The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-02-21

and all financial obligation claim
 ed by the said report and audit
 of the Waterbury Charter Com
 mission
 Tt is further Voted:
 That these findings be sigend by each member of this board concurring in them and that they be incorporated in full, together
 with the said opinion of the cor
 poration counsel, in the records of this board.
 That the record of these pro-
 ceedings, with a copy of the said k opinion of the corpo. )n coun- k sell; he transmitted to .,,le board
 of aldermen of the City of Wa
 terbury.''
 The communication from Judge Thoms, follows: es
 Honorable Charles S.aOConnor, Corporation Counsel City, of Water bury, f5Ns
 Dear Sir: ,#3 ...; ... ferences we have had with you with regard to the report of the charter commission. in so far as it relates to the tax collectors office, during the years, of 1922-1930, we wish to offer ther following comments and sugges- tions: f
 .1. From the years 1922 to 1929, the accounts of the collector were audited according to law by the con- troller's office, in accordance with Section 50 on Page 32 of the char ter, and notice of their correctness was annqually transmitted to the surety company which thereupon iss sued bond to the city. At no time dtIr 0t- lector. appraised of any discrepancy or error in his accounts until the summer of 1929 when information came to him from you that there was an alleged discrepancy. where upon the collector demanded that another audit of his, accounts be made. At no time did he receive any | notice of any discrepancy from the controllers office. It is obvious that had any notice of an alleged des- crepancy been given him upon its better position to run it down with the facts and data fresh in his his mind, rather than several years after its alleged occurrence.
 l "2. During his incumbancy, the collector handled approximately $41,500,0O0 under a system which the charter commission condemns because of inadequacy and under. payment of clerical assistance and because of the form of bill then ir use, and because of the lack of pro per machinery for the handling o1 such great sum of money. It wa. Inevitable that through errors b, the clerks some discrepancy mus appear from time to time. Int clerks were without bond and under l the pay of the city. We understand that to-day the charge to the city for clerk hire is $6,000 per annun more than during his incumbenc, and expense for billing also i. greatly increased.
 I "3. Referring to the matter of in terest on daily balances, the com missions report states that a care full checkup of the amounts remittet to the treasurer. disclosed that the collector relnitted $4,012.3G, leaving a balance of $4,S65.34 which he did not account for to the treasurer This amount was transferred to the treasurer by check of $23,517.95 dated August 16, 1929. and was SC i credited in the audit of that date b! | Messrs Coates and Copeland. Sub sequent to that date all interest or daily balances was credited directl! to the city's account. So that al interest claimed in the audit of the charter commission has been trans fererdi to the city.
 ] "4. With regard to the check mentioned in the matter of the Wa terbury Buckle Co. this check was turned into the account of the col lector; no checks were drawr against this account except in favor of the city treasurer and in the closing of the account all moneys remaining were transferred to the city, so that this sum came to the city even though the item at that time did not appear on the dail, cash transactions in the collectors office.
 l "5.a With regard to the statement that the collector was Illegally re- ceivfng a salary of $3.500 per annurr linstead8.rf $2,50o we respectfull,