Tuesday, July 4, 2017

"...rendered at the conclusion..."

You have to release those financials at some point prior to the November election, Supervisor!

On June 20, 2017, I again sent a FOIL request to the town clerk asking for:
"...the 2016 Final Town Financial Statements performed by D’Arcangelo to include the management letter and the responses to the management letter. I would also like a copy of the Engagement letter for 2016."
On June 26, 2017, I received the following email from the town clerk:
Dear Cathy:

Attached is the Engagement Letter for the 2016 Audit. I have been informed that, as of today, the FINAL financial statement(s) have not been received.

Gail Wolanin Young
Hmmm...FINAL financial statements not received as of June 26, 2017??

Funny, to say the least, because page 6 the 2016 Engagement Letter, dated November 30, 2016, says:
"Leonard P. Carissimo, CPA, is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the reports or authorizing another individual to sign them."

"Our fee for these services, excluding the New Hartford Public Library, will be based on the actual time spent at our standard, hourly rates. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered at the conclusion of our interim and year end procedures and are payable on presentation."
So after reading that paragraph, I naturally FOILed, the D'Arcangelo invoice whether it was paid or still waiting for payment.

To my surprise, on June 29, 2017, I received a copy of the D'Arcangelo invoice dated June 2, 2017. Accoding to the invoice "Balance is due upon receipt. Please remit."  However, it has yet to be paid...we will see if it is included in the July bills to be paid.  It should be very clear to the public as to whether or not it is included for payment since the town board will need to approve a budget transfer for the overrun prior to paying the bill.

According to the invoice submitted by D'Arcangelo, one of the reasons that the invoice total is more than was budgeted is because:
"Additional time required for: 1) change in fund reporting, 2) Trust and Agency reconciliation issues; 3) accounting for BAN activity".
Interesting...could that possibly be a clue as to what is being hidden from taxpayers?

At any rate, between the 2016 Engagement Letter and the unpaid D'Arcangelo invoice dated June 2nd, we can conclude that as far as D'Arcangelo is concerned, the audit is FINAL and was probably final before my FOIL appeal hearing on May 30, 2017.

A 2016 Financial Statement was also clearly available before the Supervisor chose to submit an unaudited state comptroller's report (AUD) on June 26, 2017 in place of the submission of the town's audited financial statements as required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Continuing Disclosure Rule 15c2-12.

Even though I sent another FOIL appeal on June 29, 2017, I have yet to receive a copy of the FINAL 2016 Financial Statements. I did hear from the town clerk on June 30, 2017 when she copied me on a letter to Tyksinski and Dreimiller:
Good morning, Cathy:

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of your FOIL request below for the 2016 Final Town Financial Statements performed by D’Arcangelo to include the management letter and the responses to the management letter.

By copy of this e-mail to the Town Supervisor/Finance Offices, I am apprising them of your request.

Pat and Dan, If neither office has such document, Ms. Lawrence has requested a certification to this effect.

Gail
The fact that the town councilman have not been given a copy of the final audit should be troubling to every New Hartford resident.  Whatever Tyksinski is hiding will eventually be made public either by this blog or the state comptroller; or both!

In the meantime, stay tuned as I write a couple of blogs with a little "fact checking" of Tyksinski's campaign mantra in the Town Crier.

Everything is NOT as he tries to make it appear. Let's just say he appears to be a person stuck in "I am wonderful" mode. We all know what eventually happened to the last town supervisor who constantly said "everything is wonderful". Just sayin...



3 comments:

Austinwalker said...

Resolution passed Sept. 10, 2014

The second project involves Grange Hill Road where two (2) detention ponds are beingconsidered for installation uphill. The Town has worked well with the contractor anddetention ponds.  It was suggested that the ponds at the top of the road be done as Phase  I. And get the contractor and Highway Department crews on­site. 

Now, after two years and eight months, we are here:

DEC ENB - Region 6 Notices 6/28/2017 (Great timing)
Oneida County - The Town of New Hartford, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Grange Hill Road Drainage System Improvements Project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. The action involves the construction of a berm and a stormwater detention pond off of Grange Hill Road in the Town of New Hartford, New York. Currently, concentrated stormwater flows lead to localized flooding issues throughout the project area. The proposed detention pond and berm are anticipated to manage stormwater flows and reduce flooding problems at adjacent private properties. An access road will be constructed along an agricultural field north of the proposed berm location off of Grange Hill Road. The downstream detention pond will be located south of Grange Hill Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Oneida Street. A berm will be constructed approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the detention pond (upstream), which will contain floodwaters to an agricultural field during large stormwater flow events. This will prevent flooding of downstream residential properties. In addition, the existing closed drainage system will be replaced at the eastern end of Grange Hill Road, which discharges to Sauquoit Creek.
Sorry Chadwicks, these things take time.

.

Anonymous said...

The failure of the town board to keep bidding this project just came home to bite them in the a$$. Maybe because one certain favored excavation contractor didn't get the low bid, just maybe, folks - thats the story in CHadwicks his week. Thanks for the dumpsters to throw out my stuff for the 3rd time.

It should have been done TWO YEARS AGO. How many times do we have to go through this?

Stand up and take note of your 1 term wonder Councilman who didn't fight for you at the board table. He just took his orders from Tysinski just like the rest of them.

NO MORE MESSAS in Chadwicks.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it is because they only meet once a month. Maybe it should return to the twice a month or until the can decide on such important projects. Wonder where the King was during all the devastation in his fiefdom. The board needs a clean sweep. None of them can manage money. None of them can get anything done.