Since January, Penn Forest auditor Matt Schutter has stepped up to the podium during board of supervisors meetings and asked the same question, "Where is the $1.6 million?"

On Monday, April 7, Schutter stood quietly at the rear of the meeting holding a handwritten sign printed with the same words.Earlier in the meeting, township solicitor Thomas Nanovic read an open letter to address the claims of "misappropriated" township funds. The letter refers to claims made by former supervisors Paul Montemuro and Alan Katz in a Times News article published on April 3, 2012.Supervisors' view"This whole township is being investigated by the FBI, the same (agents) who went to Luzerne County. They are going to go through this whole accounting system from A to Z," former chairman of the township board of supervisors Paul Montemuro said in that article.Montemuro, who lost the election in 2013, claimed last month that nothing has changed since he originally made that statement."That letter does not address the correct time frame. In fact, all it does is verify that we did everything correct 'accounting wise' when we were in office," Montemuro said.The letter addresses the period from 2009 through 2012, citing that the CPA firm of Kirk, Summa and Co. has audited the books from 2009 to present, including the year 2012."I recently reviewed the audit for the fiscal year 2012. There is no mention of any money missing or misappropriated," Nanovic said." ... In the more than two years since this article has appeared, I am not aware of any person being charged criminally with misappropriation of township funds, any person being sued civilly to recover misappropriated township funds, any surcharges against any person for misappropriated township funds, or any other action taken against any person regarding township funds. By all appearances, the allegation of the $1.6 million being misappropriated was baseless," Nanovic said.Nanovic said the FBI's policy is "not to comment on whether an investigation was ongoing or closed."It is unfortunate, but perhaps telling, that the allegations were levied at the vague and indefinite 'previous boards and employees,'" Nanovic's letter said.Not every resident in attendance accepted the letter on its face value."I'm sorry, but I got the $1.6 million stuck in my head. It won't just go away because you say so," remarked township resident and planning board member Bill Miller. "Where did that number come from?""Someone just pulled it out of the air," Chairman Warren Reiner responded."I provided everything to the Carbon County District Attorney and the Pennsylvania State Police, including specific accusations," Montemuro said. "Based on the information I had, I was directed to the FBI."Purchase ordersMontemuro provided detailed information regarding the award of purchase orders, mismanagement of the transfer station and possible inflated invoices for services rendered to the township."The previous boards, from about 2001 through 2007, did not follow the proper procedures for awarding purchase orders and contracts," Montemuro said.He said the township violated policies set by the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.Section 3104, titled "Evasion of Advertising Requirements," deals with piecemeal purchasing and contracting by townships to evade the use of bids for all purchases over a certain dollar amount. In 2005, the requirement was $4,000.The section identifies the surcharges and the criminal liabilities that can be assessed against the supervisor who knowingly violates the provisions of the code.Two contractors' invoices and payments stand out to Montemuro. An independent review of meeting minutes and invoices for an 18-month period from January 2005 to June 2006 showed that the supervisors made motions for three bid packages.One contractor submitted two bids: One for equipment rentals was $90,256, with a materials contract for $30,999, a total of $121,255. Records show the township paid the contractor $286,196, a difference of $164,941, which Montemuro says was in violation of Section 3104.Another company was awarded one contract for material at $18,750, plus a separate contract for snow removal. The company invoiced and was paid $266,953 during the same time period.Montemuro said, "A swale here, an under-road pipe there, all on separate invoices. If you know you are going to be replacing 10 pipes in one season, you send out a bid package for 10 pipes. That is the reason behind Section 3101 of the PSATS."Procedures changedWhen called upon to respond to Montemuro's claims, solicitor Nanovic wondered why this was still an issue after such a long period of time."To the best of my recollection, at the time in question we used to bid out for equipment rental and materials once a year. Those bids were based on estimates of what would be needed for the year," Nanovic said.He said at that time the township had no employees and did not own equipment."One year they went way over what was estimated. I don't believe that anyone is disagreeing that the work had to be done, that the work was done, the work was done at the rate set forth in the contract and that the work was done in a satisfactory manner," Nanovic said.He said, "This probably wasn't the best way to handle the bidding. The supervisors realized that and changed how bidding was done."More questions"This is just a small sample of what supervisor Katz and I uncovered," Montemuro said.When reached for comment Friday, former supervisor Alan Katz was quick to support all of Montemuro's claims."Paul is absolutely correct in his assessment of the situation," Katz said.As to Nanovic's reference to the "vague and indefinite" allegations made by Katz and Montemuro, Katz responded, "We never made any specific allegations public, we just took all of the information, boxes and boxes, to the FBI, and we presented them with the documentation and the facts as they were."Katz added, "My biggest fear is that this township is going back to the same old way of doing things and it's the residents that will pay for it."Montemuro concluded, "There are clearly issues here that need to be addressed, and unless someone goes back and undertakes an audit for the years in question, this issue is never going away."