The Niagara County District Attorney’s Office has been asked to review a state comptroller’s audit to determine if former Niagara County Treasurer David Broderick violated any laws or statutes while performing his duties as the county’s public administrator of estates.

In a visit to Niagara Falls City Hall on Friday, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli accused Broderick of “cutting corners” in his handling of estate affairs. He based his assessment on the findings of his audit team, which determined Broderick sold estate assets at below their value, hired attorneys, real estate agents and appraisers without seeking competitive bids, failed to maintain adequate records of transactions and regularly assigned his secretary to perform estate duties on county time.

In a 16-page response, Broderick took exception to many aspects of the audit, suggesting that it was performed without “any defined auditing standards” and “without regard to uniformity.” Broderick suggested that DiNapoli’s staff failed to address a key question about the status of state rules governing the duties of public administrators and ignored “the practical aspects” of dealing with small or difficult estates. Broderick also labeled the comptroller’s office referral of the audit to the DA’s office as “unwarranted and without any basis,” noting that the auditors did not identify any instances where laws were broken or estate assets were missing.

When asked about Broderick’s response, DiNapoli said simply: “He’s wrong.”

“It was a lax operation here that left open the possibility for exploitation and we have to be sure that it doesn’t happen again,” he added.

Attorney: Report ‘flawed’

Broderick resigned in January, citing health problems and an interest in spending more time with his family. His resignation followed a dispute over his handling of the estate of a Lewiston woman whose daughter, Amherst attorney Teresa Snyder, raised questions in court about Broderick’s performance as public administrator. The audit followed after a formal request for a review from county surrogate court judges Matthew Murphy and Sara Sheldon Sperrazza.

As the county’s chief fiscal officer, the county’s treasurer is responsible under state law for overseeing the affairs of individuals who die without wills or have no one qualified or willing to administer their estate.

Reached by telephone on Friday, Broderick’s attorney, George Muscato, said his client considers the audit “flawed” in many respects and noted that DiNapoli’s team did not identify an instance in which any assets were not properly accounted for or had gone missing. Muscato acknowledged that in some instances better accounting practices could have been employed by Broderick, but he insisted his client did his utmost to make sure the assets under his care were handled appropriately. He also insisted that Broderick violated no laws or committed any ethical violations in performing his duties as administrator.

“There’s not a single dime missing from any estate that anybody has complained about,” Muscato said.

Muscato echoed concerns raised by Broderick in his response to the audit, noting that the review was requested by Murphy and Sperrazza in an effort to address questions about the Report and Guidelines of the Administrative Board for the Offices of Public Administrator, a set of state rules for public administrators that was developed in 1995.

Muscato, County Attorney Claude Joerg and other assistant county attorneys have consistently maintained that those rules , which, among other things, bar administrators from doing business with relatives, were never ratified and, therefore, cannot be enforced. Broderick and Muscato say not only did the auditors fail to answer those questions, but never applied the guidelines in performing the audit.

“They can say whatever they want to say, but these allegations are unsubstantiated,” Muscato said.

“I think that Mr. Broderick has been a public servant for 37 years and it’s unfortunate that at the end of his career he has been confronted with these issues,” Muscato added.

DiNapoli referred questions about the public administration rules to the state Office of Court Administration. Officials from that office have previously indicated that public administrators are barred from “self-dealing” or involving relatives in estate business. DiNapoli noted that many of the issues raised in audit refer to instances in which Broderick acted outside the bounds of commonly accepted practices for individuals holding public office of any kind.

“Very clearly, there are sound practices that public officials involved with managing estates should be incorporating as part of looking out for the people’s business,” DiNapoli said.

Correcting past mistakes

District Attorney Michael Violante issued a letter in January 2009 in which he indicated that his office found no indication of any wrongdoing on Broderick’s part and concluded that no county employees were assigned to the former treasurer’s estate-related work. In the letter to Snyder, Violante said his office investigated her concerns about Broderick’s estate dealings and found “no violations of the general municipal law or the penal law have occurred.” DiNapoli said the audit was referred to the county District Attorney’s office as a matter of common practice.

“We’re not a law enforcement entity. We are not lawyers. We are not involved in that end of it,” DiNapoli said. “We do an audit. When there are unresolved questions we then refer it for those who have a responsibility for answering those questions.”

DiNapoli suggested county lawmakers take a close look at the recommendations from his office and take any necessary steps to ensure that public resources will be used appropriately where future estate work is concerned. He noted that the county surrogate’s court judges have indicated a willingness to follow the recommendations.

“Obviously, there have been some significant issues here,” DiNapoli said. “The individual we are talking about has resigned. Someone new is coming on very soon. I think we’ve given a very professional and a very clear road map on how to do things the right way here.”

He pointed to the use of the county employee in the treasurer’s office for estate work as something worthy of further investigation.

“If there’s money being paid for the public administrator for work and work is being done by someone else on the county payroll, it would raise an obvious question about reimbursement to the county,” DiNapoli said.

The comptroller said the goal now is to ensure that the county’s public administration work is handled with a higher level of professionalism.

“The key point of it is, how do we put a government operation back on a stronger and more positive path to look out for the interests of the citizens of the community,” DiNapoli said. “I think in this case, we’ve seen a very positive response to what we’ve been laying out and we look forward to a better public administrator role here in Niagara County as we move forward.”

Contact reporter Mark Scheer at 282-2311, ext. 2250.