Show SPECIAL AUDITORS MAKE 1 REPORT CITY COUNCIL Gross Carelessness ss of Various City Officers Shown by Har Harris Harris Harris ris and Hollingsworth Deficit During the Past Two Years v I How the Councilmen Rewarded 1 I i Themselves and Fri Friends I 4 4 4 4 4 t 4 Since February last R B C Harris f and alid C R have been f 4 engaged as special auditors appoint appointed 4 e ed ad J at the th instance of former fonner Mayor layor 4 William Glasmann in investigating f 4 the affairs of Ogden City Cit during f ff f last tarm term IDOl 1804 and 1995 1005 1 4 4 Their report was completed yester ester esterday f day dy nd last lut evening given to the f 4 city council f Its salient features are the slipshod 4 4 method of conducting city affairs f 4 that was wa disclosed the tendency of 4 ia tb council to give gle itself and its 4 4 9 friends friend extra pay and the fact that 4 T 4 there was a H deficit during that pe pep 4 v p nod 9 t t 4 t 1 4 1 beginning their report the auditors A i imin Ute the tl completeness of o their in u Uon which has been in tn progress ut t Feb Keb 22 2 last The examination was wast t and covered every expenditure l Jan 1 19 1904 M to Dee Dec 31 1905 1005 The au say sky in part put partIn partIn In seeking authority for all disburse disbursements disbursements ments we found several instances where no nj authority ot the city cit council at all aU ex cx for the making makins of ot the disburse disbursements disbursements ments in other instances there were dis discrepancies between the tha amount of ot the tho die dis as us authorized by b the city coun council council cil and aud the true amount of ot the subsequent disbursement Then ag again apin in as shown by the warrant register resister warrants were actually drawn on ox oJ d prior to the authorization of o their by the city Lit council We e cite the following as a tew rew I t Street department payroll pa roll allowed Jan 3 2 1905 1005 app rg ns on the thu minutes of the city city council as a being for fot whereas the warrant register shows the total of touch uch UC payroll l to be O Warrant No in favor of J 3 P O eill em was actually actual for while the minutes of or Aug Au 5 it L 1906 1006 show the mount Amount authorized by b th the council to be Warrants No o 51 to special pay roll police department aggregate 1345 1334 whereas ou on Aug 6 1904 the same was allowed by the council for 1 Warrant arrant No Xo in favor of J H Spargo Is 9 but the allowance by b the tha council Aux Au 1 i la is 74 46 Warrant NO o i In favor of W Yo G ilson Vilson v is but we fail to find the record of any allowance of same by b the city council City engineers ers payroll covered bv by b war warrant rant lants No o 13 to aggregating i 2 1 we tall fail to find any record of the allowance of the payroll by the city coun council cil C iL j I Warrant t No iZ in favor of or L iJ I C Kel JE HY ey is dated Dec Dee D 1904 while the minutes of the tho city cit council of that date show the th presentation and ref frence ren of the claim to M II committee and the minutes of Dec 1 I 1004 show the re rt report report port of ot the committee and the allowance and payment ordered of the tho claim A miscellaneous lot of claims was wan paid by bv warrants No 53 2 to same earns dat dated fd ed d Jan Jp 3 SO O 1905 while the records of o the council show bow that the same were ware wee al lowed and ordered paid pid on Feb 6 6 1905 1906 19 Two payments of interest upon bonds of f 5 and an SS were made mude by b war warrants warrant warrants rants dated Jan 16 1905 1906 while the rant date 10 hie city council Qun n allowed and authorized the pay mont ment of same ame on Jan 23 3 1905 1936 p 2 Warrant No Xo 0 for payment of in tre t tret t upon city bonds is for wu Willie the city cl oit council minutes t of Oct 23 5 1 show how the to be 1350 J Limit in Carelessness Ve We cannot find fin word wor words strong enough wih with which to criticise the very careless manner in which the claims vouchers and payrolls generally general were prepared audited verified and consid considered considered ered by the city council counci approved by the I mayor m or and aRd finally finaly paid pid by the city au auditor audItor From Jan 1 I 1904 19 to Dec 31 n 1905 19 S 8 warrants were issued by b the city auditor and this will give gie one an idea of the corresponding number of vouchers claims and payrolls We Ve are absolutely f safe in jn saying s yng that not 10 per cent of the total number numbe are are complete and free from I objection The law required all al claims to tobe tobe tobe be fully itemized and ad to be verified They should be approved approve by the officer re r I caving the material or ordering the service servi service ice i rendered The city auditor should then audit same me and before presentation to the city council the claim caim should be I considered and approved bv y the proper t committee The of the city city coun i ell cl aa cc a to allowance or rejection should be I I noted note on each eh claim by b and over the sig signature I nature of the city recorder corder r Next they I should he be b presented to the mayor maor for his action acton If I he approves of the disburse I mont ment then as a required by law lw he should i endorse eador his signature on the claim or i payroll then on their return to the tle city ait auditor warrants are drawn dran in payment A meat ms deplorable disregard gar of any an uni mit form system respecting these thle claims and vouchers and and payrolls payroll Is most apparent in fact fact in many instances no at all It of the duties dut resting upon a public officer to have existed exsted Page after after page l ae e of this report could be ba used in citing claim after claim payroll after payroll which in fact are no claims or payrolls at all all We however beg to call oal your our at attention to th the following which illustrates generally general the conditions In this respect found lound to exist The council has allowed such claims as the following Ogden Utah 19 19 Ogden City Corporation to Lr L J Bucher Dr side aide sidewalk sidewalk walk This Thil is IK everything that appears appear a on the claim clam The Te payroll of the police poUce department nt for July Jury 81 n 1 1931 10 Is not verified nor au audited u does dos not bear the approval of ot the on police does not riot boar bor the signature of ot the the mayor has no 11 notation thereon by b the city olt recorder recorder showing Its allowance by b Ui the city council counci Payroll Not Verified ol after payroll particularly Of the police and street departments are arent nOt net verified or certified at at all al Again A ln we ve find fid a claim laim No 1 E W cv Nichols 50 which states state See Se minutes of council conol held Title This claim clim Is not Item Itemized verified certified audited a alt allowed 5 Ize I by the te council approved by ty the mayor or receipted Claim W V Y I L says Re Retainer otc etc Q It I bears no notation notton whatever Wb showing OvIng 8 it ft ever to have have been allowed all wod by the tho council and nd was not ap hi the mayor d by warrants to 59 was not approved by any ay member of the council counci Claim Western W tern Union Telegraph company Js Is for tor l but the warrant drawn In payment Is IsA 2 A street department payroll aggregating ing ilg is not verified Another payroll of Is not veri verified yen fled fied fed Claim is b in favor of J E Bagley and is for 2 7 and was to pay the costs recovered against the city cit in some of the th litigation respecting the tho waterworks system system tem tern An itemized cost bill bin was wa undoubtedly undoubtedly I edly served upon tho the city cit attorney and andi i the same should have b en attached to the voucher Claim laim 1549 Is in favor of George A I ILowe Lowe company for is but the th warrant I t was for tor or S i Claim 6 American Bankers Daily DaB Bond News 06 6 The claim bears no ver verification verification j no certification and ad was not ap approved approved approved proved by the th mayor mayori mayor mayori i Claim Calvert Leek 45 i Calver 0 was wasi i not verified Claims to P J Moran pay payments payI payments ments upon contract for doing certain contain I I I approved approved public work work are not verified certified c d or orI I Claim Clam J P ONeill no noI verification no o certification or approval I Claims 8 88 and S J E Halver Halverson I i son eon city treasurer There is absolutely I no notation upon the tho face of the claims j I at all al The endorsement of each says I bond interest interest Claim A T Hestmark is 5 missing Claims to Inclusive bear no notation at all al as to whether or not they were allowed and ordered paid pad by the council and they were not approved by bythe bythe bythe the mayor ma or Claim 55 American company 5 bears no verification or approval Warrants Ya to covering fifteen payments to J P ONeill and P J 1 Moran certain public work I bear ear no notation as a to whether or not nottley they were ever eer presented to considered by bv or allowed and ordered paid by b the I city eit the mayor maor council counci and were not approved by bythe bythe bythe Cashed AH All Al Right Claim is in favor of William Wilam Glas Gias Glasmann mans mann 50 being salary salary The warrant is not in the auditors office and there is no receipt attached to the voucher Claim J E Bagley 10 litigation expenses expense is not itemized verified ap approved approved approved proved and no receipt r for any of the items of expense attached to the voucher Claim 50 A B Patton Paton 75 was never nev audited by the city auditor The claim states it is for cash expended for chair There is no receipt for the cash so expended the claim bears no approval by hy the mayor and nothing to show that it was wa ever allowed ed by the council Claim A A B Patton paton 55 The claim is verified by A B Patton ap approved approved approved proved by b A A B Patton receipted for tor by byA byA byA A B Patton but bears no pa notation as to whether or not it was allowed alleged and or ordered ord ordered dered d red paid pad by the council counci It I was not ap approved approved approved proved by the mayor maor and there is no re rei receipt receipt i attached showing the payment of ot the 55 in the first instance I Claim 56 W J j Critchlow postage 5 has ha no receipt attached was wa not au audited audited audited was not verified was not certified and has not been approved Claim Farrar 2 Is not ver verified verified er erHie Hie certified d or approved no record as asto asto to its allowance by bJ the council It was for one horse for the fire tre department but no 10 bill of sale or any particulars or de do description bi concerning the horse are at attached attached attached to the claim Claim Sanitary Street Cleaning Sweeping company There Is ab absolutely absolutely nothing on the face of f the th claim except the name of the claimant and the amount Claim Art rt Metal Construction company was wag as allowed but prior thereto th reto was not passed upon by b the city auditor Claim A Power 1431 for freight charges on disinfectants Claim was wa not audited certified verified or approved and the freight expense expanse bill bU Is not at attached attached attached to the voucher Claim Netta Neta 2250 25 fifteen ifen days das work ork in city recorders r corders office Claim was wa not audited approved verified or certified Claim Fred C Naisbitt 1510 51 Nothing else appears upon the face of the voucher Claim Charles R B Critchlow 60 6 for assisting recorder and auditor during 1906 19 bears no notation as aa to whether or not It was ever allowed and ordered paid by the city council and was as not approved by b the mayor The fire department payroll parol for Sep September September 30 SO 1905 1005 was not verified certified cert fied fled audited or approved and the same applies apples to the payroll fo for the same de department department I for June ao 30 3 1905 1906 19 Standard Bills Bis Paid Without Ap Approval Approval Approval The claims clams of or the Standard Publishing PubU hinS company com pan for publishing sundry legal no notices tices tc s etc are subject to criticism be because because because cause of not being in many man instances properly proper certified verified audited and I because of not nut bearing any an notation nt Bt a ato to their allowance and Doing being ordered paid by b the council councI and not approved by the I mayor Claim Standard Publishing company compan was as not approved by any ay city officer nor by b the mayor Claim Standard Publishing com corn company company pany was not certified rUled c verified allowed or approved These claims were not itemized so as asto asto asto to permit one auditing the accounts to verify verifY the te correctness of the tho amount charged As you are arc ac undoubtedly aware awara a largo large amount of or money was paid by b the city during the years 1904 and 1905 for the publishing of ot notices n Uces ordinances s etc etc re respecting the te creation creaton and levying lev nS and ad col collection collection lection lecton of ot tae taxes In the special assessment districts The Th expense for doing so was paid pOid from the general fund and we sub submit submit submit mit that that th such auch expenses should have been ben charged to the proper special assessment district the thO same as the th expenses expanses of it the City engineers office incident to making surveys establishing grades sa es and and supervising ing ng work done In those special assess asses assessment InS ment districts The claim for Interest upon the city cl bonds outstanding should be prepared prepa d so as to show the number and name Dame of the Issue the amount thereof the rate of ot Interest and ad the period for tor which the in interest terest about to t be paid pad covers A number of warrants appear to have been actually Issued for tor amounts amount different to those tose entered on the auditors warrant want register Of or course due allowance must at all al times be made mado for unavoidable un cler clor clerical clerical ical errors error but we submit that not much care was wa exercised in comparing the thc amount amoU t of the tho warrant with the amount entered on the warrant register or else so many of o a these these clerical errors err could not ha hae e occurred Such errors of ot this kind as were found tou and not previously corrected have been corrected by proper entry made upon the te proper roper records records The footings footing of the warrant register were ser s r titled and found to be correct Upon the warrants being b returned to the auditor by bJ tho the treasurer they should at once bo be b cancelled on the auditors warrant regis register register ter and any errors found to exist be at once detected and corrected and the war warrants warrants warrants rants rants should then be methodically filed fIed away and not simply thrown away aVay in a basket in the auditors vault as has been the practice The special auditors state that the book bookkeeping bok bokke bookkeeping keeping ke ping done In the city auditors office by Thomas B Farr F rr r is well wel done and and that there are no errors eror in his liR work In jn Inthe Inthe the office of ot the city cit treasurer James J m s E Halverson tho the special auditors state that an excellent system of accounting is em employed ed and the th work well done except as asto asto asto to special assessments assessment which it is js sug suggested su d should be kept distinctive To the te city cit engineer A 3 F Porker a high compliment is paid and of his or ori f ice the auditors say sa hOSen Ogden City may ma wen reel feel proud of this department of or the city cl government The office offie of or the clerk cerk of the municipal court David Jensen is givon given u at i clean bill of health According to the te auditors Hit Hitis it |