Jeannette parking lot proceeds missing
The safe in the Jeannette parking lot office apparently wasn't secure enough for an attendant who allegedly took proceeds home for safekeeping and then told city officials the money was stolen, officials said.
The employee raised suspicion by giving “at least three conflicting stories” about the money's disappearance, Mayor Richard Jacobelli said.
The $336 should have stayed in a secure safe in the parking lot office, he said.
Police Chief Shannon Binda said the investigation has been turned over to Westmoreland County detectives as a possible theft.
Jacobelli said the lot attendant told police he didn't think the safe was secure and was concerned about being robbed, so he took the cash home for safekeeping.
Then he said the money disappeared when he took it with him to Kittanning, where he attended a funeral. The employee later told authorities the cash was stolen while he carried it in a backpack in Pittsburgh's Oakland section. Jacobelli said the employee did not file a theft report with police in Pittsburgh.
About May 15, the employee reported the alleged theft to Jeannette officials.
The city last month began charging for parking in the lot to bring in much-needed revenue. The city hired two employees.
It's not the first time Jeannette has had a problem keeping track of money.
A 2012 audit revealed the city lacked internal controls and used a sloppy accounting system that raised the risk of errors and fraud. It allowed employees to withdraw cash without prior approval, opening the way for potential theft, according to auditors.
Earlier this year, a contractor was sentenced to probation for keeping $65,000 from the city in 2005 for a recreation building that was never delivered.
Richard Gazarik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6292 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.