Politics & Government

West Deptford 2013 Budget Possibly Overdrawn Already?

After cutting $800,000 in services during the July budgeting process, Republicans move to transfer funds into those same areas not four months later.

Questions about the ongoing nature of financial reporting in West Deptford and whether, after deep cuts to its 2013 budget, its accounts may be already overdrawn in key areas like waste removal, provided the backdrop to a local government meeting that also featured procedural debates and opaque allegations of internal problems from the township solicitor.

Committeeman Sam Cianfarini, the architect of the 2013 budget, who had characterized the $800,000 line-item cuts as fat-trimming measures in July, attempted to introduce a transfer resolution Thursday "to fulfill the purpose of appropriation within the 2013 municipal budget" not four months later.

Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo asked whether there were specific items in the budget that had been over-expended; Cianfarini deferred to CFO Brenda Sprigman, who said no.

Find out what's happening in West Deptfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

When DiCarlo attempted to press Sprigman for further detail about the figures contained in the transfer sheet, Solicitor Anthony Ogozalek interrupted, claiming that "there's a glitch in the system that needs to be investigated.

"There seems to be a problem with internal policies with encumbrances," Ogozalek said. "You can’t spend the money until you have the P.O. (purchase order)."

Find out what's happening in West Deptfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Ogozalek offered to take the committee into closed session to discuss the alleged problem, and alluded to the supposed need for "an internal investigation"—claims that Township Administrator Eric Campo said after the meeting were "ridiculous."

“P.O.'s do not go out without the CFO’s certification of approval of funds available," Campo said during the proceedings. 

"It’s the opposite," he said. "And secondly, 4-58 40A [the statute cited by Cianfarini authorizing the transfer of funds] exactly contemplates that you do these transfers because you’re overexpended."

Still no financial reporting available

DiCarlo also complained to her fellow officials that she hadn't yet seen a copy of the monthly financial figures prior to the meeting, despite multiple e-mails to Sprigman requesting the information.

At the last meeting of the township committee, the same issue had come up, and Sprigman promised the information would be made available to the committee November 8.

"The only thing I could do was take all of the bill lists and add them all up, and I had serious concerns with where we are with the incinerator," DiCarlo said. "It appeared that we had spent all but $1.1K" of the solid waste allotment.

DiCarlo was interrupted in her line of questioning by Ogozalek, who challenged that her request for financial information was "getting into employee discipline," and implied that the request could incriminate Sprigman somehow.

“She’s an employee; she’s not having the opportunity to address these accusations in private,” Ogozalek said.

DiCarlo responded that Sprigman hadn't returned any of her requests for information on the subject.

“I have an e-mail here where I asked pointed questions," DiCarlo said. "How am I supposed to get answers?”

As the discussion continued, Sprigman then revealed that the first in a series of ongoing financial reports due to the New Jersey Division of Local Government Services (DLGS)—which West Deptford was requested to provide to the state in lieu of formal financial supervision after an August 2013 hearing—would not include the transferred amounts.

Sprigman and Cianfarini confirmed during the session that although the transfers would be made November 7, as per his motion, the report prepared for the state would only cover October 1 to 31.

“The report appears to have been run today at 11:13 a.m.," DiCarlo asked Sprigman. "When was this distributed?”

“Just now," Sprigman replied. "Tonight. When I got in.”

“When will we be seeing regular reporting; i.e., on a monthly basis?” DiCarlo said. 

“Absent feedback from the state when I get those reports tomorrow, you should get them the same time as the bill list,” Sprigman answered.

“I think we have a resolution in front of us that we’re about to approve," DiCarlo told the body. "I don’t see how any of us can vote yes.”

Vote by phone

DiCarlo and fellow Democratic Committeewoman Donna Szymborski abstained from voting on the transfer agreement. Republicans Mayor Ray Chintall and Cianfarini voted in the affirmative.

Deputy Mayor Sean Kilpatrick (R), who was not physically present at the meeting but was teleconferenced in, also voted yes. 

No committeeperson could confirm that Kilpatrick had been provided with a copy of the transfer list that Sprigman had physically distributed to the other officials before the meeting.

Campo spoke up after the vote, pointing out that the motion needed a two-thirds vote to carry.

"I don’t know that three is enough," he said.

Ogozalek challenged Campo to provide a statute for the basis of his opinion, and after conferring briefly, agreed with Campo's conclusion.

"The motion does not pass," Ogozalek said.

After the vote failed, DiCarlo asked whether Cianfarini would "mind accompanying me to a meeting with Mrs. Sprigman" to discuss the financial reports "because I can’t seem to get one.”

“Yeah, sure,” Cianfarini replied.

'I imagine they'd want the most up-to-date information'

After the meeting, Campo further suggested that the township should be providing the latest available information to the DLGS, and not backdating its reports, as Sprigman seemed to be proposing in the meeting.

"I think they should be reflective of when the reports are given out," Campo said, adding that he had also been given the proposed transfer sheet only moments before the meeting began and had not had time to review its contents.

"I think if they are made aware of that, I would imagine they'd want the most up-to-date information."

After the meeting, Sprigman told Patch that she wasn't sure whether she would be allowed to provide a detailed list of the financial transfers contained in Cianfarini's failed resolution.

Cianfarini likewise declined to comment on the motion after the meeting, as did Chintall. Neither would Ogozalek elaborate on his allegations of the need for a supposed internal investigation into purchasing practices in the township. 


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here