I got them, thanks BUT they are not on the web-site anymore, only the new (re-done) one. I am going to print out the two and compare to see where they're "trying to pull the wool over our eyes" thinking we're just a bunch of dumb "hillbillies". And yes I realize the SO not wanting us to have the account number, but they already cancelled it, almost as quick as Monica got the statement posted, AND it's like you say Scooby72, they did at one point "black" out the account number. So why did they recently just put out a whole new one?
And why haven't we had an audit since 08? I missed that one? Maybe the 08' audit was the last time that we really did have an "outside" audit, and now they're done by the "inside" and they don't want us to see them.
I just realized during this discussion, how terrible it is that we're even discussing this!!!! WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER QUESTIONED OUR BUDGET, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSPARENT EVERY MONTH!!!! I really don't know how they can keep anything straight, especially now that documents are being distroyed. What a mess.... we the citizens of Park surely don't deserve this. We all know where the money goes, and it sure isn't in fixing our roads!
Okay. I just looked at the Jan. Visa bill once again (the link is posted above by RidinHy06 and it can also be found on ParkBull on the link "June 2010 Archives").
Kathy Boyce writes the January Visa total $673,466.08 in "misc." on their inter-departmental sheet titled Park County Budget & Finance Voucher. That is the total paid on the itemized January Visa bill that follows. (the visa stmt. closed on Feb 1st and was paid on Feb 9th).
Decembers Visa bill (paid in January) was $234,188.79. An extra $792.05 was applied, equaling a total pymt of $234,980.84.
January's Visa charges were $674,262.82
minus the extra $792.05 and another $4.69 credit made the total due $673,466.08.
So there is no unexplained $600,000 Misc. that I keep hearing. Just look at the itemized January Visa bill that Monica Jones put up on Park Bull (now located in their June archives). These visa bills are made up of all county employees charges. Not just the SO.
I have recently attended BOCC meetings and political meetings throughout the county in order to become an informed citizen regarding the upcoming election. The people of this county seem to be concerned about transparency and how their tax money is being spent. After looking at the warrants (bills paid by the county) in last week’s Fairplay Flume, I am outraged at the payment listed to UMB Visa in the amount of $673,466.08. By law, 30-25-111 C.R.S., it is the duty of the board of county commissioners to disclose “the name of and the amount paid to each individual or firm, a description of the services or material furnished to the county, and, as to other items, the nature of any claim and disclosing the fund charged with each expenditure.” This listing of “county credit card” seems to defy this law. Although the check was made to UMB Visa, they are not the vendor, they are a creditor. UMB Visa may receive the check but they then disburse this money to the individuals providing service. It would seem to me that amount of money would constitute many vendors and many different services or material provided. It may be that these expenditures are expensed properly in the budget but how would the citizens know that without requesting open records. I have made such a request this morning and am scheduled to pick up the information on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 12:00. I decided to research the bills further and found that the UMB Visa bill for January was $234,980.84, December $74,187.69, November $22,001.31 and October $15,151.63. Over $1,000,000.00 spent in five months without a breakdown of expenditures. I expect better from my county commissioners and that is why I am officially announcing my candidacy as an unaffiliated candidate for County Commissioner-District 3.
More: The County Commissioners are required by statute to publish payments by the county (not including salaries) on a monthly basis. The statute requires that the published report include the name of the payee, amount, and a description of the material or services furnished to the county. A record of warrants paid must be published in the legal paper within 30 days of the close of each month.
The Park County Bulletin chose June of 2008 as a test sample and listed all expenditures as published by the BOCC. Some of the payments, when organized from the published list, showed some interesting patterns.
First, the county paid reimbursements of travel expenses to commissioners Tighe and Walker (no reimbursement to District 3), other elected officials and county employees over and above the cars that the county has voted to provide for free. Each Bailey commissioner has the free use of a car for their personal commute to work in addition to travel for county business. A recent report lists 124 cars in the county "pool" with some dedicated for the use of only one person and others available for fleet use. However, the county spent nearly $4,000 in the month of June to reimburse travel expenses. If annualized, that would total $48,000 for the year not including the cost of operating all of the vehicles owned by the government.
More startling is the large amount that the county paid in the month of June and labeled "Miscellaneous Expense" possibly failing to meet the requirements of the statute to define the type of product or service received. Over 40% of the General Fund expenditures ($139,654) in the month of June 2008 were only described as "MISC EXP" with no other explanation offered.
County personnel charged $137,374.56 to a county credit card and did not publish what purchases were made on the Visa account or by whom or for what. The entire amount of the payment of the bancard expenditures were simply labeled as "MISC EXP." In the accounting world, payment by bancard is considered a cash payment from a credit account and should be reported by the county as any other cash payment listing each charge by name of person or company receiving the cash from the bank card account and the reason for the payment. The county may have skirted this requirement of the statute.
Now after sitting down for a few hours, break everything down on these original VISA bills, and reading these statements, do you REALLY think everything is on the "up and up" with OUR tax dollars???? :readp:
No, I don't believe everything is on the up and up with the county's spending habits. I was merely referring to the $600,000 misc for Jan. 2010 visa bill. It's really not MISC. because we can view the line by line items on the actual visa bill. Just do not know the breakdown of what all the items are and for what department. Only some of the line items displayed the individuals names: Gore stayed at the Westin Hotel and Fred went thru a car wash. But there were some pricey heavy equipment purchased and I can only assume it was for Road & Bridge. And it looks like maybe a Van for the jail. And looks like they moved someone's belongings for approx $7,000. Did they hire a new employee that they moved??
BUT they are not on the web-site anymore, only the new (re-done) one. I am going to print out the two and compare to see where they're "trying to pull the wool over our eyes" thinking we're just a bunch of dumb "hillbillies". And yes I realize the SO not wanting us to have the account number, but they already cancelled it, almost as quick as Monica got the statement posted, AND it's like you say Scooby72, they did at one point "black" out the account number. So why did they recently just put out a whole new one?
