To the Editor:
On December 14 at the City Council meeting, Councilwoman Wilkinson docketed a resolution to hire an outside firm to conduct a forensic audit of the City of Warwick General Fund no …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
On December 14 at the City Council meeting, Councilwoman Wilkinson docketed a resolution to hire an outside firm to conduct a forensic audit of the City of Warwick General Fund no later than April 2016. This resolution came as a shock to me due to the fact that three years ago, after a Warwick DPW employee was arrested for the “unauthorized removal” of several items, I addressed the city council demanding a forensic audit, but Ms. Wilkinson vehemently opposed my suggestion.
At the time, it was my contention that certain departments within the city, namely the DPW and the school maintenance department, contained an element of individuals who were actively and jointly involved in the theft of city materials and product purchased from local vendors, for many years. Several videotapes and news pieces seemed to support those assumptions.
I was not alone with these thoughts, as over the years, several people other than myself, had made these assumptions. In fact, just prior to the Kenneth Naylor arrest, anonymous letters detailing behavior that would not constitute any semblance of honesty, was sent to myself and to several other outspoken people, including being sent to this newspaper.
However, in a surprise change of heart, during the finance meeting, Wilkinson removed the resolution stating that it would cost approximately one hundred thousand dollars and that she would docket a further resolution but “certainly not a forensic audit”.
What could the reasoning possibly be to remove the resolution? I can only come up with two hypothesis.
Hypothesis #1
The fact that the finance chair dockets a “forensic audit” would indicate that she may believe that there is some type of criminal behavior or malfeasants taking place. Subsequently, after doing some simple homework, she discovers that the cost of the audit would be $100K so she decides that the cost of the audit is not worth uncovering the behavior, that, let’s face it, we all know exists. She undoubtedly will play the card of the financial conservative invoking language that it is not cost effective and that we cannot afford the audit. However, the councilwoman’s historical positions would suggest otherwise. Let’s remember, who was it that single-handedly crushed the vote on school consolidation after the volunteer study group made recommendations to close schools? That move cost the taxpayers in excess of $250,000 to obtain the same relative information that we obtained for free from the volunteer committee, only resulting in kicking the can down the road.
Who was it that circumvented city council rules and unilaterally hired the city auditor which cost the taxpayers $30K + and to this date not one page of work product was ever produced, and, the auditor is history. Who was it that hired a consultant for $15,000 to make recommendations on the city healthcare plan, then ignored all six recommendations? Who was it that violated the open meetings act during a retirement meeting that cost the taxpayers $2000 in fines? Your answer to all of the above, Councilwoman Wilkinson.
Hypothesis #2
Recently we had search warrants issued at the home of the school department facilities director. Information that is floating around suggests that there may have been some “improprieties” shall we say, relative to purchasing. These “improprieties” in no way could have been committed by one person without the knowledge of other people. It is my contention that a complete forensic audit will uncover a pattern of behavior of numerous employees that would most likely constitute racketeering violations. As described in the RICO act, ongoing criminal activity or schemes by a group of individuals constitutes racketeering. Which begs the question, does the leadership in this city want to suffer the embarrassment of uncovering activity that has been fleecing the taxpayer over decades? Does the administration want the public to uncover facts that could possibly suggest that over the years, the taxpayer has paid for items such as electrical supplies, plumbing supplies, tires, appliances, auto parts, and even dirt (loam) that have been quietly procured for reasons that may not be of sound principals? Did Councilwoman Wilkinson have a change of heart after finding out that search warrants were obtained on a city worker and items removed from his house? Did anyone reach out to Wilkinson and request that she back off and remove her resolution? It is no secret that Wilkinson is a huge fan of the unions and has always supported them in return for votes, but in the instant conundrum, would a Wilkinson “forensic audit” have unintended personal consequences next year while running for a state wide seat?
Once again, Wilkinson has clearly identified a well-known problem that has been in existence for decades, and decided to kick the can down the road, again. If what she states is true, that the audit would cost $100K, I say do it, and send the message that the party is over. Root out the corruption once and for all as it is long overdue. While you’re at it, institute a legitimate inventory control system in every department and dedicate individuals that are required to be held responsible in a situation where there are discrepancies in inventory. I can only imagine the backlash that would come if we were to institute some simple policies. I can just see it now, receipts held in dusty shoeboxes stored in a locker in the men’s room. PO’s with no attached receipt, nothing scanned into the computer in files dedicated to departments. I would speculate that the accounting system is so archaic that the simplest of purchases could not be reconciled.
One thing is for sure, in the capacity as finance chair, one would hope that the individual would have knowledge of common business practices. That doesn’t seem to be the case here in Warwick. One would think that with the inexpensive technology available today, solely designed for the enhancement of efficiency, our elected officials would be striving to change the way that things are done in Warwick. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case. The current scenario and news that will surely be public soon, would suggest that we have much work to do to pertaining to the security and use of our tax dollars. Do you think that will happen? Probably not, this city has a unique way of washing its dirty laundry.
Rob Cote
Warwick
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Reality
Mr. Cote.....be careful......you have stated the truth about Ms. Vella=Wilkinson but like others you will be subjected to her verbal tirade on her facebook page.
Ms. Vella-Wilkinson has disdain for the 1st amendment right of free speech. Attend a public forum and exercise your right to offer an opposing view and she will malign you at length.
Ms.Vella-Wikinson touts her military background but I guess it 's all a charade because the way she conducts public hearings Comrade Putin would be proud.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear Rob Cote,
I read your letter and I have a question.
If Camille Vella-Wilkenson didn't want the forensic audit, why would she request it in the first place? Logic dictates that your hypothesis is flawed in this matter. I asked her at the 12-21-15 City Council meeting, why she took back the request and she said it would cost too much. ($100,000 or more). We discussed a lesser expensive audit, which, as you know, I have strongly recommended in my platform (correntemayorwarwick.com) for over a year now. She agreed and thought 3 years, would be an appropriate time frame. I responded with a 2 year audit suggestion noting that if the results warrant it, we can always pay for an additional year or years. (She also seemed to strongly prefer an outside, independent auditor). The point is, as I see it, she does not appear to be against an audit, just one that costs so much. Again, why would she ask for one if she wasn't in favor of one!
I'm just sayin'
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Richard Corrente
Democrat for Mayor - 2016
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 Report this
richardcorrente
Dear "Reality",
Dear Roger,
You stated that Camille Vella-Wilkenson has a "distain for the first ammendment", but wasn't she the Council Person who introduced the "public comment" section of the City Council meetings? And when a motion to reduce the time for public comment was introduced, didn't she strongly oppose it? She did. I was there. I heard her. She said "No, I gave my word. I will not decrease the time for public comment."
I don't always agree with the lady, but c'mon Roger. You can't have it both ways.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Richard Corrente
Democrat for Mayor - 2016
P.S. As for her "touts her military background but I guess it's all a charade" comment. The lady risked her life for her country. The only comment you, me or anyone can make about that is "Thank you for your service." Got it Roger?
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 Report this
davebarry109
I believe the Warwick Police Detective Division has some expertise in auditing. I think they trained a few detectives in financial crimes.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 Report this
Thecaptain
Well, well, well. It seems that the person that has been getting up publicly in front of the council screaming that there is widespread theft within city departments has been vindicated and found to be correct. As of this hour Mr. David Laplante has been charged with 5 felony counts of larceny having stolen between $75-100,000 in school department (taxpayer) funds. With bail of $50,000 and a house full of stolen merchandise and a wife that is a Warwick school teacher, should the city council members be alarmed? Is there any reason why not to spend the money on a forensic audit?
The city now has a unique opportunity to perform an audit, and after the easy conviction that the city will get on this dirt bag, they then move forward and sue him civilly for the cost of the audit. Common sense, very easy to do, and sue him into destitution. This crap, as I have been saying for years, is going on in every department. Rest assured, there will be more arrests.
To Richard Corrente, you cant be serious trying to back up Wilkinson? The woman is a disgusting panderer that has presided over multiple "financial mishaps" and is an embarrassment. At one point Rich, cut your losses of who you attempt to support and look at reality. Cost of the audit has no bearing on the issue. Whatever the cost is, is money well spent. Unfortunately a forensic audit will turn up wide spread theft in all departments. Do you really think that Wilkinsons political allies want that uncovered? This crap has been going on for decades and the cost to the taxpayers is in the millions. Combine that with the wasteful driving around and you have major management problems. Rich, I really want to hear your logic on installing GPS in all the vehicles, (like most municipalities outside of RI do). Audits, inventory control, GPS, bar codes, are all simple tools to keep people honest. Why don't we have any of those tools in Warwick? Rich, go public and agree as part of your platform to those tools and you will get run out of town. That is precisely why Wilkinson wont do it. The woman is unfit for office PERIOD. Tell you what Rich, I got a check for $10,000 made out to the city of Warwick to aid in the cost of the forensic audit, if you will match it. That offer also goes for any council member or department head including the mayor. Care to call my bluff?
Mr. Davebarry109, the police do not conduct audits. They conduct criminal investigations after probable cause is determined. I have sat with the police on a number of occasions and they will tell you that they do not perform fishing expeditions. They need someone on the inside to tip them off and bring them hard evidence. Think about this for a minute and lets just speculate. The fact is that all levels of the administration know this behavior is taking place. God knows, I have brought them plenty of info. Do you think the mayor and police chief want to open this can of worms that could very well include every department with except the WPD? The result of uncovering that type of extensive crime would be that several political positions leave in shame and tarnish their legacy. That is precisely why Wilkinson will never pursue an audit.
Rest assured, THERE WILL BE MORE ARRESTS, its only a matter of time.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 Report this
Thecaptain
By the way Rich, for your own- edification, it was Bob Cushman who originally introduced the legislation to allow the taxpayer to get up in a public forum at the council meetings.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 Report this
Bob_Cushman
Thanks Rob for giving me credit. This passage was taken from 2007 City Council meeting that was the first to allow the public to comment on any topic at meetings
PCR-30 -07 - A Resolution relative to permitting Public Comment at
Warwick City Council Meetings. (Councilman Cushman)
Description: An amendment to the Council Rules will permit a limited amount of time at the first City Council Regular scheduled monthly meeting for any individual to comment on any issues other than those being addressed at committee meetings or through Ordinance or Resolution, provided they sign up for public commend prior to the meeting.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 Report this
Scal1024
Mr. Cote we've disagreed about different things on here, I applaud your work on this issue. This audit should've taken place already, but needs to happen right away. I do not know Ms. Vella Wilkinson but I don't think her service should be brought up as "pandering". Or should she be called an embarrassment based on disagreements you may have.
Mr. Corrente I disagree with your assessment on cost. We've just had $70,000 walk out the door. That's one side of one department. $100,000 shouldn't be the hang up on this issue. What stands out to me is this is one of the first areas where I've heard you say you'll specifically spend less. I don't believe there's time for that on something so important. When something as important is in front of this council, you get it passed no matter what it takes. Delaying this will allow politics to be played, blame to be passed and nothing to get done.
Have you ever heard of not letting perfect be the enemy of the good? When you have an audit brought before the council there is no reason to quibble on cost. The audit pays for itself. As a candidate for mayor you should be beating this issue into the ground, not applauding the council for delaying its implementation.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015 Report this
Thecaptain
Scal,
Maybe we share some common ground. I have been bringing the the theft issue to the mayor and the WPD for several years with extreme specifics and video and it has been ignored. wonder why im pissed? This is NOT an isolated incident and I will bet you my house , my boat, and my IRA that there will be more arrests. By the way , I got a check made out to the city for $10,000 as the first contribution to the forensic audit. Any one else care to put their money where there mouth is? If an audit is done by an outside firm, I can guarantee you that the feds will have to come in, and the crap will hit the fan.
The only question is, does anyone one the council have the political balls to to demand the audit, put it to a vote, and end the theft? My guess is no balls, as no one wants to open the can of worms. But then again, im just speculating. By the way, I have the list of what was stolen. You would be very very pissed. Send me your email to cartaxrevolt @aol.com and I will forward it to you.
Happy new year to you and yours, All the best.
Rob
Tuesday, December 29, 2015 Report this
Scal1024
Captain, thank you and a happy new year to you and yours as well. What I'm most interested in seeing going forward is that if the council continues to drag its feet on this issue is what their excuse will be? Cost was brought up as the original reason to delay it, but they can't use that forever.
As I said in my last comment that is only one side of one department and taxpayers took a beating for over $70,000. Think of how bad the problem must be if you can have $70,000 in kitchen cabinets, dishwashers etc not be recognized as inefficient purchasing. Where did people think these items were going? Nobody reviews purchases in the school department? If so, nobody thought kitchen cabinets were an odd request. There is no way this is isolated to one person or one department. I'm not saying others were aware of the amount of theft (with the exception of his wife who without a doubt knew about this 100%), but looking the other way is unacceptable and should be punished also.
As far as other departments go how do we know where all our money goes? Are there other workers ordering power drills and hammers for personal use? Is personal work being done with city equipment? This is a very serious offense and it truly does deserve the full attention of the city council, mayor and school officials. I hope that if this issue isn't resolved in the coming weeks, that taxpayers stand up and make this a BIG issue in the coming elections. Politicians should be held accountable for their actions and inactions. How can any member of the council claim to have taxpayer interests at heart and then delay the start of an audit? I would advise members of the council, the mayor and mayoral candidates to pay attention to the taxpayers. We have had it with this type of behavior being accepted. It was the action of a new superintendent that took care of this problem, and had it been left up to all of you, we (taxpayers) would be getting ripped off for over $100,000 and would still be getting ripped off today.
Stop with the phony sound bites, stop blaming it solely on the school department and somebody come forward and lead. Not one elected official or candidate is where they need to be on this issue and that's disappointing. Ms. Travis should come forward as council President and lead the fight on this audit, not continue with business as usual. If this city council will not lead then we should elect fiscally responsible folks who will.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015 Report this
Scott58
Rich Corenteeeee, After you are done counting your 11 votes in the 2016 mayoral race please go away. I don't really care that Willy served in the military, nor am I going to thank her or be persuaded to by idiots like you.
I'm just sayin'
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Scott
Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Report this