Evening star., 1932-03-26
24,15l SHORTAGE
CITED IN COUNTY
Berry {. Clark, Montgomery
Commissioners Clerk, Gust
ed-Case to Grand Jury.
Continued From First Page.)

with double entry bookkeeping. This
additional expense, in our opinion,
would be more than Offset by the re-
suits obtained"
The third recommendation was that
q revision in the form of cash records
was desirable. Also that a general
form of receipt should be adopted in
the treasurers Office a& d that duplicate
work of the treasurers Office might be
eliminated by the use of a voucher
check made in triplicate. Fourth. ii
was recommended that journal should
be installed with journal vouchers sup
porting each entry. Fund ledgerS are
now maintained in both the commits
sioners Office and the treasurer's Of
fee, an apparent duplication of work.
for which one set of fund ledgerS should
suffice, the report continued. Finally
1t was recommended that regular
purchase order system be installed to
cover the larger purchases or commit
ments.
With regard to the county bond Is
sues, concerning the disposition OF
which there has been some political
dispute for years, the audit stated,
1.-THE accounts were examined to de-
termine that the county had received
and properly applied the proceeds
thereof Our examination disclosed
that a proper accounting had been
made for all bond issues and GER
tificates of Indebtedness"
Summary Of Bonds.
A summary of the bonds and GER
tif1cates of indebtedness for the period
July /, 1915, to September 80. 1891,
showed, the audit set forth, $234, TOO
in issued and outstanding bonds as of
July l, 1915, $40, ,172.80 par value
issued and authorized to September 80,
1881, retired by payment $2,668, 1880,
with issued and outstanding bonds on
September 80, 1881. amounting to ST.
750,713. In relation to the obligations
the report showed the county to have
o total assessed value in taxable prop
erty of S101 ,494 ,342, made up of real
and tangible property totaling $84,-
533, $50; securities, $13,659,7 $50; assess
ments on banks, trust companies and
other corporations, $3,300,612. The un-
expended proceeds of bond issues was
shown as $3.50, ,247.e2.
The report showed a summary OF
cash receipts and disbursements for
the period from July /, 1915, to Sep
tember 80, 1881, beginning with bal
ance on hand July l of $3,195.50. Cash
receipts amounted to S26, .744.63,
cash disbursements $24,833, ,066.34, with
a balance on hand September 80, 1881,
of 81 1892, ,593.04. This left unaccounted
for cash of $24,260.85.
With regard to this unaccounted for
cash, the audit stated that the rec
ords disclose that the former county
treasurer, Berry E. Clark, has failed to
report in his annual report and ac-
count for county funds aggregating
S23,986.e3 between July l, 1915, and
May 2, 1922, the date Of his retire.
ment as county treasurer. The un-
identified cash receipts during the same
period amounted to $50. The cash
records of subsequent treaSurers since
May 2, 1922, discloses unaccounted for
cash differences Of $27422. which
fed cash receipts of $273.80, the re-
port continued.
Periods of Shortage.
OF the total of $23,986.63 shortage
shown by the audit against Mr.. Clark
while serving as county treasurer,
$40 81 occurred the year ending June 81.
1918; $4,000 the year ending June 80,
1919; S4,36071 the year ending June
80, 1920; $3,690.65 the year ending
June 80, 1921, and $5,864.3O for
portion of year to May 2, 1922. The
$4,000 item of the year ending June
80. 1919, the audit showed, was diff
ference in actual receipts IN State and
county tax collections and the re-
ported receipts.
The audit also set forth that an ex-
animation of the docket of the Cir
cult Court disclosed that $l3,355.01 is
due the county treasurer from the re-
demption of property sold for taxes, IN
which the county had proprietary
interest at the time of the death OF
d. fnFfflnr RlprK
court. I'VE are informed" the audit
continued, that the total claims
against the accounts of the former
clerk amounted to $17,5l4.05, which
amount includes the foregoing $l3,-
355.OI. and that $15,036.32 is on de-
post to liquidate such claims, leaving
@ net shortage of $2,477.73."
Disbursements Checked.
In the making of the audit, the re-
port reads, the examination "entailed
a detailed audit OF all disbursements
for the period from July l, 1915, to
September 80, 1891. This necessitated
establishing the following facts: That
invoices had been properly approved;
that the commissioners had authorized
payment, except in those cases where
a general authorization was sufficient;
that a proper order had been made on
the treasurer for the disbursement o.
county funds, and that the actual dis
bursementS were in accord with the
invoices authorizations and orders on
the treasurer"
The audit disclosed, the report con-
tinued, duplicate payments OF credi-
tors invoices or statements amounting
to $2285.76, a portion of which, 1t was
stated, may be recovered. The audit
further disclosed discrepancies in the
payment OF creditors invoices and
statements amounting to $1,1O9.56.
The decision of the commissioners
to order the audit made last Summer,
followed the reported circulation of pc
titions alleging general corruption
against the county government and de-
manding a grand jury probe OF the
county administration.
To settle the controversy the county
government decided to have COM
plete audit of all branches Of the county
government for the past l6 years and
offered TO be guided in the selection of
a firm to do this work by recommended
tions Of the Montgomery County Civic
Federation and the bankers Of the
county.
The Executive and Advisory Com
mittees of the federation met and the
committee members individually in
dorsed a list of seven firms, while the
bankers announced a list of IL firms.
Several auditing firms were repeated
on the two lists and r. G. Rankin &
Co. was one of those named by both
groups.
In notifying the Rankin firm Of their
selection the commissioners in their
letter Of August 6. 1881. stated that
they desired comparative, complete
and advisory audit showing the integ-
rity of the receipts and expenditures
of county money, paying particular at
tention to the application OF the pro-
ceeds of bond issues to the objects for
which the bonds were issued"
The letter further asked that Gin the
course of the audit, observe the sys-
tenn of collecting depoSiting disburS-