Speak Out Loud NA

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Considerations of the Audit Investigation

With all the chest thumping going on about how CM Coffey is going to be discredited and how he has 'supposedly' embarrassed himself by "going after" Garner on some sort of "whitch hunt", we feel compelled to assert our continued support of Coffey's resolution. It is Garner who has turned this thing into an ugly political football by making so much noise about his objections to having an investigative audit done.
We also want to express our support of CM Blevins for doing the right thing by voting in favor of the resolution. He understands that the monies of the City MUST be reconciled with the findings of the State Audit. That can only happen if the Council follows the recommendation of the State and conducts their own inquiry into the financial condition of the City and all its related departments.
Once again, our friend blogtastic has presented our contentions regarding this investigation into the monies very eloquently.
Therefore, we are posting the following in the hopes that everyone will understand that this endeavor is the best thing to come out of that Council room in quite some time. We hope you will read these words from the perspective of realizing that the money we refer to is YOUR money. Don't you think you have a right to know what's happened to it before they come asking for more?
Finally, we would like to point out that controller Kay Gerry, although very concientious in her work, has not been handling the financials for the sewer fund, which is our greatest money sucking concern.
The outside accounting firm of Melheiser, Endric, Tucker has been conducting all the financial reports for the Sewer Board. We're not even sure if outsourceing our financials is completely in keeping with accepted procedures. At any rate, explaining the discrepencies of this fund is going to be outside the relm of Mrs. Gerry's knowledge.
So, without further muddling of blogtastic's well articulated reasoning, we now present the most rational discussion of the issue that we have had the opportunity to consider:

On June 17, 2006, Mr. John Tucker penned an opinion that opposed any outside investigative audit of New Albany’s finances, and somehow tried to twist any such attempt to initiate such an audit to the ongoing dispute of Scribner Place and a vision for the city’s future.

As a city resident and taxpayer for the past 23 years, I have seen firsthand this fiscal mismanagement of New Albany’s finances. The audit in question, for year 2004, was just the latest in a series of audits performed by the State Board of Accounts which reflected poorly on New Albany.

Since the audit results were made public a few months back, many of us implored the mayor’s office to initiate an audit. When it became apparent that he was not willing to perform an audit, whether by his own administration or outside auditors, we asked our city council members to do likewise. The request for an audit was not tied to any sentiment on our behalf about Scribner Place, nor was Mr. Coffey’s resolution tied to some “latest attempted murder of Scribner Place.”

Mr. Tucker states that, “Yelling for an audit plays to the fears and mistrust of the public.” It is a shame he places so little trust in the intelligence and perseverance of New Albany’s citizens. We fear nothing, but rather know that a full accounting of how our monies are being handled is long overdue.

So contrary to what Mr. Tucker asserts, Mr. Coffey was not trying to “sell the audit as something it isn’t.” He was simply responding to the request of informed citizens in this community, who have endured decades of taxation and ever increasing fees with no adequate explanation as to how our money is being spent.

A proper audit also will show much more than what Mr. Tucker contends. It will reveal more than “whether the books are balanced, if employees who are getting paid exist and if the proper paperwork was filed.” Some of the largest and most worrisome issues with New Albany’s accounting deal with improper account reconciliations (sewer, sanitation), capital asset accounts, and cash and cash equivalents balances. And contrary to what the State Board of Accounts contends was their full audit, a proper, full investigative audit goes much further than exposing such deficiencies. It will answer those questions raised, as any audit should, and show the city’s residents just exactly why the accounts are out of balance, and where the monies went.

These results do not necessarily imply some potential sinister outcome as Mr. Tucker mentioned; embezzlement, areas of possible theft or cooking the books. It could be nothing criminal at all, but rather the results of poor accounting and financial controls, processes and/or management. Even such non-criminal deficiencies, though, can have a measurable, negative impact on the decision making processes in our city.

Start if you will with a strictly internal audit process. Given the local political infighting, more vicious perhaps because it is within a single party, we all doubt that it will get very far in providing the answers we demand. This will probably serve nothing more than to burn up more unproductive time until outside auditors ultimately are brought in.

The citizens of New Albany deserve a full investigative audit of how our money is being used. When informed of repeated, supposedly necessary sewer rate increases, or the immediate urgency to redesign the sanitation department, finances have frequently been presented with a great degree of certainty by board members and the mayor’s office. The audit by the State Board of Accounts, however, reflects that such certainty is truly unknown.

In closing, unlike Mr. Tucker contends, we too desire a better New Albany, and a bigger and brighter future. We welcome the opportunity to participate in the dialogue. Building a better New Albany will take some time, and like any construction, will only be as good as its foundation. The foundation of any city’s ability to grow and progress is its financial status, and without knowing the true financial health of our great little city, we are indeed building on a shaky foundation.

24 Comments:

  • Oh now you think Blevins is good councilman becuase he backed coffeys resolution but when he supports the mayor he is in the mayors pocket and is told what to do according to your past posts.

    You like to have it both ways dont you big mouth

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:10 AM, June 22, 2006  

  • Just like the Tribune was good enough to "steal" a cartoon from a while back and now she is cancelling her subscribtion. It is like a little kid knocking over the checkers board because he/she keeps losing.

    Showing my age, do kids today even know what the game checkers is?

    By Blogger Iamhoosier, at 8:18 AM, June 22, 2006  

  • I love that they can write this article in the face of The Tribune showing without a doubt that an audit is useless and a waste of money.

    What color is the sky in your world, EE?

    By Blogger stenson, at 8:49 AM, June 22, 2006  

  • Well said Blogtastic. As usual you put everything in perspective.

    By Anonymous blog reader, at 8:55 AM, June 22, 2006  

  • Can you believe the Republicans put this guy up for office, twice, before Fessel kicked his butt?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:09 AM, June 22, 2006  

  • As someone pointed out before the vote. Duplicating the audit is illegal and the cost could fall on the councilmen themselves. Some council members advised others of this as did Ulrich.

    The audit would not cover the sewers anyway.Why? They do not have a budget!!!!!!!!!!! Only the investigation by the EPA will cover the monies spent by the sewers. The audit would only cover the general fund which is not where most of the trouble is--IT IS THE SEWER UTILITY THAT HAS CORRUPTED CITY FINANCES--as I posted a year ago.People keep talking about police cars and cell phones. Keep your eye onna da ball!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:24 AM, June 22, 2006  

  • Thank you, Blogtastic, for making sense out of an issue which, in actuality, shouldn't even HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED.

    You are absolutely correct. A TRUE AUDIT WOULD ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS, not leave questions open with NO ANSWERS.

    We do not feel the outsourcing of out sewer department funds are legal, either. If you can't bring in an outside Auditing firm to do the books, no wonder the "Audit" done in 2000 reflected "this is not a true Audit; this Audit was done according to City Specs." And on and on it goes...........

    Let us pose this question. Always, in the past, always, the sewer utility audit was separate from the General Fund Audit. Not this time. Why? Anyone know the status of the '05 Audit, because it should be hitting local bookstores soon.

    And, if the Federal government is truly going to perform an Audit of OUR ENTIRE FINANCES, not just sewer utility, how can they possibly come up with the numbers needed for the bank mentioned in today's paper?

    If we need SOOOOOOO much to fix our sewers, do the drainage, fix the roads, get the street department out of debt, make that sewer Bond payment...we just don't know. If you can't make the Sewer Bond payment, how the hey are you going to sell these other Bonds? Doesn't this all tie together.

    Logic. Sanity. Maybe the words, "Serenity Now" from Seinfeld would be appropriate.

    By Blogger Citizenspeak, at 2:59 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • iamhoosier-
    You have been contributing NOTHING to the discussions here. Your comments have all been personal insults and attacks on this blog.
    C'mon..."stealing" the Tribune cartoon!?!? Pleeese.
    Certainly, you are intitled to your opinions, but there is absolutely no reason for you to be so hateful.
    This blog, along with myself and all the others who read and comment here, are not going away despite your best efforts to discredit and slander us.
    Therefore, I strongly suggest that you refrain from such tactics.
    You are welcome to be involved in the discussions here, but I will not tolerate outright harrassment.
    If you are so distraught over the contents and tone of this blog, it's very simple... point that mouse somewhere else!

    By Blogger East Ender, at 4:37 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • east ender,

    Thanks for posting my op ed response. I just got around to checking my emails, and Mr. Tucker declined to print the same in the Tribune. They have a no-anonymity policy; I have no problems because it is his publication with his rules. There were a few other choice comments in the email, but as it was a private communication between Mr. Tucker and I, it will remain between the two of us.

    I heard a few people were trying to make hay out of an article in the Tribune about the audit, so I purchased a copy of yesterday's paper out of one of the boxes.

    First, the material in the article belies the title, "State says no to extra audit." Who at the state said 'no'? I couldn't find it in the text of the article. In any event, it does not change a thing in my response.

    What I did find humorous was the first page of the Tribune itself. In the center of the page it says, "HELLO SUMMER," flanked by the titles "Sewer rate hike coming" on the left, and "State says no to extra audit" on the right. [I don't believe that the editors caught the irony of the context.] I may frame it for posterity.

    HELLO SUMMER indeed! I think there is a distinct possibility it could become a lot hotter and a lot muggier than some may desire.

    blogtastic

    By Blogger blogtastic, at 4:50 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • NEWS FLASH!!!

    THE TRIBUNE IS WRONG!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:54 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • East Ender,
    I will not deny that I have been attacking. Personal insults, I might quibble on that one. Discredit you-I plead guilty to that one too. I do try to own up to my deeds, good or bad, and some have not been so good lately. Why can't you own up?

    Would you be kind enough to explain slander to me? I really would like some examples.

    Thanks.

    By Blogger Iamhoosier, at 5:55 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • To I Am Hoosier: First of all, You have called EE a "liar" on more than one occasion. If you have an argument or proof of what is being written is wrong, then just argue the point. Slander? I think so! Second, as an educator in the school system, children start playing checkers in kindergarden, if not sooner.
    And, as an educator, I can't help wondering what on earth is a "subscribtion"?
    But, of course we ALL make mistakes. Right?
    So tell me, what do you think the difference is between "personal insults" and "discrediting" someone as you, admit trying to do?
    If you were simply trying to "discredit", you would be talking about the issues. Your tact has been personal insults.
    Will you admit it?

    By Anonymous The Real Ms. Smith, at 6:54 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • "this is not a true Audit; this Audit was done according to..."

    citizenspeak: I'll give you until Monday to show me ANY audit anywhere by an accounting firm or state agency that does NOT have that disclaimer.

    real ms. smith: Please tell me you really aren't an educator in the school system. "Kindergarden?" "Your tact?"

    In kindergarten we learned all about tacking. Taking a tack is directional. I don't know what taking a "tact" is. Guess this will be "deleated."

    Turn yourself in to the superintendent so our children won't be taught such ridiculous "grammer."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:07 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous I hate mrs. smith, at 7:32 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • My point exactly! Don't anyone make a mistake with spelling or grammer or YOU WILL BE CHASTISED!

    TACT: A course of action.

    God, what a jerk! SOOOOOOOOO petty!

    By Anonymous the real ms. smith, at 7:43 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • An audit is ILLEGAl??????????
    Where did you come up with that one? You might want to reconsider your interpretation of what's going on.
    Unless of course, you are another hired gun. Having been given your marching orders to spin the audit concerns into something ridiculous.
    In that case, let me guess where that spin came from:
    Only the State officials may conduct audits of City funds. The financials may not be outsourced to independent auditors.
    However, the City's governing body (City Council) may conduct inquiries and seek the advise of a certified accountant, the city controller, and/or the State Board of Accounts.
    This was discussed by someone who was asking how and why, given these RULES, the Sewer financials are being handled by the outside, independent accounting firm of Melheiser, Endris and Tucker.
    Thank God the Feds are taking care of investigating those monies for us. That's going to be the most difficult aspect of untangling this financial mess that Garner has led us into.
    Wonder how much we're paying that firm for their services? Why isn't Kay Gerry handling the Sewer funds?
    While we're at it:
    How come monthly reconciliations of bank accounts weren't being done? The most basic of accounting procedures!
    Why were expenditures made that exceeded the budgeted or appropriated funds of so many departments?
    What ARE they doing up there?
    Furthermore, it bears repeating that the computer systems and accounting software are less than 4 years old. There's no blaming this on the equipment.
    All this points directly to 'Pilot Error'. Garbage in...garbage out.
    Questions for Kay Gerry? Yeah, we've got a few (hundred).
    This investigation into the audits WILL be conducted despite whatever spin the pp's try to put on it.
    We just have to accept that they are going to be obstructionists in the efforts to track the monies.
    Wonder why?

    By Blogger East Ender, at 9:18 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • My kids learned in Kindergarten where the spell-check button was.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:59 PM, June 22, 2006  

  • WHO CARES!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:11 AM, June 23, 2006  

  • THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS,
    WHERE IS THE MONEY?
    WHAT'S MAYOR GARNER GOT TO HIDE?

    KAY IS A BOOKEEPER NOT A CPA!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:11 AM, June 23, 2006  

  • The Real Ms Smith,
    Yes, I am more than willing to admit my mistakes. As you kindly pointed out(which I saw after posting)I did not do a good job of spelling.

    Yes, I used the term liar and I backed it up with proof. I will grant the small possiblity that EE forgot that I had voluntarily gave her my real name. The other part of that exchange had to do with labeling me as anti anonymous posting. I have posted many, many times that I agree with allowing such posts. She never even addressed that issue after I brought it up.

    You are correct, most will(or should) admit their mistakes. Can you honestly say that EE did? Can you show the readers where EE said anything even remotely to the effect of "I made two mistakes. I forgot that I knew his name and labeled him anti anonymous, which anyone who reads the blogs regularly should know is not true. I apologize to you readers for misleading you." By not doing so and continuing to attack, what else can a rational person conclude?

    It is about truth and consistency. Again, yes I will admit my mistakes. Just show them to me with a little proof like I attempt to do.

    Please forgive any spelling, typing or grammatical errors. I have never claimed to be an English teacher. If someone can tell me how to use spell check on the blogs I would appreciate it.

    By Blogger Iamhoosier, at 8:38 AM, June 23, 2006  

  • To IAmHoosier: Thank you for the kind explanation. Some, as we both agree will never admit to their mistakes. We are all human. I think you will find that EE also was trying to explain that to you as she has said that you requested your identity remain confidential and she simply did not remember who you were at the time the comment was made.
    Lumping you in with the anti-anonymity crowd may have been a mistake, but it's a real stretch to call someone a liar over.
    My main point was that mistakes are made. But, in your zeal to label EE as a liar, you have beaten this particular issue to death, when it was really just a misunderstanding.

    By Anonymous the real ms. smith, at 10:30 PM, June 23, 2006  

  • Never mind the misunderstanding, I Am Hoosier, since she's lied about so many other things during the same time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:55 PM, June 23, 2006  

  • to 10:55 Who are you?? I mean, WHAT are you? You seriously need help!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:59 PM, June 23, 2006  

  • To Anon at 7:07 6/22 from CitizenSpeaks -- An Audit does not leaves openended questions -- it answers all of 'em.

    An Audit may not be "outsourced" according to IN law -- thus the disclaimer on this particular Audit being referred to. This "Audit" we are referring to was altered at the meeting where it was presented and new pictures and diagrams presented to the public, which of course we have pictures of.

    Anything Else?

    By Blogger Citizenspeak, at 10:11 PM, June 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

r

Create a Link

<< Home