By Scott

Nov 12, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Thomas and Skier, come on guys, how are you still missing my point? Thomas, yes, many organizations require two signatures on a check. But banks do not know that and will not refuse to cash a check with only one. It's already been documented how Margaret Mills bullied tellers into cashing checks they shouldn't have. I'm sure the second signature that was required was one of three other people than Mills. The indictment though only says that the check was signed by Mills. Does that all look wrong to us? Of course it does! But we don't know the whole story! And that's my point!

Why might a check from DWI to Mills not have been immediately flagged? Well, if Mills was the only one doing the financial reporting, it could easily have been "reimbursement" for expenses that she claimed to make from her personal account. It could have been a bunch of different things that someone with her clout and reputation could have gotten away with saying. The point is that we don't know the whole story!

Skier, I didn't call you ignorant as a put-down, I meant it quite literally. You don't know the whole story. You can't say that Scott Felton or anyone else is criminally negligent or should be held responsible for something. You don't know that!

Look, if anyone else is indicted in this, I'll eat crow right here in the comment section. If anyone else from DWI is held responsible for criminal failure of duties or collusion, I'll disavow all support for that person just as quickly as I did for Mills when charges were pressed there. But until that day, I will let the authorities do their work and I will refuse to see innocent peoples' names sullied in this way. You should all make the same commitment to justice. It is absolutely unjust to assume the role of investigator and judge and brand these people as tainted when no official with the case has done so.

By HSBSkier

Nov 12, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Scott Baker - thanks for your contribution and I would like you to know it is appreciated. I sincerely wish you the best of luck as you lead the successor organization. Waco is still home and we support your endeavors.
Other Scott,
I believe those of us that have the academic/professional credentials to evaluate/opine the failures can do so without being referred to as ignorant and not knowing what we are talking about. I have not resorted to name-calling, I have only pointed out deficiencies.
Cheers!

By Thomas Magnum

Nov 12, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

Scott I think you must not have read the grand jury indictment or like some many of your business leaders in Waco, you are not able to comprehend what you read.

Items 4,5, 6, 9, etc. specifically state that the check was drawn on the Bank of America account of Downtown Waco, INc. with out the knowledge of Scott Felton, Treasurer.

So Scott the accounting firm did indeed have this information as it was contained in the bank statement (cancelled checks).


Maybe the board got what the deserved if they are that silly. In closing the funds were taken from the DWI account by Mrs. Mills, What has not come to light is DWI required to signatures on any check, Do you know who the second person to sign was supposed to be?

I DO! And the name will probably suprise you, but do not take my word for it, call your friends on the board and ask! This is one of example of how deep and wide this will be.

By Scott

Nov 11, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this

Nice try, moron, but no one would mistake that last idiotic comment for mine. You can put "Scott" in the sign-in, but as long as you make stupid mistakes like using the non-word "abit," you'll never be able to pass yourself off for me. Idiot.

Fiduciary Duty, you're absolutely right, but checks drawn on DWI's accounts aren't the problem, are they? The problem is that Mills was diverting funds from ever arriving in DWI's account. That's how she did this whole thing! She neither reported the income nor did she account for any according expenditure. What you described is, I'm sure, accurate and a clear measure in place to prevent fraud. That's how the Board members were taken advantage of. They had an incredibly trustworthy accounting firm providing the reports. Unfortunately, those reports were based on input from... you guessed it: Margaret Mills. JRBT does accounting services for numerous non-profits in town and they are an excellent boon to our community.

But again, and please hear me on this: no one is responsible for the theft except Margaret Mills. She should go to prison for her actions. If she doesn't, I'll lead the protests in the street. I'm sure Scott Baker is right when he says the Board members are embarrassed, but they didn't do anything wrong. They did their best. Not only should they not be held liable, they don't deserve to be slurred by unfounded accusations when no official connected to this case has even suggested that anyone other than Mills is responsible for the stolen funds from DWI. Period.

By Scott

Nov 11, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

You know, now that everybody has trashed me, it has jogged my memory abit, and I do now remember some lady getting on the radio who said she went to Scott Felton several years ago, when Margaret Mills payed for antique furniture with a DWI check and had the furniture delivered to her sons house. I had forgotten that.

By Fiduciary Duty?

Nov 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

As noted in my prior blog, for the 18 years that Margaret Mills was serving as the Executive Director of Downtown Waco, Inc.(aka DWI) retained the services of a prominent accounting firm, Jaynes, Reitmeier, Boyd, And Therrell, to process all financial information monthly. I have been told that the Hippodrome (Scott Baker, Executive Director) contracts with the same accounting firm.
It is my understanding that DWI's bank statements were not mailed to DWI's office; instead, DWI's bank statements were mailed directly to the office of DWI's accounting firm. The accounting firm (1) reconciled the bank statements, including the actual checks that were drawn on DWI's account, and (2) provided a monthly compilation of expenditures and revenues, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The DWI executive committee, which included the treasurer, had a fiduciary duty to review and comment on the financial report prepared by the accounting firm during the executive committee's meeting prior to the monthly meeting of DWI's full Board. The financial report was also available for review for the full Board at its monthly meeting. The originals of all financial documents were always secured in the offices of the accounting firm. DWI's financial documents were duplicated for the Board members' review and the Board members had an opportunity to review and approve or disapprove the financial documents submitted to the Board at their monthly meetings. This internal control was in place throughout the time that Margaret Mills served as DWI's Executive Director.

By Scott Baker

Nov 10, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

Wow, not that there aren't enough Scott's already in this conversation, but here goes...

Even though it seems the tone of this discussion has gone awry, Scott, (the other one), is right about a few things. I run the Waco Performing Arts Company downtown at the Hippodrome, chair the Downtown Merchants Association, and sit on the PID Board that used to be administered by Downtown Waco, Inc. So I got to see how that organization was run first-hand. Margaret Mills ran everything and overrode anyone in her way. She made sure that the entire flow of information regarding finances and services ran through her. So it's not difficult to see how she was able to keep her illegal activities hidden from the Board members.

I'm sure those Board members are embarrassed that they were taken advantage of in that way and if they had the opportunity to do things differently they no doubt would. But they did make the best decisions they could for their organization at the time. I have no doubt that Mr. Felton, who is an honorable and smart man, wishes that he had not been so trusting of Margaret Mills, but everyone trusted her. We all trusted her! He and the others didn't understand the full scope of her crimes at first or all at once. It unfolded over time and they kept adjusting as they received more information. I doubt that given all those circumstances and without the benefit of hindsight that better decisions could have been made.

That said, it is wise and acceptable to examine this issue from all sides and look into all possibilities. After all, we are talking about nearly $500,000 missing, and some of it was public money. For those who don't understand how an organization and Board like Downtown Waco, Inc's operates I can easily see how one might think that there's more to this story. And while I don't agree with the tone of this discussion, it is a valid point that fingers shouldn't be pointed unless and until the investigation yields reason to do so. I very seriously doubt that any kind of criminal or civil action will be taken against anyone other than Margaret Mills. From everything that I've seen, that's an entirely appropriate course of action.

Those who want to question the Board's decision making, you're free to do so, but my organization had money involved in this that we'll never see again and I am totally satisfied with the Board's actions. I wish they could have caught her sooner, but I just don't think it was possible at the time.

Please, though, enough with the snarking and the name-calling. Until someone is charged with something they shouldn't be treated like criminals or incompetents, and just because someone doesn't understand how these things work or they are suspicious of the situation doesn't make them stupid.

Scott Baker
Waco Performing Arts Co.
Downtown Merchants Association
PID #1

By Scott

Nov 10, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Hey Skier, I have no intention of sitting by silently while good people get their names trashed by ignorant people like you. You and the others like to talk an awful lot about things you don't know anything about, but the fact remains that throughout this entire ordeal not one person connected to DWI, the police, or the DA have even mentioned that anyone other than Mills is guilty of any level of wrongdoing. It's quite pathetic that you actually believe that you have clearer insight into the situation than all of them.

And Juror, you're disgusting. Keep your illiterate nose out of the conversation if you don't have anything useful to contribute. Were you able to read, you'd know that there's not a person here who wants justice served for Margaret Mills more than myself.

By A Grand Juror

Nov 10, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

Scotty -- how long have you been in love with the low-life Mills?

By HSBSkier

Nov 10, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Scott, You need to just quit replying, you are not helping yourself (nor the others) at all and "fueling the fire". My comment back on page two and mentioned by others who understand the lack of the Boards's review (not engaged in) of operations and business controls is impossible to defend. There is inded only one CRIMINAL indictment - that being Mrs. Mills. That's not to say there is not civil recourse for lack of proper attention.. Why do you think Boards of Directors exist?

Cheers!