Middlebury Selectman Jennifer Mahr has raised the alarm over the “disturbing” use of a signature stamp for Selectman J. Paul Vance to co-sign town checks alongside the first selectman when Vance is out of town, saying that it violates the town charter that requires two selectmen and the town treasurer to sign checks.
“I have NEVER been asked to sign town checks, despite the Charter’s requirement that two Selectmen and the Town Treasurer sign each check, and the past practice of all three Selectmen and the Town Treasurer from the last BOS (St. John, Strobel, and Barra) signing each week,” Mahr wrote on her Facebook page. “Someone signs for Selectman Vance instead of asking the other available Selectman (Jennifer Mahr) to sign checks.”
“I saw the signature stamp with my own eyes and got copies of cleared checks from the town’s account at Ion Bank showing the regular signature and the stamped signatures,” Mahr continued.
Mahr had originally posted images of the check signatures and wrote the practice amounted to “fraud,” but has since removed the images and edited her social media statement. Although Mahr posted her findings to Middlebury neighborhood social media pages they were promptly removed, and she says her selectman Facebook account was banned from at least one of them.
“No voucher, claim or charge against the Town shall be paid until the same has been audited by the Board of Selectmen and approved for correctness and validity,” the Middlebury Town Charter states. “Checks shall be drawn for the payment of approved claims and shall be valid only when countersigned by the Treasurer and two (2) Selectmen.”
Mahr claims she came to question how checks were signed after a Middlebury resident highlighted a passage in the local newspaper in which the reporter found Vance and First Selectman Edward St. John “chatting in the conference room,” according to BOS meeting minutes. The reporter was seeking additional information on an altercation that occurred on town property between a building official and the town clerk but was denied that information.
Mahr’s posting did not sit well with Vance, who is the former longtime spokesman for the Connecticut State Police and is well known by state officials and media. Vance acknowledged the use of a signature stamp when he is out of town, something he says he authorized, and states comports with the town charter.
“I do not know if Selectman Mahr was ever asked to sign checks,” Vance wrote in an emailed response to questions. “I have been asked to sign checks and I do. If I am in town, I sign in person. When I was out of town, I authorize use of my signature on a stamp if asked to do so regarding an approved claim. This comports with the charter.”
“I spent my career enforcing the law, and because Selectman Mahr is insulted- now she is going to accuse me of a crime? To be accused of fraud is ridiculous and insulting,” Vance continued. “We are lucky to have honest and decent people who work for the Town that help manage the town’s day to day operations. She is creating an extensive record of attacking people that she does not like or agree with. I was not raised that way. I continue to work daily for all citizens of Middlebury.”
In her original post, Mahr wrote, “This is fraud,” but did not specifically accuse Vance of fraud, however, in an emailed response, Mahr wrote, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
“Selectman Vance hasn’t been present to do his job and left behind a stamp so someone else could sign checks for the town,” Mahr wrote. “This removes the check and balance provided by having at least two Selectmen actually look at and then sign checks. That’s his job and he’s not doing it.”
Mahr won election as an unaffiliated candidate in 2023 with 39 percent of the vote in a five-way race that included Vance built largely on her opposition to a proposed warehouse construction on the old Timex property. That warehouse battle became the subject of a 2023 budget “rat,” that prevented the project from moving forward. Since then, she has largely found herself at odds with her fellow selectmen and some town officials.
“The voters can decide if that’s fraud or just dereliction of duty,” Mahr continued.
First Selectman St. John did not return request for comment.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
CT Electronic Transactions Act eliminates the need for actual ink signatures in most situations unless there is some statute or other regulation/rule that demands ink signature. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/pub/chap_015.htm See Chapter 15 of the CT Gen Stats.
I don’t think the issue is the stamped signature versus an ink signature. I think the issue is that one select Man and the treasurer are end endorsing checks instead of two men and the treasurer endorsing checks. Ethic dictates one must avoid the appearance of impropriety not just actual wrongdoing.
The Charter needs to be update to the reality of digital world. Most checks today do not have ink signature; most have facsimile authorized signature or none at all. Change Charter option to pay bills electronically by incorporating due diligent internal controls.