Response from Prosecuting Attorney Richards

Posted by John B. Kalb - 11/19/08 @ 12:59 pm - Filed Under Uncategorized

UPDATE - Jeff Pruitt: Link should be working now. Kalb also posted the text in the comments

Received in todays mail - from Karen E. Richards -

Comments

9 Responses to “Response from Prosecuting Attorney Richards”

  1. Abby on November 19th, 2008 2:00 pm

    can’t click on the doc… there seems to be a problem.

  2. Bob G. on November 19th, 2008 3:14 pm

    URL is “broke”…

    B.G.

  3. john b. kalb on November 19th, 2008 10:02 pm

    Sorry about that, I believe it’s my fault - don’t know what I’m doing - so here is what was said:

    November 14, 2008

    Dear Mr. Kalb:
    I have reviewed your letter of Novemer 12, 2008. Our office has been in contact with the Indiana State Board of Accounts regarding the audit of Fort Wayne Controller, in reference to the time period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (Report # B32815, dated September 29, 2008).
    The State Board of Accounts has not certified this audit as they do not believe that any of the conduct contained in that report rises to the level of a criminal offence. I have also reviewed the report. My review of the report and the opinion of the State Board of Accounts indicates that there is no criminal investigation necessary, and that nothing in the report rises to the level of criminal prosecution. Therefore, there will not be criminal charges arising from the report at this time.

    Sincerely,

    (Signed)
    Karen E. Richards
    Prosecuting Attorney
    38th Judicial Circuit
    State of Indiana
    cc: Ben Lanka, JG
    Kevin Leininger, NS

    Maybe one of our reader/attorney or CPA types can help us all know what is meant by an “uncertified audit”?

  4. River Citizen on November 20th, 2008 6:41 pm

    Can someone please clarify for me, is it not true that on Dec. 27, 2007, Pat Roller paid The High Performance Government Network $95,000.00 for 2007?
    I thought that then, early in 2008, another big chunk was paid for the first part of 2008, and recently I saw a monthly payment figure mentioned. My question is: “Weren’t these people on the city payroll for all of 2007? So that initial $95,000 paid 12/27/07 constitutes those persons being DOUBLE PAID FOR ALL OF 2007, does it not?”
    Thank you.

  5. Kevin Knuth on November 21st, 2008 10:19 am

    River,

    My understanding is that the City’s position is that the money is paid IN ADVANCE- so the 2007 payment was for 2008.

  6. Bobett on November 21st, 2008 7:23 pm

    The $95K money appropriated before Mayor Henry
    entered into office while previous Mayor Richard held office was for what? It was not for a future business endeavor from the previous admin., was it?

    Pat Roller… tell the tax-payers how this money is allocated & why?

    What was it for, how is being allocated…to whom?

  7. Kevin Knuth on November 21st, 2008 8:16 pm

    Roller has explained this before and it is in her response to the state. (page 20).

    The payment IN 2007 was for services in 2008.

  8. Bobett on November 21st, 2008 9:18 pm

    Kevin, would you happen to have a link or maybe post the information from Roller written to the State documenting this on page 20?

    I missed it.

    Thank you kindly.

  9. Kevin Knuth on November 22nd, 2008 7:22 am

    Bobett-

    here you go!

    http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B32815.pdf

Leave a Reply