Editions: e-Edition | Lite | Mobile | Subscribe | Twitter | RSS
Manage: My Account | Logout

TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

E-mails offer details on financial error



Toolbox

By SUE ALLEN Times Argus Staff - Published: October 23, 2009

MONTPELIER – Responding to public anger about perceived secrecy surrounding a 2004 accounting error that cost Montpelier's water fund $400,000, City Manager William Fraser on Thursday released e-mails, documents and other correspondence relating to the case that provide detail about what city officials knew, when they knew it, and how they responded to the facts around the case.
The material relates to an overpayment to Scott Construction Inc. of Newport that wasn't discovered by the city until October 2006, and then not fully disclosed to residents until Oct. 9, 2009. The correspondence was between Mayor Mary Hooper, Fraser, the City Council (members changed from 2006-09), Scott Construction President Daniel Scott, city attorney Steven Stitzel, and others.
“I've looked through every file and every e-mail that I have in my possession and believe that I have assembled the full record,” Fraser said in an e-mail Thursday. “As per the council's decisions last night to waive attorney-client privilege, the city is not claiming withholding or exemption on any record relating to Scott Construction, Inc., during this time frame.”
The first letter to the City Council on the subject went out from Fraser on Oct. 27, 2006, describing what he called “a serious financial issue,” and suggesting they keep it private as the city tries to recover the funds. In a follow up letter on Dec. 15, 2006, Fraser said the city's attorney recommended against filing suit against Scott at that point so as not to force his bankruptcy and jeopardize the chance of getting the money back.
One interesting note from Fraser to the council in January 2007 indicates that Scott wanted to hide his debt to Montpelier from TD Banknorth; Fraser had reservations but Stitzel advised the city to not disclose the debt unless approached by TD Banknorth (he said the bank would discover the arrangement because it was a public transaction).
By July 2008, Fraser was advising the council that payments from Scott were falling behind, and in September 2008, Scott Construction sent Fraser an e-mail saying business was off and trying to get better repayment terms (in a Sept. 22, 2008, e-mail, council member Tom Golonka told Fraser he's not “impressed” with the offer; Golonka the following month discovered assets belonging to Scott on Lake Memphremagog that were later valued at $1.2 million).
On June 2, 2009, Fraser informed the council that a New Hampshire bank was foreclosing on Scott's property in Pembroke, N.H. – which Fraser has since noted was put up as collateral for Scott's debt to Montpelier. There were several e-mails about possibly attaching other receivables and properties from Scott.
Subsequent e-mails between Fraser, attorneys, Hooper and the council kept everyone apprised of the legal situation involving Scott and the company's deteriorating financial position, including the discovery that his construction equipment was scheduled for auction this month.
On Oct. 8, 2009, Fraser sent an e-mail to the council entitled “Scott Construction – game over,” saying the Chittenden Bank was foreclosing on Scott, it appeared the money was lost, and it was time to go public with the situation.
“As Manager I will assume the responsibility for this error,” he wrote. “Any support that you all feel like offering would be appreciated. I think we can all expect this to be difficult.”
Hooper agreed with the plan, and recommended that Fraser contact The Times Argus reporter to disclose the situation to allow for a thorough discussion. The morning of Oct. 9, Fraser e-mailed the Council that he had a public statement drafted, and suggested holding it until the following week.
Fraser e-mailed the council later that day, however, saying, “Don't know how this happened but I just got a voice mail from Sue Allen at the Times Argus asking to speak with me about the Scott Construction situation. Someone somewhere told them. I'm going to eat my lunch and consider how to respond to her.”
In an exchange of e-mails throughout that day, Fraser and the council agreed to pay for a full page ad in the Times Argus detailing the situation; Hooper and Fraser met with The Times Argus that afternoon to discuss the case.
Through e-mails, the council, Fraser and Hooper began planning for the next City Council meeting, which the members agreed would be heated.
In e-mails from Fraser to Montpelier Police Chief Tony Facos on Oct. 14, the two discuss taking the case to the Attorney General's office for criminal investigation; Facos does not rule out the possibility Scott committed a crime, but he does express some doubt. Fraser agrees to refer the case to the State's Attorney and Vermont State Police.
Throughout the 2006-2009 time period, letters and e-mails to and from Scott track the city's efforts to first negotiate repayment and later go to court for the money (see Saturday's Times Argus for more on this).
As noted, Hooper and Fraser disclosed on Oct. 9 that the city had mistakenly cut a check from the water fund for $548,111 to Scott Construction on Dec. 22, 2004, for a water line improvement project. The amount should have been $85,775.
The $462,336 overpayment was subsequently cashed by Scott Construction and the mistake wasn't detected by the 2005 audit and was discovered by the city in 2006. The city has been able to collect $114,688 of that overpayment from Scott Construction over the years, but last week Chittenden Bank called in its $4.8 million loan to the company and foreclosed on Scott, making it almost certain no further funds will be obtained.
The Montpelier City Council met several times since 2006 behind closed doors in executive session to discuss and approve action to try and recoup the funds.
In a special City Council meeting this week, the panel authorized Fraser to release the correspondence related to the Scott case.
Fraser grouped the material into three sections: 1) Communications between the city and Scott Construction, Inc. between October 2006 and October 2009; 2) Public records that have been previously available relating to Scott Construction, Inc. and the city. These include the relevant sections of meeting minutes, agendas and the city manager's weekly reports to the council; and 3) Communications between Hooper, the council and Fraser concerning Scott Construction, Inc. from October 2006 through 2009. These include some forwarded or paraphrased communications from Stitzel to city officials, he said.
He said a fourth section containing communications between Stitzel and himself concerning Scott Construction, Inc. will be posted soon.
“I want everyone to have the information,” Fraser said Thursday evening. “It's not my place to reach a conclusion for the people. I hope they have all the facts, at least all the facts we had. I hope people can see what the city did and didn't put out in the public realm. I hope they understand what we knew and what we did. At least they'll have the same information we did.”

To view the documents, visit www.timesargus.com/montpelier or the city's Web page at www.montpelier-vt.org, click on the appropriate icon under Notices on the right side of the screen.

(Coming tomorrow: A closer look at the legal issues outlined in the documents.)



Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.





READER COMMENTS


This whole episode is an example of government at its worst. Once again I will point out that the city manager has accepted no responsibility that I can see. At least Mary Hooper apologized, finally. I see no such apology from the city manager. Did I miss it? Some city employees need to have their pay and benefits reduced for screwing this up so bad.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 9:27 am EST

report this comment



I read all of the document that Montpelier posted on there website. Here

http://www.montpelier-vt.org/story/251.html

Looks to me like a bunch of finger pointing. I see only one email where the city of montpelier has stated "This error happened on our end." . There are a few factors that need to be weighted into people's opinions. That would be it looks like alot of people spent alot of time trying to cover up the issue.
I have been running a business for about 4 years now. You would be suprised at how many people, make overpayments, or purchase services, and demand a refund. While Scott construction is doing $10m a year in annual sales, the city of montpelier, prolly saw an opportunity to put scott out of business by overpaying him for $400,000.00 than carrying about there day for 2 years, than waiting for a time when they know he is low on sales to demand a payment.
If the over payment had happened to me. I would have held the funds in an interest bearing account, collected all of the interest, and when 7 years lapsed start spending the money. If a collection effort were to take place before the 7 years lapsed, than just make an offer. Hey i will give you $325,000 right now to forget about this thing.
The lawyers are obviously going to tell you that if the guy is willing to pay the money back than go for it. The courts aren't going to help you collect any money any faster than the guy is able to pay for it.
The check writer for the city , has the job of paying attention, I am not a book keeper but I am smart enough to know that double entry accounting is no rocket science. debit one column , credit the other. As for a check being cut and stored in the "Asset Colum" doesn't make any sense. A check for $500,000 should be entered as a "Credit" On the Cash Ledger. Unless not only did a bad check get written, someone must of also added an erroronus "Debit" to the Assest Ledger.
I most businesses around here if someone makes a $500 mistake they get fired better yet a $500k mistake.
-- Posted by ok then on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 5:51 pm EST

report this comment



No word on how they plan to cover the shortfall....raise taxes on the innocent??
-- Posted by Lee Kemp on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 2:25 pm EST

report this comment



This issue has reminded me of the importance of newspapers. I sincerely hope that Sue Allen will continue her good investigative work and that she will also look into the allegations made by former city employee, George Seiffert, in today's paper.
-- Posted by Concerned Voter on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 12:56 pm EST

report this comment



To Vicki Lane: Amen !
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 11:59 am EST

report this comment



Last night I read everything that was scanned into the city's website. I was struck by how they discussed telling the public. They talked about putting it into the Manager's report, etc. It didn't seem as though they considered or knew how seriously the taxpayer's and voter's would take it, until the TA put it out there.

From reading the correspondence between Scott and the city at the time the mistake was discovered it does seem as though at least the exploration of criminal action should have been taken. It was clear to me that Scott was trying to hide something. We should have had that money back immediately, and should not have accepted his sob story.

I'm disappointed about the tone of the discussion of how to disclose it to the public and how willing we were to work with someone who literally and knowingly stole money from us.

Seems the whole matter has been botched from the beginning.
-- Posted by Vicki Lane on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 11:23 am EST

report this comment



On first blush this T.A. outline in toadys T.A. electronic version of the events that led up to the loss of the $462,000.00 was/is a comedy of accounting errors brought about by more than likely, a lack of exerpience on how to handle such a mess ,poor judgement and poor timing in handling this mess. It would seem appropriate at this time to moveeon and seek a solution aka remedy to address how to deal with this loss of the tax payers monies.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 7:29 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout