Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Warrants Unclaimed Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County reviews stale warrants, unclaimed property and agenda disclosure after a stale warrant was cashed out of state
Summary
The committee discussed a stale warrant that was cashed at an out-of-state bank, limitations of reverse positive pay for teller cashing, possible stop-payment policies and a state-auditor request to include check-number ranges in public meeting materials; staff will investigate warrant wording and bank procedures.
Clallam County finance staff described a case in which a stale warrant (a county-issued warrant more than 180 days old) was cashed at an out-of-state branch, prompting review of bank handling, reverse positive-pay protections, and the county’s unclaimed-property process.
Staff said the warrant was presented at a U.S. Bank branch out of state and paid at a teller window despite being more than 180 days old. Jeanette Gore of the treasurer’s office told the committee that reverse positive-pay protections apply to deposited checks but do not necessarily prevent a teller from cashing a warrant presented for immediate payment; the teller reportedly cashed it in “good faith.”
Committee members said the county should examine whether to add a “not valid after 180 days” legend to warrant stock and whether to pursue stop payments in specific unclaimed-property cases that are being remitted to the state. Staff identified RCW 43.08.062 as the statute providing that warrants not presented to the state treasurer within 180 days are canceled by statute; staff said the Office of the State Treasurer returns stale-dated warrants to the presenting bank within 24 hours when recognized.
The county said staff recovered funds in a separate instance by pursuing the payee through the state process, but that the out-of-state cashing event raised questions about teller discretion and whether banks should be required to refuse stale warrants presented for cashing.
Separately, staff said the state auditor’s office asked that check numbers appear in the board packet/minutes (the auditor requested ranges). County staff said the numbers had been removed from public agendas previously for security reasons after people replicated check information to attempt fraud. Staff and committee members discussed whether a partially redacted check-number range or bank-based range (bank account/check-range) would satisfy the auditor and reduce fraud risk.
No formal policy change was approved; staff said they would follow up with U.S. Bank on the incident, check whether the county should add a stale-date legend to warrants, and investigate whether stop payments should be used for out-of-state unclaimed-property checks prior to submission.
