-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------
In the 147 pages of Mr. Anderson's expenses are some odd receipts/notations.
1. A receipt for January 26 and 27 made out to Mr. Frank Anderson, Exhibitions Association of NS, Yarmouth Arriving January 26 and departing January 29, 2006 with all additional pages of the bill from the Westin missing for the 28th and 29th of Janaury 2006. On January 26, three rooms are charged to Mr. Anderson's account and on January 27, seven rooms are charged to his account.
Now, here is where is gets really confusing..... if Mr. Anderson was there on SWSDA business why is he only charging SWSDA for one night's accommodation?
On the other hand, if I assume he was there only one day on SWSDA business (since he's only charging SWSDA for one night), why is he charging SWSDA for accommodation for January 30/31, 2006 and not as reflected in the receipt at the Westin for January 26, 2006.
It gets better.... On January 26, 2006 Mr. Anderson has a receipt from the Triangle Ale House for $80.48 plus a handwitten tip of $20.00 for a total of $110.48 apparently charged to SWSDA as a SWSDA business expense when he wasn't there on SWSDA business on Janaury 26, 2006.
Without putting too fine a point on the confusion... here's where real questions arise. On January 25, 26, and 27 he claims taxi receipts of $8.00, $10.00, $10.00, $10.00, $8.00, $10.00 and $10.00 .... and on January 28, 2006 he claims $46.00 for what looks like drinks and or food at the Westin Hotel plus a handwritten tip of $8.00 for a total of $54.00 while apparently on Exhibition business.
And, the coup de grace... Mr. Anderson bills SWSDA for mileage on January 30/31 to Halifax return to Yarmouth of $192.18 when he really appears to have been there primarily on Exhibition Business! Or... was he? Who can tell?
Ombudsman Act
-
*****TRANSFORMING CLIENTS INTO CITIZENS******
CONCERNED CITIZENS PETITION WORKS!
It took a while but the petition from Concerned Citizens of Shelburne
app...
14 years ago
9 comments:
Sloppy, sloppy, bookkeeping. It figures Frank would slip the Western N.S. Exhibition in there somewhere to cover for expenses. If this is a sample of what the ex-BMO Business Accounts Manager's expense submissions look like, we can only imagine what the other year's look like.
fromwhowouldbelieveitunlesstheysawit
dear who would belive it....
as much as I find your attentiveness engaging, calling Frank's records "sloppy book keeping" is like saying Charlie Manson suffered from "poor impulse control".
The real crime here is that of all of the mayors, councilors and wardens who oversee our interests on the board, only one in 14 years has raised the slightest objection to the "Andersonization" of SWSDA.
Five years ago, I sat in the Council Chambers at Barrington and had the representative from Clark's Harbour explain with evident glee that "gosh, we've never seen Frank's expenses... ever."
Frank is just being Frank, but we didn't elect him. We elected Sherm Embree, Louise Halliday, Elizabeth Acker, Lonnie Townsend, Phil Mooney, Trevor Cunningham, etc etc. THESE are the people who are betraying the public trust day-to-day... and we are PAYING them to do it!
We think Frank appears to be using the SWSDA funds as his personal slush fund, and without the oversight of his underlings on the BofD's he thought he could get away with it - and by gosh he almost did. We just read SC Today and see there are rumours of Frank Anderson's call to McNeil yesterday telling him to keep his nose out of SWSDA affairs - LOL. Good for you Stephen McNeil in speaking out on a need for an independent audit of SWSDA, and good for you Darian for not letting the issue die during your campaign, as many were hoping you would. Change is in the air - the truth is finally rising to the top.
Fr/finallysweetjustice
I hope that this issue is not becoming a political football to be kicked around for political points.Lets face it Darian is no cleaner than the rest-----they are all in the same bath water.
Anon/9:30PM - Its not a political football - yet. On the other hand, when you consider the various ministers responsible for this RDA since the base and boy school lands were sold for a song, it could become a hot issue if the players in this game wanted to make it one.
I have noted that Eddie Nickerson didn't support the petition requesting an independent audit of SWSDA, and I wasn't aware of the MGA amendment restricting the Municipality of Shelburne from transferring the land to SWSDA, until I read Mr. Cayer's blog this morning. How did something so obvious escape the eyes of all concerned?
As for Darian, I felt the same until I began digging back into the minutes of the various municipal governments concerned, and the Team Shelburne meetings. He and Parker spoke out against what they saw happening within SWSDA, and you have to give credit where credit is due. Mr Cayer has shown us what they suspected all along.
I'm not promoting any of this riding's candidates, but I know this issue has made me sit up and take a look at what has been happening the past fifteen years. Partisan politics does not belong in a development agency, and this is exactly what has ruined ours.
Fr Iseethatpigscanfly!
These sre not exactly outrages expences. Having organized school board confrences in another province, they sound reasonable. It is also not unusual to divide expences between various funding agencies. At one point I bill my school board, the dept. of Education and an education publishing company. Ann R.
Bill the school board for alcohol???????
The expenses discussed in this blog are outragous and to suggest otherwise brings some interesting crdibility questions to mind. I would think that Ed Nickerson would be smart to overlook these crimes if he wishes to wear PC shoes!Boss Richies wields a hugh sword!This is one big mess and there is a litany of things that people many eventually wish they had not overlooked. Meanwhile the p[lot thickens.........
By now everyone should know why Parker had reservations when it came to Frank.
Post a Comment