To Catch A Thief
The Hattiesburg American ran a story today about two utility clerks in Collins that were charged with embezzlement. Apparently, the two set up a scheme to receive utility services provided by the city with no intention of paying for the services. I didn't know that would fall under the category of embezzlement. You mean to tell me that if a business owner was receiving free water and sewer services and not being billed for those services, that would be considered embezzlement? (Did you catch the sarcasm in that rhetorical statement?) But how can something like that happen? Wouldn't they need someone else in the office to help cover their tracks? Oh, my bad. The article did say that two women were indicted in the embezzlement scheme. One defination for embezzlement stated that it is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted. Embezzlement is performed in a manner that is premeditated, systematic and/or methodical, with the explicit intent to conceal the activities from other individuals, usually because it is being done without their knowledge or consent. Often it involves the trusted person embezzling only a small proportion or fraction of the funds received, in an attempt to minimize the risk of detection. If successful, embezzlements can continue for years (or even decades) without detection. Interesting.
There are times when I love your blog and there are times when I hate your blog. But you have given me something to think about today. I can see why our city clerk is so intent on keeping Sue in the office. They are covering up something. They could be stealing water, making out fake payroll checks or any other number of things. Sue has had four years to get her certification but she has refused to do so. Why is that? Thanks for the insight, and I will be watching City Hall to see what will be done about this mess.
ReplyDeleteThis comment does not apply to this post, but since the event I'm about to describe happened this morning, I am placing the comment here. I was approached this morning by a Lumberton City worker and he asked my why did I put his name in the paper (blog) and I told him that I didn't mention his name. I knew he was referring to the blog about the budget cuts when I listed the names of those that should remain on the public works payroll. I asked him did he read his name on my blog, knowing that there is a possiblity that he can't read, and he said no, but someone told him that his name was on the blog. I looked at him, shaking my head, and told him that I did not mention his name when I was talking about the employees that should remain on payroll. He said thank you and drove off. I guess when it comes to some people, you can still hid things from them by putting it in writing.
ReplyDeleteTo the annonymous comment above. I do not blog for an approval rating. I am attempting to get some answers about the way things are done at city hall. Contrary to popular belief, I don't just allow comments that are flattering to appear on this blog. I allow comments that are relevant. I don't know what is going on at City Hall, I am just guessing, but I have been wondering why would the City Clerk keep a person that has refused to get the training needed for her job. But I am also wondering why the Board of Aldermen is allowing Sue to remain on Lumberton's payroll. Also, I am wondering if Sue paid back the registration fee for the Summer Training program she didn't attend. But I have a feeling that the registration fee was never paid, which is another indication that the City Clerk knew that Sue had refused to attend another training program and didn't pay the registration fee. I don't know this for a certainty, but if it is true, what will the Board of Aldermen do with this information?
ReplyDelete