The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-07
Browns Audits Under Criticism By Hartford Bdgep Officials


 The work, he said, was continued under the authorization of the may or of Hartford and two members pi the board of finance, without ap- propriation, "but with their assur- ance that an appropriation would be made"
 Brown admitted that he was forc- ed to bring suit in the Hartford superior court to collect the remain deE of his bill, $22,000 or $23. .000. He said that he recovered $17,00g, which was not the full amount of the bill.
 .Did you know that the account was over-expe pended?" demanded Sea- man.
 aFhats no concern of mine" re- piled Brown.
 Laughter sounded from the ranks of the defendants and from the gal- lery of spectators.
 Maintain order, MT. Sheriff" or dered Judge Inglis as the deputy sheriff's gayel pounded on the daiS.
 Contingency Fund
 Brown inserted the statement that the city of Hartford has a con- tingency fund.
 Referring Brown to his previous testimony, Seaman read from the record that Brown had testified, ssIt is not debt due to me until there is an authorization to pay it." Brown had said that if the appropriation was $1,0O0 and the bill was $1,1O0, "$1 ,OO0 is all I can recover until arl- other appropriation is made"
 Pointing back to the suit insti- tuted against Hartford by Brown to collect his bill, Seaman asked, Isn't that in conflict with your testi- mony?"
 "No, it is not" the witness said firmly.
 If there is not a debt due" asked Seaman, "how could you bring the action?"
 Because they had not made the appropria tion," was the response. They had judgment rendered against them and they had to obey it."
 Seaman, reading again from the record of previous testimony, point ed out to Brown that he had said if no appropriation were made for the additional $1Oo (used in the hypothetical example), he would be stuck" for it.
 Browns suit, Seaman contended, was directly contradictory to the testimony given in court"
 "No, it's not" Brown insisted.
 Brown said that his early bill for $4,760 to the city of Hartford for the audit should have been higher but that he recognized the budget appropriation and kept it below the $5,00Q mark.
 Expediency
 Reading from the journal of the Hartford common council, Seaman referred Brown to statements al- legedly made by him in his report on the welfare audit that "because of political expediency he had made no comments"
 Brown denied that he had made such g statement. The bill, he said was about $10,000 more than he an ticipated it would be. He said that he received $50 a day for his ser vices; senior assistants received $30 8 day and junior assistants $20 a day.
 Brown did not recall saying, as was reported in the common council journal, that they would have te read between the lines" to under stand the meaning of the audit re. port.
 Seaman reminded him that the statement was credited to him ir public document and asked Brown if he had sued for libel as result of it. Brown replied that "It didn't mean anything to me"
 Asked by Seaman if he kneN a former employe by name of P. L Hansen. Brown replied, I'm sorry to say I did"
 Seaman then reminded Brown thai he had testified concerning his utmost confidence" in his men Brown replied that he had suck confidence in Hansen while hs worked for him. Seaman reminded him further of his statements that he relied on his men and was responsible for them.
 Brown identified Hansen as { senior accountant who had been en- ployed by him during the Hartford welfare audit, but whom he hao discharged. The discharge was not for lack of ability, he admitted, but the reason was not given.
 According to 8 report made by Hansen to the aldermanic commit- tee of Hartford, concerning the well fare audit. Seaman said, Browns report did not contain enough in- formation regarding recapitulations and no one could gather recon structive information from it.
 Brown said he had not seen Han. sens report.
 Brown told Seaman that eight men worked for him on the Hartford audit, but according to Seaman Hansen's report, Brown had three senior accountants, two semi-Sen- iors and two men who could no even have been classified as juniol accountants.
 Hansen reported to the commit, tee, according to Seaman, tha Brown could have taken many short cuts which would have allowed tn, earlier completion of the audit Hansen said that Brown told him t. "do it the long way" and as a re suit he had been kept working , month more than was necessary. Asked to comment on those re marks of his former employe. Brow said, You know a discharged em ploye -."
 Saw No Copy Brown admitted that he had bill ed the city of Hartford for Hanson work. He claimed, however. tha ha had Yaayass saera a cnrnv of EYou