MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE PLEADS GUILTY TO EMBEZZLING ...

Missouri Municipal Employee Pleads Guilty To Embezzling $120K

Lou Ann Allred, 60, of Callao, Missouri, pleaded guilty today to charges she embezzled some $120,000 from Callao City, where she had been long employed as the municipality's city clerk. Allred admitted she received cash payments for city services and instead of depositing the money into municipal accounts, embezzled the funds for her own personal purposes. Allred was also alleged to have written municipal checks to herself and forged the signature of the Callao Mayor and either cashed or deposited them into her own personal bank account. Allred's scheme lasted four years, from 2004 to 2008, according to prosecutors. She plead guilty to one felony count of mail fraud and faces up to 20 years in prison, plus fines and restitution.
Read the story here and here.

Read the DOJ announcement here.

ANOTHER USELESS JAY WALKING LAW?

READ THROUGH TO THE END ... TO SEE HOW LAWS ARE FRAMED AND EXECUTED!!!  JUST THINK WE PAY THEM TO MAKE THESE USELESS LAWS!!!


From: ROBERT STRYKER
Subject: public act 06-176
To: attorney.general@ct.gov
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 10:41 AM

Attorney's General Office: I have a question pertaining to part of Public Act 06-176 which, in part, states: municipalities have the "option"  to initiate a real property tax freeze but, among other qualifications, ..."Applicants must be at least 70 years of age..." According to the "Property Tax Relief for Older Adults: A Profile of Connecticut's Local Programs", published in 2008 by our legislative's Connecticuit Commission on Aging, several communities: Guilford, Monroe and Lyme have local property tax freezes that require the applicant to be 65 years old; not 70. I believe that Guilford and Monroe initiated their tax freezes before this Act came into effect whereas Lyme did so after the fact. This Act states that this tax freeze program is optional, so I would like to know how these specific towns are circumventing this age requirement stated in 06-176, or is this age requirement also optional if another community would like to establish a similar property tax freeze? Thank you for your prompt opinion. Bob Stryker The follow up answer to my question sent to the attorney general's office and posted in your blog: Huh?  Is this another useless Jay Walking law?  This "law" [12-170 v & w] states that seniors must be 70 to receive an optional  tax freeze on their property - if the town so votes for it - and the state attorney general office (supposedly representing the "laws" of the state) claims that they have..."no authority over local decisions relating to property tax relief"... then why the hell is their a law in the first place?  Is our legislature making work for themselves with laws that cannot or will not be enforced by our own state attorney general?  If so, let us all make it better for our seniors and petition for and vote upon an optional and more equitable property tax formual for our town similar to those in NJ and NY. It seems whatever we can agree upon we can get, regardless of any state statutes. Let's keep our seniors in their homes in the highest taxed state in the union. Bob Stryker

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A CHARTER MAKES!

the following is from a blog that covers new milford.  interestingly new milford has a charter and doesn't operate under cgs title 7.  as a charter town new milford has a wider LATITUDE in operating their town.  the following is a good example. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010

Mayor: Next Year the BOE Budget Will Be In Same Form as Town's

With regard to the Board of Education Budget, Section 703 of the Charter provides, in part:  The Board of Education shall have the same duties [as the Town] and follow the same form and procedure with respect to its budget...(emphasis added).

This has never been done; the BOE Budget has always been in a different format that contains much less information than the Town-side Budget and has far less transparancy.

This won't happen ever again because at last night's Town Council Meeting, Mayor Pat Murphy announced that  -- as the Charter mandates -- next year's BOE Budget will be in the same format as the Town's.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND ... "I WONDER WHAT CAN WE SEE?"

CONNECTICUT FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW

---

Report from attorney’s investigator can be withheld in employee discipline case Posted: 23 Apr 2010 04:00 AM PDT One of the most important exceptions to Freedom of Information Act’s is a provision that allows public agencies to deny FOI requests for documents that are “communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.”  See Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-210(b)(10). This issue comes up frequently when employees act improperly and a public agency is confronted with how to investigate and discipline employees.  If the discipline is significant, a freedom of information request is often the first sign that an employee intends to put up a fight. When an attorney is retained to provide legal advice regarding the discipline, documents that are produced by the attorney for the purpose of providing legal advice are privileged and, as such, can be withheld even if an employee files a freedom of information request asking for every document under the sun. But what if the attorney hires an investigator to look into employee misconduct? Is that investigator’s report, which may not have been produced by an attorney, privileged and protected from disclosure under the FOIA? According to a recent Freedom of Information Commission, the answer is yes. If an attorney hires an investigator to assist that attorney in providing legal advice regarding employee discipline, that investigator’s report is privileged and an agency or town is not required to produce that report in response to a FOI request. See Anderson v. Superintendent of Schools, Derby Public Schools, FOIC Docket No. FIC 2009-166 (Mar. 10, 2010). But what if an agency conducts its own investigation before retaining counsel? In most instances, any reports produced during that investigation would be subject to a FOI request even though an identical report produced by an investigator working for an attorney could be withheld.  As is often the case, the lesson to be learned from Anderson is that public agencies are often better off if they involve counsel in employee discipline matters at the earliest stages.

Board of Education Intra-Account Transfers of Funds

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010

Board of Education Intra-Account Transfers of Funds

I have received many questions about the legality of the Board of Ed transfers that have been identified on nmbudgetfacts.com

INTERESTING WEB SITE FROM NEW MILFORD.  NEW FAIRFIELD NEEDS AN EFFECTIVE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION.  SHOULD ANYONE BE INTERESTED PLEASE CONTACT ROGER C. WISE AT rogercwise@gmail.com for details.

Here's the question:  May Connecticut Boards of education transfer money from one account to another even though its Budget was passed by the voters with specific amounts in specific accounts?  The answer is yes.  Here's the Statutory authority.  Section 10-22 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides, in part:

...The money appropriated by any municipality for the maintenance of public schools shall be expended by and in the discretion of the board of education...any such board may transfer any unexpended or incontracted for portion of any appropriation for school purposes to any other item...

For those of you who might be interested in School Law, I highly recommend Tom Mooney's book, A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law.  It is the best treatise on any legal topic that I have ever read.  It is comprehensive, well-written and extremely well organized.  Mr. Mooney is a partner in the Hartford firm Shipman and Goodwin.  He's the best education attorney in the State.

REFERENCE: http://newmilfordtownhall.blogspot.com/  Jay Lewin