« And now for an historical lesson from one of the experts | Main | On the bus: CARTA raising rates, seeking budget increase »
May 8, 2008
Nary a mention of the henchman
I hope you have been following the discussion (as dry as it may seem) regarding the purpose and function of auditors in the City of Chattanooga.
Like many a tedious procedural debate, this one started with something of a scuttlebutt: though not quite a scandal, the recent report of a few minor infractions uncovered during an audit of the 21st Century Waterfront raised general concerns about the audit process.
The next milestone was the report by Dave Flessner that indicated how developer and former Ron Littlefield for Mayor campaign manager Dale Mabee received what many consider to be perks in his partnership's deal to build the condominiums between 2nd and 3rd Streets near the Walnut Street Bridge.
The main question resulting from that revelation was: why was an audit conducted of the RiverCity Company's and related Waterfront transactions, but no audit has been performed to date on the Walnut Hill project? Or, more to the point, are there political implications in the decisions about which audits do or do not take place?
Most recently, the lead attorney for the city, Randy Nelson, informed the City Council that an auditor has not been properly installed since the inception of the current charter in 1990. According to reports, the Council has an analyst, but auditor Stan Sewell reports to the Mayor. (The charter calls for the auditor to report to the Council.)
Mr. Sewell recently stated, as part of his declaration of independence, that "the mayor does not tell us what to audit." But let's take a closer look at that statement from a couple of different angles. The most obvious inference is that Mayor Littlefield did not order the audit on the Waterfront. I'm fairly inclined to believe that.
After all, His Honor's background is in real estate, with additional experience in public works administration. But what if there were, say, an experienced CPA in the administration? Like, perhaps, Chief of Staff Dan Johnson? And what if Dan Johnson has a history of being critical of RiverCity Company? Why, there is; it's he; and he did. Could Dan Johnson have ordered the audit?
Now, back to the Dale Mabee deal. Here's what Stan Sewell did not say: "The mayor does not tell us what not to audit." Is it therefore possible that Mayor Littlefield (or Dan Johnson) ordered the absence of an audit on a close political ally? Technically, yes.
Another thing: Sewell says that audit targets are chosen for a) large amounts (which, to be fair, would explain the $120M Waterfront's inclusion) and b) "operations where cash is involved." I'll remind you that the land deal around the Walnut Hill development was made possible by an interest-free loan from the city, and the city accepted a promissory note as payment. It could be argued, I suppose, that this was not a "cash" operation.
Please be careful not to infer any allegations here, against Messrs. Littlefield, Johnson, Sewell, or anyone else; I am simply raising the possibility that these things could have happened, and Mr. Sewell would have nonetheless gone on record stating the truth. In all likelihood, there was no intrigue behind what I have pointed out as potential omissions from his remarks. He was probably just answering a question.
But the mere possibility of politically motivated audit decisions emphasizes the need for the City Council to take swift action so that an independent auditor is accountable directly to the people of this city (through their elected represantives in the legislative body), and is not taking orders from an arguably power-hungry chief executive nor from his power-wielding administrative director.
Government | By joe lance | 10:09 PM