The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-09-02
CRITICISES VOUCHER
 SYSTEM
Lill Says Those For Chari- ties Department, Drawn in Most Slipshod Man nerD

Today's instalment of the LiN re- port is a criticism of the voucher sys- tenn of the City Government. con demning the absence of certified copies of pay rolls and invoices for materials. It especially criticises the vouchers of the Board of Public Charities declaring that of all the vouchers examined these were drawn in the most slipshod manner" From the examination of vouchers and that there was indicated "a lack of supervision over expenditures on the part of the administrative head" The statement with specimen vouchers follows:
 An examination of the vouchers supporting payments to the Bridge port port Construotion CO: develops the in rendering their invoices to the City of Bridgeport: Each invoice is supported by a daily report Showing:
 Contract, location, date, class of la bor furnished, number employed, to- tai hours. rate per hours with exten- sion under pay roll caption.
 It is presumed the charge corre- spends with their own pay roll of employees under date as shown on report. The charge for the day is given plus 15 per cent; to cover con- to cover liability insurance.
 In some instances the daily report was approved by City Inspector
 
 work performed; in other instances the daily report was only approved by the Inspector without comment.
 No certified copy Of pay rolls nor certified copies of invoice for mate rials used were attached to vouchers.
 Of all vouchers examined, those relating to the Board of Public Char ities were drawn in the most slip shod manner.
 Purchases of groceries and provis- ions ares made for the immediate re- lief of the poor These purchases are made by orders issued by the Board of Charities. It was not found that these orders governed in any way the character of materials to be fur nfshed but allowed the recipient of an order to buy as he pleased to the amount stated therein. That the City has been imposed upon is beyond question,( as expensive meats, cheeses poultry, eggs, sardines, butter and in a number of cases tobacco, were pur- chased.
 The vouchers supporting payments TOT these items were decidedly 1n- complete, inadequate and lacking in proper approval In some cases the voucher was supported by an invoice In other cases only the article and price were given, and in other the only support was a slip of paper stating that groceries and provisions nished. PTa TaCtica,lly the only ap- proval on either invoice of vouches was by rubber stamp.
 That the comments relative to the support of disbursements may be more readily understood, a number of vouchers have been selected, ex- tracts from which are given here with: There were a number sim liar to the following: Voucher, in favor of Lehman's Shore house; hsrged ono to 5nGidentals is ameunt n9 int voice dated December IT, 1920, rem dered to the City of Bridgeport.
 Other miscellaneous vouchers were as follows: Voucher, in favor of Henry Careteson: charged to lights; amount, s20. Support is composed of invoices dated October 1920, Au- s20. No information given as to ne cessity of expense. Voucher, in fa- vor Of D. Ella, chairman; charged to Incidentals; amount, $42-5o. Support Is. 1920, rendered City of Bridgeport. Claims Committee expense, $42-50; i; not itemized. No further informa- tion.
 A number of vouchers had been is- sued supporting payments made on account of various claims As these vouchers were all drawn in a similar manner a copy of only one, No. 9415, issued in January. 1921, is given here. In favor of Peter F. Rappe- line Claims Committee-Miscela Claims. Amount, $1.1o0- Re verse of voucher is blank with ex- ception of rubber stamp reading:
 This payment is authorized by the Common Council at the meeting held aI (written in) January IT, 1921, fol lowing the adoption of report submit ted by the (written in) Claims Com mittee. Attest: Signed, John H. Nelson.''
 No further Information.
 There are other vouchers which ir addition to being improperly support ed indicated lack of supervision over expenditures on the part of the ad- rninistra tive head of the department such as:
 "A payment of s1s2.57 to A Ma troni- Notation on voucher stated the amount covered groceries, pro- visions for outside poor. However, the supporting invoice was rendered in 2 foreign language. This voucher shows ticIes or prices. Neither does it beal approval showing the materials were properly received
 "A voucher in favor of PhiliI Bachner amounting to SS7.50. Cover groceries, etc, for the relief of th' poor containing such articles as chick ems, oranges. eggs at roc per dozen spare ribs, etc
 "A voucher in favor of H. Vein stein. amounting to $14.00 covering articles for the relief of the poor con tained an item for tobacco.
 "A voucher in favor of C. Gunnrore amounting to S25.S3 covering article for the relief of the poor was com posed of such items as sardines, ohv' oil catsup, sliced ham and ga mantle.
 "A voucher in favor of NapoH I'm ported Grocery Co.,, amounting to S21. % covering articles for the relief O the poor, contained an item for i'm ported cheese
 The extracts from the vouchers a given above were selected more or les at random from the Auditors files and are a fair sample of what is pur ported to be a permanent record sup porting the disbursement of pubh