This is in reply to Ms. Hollaways article of Wednesday, June 25 2014.
Ms. Hollaway certainly seems to appreciate all the support she has received and I applaud that support as her position is one constantly under scrutiny by all parties dealing with the court system. Ms. Holloway over the years seems to have learned the operation of the office routine quite well.
However, I take exception to Ms. Hollaways statement that there is no way possible to come up with any amount for past due owed on the old system. Ms. Hollaway states further that the three million dollar figure previously reported This is something that has followed us in a negative light and is not accurate. It has never been proven. It has never been accurate. The question here is why this supposedly $3 million to only $68,000 came about. She states that the amount of $68,000 is only over the past 10 years. What happened previously to that time frame. She further states that this is something that has followed us in a negative light and is not accurate. It has never been proven. It has never been accurate. Why was this issue laid to rest by an in depth investigation by previous Clerks of Court and not allowed to linger?
She further states that These are the first hard figures to officially be released and attests that past estimates of origin would have to be inaccurate because the old computer system had no real method of tracking the total numbers on these accounts. The point being why has this inaction on the Clerk of the Courts office been allowed to languish for so long. If the previous Clerks of the Court failed to adequately maintain a reliable accounting system who knows what the real amount of past due monies.
I trust Ms. Hollaway will endeavor to expand the collection of fines as she envisions. It seems she has a positive attitude toward improving the Clerk of the Courts Office and bring this office into the 21st century.
George A Spreyne