Allegations have been made which include theft by embezzlement resulting from SOMEBODY forging the then-Treasurer’s electronic signature.
Wednesday night, there was a board meeting at the CCGOP head-shed.
It was the first meeting I can recall attending under the Gellatly Regime: he looked decidedly unhappy and stressed.
There was a discussion underway concerning… what… a PCO appointment? I really wasn’t paying that much attention at the time.
Oddly, this was a pre-meeting discussion. After a bit, the formal meeting started.
Part of the early meeting was the Treasurer’s report. Claiming technical difficulties of some sort, there were no copies available for review; the now-treasurer got up and gave some numbers… and admitted there was a fund transfer between the exempt and non-exempt fund.
That transfer, apparently, was to cover the shortfall caused by Gellatly’s failure to show basic competence by overdrawing the party checkbook (an “error” by the vendor, was the excuse de jour)
The problem is that fund transfers of this sort appear to be very much illegal.
"Once exempt, always exempt." Exempt funds may not be moved to a non-exempt funds account.
Of course, Gellatly will try to characterize the transfer as something quite legal. And when that fails, he’ll certainly play the blame game with Joe Gatti, the current Treasurer.
I'm not altogether sure he'll be comfortable in that role.
But the crux of the matter is that, as I understand it, it has been alleged that Gellatly has forged the electronic signature of the past Treasurer.
The contract in question is referred to as the “Five/9 contract.” “Five9” was the phone vendor, also, as I understand it, that Gellatly simply failed to shut off at the conclusion of the election; a vendor set up exclusively for purposes of Gellatly’s disaster of a campaign for Greene and the port commission seat.
I get that many of the PDC rules are rather arcane and nebulous to the uninitiated. Many of them don’t make any sense even to those who’ve been around them for years.
But this issue goes beyond that. The allegations are that Gellatly electronically forged a signature, among other things. The evidence is clear: the electronic signature of the Treasurer appears to have been forged and that forgery appears to have taken place after the contract was sent to DRG, with the incorrect name and so forth. It would seem the Gellatly cult doesn’t seem to care all that much since the board is well aware of this.
The case number (CCSO# 17011581) has been assigned. The evidence provided. The investigation is soon to be underway.
Pride, it is said, goes before a fall.
So does narcissism. So does arrogance. Time will tell if this is to hold true in this case.
Remember, kids... at this point, these are only allegations. But the evidence leads to where it leads.
Just sayin'.
Wednesday night, there was a board meeting at the CCGOP head-shed.
It was the first meeting I can recall attending under the Gellatly Regime: he looked decidedly unhappy and stressed.
There was a discussion underway concerning… what… a PCO appointment? I really wasn’t paying that much attention at the time.
Oddly, this was a pre-meeting discussion. After a bit, the formal meeting started.
Part of the early meeting was the Treasurer’s report. Claiming technical difficulties of some sort, there were no copies available for review; the now-treasurer got up and gave some numbers… and admitted there was a fund transfer between the exempt and non-exempt fund.
That transfer, apparently, was to cover the shortfall caused by Gellatly’s failure to show basic competence by overdrawing the party checkbook (an “error” by the vendor, was the excuse de jour)
The problem is that fund transfers of this sort appear to be very much illegal.
"Once exempt, always exempt." Exempt funds may not be moved to a non-exempt funds account.
Of course, Gellatly will try to characterize the transfer as something quite legal. And when that fails, he’ll certainly play the blame game with Joe Gatti, the current Treasurer.
I'm not altogether sure he'll be comfortable in that role.
But the crux of the matter is that, as I understand it, it has been alleged that Gellatly has forged the electronic signature of the past Treasurer.
The contract in question is referred to as the “Five/9 contract.” “Five9” was the phone vendor, also, as I understand it, that Gellatly simply failed to shut off at the conclusion of the election; a vendor set up exclusively for purposes of Gellatly’s disaster of a campaign for Greene and the port commission seat.
I get that many of the PDC rules are rather arcane and nebulous to the uninitiated. Many of them don’t make any sense even to those who’ve been around them for years.
But this issue goes beyond that. The allegations are that Gellatly electronically forged a signature, among other things. The evidence is clear: the electronic signature of the Treasurer appears to have been forged and that forgery appears to have taken place after the contract was sent to DRG, with the incorrect name and so forth. It would seem the Gellatly cult doesn’t seem to care all that much since the board is well aware of this.
The case number (CCSO# 17011581) has been assigned. The evidence provided. The investigation is soon to be underway.
Pride, it is said, goes before a fall.
So does narcissism. So does arrogance. Time will tell if this is to hold true in this case.
Remember, kids... at this point, these are only allegations. But the evidence leads to where it leads.
Just sayin'.
No comments:
Post a Comment