Northwest Indiana Discussion

-4-
CITY CLERK
CITY OF HAMMOND
AUDIT RESULTS AND COMMENTS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On April 24, 2013, the Clerk's office discovered a
tampered docket and a duplicate fraudulent receipt.
With no reasonable explanation for the docket tampering or fraudulent receipt, an investigation was initiated
which uncovered additional discrepancies in several dockets. All discrepancies documented were executed
by the Senior Clerk.

At the timethe discovery (April 24, 2013) was made, the Senior Clerk was not allowed
access to the dockets and electronically maintained files until the investigation was
completed. After meeting with the City Clerk Attorney, the Senior Clerk, Debra Scott, was dismissed on April 30, 2013.

The State Board of Accounts was notified on July1, 2013, and a special investigation was performed on the dockets in
question. Following are the results of our review.


COLLECTIONS NOT DEPOSITED

Financial transactions of cases established prior to February 2010 were recorded in the WRIT system
(computer software). In addition to receipts being written and recorded in the WRIT system, all receipts are
recorded on a handwritten defendant case docket, including the amount, date, and receipt number.
In 13 cases, WRIT receipts were found to have been duplicated. Per the handwritten defendant case
dockets, the same WRIT receipt number recorded on one defendant's case docket was also recorded to
another defendant's case docket, but with different dollar amounts and dates. The original WRIT receipt
amount was deposited and recorded in the financial software; however, the duplicate, copied receipt was not
deposited or recorded as follows:

We requested that Debra Scott, former Senior Clerk, reimburse the Clerk $4,
306 for the collections not deposited.

(See Summary of Charges, page
Indiana Code 5-13-6-1(c) st
ates in part: ". . . Public funds deposited . . . shall be deposited in the same form in which they were received."
Funds misappropriated, diverted or unaccounted for through malfeasance, misfeasance, or non-
feasance in office of any officer or employee may be the personal obligation of
the responsible officer or employee. (Accounting and Uniform Compliance Guide
lines Manual for City and Town Courts, Chapter