No excuse for allegations against city auditor

No excuse for allegations against city auditor

A few thoughts on the Aug. 9 tax budget meeting of Hillsboro City Council are in order.

For the record, the Hillsboro mayor's office and the Hillsboro auditor's office are in the same municipal building on North High Street. This is important to remember in light of the public discourse initiated by the mayor's administrative clerk, Kirby Ellison, and directed at City Auditor Gary Lewis Monday night.

In the meeting, Ms. Ellison alleged there were "$600,000 unaccounted for" in budget figures.

This is a pretty bold accusation and one which the auditor and all city administrators ought to take seriously.

While the city's 2011 tax budget was on the agenda to be considered by council before the city auditor submits it to the Highland County auditor, the meeting took a quite different turn, after which, Mr. Lewis left and did not return for the full council meeting later in the evening.

Mr. Lewis said it appeared to him that the line of questioning by the mayor's assistant resembled a game of "gotcha." It certainly looked more like an inquisition than a tax budget hearing.

It is quite difficult to imagine the Highland County Commission's administrative clerk attending a public meeting and making accusations against Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley while county commissioners sit idly by or nod in agreement. Unfortunately, the tactic employed by Ms. Ellison this week is not altogether historically uncommon from the city administration. There is precedence here.

In local county government, the auditor has the respect of the county commission and county department managers. In local city government, when administrators don't like an auditor's report, they attack it — and the auditor.

Let's keep in mind, that the auditor must, by law, undergo a thorough and independent state audit each year. Thus far, Mr. Lewis has had very good audits for the city. He has served the citizens and taxpayers very well. He does not need this defense, either. He has the state audit to support his office.

Speaking of audits, five years ago then-Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery released the unfavorable results of an audit for the village of Leesburg. The audit cited the village with 10 instances of noncompliance and reportable conditions, including not maintaining accounting records on receipts and disbursements; overestimating revenue for utilities; not performing monthly reconciliations in an accurate and timely manner and using monies from one fund to cover expenditures of another fund.

The Leesburg audit is available online at www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2005/Village_of_Leesburg_04….

This is worth mentioning today, as the Hillsboro mayor's assistant was entrusted with the Leesburg village financial reports at that time. She knows firsthand the responsibilities of the city auditor's office and what can happen when such an office is out of legal compliance. 

Should the state of Ohio issue a similar report against the Hillsboro city auditor's office, we will certainly report it. However, with all due respect, a city administrative assistant might not be acting in the city's best interests when she publicly alleges that there is $600,000 unaccounted for by the city auditor. 

The mayor's assistant may claim she was only speaking as a taxpaying citizen and not in her official capacity; however, the mayor said he would base his decision on signing the tax budget on the answers provided to his assistant. This brings the question: Did the mayor have prior knowledge of his assistant's presentation and allegations? After the meeting, he indicated that he did. That's unfortunate.

With the city auditor's office just a few strides from the mayor's office, instead of seeking answers prior to the public meeting, the administration mounted an apparent offensive against the auditor. And city council sat by and watched it happen. 

How is this public allegation good government? If the mayor and his assistant truly believe the auditor cannot account for $600,000, they should, by all means, report this to the Ohio State Auditor's Office. Otherwise, such an affront gives the appearance of character defamation and has the risk of possible litigation.

In June, the city auditor invited an independent auditor in to help explain the city's financial situation. Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley has tried to offer his assistance, as well. What more does the city expect?

City council needs to be reminded that they are entrusted to conduct "council" meetings. These are meetings, in theory, anyway, that are led by council. Not by the mayor or the city employees. But by council. Council must set the desired tone and decorum for its meetings. Otherwise, city taxpayers can anticipate more allegations, less cooperation among departments, and more risk for potential litigation.

This is not good government.

Council owes the city auditor an apology and the assurance that such an accusatory tone will not become commonplace at future meetings.

A few thoughts on the Aug. 9 tax budget meeting of Hillsboro City Council are in order.

For the record, the Hillsboro mayor's office and the Hillsboro auditor's office are in the same municipal building on North High Street. This is important to remember in light of the public discourse initiated by the mayor's administrative clerk, Kirby Ellison, and directed at City Auditor Gary Lewis Monday night.

In the meeting, Ms. Ellison alleged there were "$600,000 unaccounted for" in budget figures.

This is a pretty bold accusation and one which the auditor and all city administrators ought to take seriously.

While the city's 2011 tax budget was on the agenda to be considered by council before the city auditor submits it to the Highland County auditor, the meeting took a quite different turn, after which, Mr. Lewis left and did not return for the full council meeting later in the evening.

Mr. Lewis said it appeared to him that the line of questioning by the mayor's assistant resembled a game of "gotcha." It certainly looked more like an inquisition than a tax budget hearing.

It is quite difficult to imagine the Highland County Commission's administrative clerk attending a public meeting and making accusations against Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley while county commissioners sit idly by or nod in agreement. Unfortunately, the tactic employed by Ms. Ellison this week is not altogether historically uncommon from the city administration. There is precedence here.

In local county government, the auditor has the respect of the county commission and county department managers. In local city government, when administrators don't like an auditor's report, they attack it — and the auditor.

Let's keep in mind, that the auditor must, by law, undergo a thorough and independent state audit each year. Thus far, Mr. Lewis has had very good audits for the city. He has served the citizens and taxpayers very well. He does not need this defense, either. He has the state audit to support his office. And, for full disclosure, the auditor is a columnist for this newspaper. That said, he receives the same scrutiny as any other public official and he knows it.

Speaking of audits, five years ago then-Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery released the unfavorable results of an audit for the village of Leesburg. The audit cited the village with 10 instances of noncompliance and reportable conditions, including not maintaining accounting records on receipts and disbursements; overestimating revenue for utilities; not performing monthly reconciliations in an accurate and timely manner and using monies from one fund to cover expenditures of another fund.

The Leesburg audit is available online at www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2005/Village_of_Leesburg_04….

This is worth mentioning today, as the Hillsboro mayor's assistant was entrusted with the Leesburg village financial reports at that time. She knows firsthand the responsibilities of the city auditor's office and what can happen when such an office is out of legal compliance. 

Should the state of Ohio issue a similar report against the Hillsboro city auditor's office, we will certainly report it. However, with all due respect, a city administrative assistant might not be acting in the city's best interests when she publicly alleges that there is $600,000 unaccounted for by the city auditor. 

The mayor's assistant may claim she was only speaking as a taxpaying citizen and not in her official capacity; however, the mayor said he would base his decision on signing the tax budget on the answers provided to his assistant. This brings the question: Did the mayor have prior knowledge of his assistant's presentation and allegations? After the meeting, he indicated that he did. That's unfortunate.

With the city auditor's office just a few strides from the mayor's office, instead of seeking answers prior to the public meeting, the administration mounted an apparent offensive against the auditor. And city council sat by and watched it happen. 

How is this public allegation good government? If the mayor and his assistant truly believe the auditor cannot account for $600,000, they should, by all means, report this to the Ohio State Auditor's Office. Otherwise, such an affront gives the appearance of character defamation and has the risk of possible litigation.

In June, the city auditor invited an independent auditor in to help explain the city's financial situation. Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley has tried to offer his assistance, as well. What more does the city expect?

City council needs to be reminded that they are entrusted to conduct "council" meetings. These are meetings, in theory, anyway, that are led by council. Not by the mayor or the city employees. But by council. Council must set the desired tone and decorum for its meetings. Otherwise, city taxpayers can anticipate more allegations, less cooperation among departments, and more risk for potential litigation.

This is not good government.

Council owes the city auditor an apology and the assurance that such an accusatory tone will not become commonplace at future meetings.