and retaliation are, unfortunately, valid reasons for not initiating recalls and seeking other formal remedies. That’s a sad statement, but we are in Kootenai County, Idaho, where there is little fear of prosecution and conviction by those who are willing to resort to social, political, and economic intimidation and retaliation. Part of the problem is that our local skews media appear to be inclined to side with those who would engage in reprisal and retaliation against honest citizens who seek good government and who are not inclined to accept status quo corruptus.
Comment by Bill — January 21, 2015 @ 2:27 pm