accountant witness

The witness, an accountant, only had limited involvement in the payment process, limited to receiving a telephone call from Calvin, and did not take further steps to ensure necessary documents were in place for payment authorization.

“I mean, I am not seeing you, for example, here. You are facilitating payment that you say is due and must be paid. I do not see any communication that suggests that you took, you said something at the very least that seeks to ensure that the necessary documents are in. I mean, you got a call from Calvin. That is your limited involvement. You got a call from Calvin. He never sent you, I do not understand you, and please correct me if I am wrong, I never understood your evidence to be that you ended up with the evidence, the documentary evidence that shows that the services were rendered. They were contracted for, they were rendered, and, and, and. Your limited involvement on your account is that telephone call.”

The witness admitted that his role was limited to overseeing and assisting in payments but did not independently verify that internal processes and documents were in order for authorizing payments.

“that you use, without any indication that you satisfied yourself, that you are overseeing and authorizing, and I am using authorizing loosely. As an overseer, you are, you are assisting in payments to be made where all the necessary documents that are required and that contain the necessary information have, in fact, been submitted to the different people in the City, in the TMPD, including in your Finance, that must receive all of that information. I do not see that in these texts. I do not know if that, I think I spoke long. I think the summary of what I am saying is, it does not seem from these texts that you satisfied yourself independently, that your internal processes and documents are all in order.”