Beaumont Audit III – Forging The Check Warrants

The 'Big Three' Responsible for Forging the Check Warrants is the City Manager, Finance Director, and City Clerk

Every financial transaction must be made public. Falsifying the check warrants is considered forgery.   State and Federal laws run very deep in this area and have very stiff prison sentences. Stealing the money is embezzlement, but falsely ratifying the checks is forgery and perjury.

03/26/12 - ACH DEBIT – CITY OF BEAUMONT PAYABLES 000001OFFSET Mar 26 - $4,058.45. Warrant List shows transfer # 703 processed on 03/26/12 and transfer # 704 processed on 03/30/12. There are no transactions listed on the Check Warrant to justify this debit.

08/24/12 - ACH DEBIT – CITY OF BEAUMONT PAYABLES 000001OFFSET Aug 24 - $23,623.98. Check Warrant dated 09/18/12 shows transfers total $17,511.48. This leaves a $6,112.50 discrepancy.

Warrant List dated 10/02/12 – EFT000849 – 09/21/12 – STATE STREET BANK & TRUST - $17,720.32. This transaction is not found on the General Fund Bank Statement.

10/02/2012 – ACH DEBIT – CITY OF BEAUMONT PAYABLES 000001OFFSET Oct 02 - $17,720.32 – listed on page 3 of October Bank Statement. The last electronic funds transfer on Warrant List for 10/02/12 is dated 09/26/12 and transfer on Warrant List for 10/02/12 is dated 10/04/12.

Electronic Funds Transfers # 000883 – 000890 – This are not listed on the Warrant Reports. Council ratified transaction #882 on 11/06/12 – and ratified transaction #891 on 12/04/12. The Council meeting scheduled for 11/20/12 was canceled. It is important to note that there is no discrepancy in the check numbers.

The 'big three' responsible are the Finance Director, City Manager, and City Clerk that has an extra duty of care to assure the check warrants are not forged. State Law does not mandate that Council visibly view the checks before authorizing the check warrants.

Other entries on the Bank Statement that are not accounted for on the Check Registers:

10/10/12 – ACH DEBIT – MG Trust 142 07C647PX0000142 Oct 10 - $21,417.61

10/10/12 – ACH DEBIT – MG Trust 142 07C647PX0000142 Oct 10 - $21,813.11

10/10/12 – ACH DEBIT – MG Trust 142 07C647CN0000142 Oct 10 - $22,406.51

10/10/12 – ACH DEBIT – MG Trust 142 07C647CN0000142 Oct 10 - $22,670.40

The above transactions are listed in various amounts every month, but there is no accounting for them on the Check Warrants.

Wire Transfers: There are two Wire Transfers shown on the General Ledger that are not found on the Bank Statement:

06/27/12 – 212889 – 35-9350-4060-0000 - $759,788.36

06/27/12 – 212890 – 35-9350-4060-0000 - $296,249.14

Health & Fitness Reimbursement: Every department had three (3) entries added for health and fitness that have no memo and exaggerated amounts.

Transaction Number – Date

208734 – 05/04/12 – Health and Fitness Reimbursement

215049 – 07/27/12 - Health and Fitness Reimbursement

222921 – 10/25/12 - Health and Fitness Reimbursement

Union Bank Of California: I've been asked about these transactions; they look like a credit card charge.

175516 – 03/04/11 - $15,618.78 – Union Bank

190742 – 09/09/11 - $16,145.26 - Union Bank

194769 – 11/04/11 - $4,941.12 – Union Bank

199215 – 01/05/12 - $15,894.81 – Union Bank

202962 – 02/24/12 - $30.00 – Union Bank

210503 – 06/08/12 - $15,594.81 – Union Bank




This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Libi Uremovic December 28, 2012 at 01:03 PM
see the '05/04/12' date appears here and in the 'health & fitness reimbursements'... it looks like the city bought these lots and diverted the expense to the departments ...and when you hear the political mantra about employee benefits being high - this is the reason....the people at the top are attaching additional expenses to the line worker's employee benefits...
Ben Mason December 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Why develop ways to hide money- cities shouldn't be hiding money. every single check and transaction should be clearly labeled as to what/why/who. if you can't get answers as to what these things are for, and they can't come up with that info, really, what kind of penalties are we really looking at here? seems like slaps on wrists and lots of oh we will take your recommendations, stuff like that. Just look at Hoffman McCann who did Bell and our water district audits, and got fined for being idiots about being slack about not asking for proof while auditing. by the time you actually pin down that money can't be accounted for, everyone has left the building, and there is no pursuit. people yelling about solyndra ignore the solyndra's in their own back yard.
Judy Bingham December 29, 2012 at 04:39 PM
I wrote this on the Patch in December 2011 : "The city is run like a business," said Egger. I am tired of hearing that Beaumont is " run like a business". That is precisely the point. Business can gouge its customers for whatever profit it can get, pass the income on to its shareholders (Urban Logic) and laugh all the way to the bank. Government CAN NOT. We are not customers, but taxpayers. It is our money. We are not given the opportunity to shop elsewhere. Governmental rules, ethics and laws are expressly written to PREVENT running a government like a business! Business can hire as it wishes to contract a job, government CAN NOT. Mr. Kapanicas, City Manager keeps touting this absurd statement to show justification for managing a city in violation of governmental ethics and standard practices. It reveals to me that they are taking tax dollars that should be benefiting Beaumont's citizens, not making the 1099 employees multi millionaires.
Judy Bingham December 29, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Under his 2005 contract Kapanicas recommended development and was paid a percentage for managing the City's CFD (Mello -Roos) account.We have no way of knowing what he makes from this activity. His partner, Mr. Moorjani as the City's Public Works Director and a principal of Urban Logic Consultants, Inc. is also paid a percentage from this (not made available to the public) account when the bonds are sold. One council member(Gall) has asked numerous times for information from this account, but has never received it. If the City Council plans to allow Mr. Kapanicas to continue in this manner, could they at least sign BEAUMONT, INC. up with the Better Business Bureau, so we have somewhere to file our complaints when we get no product for our purchase? When the Director of Planning, Ernie Egger threatened BCRG (group to the south) and CVAN ( Cherry Valley Acres and Neighbors) with a lawsuit for questioning the City's "business" practices, we could not believe that City employees would actually carry through on their threat to sue the very citizens that they should be serving. (See Corruption in the City of Beaumont - Tactics - www.BeaumontGate.org How dare citizens question their so-called "business" ? I would suggest you contact the DA's office with your concerns and not waste time with these local politicians. There should be a FORENSIC ASUDIT of the city's finances. Follow the money!
margaret bragg December 29, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Taking into account that some of Libi's findings may have a valid explanation, there is just too much here to believe that all is okay. Nobody can afford this. California taxpayers aren't so flush that they can just keep coughing up vast amounts of money to run their governments, particularly when their public servants are siphoning it off as fast as they can. The IRS needs to look at some tax records. I would be interested to know what income these guys are recording. I'll bet it looks normal. Somebody(s) is(are) building nice offshore bank account(s). Lovely for them to retire in style courtesy of the citizens of Beaumont. If a couple hundred people contact the D.A., how can he ignore you? All you need say is "Please investigate Beaumont." While you're at it, contact the IRS and FBI too. Remember the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, " People get the government they deserve." No one deserves this, but it will take an outcry to make something happen.
Karl December 31, 2012 at 02:57 AM
Judy Bingham Liar Liar Pants on Fire. You have no idea what you are talking about. The city charges a cost for administering the CFD's. The city collected the money and used contract folks and in house folks to administer the CFD's. You keep telling the same old tall tale with a different spin. Now in regards the city being run like a business. I like it. Mr. Kapanicas has done a great job in getting the employees to be business friendly. That is why we got all the new development and shopping places in our town. Maybe the truth is you didn't like it because it eliminated your monopoly on Nursery Products. You said in your previous post that businesses are out to gouge their customers. Well maybe your business, but now the folks have options for their nursery needs and don’t have to pay your high prices anymore.
Hopeful December 31, 2012 at 05:35 AM
Well look who is back
James Hampton December 31, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Talk about contradicting yourself, Karl. If the city charges a cost for administering the CFD's, and everyone knows that Kapanicas is the one who administers the CFD's, he gets paid a certain amount for each one he manages, when it flutuates according to home ownership and rates, a flat fee is really no different than a percentage. You are only stating the same facts in different terminology. How exactly does one have a monolopy when the Cherry Valley nursery has been in business even longer, and Hemet, Redlands, and San Bernardino had Home Depots before Beaumont got one? A local place could hold a monopoly if everyone for miles around had no means of transportation, and had to walk back and forth carrying their purchases of trees and bags of mulch. That's the only way for your point to have merit. If the facts you have presented thus far are supposed to discredit Mrs. Bingham in some way, its having the opposite effect when you must hide your name to do so. Those who speak truth do not hide it behind falsehood.
Washy December 31, 2012 at 11:52 PM
LMAO Karl Karl Karl we have had many options for many years. Many of our options have been around longer....(or is it David, David, David!)
Annie G. January 01, 2013 at 07:34 AM
It seems to me that when information is posted and is backed up by a city's own documents, the only argument that follows is what conclusions to make about what that information suggests. If the City Manager of Beaumont makes recommendations, and he then gets paid over and above his salary as manager to do something that occurred because of his recommendations, then how on earth would anyone be able to know deep down that he is making those recommendations based on what is good for the City, or for his own pocket? And these facts that Ms.Uremovic is posting already raises questions. If the City made a monthly allowance of $50 for employee wellness benefits, and someone has obviously been paid well over that amount, is that an accounting mistake, or did someone at the City disregard their own policy, for what reason, and to whom? Just out of curiosity, if most if not all of the City Council people post on the Patch, and are following all of these threads, why wouldn't some of these matters be cleared up? Answers are easy, and the more explanations given the more this matter would go away.
Karl January 01, 2013 at 03:43 PM
You all have interesting comments. Gene who told you that City Manager administers the CFD’s all by himself. The city has an accounting department which has employees. The city has to pay for an outside auditor and legal fees to administer the CFD’s. Shouldn’t the city be reimbursed for its costs? Where did you get the information that the City Manager makes all sorts of money from administering the CFD’s? He is a city employee. Ann who told you or where did you get the information that city employees are getting more than they are allowed for wellness reimbursement? Did you get it from the internet, Judy or someone else? Just because they got reimbursed for an amount over $50.00 doesn’t mean that they cheated the system. You ought to look at the employee handbook and the MOU for it. They have to spend the money first and then get reimbursed. Seems like it is ok for people to have names like Hopeful, Washy, Ben, BMF 2012 etc. and their comments are ok and everyone believes what they say. If you want the real information and the facts just pull them up on the city website instead on getting 2nd hand information from this Libi women who doesn’t live in the city and spends her time making up false claims. I wonder if she is even real. Has anyone seen her credentials to do this kind of work? I think not, case closed. Have a Happy New Year.
Jack Smith January 01, 2013 at 09:39 PM
Happy NY David, er. Karl.
Washy January 01, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Ahhh common now if you look around I get slapped down for my SN often. My issue with you is you are either David or a thief of his words and use them as your own. Either way you are dishonest
James Hampton January 01, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Karl is not Mr. Castaldo. He is someone who is angry, and likes to attack women. so I find his identity obvious. However, I will continue to address him as he wishes. Karl, I do check facts for myself before accepting what anyone, real name or not, says as truth. I got the idea that Alan handles the CDF's from Brian Deforge. Before he became an employee, and was still labeled an independent contractor, questions were asked about exactly how much he was paid and for what. Mr. Deforge stated, I believe here or perhaps in a P.E. article, that Alan wears many hats, in referring to the fact one of the things he did was handling the CDF's, and that it was good for the city to combine jobs like that. Someone of his position certainly has use of secretaries and the legal counsel, yet doesn't change the fact that he is in charge. Are you stating here, Karl, that Alan has nothing to do with the CDF's, and doesn't get paid any fee at all for handling them in any way? That would clear up misunderstandings held by some here. As to second hand information, what I can find on the city's website matches Libi's facts here. Yet alot the city does not post, so I can only take what Libi has as the facts thus far. Unless you wish to post answers to her posting statements such as there two checkbooks being used on the general fund, your attempts to divert my attention away by maligning her, and others, won't work.
Seeking Truth January 02, 2013 at 03:15 AM
Reality is that unless people wake up and look at what's happening around them, they will continue to follow what they are being told without questioning it. I think of the future of our kids and all of chaos they will have to deal with. It is also very disheartening to know that alot of high position folks are out for themselves and forget the community that put them in those offices.
Seeking Truth January 02, 2013 at 03:17 AM
Libi have you thought about providing your talent to look into school districts also? There is so much need for you in this area also....
Libi Uremovic January 02, 2013 at 03:56 AM
yes, i am absolutely heading to the schools next.....the schools go through over $ billion / year in taxes and lottery money ..
Hopeful January 02, 2013 at 04:51 AM
I have always wondered what was done with the lottery money. It is sad that our teachers have to send home notes practically begging for donations for supplies. That never happened when I was a child. My biggest pet peeve and it always will be is no bus service for middle school and high school. I had planned to buy a home in Beaumont, but am very hesitant as this past year has opened a whole new world to me as to how the City operates. Do I really want to give them more of my money to be treated like crap? I am thinking no!
Annie G. January 02, 2013 at 07:42 AM
To this Karl individual, I will answer you also. One of Libi's prior blogs stated that the City's Mou allowed a monthly allowance per employee of only $50. Yet she found that some employees received much more than that in a month. If I am dealing with second hand knowledge, then by all means, educate me. Where on the City's website does it have the MOU for employees wellness benefits, to see for myself the actual amount, or that if it is the amount Libi posted, the list of allowable reasons an employee can exceed that amount? I would be glad to get the facts straight from the horses mouth. I don't understand your credential comment, though. Are you claiming that even though Ms. Uremovic has a degree in accounting and is experienced in that field, that simply because she isn't currently licensed she is unqualified to make sense of simple ledger accounts? If that is so, then you must be totally agree that all our politicians should be held to the same standards. They should have a minimum of a B.A. in political science/government, and should pass a state test to get a governance license. One certainly seems much more important than the other, doesn't it? Yet it seems like any kind of person can just get elected to office. Dogs, dead people, they get elected into office. I worry about things like that, not accountants who are simply re-checking some books. What's there to be upset about if all is well? Happy New Year?
Washy January 02, 2013 at 01:28 PM
To see where the lottery money goes you will have to audit the state because it has been reported (ABC/CBS and the like) that the state haven't given the schools but a single digit percent of the lottery money that they are suppose to get. The state is playing with that money
Libi Uremovic January 02, 2013 at 01:57 PM
i talked to the head of the regional lottery office and his statement was: 'the schools get the money, but they still want to raise bond money so they keep the lottery money a secret...'... the lottery claims around $1 billion/yr goes to the schools... the official statement from the state: 'The 2012–13 state budget includes $38 billion for kindergarten through grade twelve (K–12) education. Overall spending for California public schools is about $68 billion when federal funds and other funding sources are added....' $68 billion total ..... our state has 58 counties ....
Washy January 02, 2013 at 02:47 PM
They "say" and they "claim" but they won't provide proof. Does the money go to the schools or the state school board (or whatever they are called) I might be willing to believe is some school districts said "what do you mean we are getting lottery money" but 1047(ish) school districts are all denying getting any (or much)
Roger Berg January 02, 2013 at 03:37 PM
Ann, since you want a answer from a city council member I will give you the answer. Here is the link to the city website Human Resources that lists all the MOU's / benefits for employees. http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=224. If doesn't work it is listed under offices, human resources. In the records reviewed by Libi an employee may have been paid more then $50.00 as they have to turn in their receipts after they make payment, which means that they probably turned them in on a quarterly basis. Most of the information that Libi is referring to is on the city website. It took me less then 5 minutes to find the information. Just for everyone's information. Before the city council approves the warrants they go through 3 levels of approval. Before a purchase is made on a city credit card, it has to be approved in advance, backed up with receipts from the place of purchase. All this information has been provided to the public at the City Council Meetings in the past. For everyone's benefit, I am going to it restated again at the next city council meeting so their is no confusion. Thank you for asking the question.
Washy January 02, 2013 at 03:58 PM
OHHHH will you show us the second check book? Will you explain why Jeff Fox's son got a loan? (and if you can do the math quarterly is every 3 months so that would be 150.00 NOT 1500 and quarterly doesn't ever divide into five months apart!) And if we are paying 50bucks a month to employees it might be time to see them look slimmer, trimmer and not paying out so much at unhealthy food feasts for them. BTW can I get a loan for 19k and pay it back at a measly 129 a month at next city council meeting? And please explain why David has held a loan with the city since the early 90s did the city buy him a home?
Annie G. January 02, 2013 at 06:06 PM
Well thank you Mr. Berg. See, instead of shooting the messenger, which does not bring about changing the message carried, the only way to contradict the message is to produce your own message. I did check the City's site, and the wellness reimbursement is only $50. Matched up to the check amounts that Ms. Uremovic found, that is years worth of this benefit paid out at a single time. So, say an employee went out and purchased a home gym for a good chunk of change, this $50 can be applied retroactively backwards and forwards for years at a time? Very generous benefits indeed. Most jobs in the private sector offer very little benefits at all, so I can understand taxpayer's frustration when they see that they are paying for these things. Aren't there any Republicans left in California at all?
Ken January 02, 2013 at 07:47 PM
..SO 12 MONTHS X $50= $600 PER YEAR (YOU WITH ME KARL?) I GUESS THE MOU'S FOR 2010-11 WERE VERY DIFFERENT! PLEASE DONT MISUNDERSTAND OR INFER ANY WRONG DOING. THERE WERE MANY IN THE NORMAL RANGE ANYWHERE FROM $50 TO $600 OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE. THE EXAMPLES BELOW JUST STUCK OUT FROM THE OTHERS (YES THE FIRST AND LAST ARE THE SAME RECIPIENT) 071596 07/23/2010 D**** ********L $1517.00 WELLNESS 071766 08/02/2010 J***** ********H $1732.50 WELLNESS 073774 01/28/2011 D**** ********L $1534.76 WELLNESS http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/Index/33
Roger Berg January 02, 2013 at 08:20 PM
Ann, the current MOU dated 20 Jan 2012 States $50.00 per month paid quarterly. The amounts that Ken is referring to were for reimbursement for a period back in 2010 and 2011. So this current MOU would not apply. As I stated before all warrants go through 3 levels of approval before being sent to the city council. Right now as I read it is a maximum of $600.00 per year.
Jack Smith January 02, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Well, we taxpayers are certainly extremely generous to our City employees. Too bad everyone cannot work in the Public sector.
Libi Uremovic January 03, 2013 at 07:50 PM
it's not the benefits the city employees get, it's what the city is charging as benefits...read the new audit...
Kenneth Rethers January 04, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Say the Mou was always $50 a month. Obviously it is not lost if not used, for these large amounts given at one time indicate it is considered must fall under the category of deferred compensation, right? If someone worked for the city for 5 years, and let that $50 pile up, they would have $3000 just sitting around, then? Obviously not doing anything with it for their own fitness. Say that employee's kid says they want a home gym for Christmas, and this employee thought, hey, I can get them one and just hand the receipt to the city, and they do. Might explain the over $1500 on 7/10. But then another kid comes in and says hey, I want a home gym also. So the employee submits that receipt for that kid's home gym just six months later, for over $1500 again. This is all hypothetical, of course. All boils down to if the money is deferred. And that is not on the city website.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »