A story produced by a regional website stemming from the questionable meeting of the city of Fort Smith audit commission on Wednesday, October 4 in which leaked information cast aspersions on two former and one current major on the FSPD has also resulted in the leaking of the identity of two undercover officers for the department.

At the end of the day, the fly in the intment is seemingly $300, which may or may not be missing according to the author of the preliminary report leaked during or after the meeting.

In their haste to get the accusations out in front of the public, the original story the website also identified four members of the Fort Smith Board of Directors -Keith Lau, Tracy, Andre’ Good Pennartz, Mike Lorenz-as being members of the audit committee when the city websites says only to of the committee members can be committee members.

The city website also calls for just seven members on the committee while the online story identifies eight people, the four regular members and the four board of directors, as committee members.

Three of those city directors-Lau, Lorenz and Good-recently became the targets of pending recall efforts by the Fraternal Order of Police and the local firefighters union, calling into question the reasoning behind two of the four-who should not be eligible to be on the committee and being given preliminary draft reports in the first place.

Inside Fort Smith is apparently part of the “other media” that was sent redacted versions of the preliminary report after learning of the meeting, which was never listed on the city website calendar following Freedom of Information request.

On Friday we received a response from the city and were sent a partial copy of the redacted version and was waiting to update our story until Monday when the full report could be obtained. However, on Sunday we were furnished with a complete copy of the report by a third party.

The website that had written an original story on October 5 posted a follow-up story on October 12. In addition to pointing out some errors made by the city for failing to properly redact the undercover officers names and exposing more discrepancies between the first story and the actual preliminary report, the website acknowledged that the city exposed the last names of undercover officers for the FSPD.

According to a source close to the situation, the “preliminary report” first furnished to the “other” media outlets was redacted but the reader could see the redacted information by hovering the cursor over the redactions.

The website stated in the follow-up story: “Under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted Oct. 5 by**** ******** *** ******** and other media outlets, the city made efforts to redact the document but failed to properly do so, thus unmasking a few of its undercover officers. **** ******** *** ********will not identify those officers.”

The same story does then identify at least two of the undercover officers by name, meaning both the city and the website revealed their identities.

Inside Fort Smith has also received a copy of the improperly redacted version of the report and it clearly names one of the undercover officers twice and the second three times.

In addition, there was other factually incorrect and conflicting information that emerged from comparison of the original story, the follow-up story and the preliminary report.

In the original report from Fort Smith city auditor Tracey Shockley, addressed to city administrator Carl Geffken and police chief Nathaniel Clark, stated:

“Internal Audit (IA) recently began an audit of the Fort Smith Police Department. Based on a review of available IA files. IA could not find where the Police Department (Divisions) in prior years have been reviewed or audited.”

Two paragraphs later Shockley stated: “IA selected 2015, 2016, and year-to-date 2017 for years to test in the Narcotics Division. The first part of
the testing began with reviewing the “Receipt for Monies From Confidential Buy Money Fund”, FSPD Form #216, “Receipt For Money From Emergency Fund”, and the “Confidential Buy Fund Ledger Sheet”

So the audit in question was based on a review of “available IA files” meaning the yearly audits, as required by law, were seemingly not done for either 2015 or 2016.

The entire text of the preliminary draft report can be accessed HERE.

The second story by the website also identified the audit a being conducted by “internal affairs” instead of “internal audit” based on the “IA” abbreviation in the body of the report.

In the conclusion of the reports, Shockley states: “This is a preliminary draft and the audit is not complete. Substantial additional audit procedures remain. Some of the exceptions noted above may require additional follow-up and a further search for documentation. This preliminary draft report was provided in order to allow Department management to promptly address the major deficiencies identified”.

Shockley went on to name went on to name five points as “major deficiencies”.

The conclusion further stated: “Additionally, once the testing has been completed any of the exceptions noted can be noted as observations, or no longer be considered.”

The conclusion can therefore be drawn that incomplete information supposedly intended for Geffken and Chief Clark was provided to the four civilian members of the committee, four city directors-two of which can’t legally hold a spot on the committee- as well a hand-picked member of the media.

The preliminary report listed these five items as “major deficiencies”.

-Failure to follow appropriate chain of custody practises.
- Failure to maintain adequate documentation for cash expenditures.
- Co mingling funds intended for different purposes.
- An apparent lack of understanding of the importance of maintaining tight controls over cash funds.
-Failure to follow Police Department policies.

According to the follow up story:

“It appears currently that $100 from the “buy” funds and $200 from the emergency fund monies cannot be accounted for…..IA is currently looking at the other transactions in Intel, ICS Case Management, and Evidence to see if the funds can be accounted for.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here