http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B39219.pdf page 48
Quote:
ANNUAL REPORT
The City Controller completed and filed the required Annual Report within 60 days after the year
end. However, a comparison of the Annual Report to the ledgers noted the following:
1. Part 1 - Statement of Receipts, Disbursements, Cash Balances, and Investment Balances
(Governmental Funds) did not agree to the City's cash and investments balance at
year end. The Annual Report cash and investment balance was $8,383,205 less than
the City's ledger balance.
2. The Public Defender, Inspection/Rental, and Riverboat Loan Funds were omitted from
the Annual Report. The total annual receipts, disbursements, and ending cash balance
for all omitted funds were $7,628,065, $1,700,000, and $5,928,065, respectively.
3. The Annual Report omitted $6,120,425 of transfers in and out between funds. The
omission of the transfers caused 14 funds ending reported cash balances to disagree
with the City's ledger balances.
4. The Cabela's Bond Fund (#408) did not include $2,101,385 of receipts posted to the
City's detail of receipts ledger.
5. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund (#017) and the State Forfeited
Fund (#220) did not include $336,337 and $113,542, respectively, of disbursements
posted to the City's detail of disbursements ledgers.
The City Controller corrected the discrepancies noted above and filed an amended Annual Report
with the State Examiner. In addition, the City Controller approved the adjustments to the financial statements
presented herein to reflect the total receipt and disbursement activity.
Furthermore, the City advertised Part 1 - Statement of Receipts, Disbursements, Cash Balances,
and Investment Balances (Governmental Funds). The totals advertised did not agree to the City's ledger. The advertised cash and investment balance was $6,246,674 greater than the City's ledger balance.
In addition, even though the City's Annual Report filed with the State Examiner included the activity of the
City's Sanitary District, Water Utility, and Port Authority, the activity advertised did not include the receipt,
disbursements, and ending cash balance of the City's Sanitary District, Water Utility, and Port Authority.
Therefore, the receipts and disbursements of the City's Sanitary District, Water Utility, and Port Authority
were not published as required by law. A similar comment appeared in the prior report.
Now I am not a trained accountant, but this appears to be a way to make the books look favorable for the city. Sort of Bernie Madoff esque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_madoff.
Now why were not the receipts and disbursments of the City's Sanitary District, Water Utlity and Port Authority not published as required by law, and this is the second year in a row for such to happen. What is there to hide Tom?