Forensic Accounting Expert: Visit Harford, Inc. Spent $372K in Taxpayer Funds on “Unjustified Expenses”

For nearly a decade, Visit Harford, the tourism promotion contractor for Harford County, received annual taxpayer funds of up to $1 million with minimal oversight.

In his first year in office, County Executive Bob Cassilly followed his predecessor’s lead and fully funded Visit Harford as the county’s tourism promotion entity, but he required, via new contract terms imposed on Visit Harford, that Visit Harford provide strict accountability for tax dollars received.

In 2024, after Visit Harford failed to uphold their contractual duty to account for taxpayer-funded spending, County Executive Cassilly refused to make further payments to Visit Harford.

Council President Pat Vincenti responded by pushing through council legislation that required the county to pay Visit Harford over $600,000 per year with no accountability. Because the council’s action violated the county charter, County Executive Cassilly refused to make the additional payments demanded by the council. Visit Harford then sued the county government and hired a professional public relations firm to unleash critical social media posts attacking the very county they were supposed to promote as a tourism destination.

During Visit Harford’s lawsuit, the county sought all records related to the bank account into which Visit Harford deposited taxpayer funds. Visit Harford’s attorneys fought that request.

Visit Harford also failed to respond to the county’s demands for production of records from their accountant and their computer files where Visit Harford’s expenditures were supposedly documented. After the court ordered Visit Harford to disclose records to the county, the county turned those records over to a forensic accountant who, in documents filed with the court, reported that “Total Unjustified Expenses incurred by VH [Visit Harford] … are $371,994.64” for just one year. Those unjustified, freewheeling expenses paid by taxpayers include such questionable expenses as trips, gift cards, alcohol, parties, and restaurant tabs.

When the county took Visit Harford’s deposition as part of that lawsuit, Visit Harford sent junior employees rather than subject their senior management to answering questions under oath. Time after time, those employees were unable or unwilling to explain how certain taxpayer-funded expenditures were justified under Visit Harford’s contract with the county.

On September 9, 2025, the court dismissed Visit Harford’s lawsuit against the county but has allowed the county to proceed with a counterclaim for damages against Visit Harford. That case is pending.