Open letters submitted to city auditor, safety/service director
By
-
An open letter to Hillsboro Auditor Gary Lewis…
Mr. Lewis,
Hillsboro Safety & Services Director Ralph Holt has announced his fine
new unpopular “fire inspection program,” including a schedule of specific
fees.
As I understand GASB accounting standards, such a program should always
be accompanied by an official and responsible estimate of the anticipated
costs to perform the inspections and of the anticipated revenues to assure
the credibility of legally required annual audits. I believe this is
normally done via an official budget resolution by city administrators that
indicates a new line item in the budget on the income side of the ledger and
where it will be spent on the expense side of the ledger.
Obviously, the general public would certainly be edified to see that
critical information too.
Yet, to date, I have not seen any such information provided by any city
administrator or fire department official or any indication they have passed
the necessary budget resolution..Has that information been provided to you
in your auditor’s office and, if so, would you please publish it for the
benefit of the public? If those standard steps have been omitted by Mr. Holt
and the city, would you please explain how you intend to submit a credible
audit for the city at year's end?
Many thanks,
Jim Moore
Hillsboro
An open letter to Ralph Holt, Hillsboro Safety & Services Director
Mr. Holt,
In a recent public complaint from Mr. Jason Brown about your unpopular
new fire "inspection" plans (that you claimed publicly are "mandated by the
state"). Mr. Brown recounted a conversation he had with the State Fire
Marshal's office that indicates your "mandate" may not exist at all. Mr.
Brown's letter also recounts a conversation he had with Mr. Ed Puckett,
Hillsboro's Assistant Fire Chief.
An excerpt from Mr. Brown's letter about that conversation is:
"I asked him (Assistant Chief Puckett) why the businesses in town
should have to pay for this; after all, isn't that what taxes are for? He
informed me that the city doesn't have the money to pay for a certified fire
safety inspector from the fire department to do inspections during their
normal shift so the fees are to pay for the extra expense of having another
firefighter on duty."
Finally, Mr. Holt, your announcement of your new, unpopular "inspection
plan" includes notice your fee for your inspection of propane tanks will be
$100.
These are just three reasons why your "program" and your credibility,
and that of Chief Puckett are being questioned. I will help you out with
these matters.
This week I will track down the "mandate" you claimed and confirm that
it does exist or that you just made it up in order to generate more
work/income for the fire department personnel.
Allowing the employees of a government department to do work solely
to increase the budget of their department is tremendously poor public
policy, Mr. Holt. Even if justified by mandate, the money from the fees
should be going into a general fund without earmarking. Your "inspection
plan" is akin to allowing the police department to fund themselves by
keeping the fines from the citations they write. In short, such funding
arrangements encourage "overzealousness" by public employees.
I will also investigate the inspection of propane tanks including if
the company delivering propane completes inspections at each delivery and if
they are ordered by the state to do a specified inspection every five years,
and how much is a reasonable cost to inspect one. And then the public can
compare that to your $100 yearly "program" and, if necessary, ask publicly
why you are demanding a $100 annual tribute to the fire department when the
state has already put in place inspections from the private sector that are
much less expensive and much less troublesome... especially if the "mandate"
you claimed publicly turns out to be a fairy tale.
Not to worry, Messrs. Holt and Puckett. I'm going to provide you this
assistance at no cost.
Sincerely,
Jim Moore
Hillsboro[[In-content Ad]]
Mr. Lewis,
Hillsboro Safety & Services Director Ralph Holt has announced his fine
new unpopular “fire inspection program,” including a schedule of specific
fees.
As I understand GASB accounting standards, such a program should always
be accompanied by an official and responsible estimate of the anticipated
costs to perform the inspections and of the anticipated revenues to assure
the credibility of legally required annual audits. I believe this is
normally done via an official budget resolution by city administrators that
indicates a new line item in the budget on the income side of the ledger and
where it will be spent on the expense side of the ledger.
Obviously, the general public would certainly be edified to see that
critical information too.
Yet, to date, I have not seen any such information provided by any city
administrator or fire department official or any indication they have passed
the necessary budget resolution..Has that information been provided to you
in your auditor’s office and, if so, would you please publish it for the
benefit of the public? If those standard steps have been omitted by Mr. Holt
and the city, would you please explain how you intend to submit a credible
audit for the city at year's end?
Many thanks,
Jim Moore
Hillsboro
An open letter to Ralph Holt, Hillsboro Safety & Services Director
Mr. Holt,
In a recent public complaint from Mr. Jason Brown about your unpopular
new fire "inspection" plans (that you claimed publicly are "mandated by the
state"). Mr. Brown recounted a conversation he had with the State Fire
Marshal's office that indicates your "mandate" may not exist at all. Mr.
Brown's letter also recounts a conversation he had with Mr. Ed Puckett,
Hillsboro's Assistant Fire Chief.
An excerpt from Mr. Brown's letter about that conversation is:
"I asked him (Assistant Chief Puckett) why the businesses in town
should have to pay for this; after all, isn't that what taxes are for? He
informed me that the city doesn't have the money to pay for a certified fire
safety inspector from the fire department to do inspections during their
normal shift so the fees are to pay for the extra expense of having another
firefighter on duty."
Finally, Mr. Holt, your announcement of your new, unpopular "inspection
plan" includes notice your fee for your inspection of propane tanks will be
$100.
These are just three reasons why your "program" and your credibility,
and that of Chief Puckett are being questioned. I will help you out with
these matters.
This week I will track down the "mandate" you claimed and confirm that
it does exist or that you just made it up in order to generate more
work/income for the fire department personnel.
Allowing the employees of a government department to do work solely
to increase the budget of their department is tremendously poor public
policy, Mr. Holt. Even if justified by mandate, the money from the fees
should be going into a general fund without earmarking. Your "inspection
plan" is akin to allowing the police department to fund themselves by
keeping the fines from the citations they write. In short, such funding
arrangements encourage "overzealousness" by public employees.
I will also investigate the inspection of propane tanks including if
the company delivering propane completes inspections at each delivery and if
they are ordered by the state to do a specified inspection every five years,
and how much is a reasonable cost to inspect one. And then the public can
compare that to your $100 yearly "program" and, if necessary, ask publicly
why you are demanding a $100 annual tribute to the fire department when the
state has already put in place inspections from the private sector that are
much less expensive and much less troublesome... especially if the "mandate"
you claimed publicly turns out to be a fairy tale.
Not to worry, Messrs. Holt and Puckett. I'm going to provide you this
assistance at no cost.
Sincerely,
Jim Moore
Hillsboro[[In-content Ad]]