Evening journal., 1923-02-12
SUBMITS REPORT
ON LEVY COURT.
Bookkeeping and Control
System Anticipated, De-
clareS Townsend
MEMBERS PROMISE
TO REMEDY DEFECTS

The following IS the report of the
investigation Of tho Levy Court
made by Attorney-General Sylvester
! ID. Townsend, Jr.. TO the bulge;
committee OF the General Assembly
under date Of February 3.
Period Covered by Investigation.
I have caused an audit and ex-
animation % be made OF the books,
records and accounts OF the Levy
Court OF New Castle county for the
period from January /. 1927 %
June 80. 1922. have also examined
several witnesses.
Road Work.
(a):-Vouchers issued by road
supervisors. which are the basis for
tho payment OF men employed by
the county on road work. check out
correctly with the warrants or
checks or the county treasurer.
These vouchers do not. however in
dictate by name or other form OF
identity each and every one OF the
men employed In any particular Job
OF road work. The vouchers in some
instances give only the name OF one
man as representing the combined
time OF whatever number OF men
he may be supposed TO have had
working for him NJ the time. The
treasurer's warrant Is drawn 20 this
particular mans favor. Presumably
he IN turn compensates the men
employed. In few cases vouchers
we're made out by persons other
than the supervisors responsible.
and signed and forwarded for him.
AS the voucher. in effect. represents
time card" the foregoing prac-
tees do not permit OF satisfactory
audit.
90 on certain contracts, such as
for Stag, where delivery Is made TO a
number OF road jobs concurrently or
at intervals, sufficient records have
not been kept 10 determine that the
Stag actually has been delivered; IN
ether words. 20 what extent the con.
tract has been fulfilled. Insofar as
the record discloses (althOugh the
Levy Court may have had full. n
formation) there IA nothing TO show
what deliveries were actually made.
Co There are numerous cases
where payments We're authorized
and made for labor or material fur
nished by outside persons. and for
which the bill Is made out on the
regular Levy Court blllheads. fire. I
ouently typewriter. From an au-
diting standpoint at least there is /
nothing whatever 10 show that the l
claimant has actually rendered any /
bill or that he in any way certlies I
to the correctness OF the bill as ap-
proved by the Levy Court, other I
than. is shown by the acceptance and I
endorsement OF his check or war
rant There Is of course. no crimi-
nallty in such a practice. but it is at
least improper from an auditing
standpoint. II would be difficult.
after the payment OF such a bill. 10
successfully dispute its accuracy.
Miscellaneous.
(a) Under this head. p- .rly I
sub-diTded into various acc. IN
accordance with the bulge, ar /
appear all expenditures .
except thost for dirt roads. such as
Automobile Expense" Printing
and Stationery" County Roadwork
Expenses" Witness Fees" Court
etc. All warrants are
irawn in the office OF the Clerk OF
he Peace for expenditures OF this
lass. Every voucher OF record with
n the time covered was checked {
With the warrant drawn in pay
nent 8
90 There were four warrants {
irawn In payment for which no {
'oucher or bill OF any description I
ould be found. These are being Z
urther investigated. and as a mat {
er of fact, their loss could easily be {
ccounted for. I am Informed that
hese vouchers are subject TO with
travail from the files by any county s
mploye, at any time. including v
members Of the Levy Court Appar-
ntly no record is kept OF such with
rawal. Therefore. il voucher is
OF returned. this Is simply the last ]
4 It. and the only authoritative &
ecord is then lacking. d
Co In connection with the dirt q
pad bills. a large number Of cases e
xist where the bill IS drawn on the +
.evy Court bill head without any +
on the bill or in the record a
Z any connection or identity what
YER with the persons to whom the
ayments are subsequently made. n
Is this true OF pay A
tents made for automobile ex- :
enses;
(d) Automobiles Cncluding run ,
ing and repair expense) and sta
emery and Printing show an ex-
anse Of approximately $4,000 per
Ear. The auditors examination Of
lese two accounts and the expenses
larged thereto would seem to in
cate that both classes OF this work
,uld be placed on a basis where a
.ore highly competitive condition
ould develop between the persons
dding for the work. A correction 4
,vering these items would mean a
eat saving to the county. In many
stances the charges seem TO be un-
asonably high.
e. While the books and accounts
ere in balance. the bookkeeping s
ID control system is extremely an
luated.
In conclusion will say that I have
lked with some Of the members
the present Levy Court and am
tisfied that immediate steps will 4
taken to remedy the situations Z
ove referred to. other matters (
tlrely separate and apart from the I
oks and records are now being =
av,fnad III