Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Lessons Learned from the Chester Pool Scandal


Now that Mayor Linder has involved the DA; the District Attorney dismissed the case; Councilwoman Elizabeth Williams went public; and the Daily Times written their last article; what exactly have we learned from the Chester City Pool Scandal?

The Known or Alleged

  • Councilwoman Williams took control of over $100 from the Chester pool concession stand run by the former Deputy Director of Recreation.
  • On the same day, she gave away city trinkets and allowed folks in the pool without paying.
  • She turned over the money to the city Accounts and Finance Department.
  • She purchased some pool supplies from her own money. 
  • The District Attorney found no misappropriation of public money specifically proceeds from the operation of the pool.


The Unknown or Silly

  • Why did Councilwoman take the money from the cash box?
  • Why did the Deputy Director of Recreation snitch (I mean, tell on)  the Councilwoman?
  • What is the policy for giving away city trinkets? Can they be pulled from the closet and given away with no discretion, or is there some controls in place to manage give aways?
  • What is the policy for allowing free pool access? Should the entire community be made aware of such promotions or can it happen at a moments notice?
  • Did Mayor Linder know the money was turned into Accounts and Finance, and if not, why not?
  • With the city spending $20,000 per month for pool services, what did the Councilwoman purchase that couldn't be covered under the longterm pool supply contract? Was she reimbursed for her purchases?


Many of these same questions have been asked in previous posts on this topic, but the Anonymous comments offer more complaints than conclusions.

Thankfully, no charges where filed, but the media coverage this story has generated has done it's damage with Chester's political reputation.  What can they do to recover?

8 comments:

  1. we know liz williams needed $148.00 we have learned NOTHING. when the pool is free all city residents should be told not just her family, she is not a tax payer. if something is needed at the pool the pool contractor should purchase NOT her

    ReplyDelete
  2. 11/14/2012 1029am da clear hear you d ass

    ReplyDelete
  3. anonymous are you the family member that got in the pool free or did you need tax payers money of $148.00 maybe your d ass should get a job!!or go back to school!!again nothing learned but the dems love to spend tax payers money since NONE of them pay taxes but Nafis!!! d ass

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stefan, is true she dose not pay taxes? If so why not?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Something is not right, 20,0000 a month and 148.00 missing? I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's called politics....plain and simple. However interesting the topic it's unfortunate that "some" of the respondents are not intelligent enough to provide educated responses. It called "critical thinking"

    Here are a few answers to some of your questions...

    Councilwoman Williams does not NEED to steal money from the city. Obviously anyone that would accuse her of stealing $148 doesn't know her...the amount collected from the box was $108.65 NOT $148...

    Councilwoman Williams' children or grandchildren do not and have never swam in the city pool. The "group" that was let in the pool free was NOT the Councilwoman's family....it was a "group" that was allowed to swim in the pool free during the last administration. The "group" of children are special needs...don't believe everything you hear!


    The money was collected from the box NOT stolen....the policy is that only money orders should be used for pool membership....not cash! The question should be, how many times prior to Councilwoman's visit had cash been taken for pool membership and not turned over to the city...maybe the former Deputy Director can answer that question....


    The Deputy Director "lied" on Councilwoman Williams because was told several times not to.....but he continued....insubordination is grounds for termination....terminations breeds resentment....resentment breeds retaliation....retaliation breeds lies.....wish I could tell you more, but I can't..... Some call it double dipping....


    The giveaways / trinkets did not belong to the City....


    Unfortunately Mayor Linder didn't follow protocol....he listened to his cousin... The City Controller should have been advised of the matter first.....

    The pool contract does not cover everything. The items purchased were utilized in the FIRST AID room. Councilwoman Williams was reimbursed for her personal money spent.

    Councilwoman Williams pays taxes.


    Don't believe everything you hear....research what you read...only believe half of what you see.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like we're getting more details.

      Research? The questions I posted are for research purposes. If those who know the answers would step up, we'd all be less confused.

      Delete
  7. stop you had her

    ReplyDelete