Yet, there are several questions that remain outstanding that must be put to rest.
First, who did Det. Blakeley report too?
Second, why were audits of the property rooms not conducted. Indications are that inventories and audits were not done for years.
Third, who else besides Det. Blakeley had access to the accounts where the funds turned up missing?
Certainly, Det. Blakeley would have had to answer to serious charges. However, a review of EPD policies shows that enough safeguards were in place, and, enough warning were made that most, if not all of this should have been prevented.
EPD Internal Polices Titled "Internal Control of Forfeited and Seized Properties" dated 2/28/1991 spells out some of the requirement for all units of the department on how to handle
property and monies coming into the hands of the EPD.
In short, each and every pieces of property or money is to be tagged and cataloged: any and all funds cataloged;records coordinated with the City Finance Department to maintain accurate records. Finally, there is a section of the policy that describes how each year reports on any and all properties seized must be transmitted by the Chief of Police (or designee) to the Attorney Generals Office (this requirement as since been repealed by the State of Ohio).
In the cover letter to this policy, then Chief Wayne Baumgart stated "It is the policy of the Euclid Police Department to maintain stringent control over all confidential fund monies and property and monies seized and/or confiscated. We must maintain close supervision of our funds with a cooperative effort from the City of Euclid Finance Department."
Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. The EPD has two functioning property rooms:
the Narcotics section, and, then another one used by detectives and patrol officers.
Officers have brought up the lax conditions in the property rooms for years. Back in 2009, a detective brought up to command staff that an entire audit/inventory of the general property room was required, and that too many individuals had access to that room. The officer felt strongly enough that he stated that the integrity of that property room could very well be compromised.
Det Kevin Blakeley was assigned to the general property room on 10/21/2010. On March 30 of this year, he submitted a memo to superiors about the property room: he pointed out that log books were missing, door locks were broken and that no audits or inventories had been done."
Again, none of this excuses what was described in the Sherriff's Dept Report.
But, what it does reinforce are the findings of OAPC report: That in many ways, the EPD was
poorly run and adrift.
If polices were followed, updated and enhanced, the thefts described might have been caught or prevented years ago.
This is just another episode that calls into doubt the leadership of the Euclid Police Department under Chief Repicky, and Mayor Cervenik.
Good government demands that an entire administrative review of this matter be done.
Posts
