For two months the City of Imperial Beach has refused to release the Payroll Account. I assumed that it was because they were cutting themselves massive checks – but that would be the least of their problems.
The 'problem' is that the City has a hidden Payroll Account.
Last Thursday the City finally released the Bank Statements for the Account now known as 'Payroll #1', but they did not included the A/P report. Aside from check # 42886 issued on 07/22/10 for $22,256.56, there are not very many many big checks cut. We have ½ dozen people on the payroll making over $100,000/yr, so there should be ½ dozen paychecks for $5,000 every pay period.
When I audited the checks ratified by Counsel compared to the bank statements – there was no comparison.
The most current Counsel Minutes available are 05/02/12. The Counsel ratified checks number 44572-44596 for $145,254.71, but that's only 24 checks and we are supposed to have 123 employees on the payroll. And when I added up the checks they only total $11,308.70. That leaves a $133,946.01 discrepancy.
From 07/01/11 – 05/02/12 there has been $3,262,420.41 ratified, but the checks only total $354,294.23. That leaves $2,908,126.18 unaccounted for.
Let's review: $354,000 is what we've spent to pay ALL of our line workers. $2.9 MILLION is what the few at the top are costing the taxpayers.
How long has this been going on? I don't know. I can tell that they've had the hidden payroll account since last year. On 07/21/10 the Counsel ratified checks 42800 – 42865 for $183,761.00, but the checks are only worth $51,517.12, which leaves $132,243.88 discrepancy.
Can't get any worse you say?
In September, 2010 they issued checks 43038 – 43073 for $21,468.41 without ratifying the checks at all – nor was there any reason to cut payroll checks. The Counsel ratified the payroll for the pay period ending 08/12/10 on 09/01/10 and ratified the payroll for pay period ending 08/26/10 at the 09/22/10 Counsel meeting.
It took me 15 minutes to figure out what was going on. I've nicknamed our elected and appointed city officals 'the goonies' because they have the mastermind capabilities of 5th grade misfits.
But it took me 6 hours to dig through State and Federal case law because I have never seen or heard of this in the private or public sector. Even the City of Bell wasn't this stupid. I still have not found any precedence, but I did find the laws that apply.
It's considered forgery and the state federal laws run very deep in this area and have very stiff prison sentences. Stealing the money is embezzlement, but falsely ratifying the checks is forgery and perjury. Twice a year for two years is 48 counts.
Who's responsible? All of them. The 'big three' would be the Finance Director, Mike McGrane – who I have named 'walking dead'. Accountants have extra laws governing them because it is our job to stay within the law. He'll get more jail time than anyone else.
Next would be the City Manager, Gary Brown – who i've named 'mr. lizard' because reptilians are slimy and have very small brains. I believe he is the mastermind behind most of the illegal activity and the overall negative predatory practices by our city officials. Both the Finance Director and City Manager sign the checks.
Then we have the City Clerk, Jacque Hald, who I've named 'the question mark'. I don't know what to think of her. She seems like a nice person, but her hands are very dirty. Cali state law 372208 (b) holds the City Clerk responsible for certifying the checks warrants.
City Counsel is also guilty of dozens of counts conspiracy, forgery, perjury, and embezzlement. They can't say they didn't know because all of them are pulling money from the hidden account too.
The Bar Association told me there are no 'extra laws' governing City Attorneys, but she will face the same state and federal charges as Counsel for her part in the conspiracy.
The 'good news' is that there are a lot of retribution laws in place. The State and Feds will confiscate their assets to recoup some of the money for us.
Is there any way this could be legal?
Nope. Not at all. Not in any form or function.
The Kingfish used to call this: 'having them by the ying yang'.