Hammond's 2011 SBA Audit & Criminal Enterprise continues

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf
Issue Date: August 3, 2012
Audit Report Number: 2012-CH-1009

TO: Forrest Jones, Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, 5HPH
//signed//

FROM: Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 5AGA

SUBJECT: The Hammond Housing Authority, Hammond, IN, Did Not Administer Its Recovery Act Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUDâ€™s, and Its Own Requirements

Enclosed are the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector Generalâ€™s (OIG) final results of the audit of the Hammond Housing Authorityâ€™s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula and competitive grants.

HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.

The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8L, requires that OIG post its publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at http://www.hudoig.gov.

If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at (312) 913-8684.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B41655.pdf page 80

FINDING 2011-03 - PAYROLL CONTROL DEFICIENCIES

The controls established for the processing of payroll at the City of Hammond and the Sanitary
District, a department of the City, are ineffective. Controls have not been established which would allow
management and those charged with governance to detect and prevent errors or omissions of payroll
expenditures. The controls are also not effective in preventing the potential for fraud through timely detection
by management and those charged with governance.

The City has not sufficiently segregated incompatible duties related to initiating, processing, and
recording changes related to the processing of payroll. The City allows for the persons who process payroll
within the Controller's Office to calculate biweekly compensation amounts based upon the salary ordinance,
and to enter the biweekly compensation amounts into the payroll processing computer software. Modifications
to these amounts are also entered by these same individuals without any oversight or required approval
by management and/or those charged with governance to document and provide justification for such
modifications.

The City has designated an individual within each department (departmental payroll clerk) to accumulate
and report hours worked, leave time, compensatory time earned or used, and overtime compensation.
These hours and related compensation amounts are reported by the departmental payroll clerks to the
Controller's Office on a "Payroll Earnings Forecast" (Forecast). The Forecasts are initially printed by the
Controller's Office, and include the biweekly salary, biweekly longevity, and certain other biweekly standardized
compensation amounts.

The departmental payroll clerks are required to review the amounts, enter any
adjustments - such as additional compensation for wellness benefits, shift differentials, etc., as well as enter
the hours worked and/or leave time hours used based upon the time sheets and time cards of the individual
employees within their department. The Forecasts are then provided to the department heads to sign, date
and certify. The certification includes the following wording, "I hereby certify that I have examined the time
record of each employee listed . . . that each employee has performed the services for which the salary or
compensation is paid. . . that the compensation listed opposite the name of each employee is based upon
either statutory or regulatory authority and is justly due each such employee; . . ." However, the time sheets
and time cards used to prepare the Forecasts are not retained with the Forecasts so that verification of time
entered can be performed.
-80-

CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
The Forecasts must be submitted to the Controller's office for processing of the payroll by the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the pay check date, which is on a Friday. Salaried employees are paid through pay check
date. Thus, the department is projecting time worked and/or leave used for from three to five days. Also,
some salaried employees receive additional compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

In order for these employees to receive this additional compensation, the pay period for the additional compensation
only, includes the last week of the prior payroll period and first week of the current payroll period.

At the Sanitary District, one individual was responsible for calculating salaries and wage rates based
upon contracts and authorized wage increases. These calculated amounts were then presented to the
District Board for approval in the form of a salary resolution. This same individual was then responsible for
entering the salaries and wage rates into the computerized payroll accounting system. She was responsible
for entering work hours and paid and unpaid leave time used to calculate payroll expenses and pay checks.
She received the mail, entered all withholdings and garnishments, as well as preparing and remitting reports
for payroll withholdings.

Governmental units should have internal controls in effect which provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial information and records, effectiveness and efficiency of operations, proper
execution of management's objectives, and compliance with laws and regulations. Among other things,
segregation of duties, safeguarding controls over cash and all other assets and all forms of information processing
are necessary for proper internal control.

Controls over the receipting, disbursing, recording, and accounting for the financial activities are
necessary to avoid substantial risk of invalid transactions, inaccurate records and financial statements and
incorrect decision making. (Accounting and Uniform Compliance Guidelines Manual for Cities and Towns,
Chapter 7)

" However, the time sheets
and time cards used to prepare the Forecasts are not retained with the Forecasts so that verification of time
entered can be performed.

Just amazing, not retained ..... reeks of fraud.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

[url]
http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B41655.pdf[/url] 80 and 81

FINDING 2011-04 - CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS

The City Controller is the fiscal officer of the Sanitary District. As the fiscal officer, the City Controller
is responsible for certifying all claims or accounts payable vouchers prior to disbursing the funds. The
certification of claims by the City Controller can be accomplished by either signing each claim or signing a
claim docket which lists each and every claim considered for payment during a specific period of time.
-81-

CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)

This certification process also provides for internal controls over disbursements by ensuring that
claims or accounts payable vouchers, including payroll transactions, are reviewed and authorized by
management prior to disbursing the funds. All checks issued display the signature of the City Controller, but
this is electronically placed on the checks as they are printed by the computerized accounting software.

In 2011, none of the claims or claim dockets were signed by the City Controller.

Furthermore, City disbursements were transferred from one fund to another after having been
approved for payment from the fund to which the disbursement was originally approved by the governing
board.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B41655.pdf page 81

Section III â€“ Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs
FINDING 2011-05 - SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS

A Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings was prepared by the City Controller as required by OMB
Circular A-133. We reviewed the Schedule of Prior Audit Findings and noted that management had not taken
corrective action as indicated in the schedule concerning the following findings from the prior audit:

Finding 2010-4 - Equipment and Real Property Management
Finding 2010-6 - Procurement, Suspension and Debarment
Finding 2010-7 - Reporting

The City officials indicated in the Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings that these three findings
had been corrected. However, there are current findings for these same three requirements for the
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants with CFDA Number 14.218 and the Program Title:
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The City did not comply with the following requirements in 2011:
-82-
CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
Finding 2011-06 - Equipment and Real Property Management
Finding 2011-07 - Procurement, Suspension and Debarment
Finding 2011-08 - Reporting

Compliance requirements for Federal program audit findings follow-up, as found in Â§____.315 of
OMB Circular A-133, are as follows:

"(a) The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part
of this responsibility, the auditee shall prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings. . . .

(b) Summary schedule of prior audit findings. The summary schedule of prior audit findings
shall report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit's schedule of findings and
questioned costs relative to Federal awards. . . .

(2) When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary
schedule shall describe the planned corrective action as well as any partial corrective
action taken.

(3) When corrective action taken is significantly different from corrective action previously
reported in a corrective action plan or in the Federal agency's or pass-through entity's
management decision, the summary schedule shall provide an explanation. . . ."

We recommended that officials improve communication between the City Controller's office and the
various City departments where the grants are administered to ensure that an accurate Summary Schedule of
Prior Audit Findings is prepared.

The same issue occured the next year, resulting in Finding 2011-07 - Procurement, Suspension and Debarment

Hey Tom to busy to assure finances are appropriately run, but your supported an additional income tax? WTF Tom.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B41655.pdf page 82 & 83

FINDING 2011-6 - EQUIPMENT AND REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
CFDA Number: 14.218
Program Title: Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
Award Number: B-08-MN-18-0006

The City used funds from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of foreclosed and/or vacant residential homes. The City expended federal funds of $527,711 to
purchase and an additional $1,444,770 to rehabilitate the homes during 2011. These properties purchased
with federal dollars were not included in the capital asset records of the City as of December 31, 2011.
Also, the City sold 15 NSP funded properties that were acquired in either 2010 or 2011 during 2011.

The Planning and Development Department, where the NSP funding is administered, and the City Controller's
office, where the City's Capital Assets Listing is maintained, did not communicate with each other concerning
the sale of these real properties. The City does not have internal controls in place concerning the addition
and deletion of capital assets from the NSP funding.

In March 2012, as a response to the same finding for 2010, the Planning and Development
Department personnel informed the City Controller's office of 18 properties purchased in 2010 and eight
properties purchased in 2011 (total of 26 properties) that had not been sold as of March 27, 2012. These 26
properties were included in the City's Capital Assets Listing in March 2012. Seven of these 26 properties
have been sold as of June 5, 2012.[b] However, the sales of the real properties have not been communicated to
the City Controller's office personnel so that the real properties can be removed from the City Capital Assets
Listing. The City officials have not designed the internal controls so that the assets acquired with federal
funds are properly disposed of and removed from the City Capital Assets Listing.[/b]

The City has not designed and properly monitored procedures that would ensure that accurate
detailed capital asset records are maintained. The deficiencies in the control over equipment and real
property management are considered a material weakness.

24 CFR 85.20 Standards for financial management systems states in part:
"(b) The financial management systems of other grantees and subgrantees must meet the
following standards: . . .

(2) Accounting records. Grantees and subgrantees must maintain records which
adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financiallyassisted
activities. These records must contain information pertaining to grant or
subgrant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets,
liabilities, outlays or expenditures, and income."

24 CFR 85.31 states in part: "(a) Title. Subject to the obligations and conditions set forth in this
section, title to real property acquired under a grant or subgrant will vest upon acquisition in the grantee or
subgrantee respectively."

OMB Circular A-133 Section .300(b) states:
"The auditee shall:
Maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that
the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its
Federal programs."

24 CFR 85.42(c)(2) states: "The retention period for real property and equipment records starts from
the date of the disposition or replacement or transfer at the direction of the awarding agency."
Failure to maintain complete capital asset records of properties purchased with federal grant awards
may jeopardize the City's ability to obtain future federal funding.

We recommended that officials establish procedures to ensure that assets purchased with federal
funds are properly recorded in the capital asset ledger of the City in accordance with state and federal
guidelines. We also recommended that officials establish procedures to ensure the proper disposal of assets
acquired with federal funds and the removal of those assets from the capital asset ledger of the City.

This is how Tom's people sloppy book keeping cost Hammond nearly $10,000,000 in a senior citizens project.

xmpt · **Joined:** Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:29 am **Posts:** 989

You didnt underline the part where it says the city sold 15 NSP properties. Why not? Because it would counter all the other BS that you post in other threads? Pathetic

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

xmpt wrote:

You didnt underline the part where it says the city sold 15 NSP properties. Why not? Because it would counter all the other BS that you post in other threads? Pathetic

Really, I guess the only bright part of this fiscal audit was out of 26 properties 15 sold. Mike you focus on that will you. We'll ignore the other items the state board and federal auditors found.

HUD pulled financing on a $10,000,000 senior citizens project because of missing and mispent federal tax dollars... did I say federal tax dollars?

Another federal investigation. Didn't tom say a couple of weeks ago, he's afraid he is going to go to jail for being held accountable for what a subordination did, on wjed?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

See Mr. Councilman seems to emphasize the positive, 15 of 26 NSP properties sold, UNI is sitting on how many tax delinquent properties?

The real question is how many of Tom's contracting friends milked the system, putting Federal Tax dollars in their pocket with out oversight?

HUD pulled some of Hammond's funding because of the lack of oversight.

Quote:

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf
Issue Date: August 3, 2012
Audit Report Number: 2012-CH-1009

TO: Forrest Jones, Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, 5HPH
//signed//

FROM: Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 5AGA

SUBJECT: The Hammond Housing Authority, Hammond, IN, Did Not Administer Its Recovery Act Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUDâ€™s, and Its Own Requirements, but

Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr glossed over this loss of funding. A $10,000,000 project.... but Mr. Councilman wants to focus on 15 of 26 properties sold....

even a blind chicken can find a kernel of corn ever now and then right Mike?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

See Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr was so succesfull in selling 15 of those NSP properties, that Tom lost future federal funding because of his fiscal practices.

Now this is the fourth or fifth SBA audit I've detailed, and each one seems to have more and more fiscal problems. you don't think that a federal law enforcement agency hasn't done the same and looking for an opportunity for to give this greasy spoon psychotic lawyer in club fed?

Quote:

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B41655.pdf page 83 to 86

FINDING 2011-7 - PROCUREMENT, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
CFDA Number: 14.218
Program Titles: Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), CDBG Entitlement Grants
Award Numbers: B-08-MN-18-0006, B-09-MC-18-0006, B-10-MC-18-006
page -84-
CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
The following weaknesses in internal controls over procurement, suspension and debarment procedures
and noncompliance with procurement, suspension and debarment requirements were noted for NSP:

After properties were purchased with NSP funds, the properties were rehabilitated. Bids were
solicited and received for the rehabilitation services. Change orders were submitted by the Project Manager
and reviewed by the NSP Manager, but were not signed by the Contractor and Redevelopment Commission.

Of the five contracts and change orders tested, two contracts had change orders that exceeded 20 percent of
the original contract. State statutes allow the total of all change orders issued to not exceed 20 percent of the
original contract. No written evidence was provided that the Executive Director approved any of the change
orders. Change orders were not approved by the Redevelopment Commission at a public meeting, as
required by Indiana Statute.

Was this sort like Tom's boy Phil who opened a Redevelopment Commission Bank Account, Deposited nearly $600,000 and $550,000 in checks were issued with out this Board's approval? Who cut those checks? Mr. Lendi? Mr. ATM?

Quote:

OMB Circular A-133 Section .300(b) states:
"The auditee shall:
Maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that
the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its
Federal programs."

24 CFR 85.36(b) states in part:
"Procurement standards. (1) Grantees and subgrantees will use their own procurement
procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the
procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this section."
Indiana Code 36-1-12-18 states:

"(a) If, in the course of the construction, reconstruction, or repair of a public work project, it
becomes necessary to change or alter the original specifications, a change order may be issued
to add, delete, or change an item or items in the original contract. The change order becomes
an addendum to the contract and must be approved and signed by the board and the
contractor.
(b) If a licensed architect or engineer is assigned to the public work project, the change order
must be prepared by that person.
(c) A change order may not be issued before commencement of the actual construction,
reconstruction, or repairs except in the case of an emergency. In that case, the board must
make a declaration, and the board's minutes must show the nature of the emergency.
(d) The total of all change orders issued that increase the scope of the project may not exceed
twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the original contract. A change order issued as a result
of circumstances that could not have been reasonably foreseen does not increase the scope of
the project.
(e) All change orders must be directly related to the original public work project.
(f) If additional units of materials included in the original contract are needed, the cost of these
units in the change order must be the same as those shown in the original contract."

page -85-
CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
Planning and Development Department employees working on the NSP grant (NSP Manager or NSP
Specialists) did not verify whether or not the contractors that were awarded bids for the rehabilitation services
were suspended or debarred from federal contracts.
24 CFR 85.35 states in part:

"Subawards to debarred and suspended parties. Grantees and subgrantees must not make any
award or permit any award (subgrant or contract) at any tier to any party that is debarred or
suspended or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance
programs subject to 2 CFR part 2424."

The Hammond Redevelopment Commission adopted Resolution 2-2012 on April 3, 2012, as a
response to the same finding for 2010. The Resolution is a change order policy for federally funded projects
and includes the following wording: "1. All change orders on a federally funded project that exceed twenty
percent of the current approved project budget will be presented before the Commission for approval." This
wording conflicts with Indiana Code 36-1-12-18(d).
Indiana Code 36-1-12-18(d) states:
"The total of all change orders issued that increase the scope of the project may not exceed
twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the original contract. A change order issued as a result
of circumstances that could not have been reasonably foreseen does not increase the scope of
the project."

The following weakness in internal controls over suspension and debarment procedures and
noncompliance with suspension and debarment requirements was noted for CDBG Entitlement Grants:
Written evidence was not provided that the Community Development Planner or Community
Development Finance Manager verified that vendors were not suspended or debarred from
federal transactions when those vendors had payments in excess of $25,000. Some testing for
suspension and debarment was performed by the Community Development Planner but only on
the CDBG public projects. Verification that vendors are not suspended or debarred should also
be performed by the Community Development Planner or by the Community Development
Finance Manager on all subrecipients and payments to vendors with written contracts.

24 CFR 85.35 states in part:
"Subawards to debarred and suspended parties. Grantees and subgrantees must not make any
award or permit any award (subgrant or contract) at any tier to any party that is debarred or
suspended or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance
programs subject to 2 CFR part 2424."

2 CFR 2424.220 states in part:
"In addition to the contracts covered under 2 CFR 180.220(b) of the OMB guidance, this part
applies to any contract, regardless of tier, that is awarded by a contractor, subcontractor,
supplier, consultant, or its agent or representative in any transaction, if the contract is to be
funded or provided by HUD under a covered nonprocurement transaction and the amount of the
contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. This extends the coverage of the HUD
nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements to all lower tiers of subcontracts
under covered nonprocurement transactions, as permitted under the OMB guidance at 2 CFR
180.220(c)."

page -86-
CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
The deficiencies in the control over procurement, suspension and debarment are considered a
material weakness.
Failure to follow state and federal procurement guidelines and failure to verify that vendors have not
been debarred or suspended may jeopardize the City's ability to obtain future federal funding.
We recommended that officials establish better controls to ensure compliance with federal and state
guidelines concerning procurement, suspension and debarment and to establish procedures to retain verification
that vendors were not suspended or debarred from federal transactions. We also recommended that
all change orders be approved by the Redevelopment Commission at a public meeting.

Now how often have you read, the city officials need to establish better controls to ensure compliance.....

Now this has cost Hammond future funding in this program....

and tom just glosses over it.

733

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

FINDING 2011-8 - REPORTING
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
CFDA Number: 14.218
Program Title: Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
Award Number: B-08-MN-18-0006

Quarterly reports are required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The four required reports for 2011 were filed. However, the
reported amounts for the second and third quarter did not agree with the City's ledger. The City's ledger was
not used to complete the reports. A comparison of the second and third quarterly reported amounts and the
City's ledger noted the following differences:

ï»¿Item Second Quarterly Report Reported City Ledger Difference
Program Funds Drawn (Grant Receipts) 861,584 $ $ 695,079 166,505 $
Funds Expended (Disbursements) 1,668,191 982,705 685,486
Third Quarterly Report
Program Funds Drawn (Grant Receipts) 244,825 556,679 (311,854)
Program Income Received 705,349 620,534 84,815
Funds Expended (Disbursements) 147,106 682,460 (535,353)

HUD cannot adequately monitor the grant funds or adequately assess their needs if reports are not
accurately completed. No attempt was made to reconcile the City's receipts and disbursements ledger to the
quarterly reports. Internal controls in place are not working to ensure that amounts reported agree to the
City's ledger. Failure to comply with these requirements could cause the City to be ineligible to receive future
federal awards.

We recommended the City establish procedures to ensure the City's ledger is used when preparing
the required reports as they are the City's official records. We also recommended that the Quarterly
Performance Reports be filed with correct financial information that agrees with supporting documentation for
the activity period and the supporting documentation be retained for audit. The officials should establish
controls and procedures to ensure future reports are properly prepared, reviewed, and filed in compliance
with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's guidelines.

Over $535,000 over spent/missing not accounted for..... Is this a ponzi scheme funded by Hammond Residents?

Tom?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

& here is Mr. Lendi's reply....

WTF?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

& this is a corrective action plan?

This is an insult to Hammond Taxpayers Tom!

Is this the person responsible for not tracking items as requested to comply with the Davis Bacon Act?

& Isn't this the same person who opened an account, deposited $600,000 and checks were cut from that account with out Board Approval?

Tom? Is this how you run city government? Is this how Hammond's bond rating dropped to an A?

Mr. Finance....

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

albiet minimal, this discusses in extremely minimal terms a corrective plan.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Quote:

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B41655.pdf pages 77 &78

Section II â€“ Financial Statement Findings

FINDING 2011-01 - CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTING

The City has not established effective controls to allow for the accurate reporting of the City's financial
transactions and cash and investment balances. The cash and investment balances that the City reported at
January 1, 2011, did not agree with the reported year end balances at December 31, 2010.At a minimum,
controls should be established whereby management reviews and verifies that all beginning balances for the
City's funds agree to the ending balances from the preceding year.

page -77-

CITY OF HAMMOND
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)

Reconciled bank and trust account balances and investment balances were not verified by management.
Material differences between the reconciled balances and the amounts reported in the City's yearend
financial report could have been averted by comparing reconciled bank, trust, and investment balances to
reported cash and investment balances. Establishing these controls could assist the officials to ensure
complete and accurate reporting of the City's financial activities.

Additionally, the City Controller was unaware that a trust account was established by the Department
of Redevelopment. The activity of this trust account was omitted from the financial records of the City.
Procedures to effectively communicate to the City's management should be initiated to allow for complete and
accurate financial statement reporting.

What they are talking about is Phil Tallon established a bank account. Someone (Phil?) put nearly $600,000 in to the account and with out ReDevelopment Commission Approval dispersed nearly $600,000 to vendors, two of Tom' political friends and Lendi didn't know about it, not one idea.

Quote:

McDermott talking about the NIRPC's appointment of their executive director. McDermott intended to leave Hammond after spending $160,000,000 into LONG TERM DEBT to take the NIRPC's post. See Tom put his hat in the ring for the job and when he was stiffed did something he does so well, cry about the injustice......In a phone call to Bill Nagle, Tom called to chide Nagle about the column and to argue he had done the right thing. â€œItâ€™s just a common courtesy to know the guyâ€™s background,â€ he said. After all, as mayor McDermott represents some 80,000 plus people and needs to be certain the right person is being hired.

â€œThis is a shady deal,â€ he told me â€œThere are others locally that are qualified. I donâ€™t know this guy from Kansas.â€

Tom forgets to talk about his shady deals......

HUD's Inspector General pulled funds from Hammond

Quote:

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf

And the city's response, presented by Mr. ATM himself:

Hasn't the last half dozen state audits had the same language? & Tom's says the city controller's office has received a certification of excellence..... :roll:

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Phill again involved

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Hammond's 2011 SBA Audit & Criminal Enterprise continues

Who is online