Published: January 09, 2009 11:46 pm         

Charges against official weighed

PORTAGE — Although water authority leaders haven’t ruled out criminal charges against longtime superintendent Joseph R. Stancovich, a conviction would not bring more restitution to the borough.

Questions about charging Stancovich came during Thursday’s authority meeting.

Stancovich resigned in December while auditors were completing a review that would show that the superintendent misused his official credit card, racking up more than $8,000 in travel expenses that included hotel, restaurant and gift shop bills.

Stancovich admitted the actions to The Tribune-Democrat.

“We determined there was personal use of authority resources by Joseph Stancovich,” the Kline Kimlin Certified Public Accountants report said. “Expenses were incurred for persons unrelated to authority business.”

Meeting visitor Rick Nagy asked if Stancovich would face legal action.

“We are still in discussion on that,” authority Secretary Dennis Beck said.

Auditors identified $8,558.45 in unauthorized expenses, and Stancovich has since repaid $14,808.45, which includes $6,250 to pay for the audit.

But $8,558.45 is not enough to charge Stancovich with a felony, authority Vice President Ray Bowman said. Any lesser charge would not disqualify him from collecting his pension starting in 2013.

A conviction also would not allow the authority to get any additional compensation, Solicitor William G. Barbin noted.

“By taking him to court, we would not receive any more back than we already got,” Barbin said.

In other business, the authority approved a temporary raise for chief plant operator Ron Cadwallader Jr., who has taken over superintendent’s duties until a permanent replacement is named. He will be paid the same annual salary of $46,232 that Stancovich was making.

The authority may hire a consultant to screen superintendent candidates. Final interviews and hiring approval would remain the authority board’s responsibility. Some in the audience questioned the need for a consultant, but Beck said that would remove questions of favoritism.

“We are discussing that because of the situation with all the scrutiny of the employees and scrutiny of the board,” Beck said. “We wanted to do this without somebody saying ‘The board is up to their old tricks again.’ ”

     

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.