It's only been a couple of years since
the last time this happened, but despite a new Trustee who vowed this would not occur under his watch, it appears that there is
another problem with theft in the Trustee's office.
Worse, I've heard that there may be another employee fixing to get caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
It seems to me that it would be prudent to simply require a debit card, check, cashier's check or money order for property tax payments -- not cash. Since it's a fairly large sum that only has to be paid once per year, requiring a payment other than cash would protect the taxpayer AND the office, while not putting an undue burden on anyone.
A no-cash policy would be more secure than any number of other options (like background checks), and wouldn't cost a dime to implement.
Can someone enlighten me as to why this hasn't been done already?
No, I have no such enlightenment. There are secure cash processes too. I guess they haven't seen the need to follow such procedures.
Believe it or not NM, some people do not have debit cards or checking accounts. Are you really suggesting doing away with cold hard cash? As CN suggested, there are secure ways to handle cash payments. But the bottom line is that with a valid receipt the thief will not remain at large for long.
I guess in the taxpayers' interest, I was thinking of ways to deal with the problem at no cost. Background checks, polygraphs, etc. do carry some cost for the employer (in this case, that's us). While there probably are ways to deal with cash securely, I'm guessing that the number of people who pay taxes with cash are pretty few. How much expense should we go to in order to preserve that luxury (?) for the few?
Even someone who keeps all their money in the mattress can get a money order at Kroger. A no-cash policy would eliminate risk for the Trustee's employees (risk of robbery, primarily) as well as for the taxpayer (having a paper trail).
Does the IRS accept cash payment of income taxes? Where? Wouldn't that be a big ol' audit flag?
"I am betting a no-cash policy would be illegal ..."
I doubt that.
There are several governmental entities (state & federal) with whom I've dealt that will not accept anything other than a cashier's check, a money order or a credit card -- no cash; no checks. I'm not sure about debit cards.
If one catches a short line at the post office or the grocery store, a money order will cost less than a dollar and take less than five minutes -- and the last time I got a cashier's check, it cost nothing because I had an account at the bank.
That doesn't seem like any kind of discrimination to me -- unless one characterizes simple good business sense as discrimination...
A no cash policy is not illegal, just like a no check policy is not illegal. I agree with Netmom and also think there are other methods that can be put in place to catch a thief. Receipting every payment and then listing them. Balancing your cash drawer each day with liability to the owner of the cash drawer if it does not balance. Taking a lie detector is ludicrious but doing backround and credit checks on every employee you hire plus checking their references is a good start. This is becoming much too common of a practice at the courthouse which makes you question their hiring techniques. From what I read the proper procedures were taken by the Trustee but maybe policy needs to be reviewed. There are many security measures that can be put into place. Maybe this is where Big Brother is needed.
First of all, I said receipting EVERY payment. Second, a lie detector in an investigation is ok but until you know there is theft it is a waste of taxpayers money to be given randomly. I believe the scope of this problem is much bigger. Anytime you are dealing with CASH you run a risk. Take a look at the defunked probation department and the insurance problems that have gone on at the courthouse. The Trustee followed proper procedure for theft and there is no cover up but we have had other elected officials who justify and condone improper behavior by county employees. REMEMBER THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT.. We never did get the answers there and never will since the CHUMP wrote few receipts and left a hog pog that the auditors couldn't even make sense out of it. You can't audit what was never receipted. If I remember correctly the receipts that were there were not even in numerical order when one was written. Cash was their philosophy. Can't trace that. Many people saw checks being cashed at Git N Go in South Clinton by a certain person. Come on so, is this just the tip of the iceburg. Can you say KNOX COUNTY.
Sounds like Peyton Place at Anderson County Courthouse. Maybe we need a clean sweep of the helm. I commend the trustee for reporting it and taking the action he needed to take but I think maybe the managment of his office needs revamped. He inherited some employees and maybe he needs to do housecleaning. Heads need to be rolling. I would look for someone who is trustworthy to run the day to day operations and put them over the entire office. Someone is not doing their job if this type of thievery can go undetected. There needs to be a system in place to be a fail safe. We saw what can happen when someone is left to run unsupervised. Yes, I have not forgotten the Probation Department fiasco either PI. It was left without action being taken against the heads. Instead they just dissolved the department hoping the problems would go away. These types of problems never go away unless the culprit goes away. Think of this when you cast your vote for County Mayor next election. With the loss of the lord mayor the culprits leave also.
There are some good ideas here. Protection of taxpayers money has to be the number 1 obligation of the office holders. The trustee followed the proper procedures in place but I think there has to be some soul searching as to how this happened again. A part time employee should not be one who is handling taxpayers and their money. I would be looking for someone more experienced to take payments. My question is, is a part-time employee even covered by bonding? The best of the suggestions is NO CASH. Second,an office manager who is held accountable for the running of the office.
There are some good ideas here. Protection of taxpayers money has to be the number 1 obligation of the office holders. The trustee followed the proper procedures in place but I think there has to be some soul searching as to how this happened again. A part time employee should not be one who is handling taxpayers and their money. I would be looking for someone more experienced to take payments. My question is, is a part-time employee even covered by bonding? The best of the suggestions is NO CASH. Second,an office manager who is held accountable for the running of the office.
I don't think the requirement should be a "no cash" policy. Many are correct in saying that some people don't trust trading with anything other than the good ol greenback. There's nothing wrong with that.
This is a serious offense and should be taken as such. I certainly hope that the Trustee is going to back legal action being taken to show that this is not to be tolerated even under his watch. I don't think he should be held personally responsible for someone having sticky fingers, but he can enforce policies, procedures and the law. He should be held responsible for who he chooses to watch the hen house. An initial background check and "zero tolerance" procedure would be a great start.
I'm still mad that someone has ripped "us" off. That's my money too. I want something done about it.