Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Controls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allegations of a "second set of books" surface at New Durham CIP meeting; leaders deny and promise records reconciliation
Summary
During the May 7 meeting, members raised accusations that the town had multiple sets of financial records; committee leaders denied that claim, said they now maintain a single set of books, and committed to working with finance staff and trustees to reconcile records.
Allegations that the town maintained a "second set of books" and a "secret checking account" surfaced during a heated portion of the New Durham CIP meeting on May 7.
A committee member summarized public concerns that contradictory financial postings had circulated and said residents had been directed by attorneys to request records. In response, Scott Drumming, identified as the committee's previous chair, denied the allegation and described the committee's work to centralize records. "I don't have 2 sets of books," Drumming said, adding that the town in practice lacked a single complete ledger until recent system upgrades but was moving toward a single authoritative set of records.
Speakers acknowledged that legacy systems and inconsistent record-keeping had made historical tracking difficult: older financial data was scattered across paper records and an antiquated PMSI system, and the new financial modules do not yet surface carry-forward balances consistently for some CRFs. Committee members said they will form a records committee (finance, HR, police, assessing) to identify required documents, digitize necessary records and provide a step-by-step public plan documenting what will be done first, second and third.
The committee also discussed how auditors and trustees operate on different timetables; members said they will coordinate with trustees to confirm what funds are actually available and how money approved at town meeting has been applied. The group did not vote on an external audit during the meeting but assigned follow-ups: work with finance director April to reconcile CRF language and timetables and publish an accessible directory of supporting documents for citizens to inspect.
The exchange underscored that the controversy is both factual (missing digital trails and confusing account labels) and political (public distrust after prior budget cycles). Members closed the discussion by reiterating their aim to make all non-exempt documents available through a single public repository and by scheduling more intensive reconciliation work with trustees and finance staff.
