First, some background on how our town government is structured. (Please, forgive me, and skip this if you already know it all.)
 |
| Efficiency vs Transparency? |
Most positions in the town are appointed by the three Selectboard members. These positions include the:
- members of the Planning Commission
- members of the Development Review Board
- members of the Mobbs Committee, and
- members of the Conservation Commission.
- animal control officer
- the health officer
- the town service officer
- the fire warden, and
- representatives to regional boards such as park districts and the CCMPO and CCRPC.
We hire the town manager and approve his/her hires for staff members such as:
- Listers (3)
- the planning and zoning staff
- the financial manager, and
- the road commissioner/foreman.
Appointed by elections/public votes, are:
- Selectboard members
- Town Clerk
- Town Auditors
Should we do away with town auditors?
The big issue at our last meeting was whether or not we should eliminate the Town Auditors position altogether. To summarize: we have a professional audit performed annually by an outside contractor, thus the Town Auditors are unnecessary, redundant, and counter-productive. I just don't see the logic, given that we have qualified, polite, and willing volunteers to check our books a second time. Why would we turn that away?
Because no write-in name captured enough votes on town meeting day, the Selectboard was asked to appoint one. At our last meeting, we appointed Patrick McCarthy to the position, with 2 votes in favor and one member abstaining.
Should we pave Skunk Hollow Road?
At our next meeting, we'll review a report from the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization that studied the traffic volumes and the safety issues on the unpaved portion of Skunk Hollow. Also, an independent contractor conducted a cost analysis that makes a strong argument for paving the road. We'll discuss the reports at our meeting 5/19 and schedule a public forum in the near future.What do you think? When we have a significant difference of opinion on our small board, I need to hear from you. Comment here, send me an email at kimnormanmercer@gmail.com or call me at 343-1265.
1.) According to A Guide to the Statutory and Practical Requirements of the Position of Town Auditor, compiled by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, 1999 (available online):
ReplyDeleteThe town auditor plays a vital role in preserving the democratic nature of Vermont’s
local government by ensuring that local officials are accountable for their
expenditures of the taxpayers’ money. It is the auditor’s job to review the accounts
of local officials and report the findings directly to the taxpayers for review. Because
this report is presented only days before town meeting, the statutory scheme
envisions that if the taxpayers do not like what the auditors’ report indicates about
how the officials have spent the taxpayers’ money, the officials will be voted out of
office. Thus, it is the auditor’s function to present an easy-to-understand picture of
the town’s finances to the people of the town.
Of NOTE:
Under 17 V.S.A. § 2651b, passed in 1998, a town may vote by ballot at an annual
town meeting to eliminate the office of town auditor. This authority extends to all
towns, whether or not they have a charter provision covering election of auditors. If
the town does vote to eliminate the office of auditor, the selectboard of the town will
then contract with a public accountant (CPA), who is licensed in Vermont, to
perform an annual financial audit of all town funds. The selectboard must also
provide for all other services the elected auditors previously performed.
Section 2651b also provides that the terms of office of the auditors who are in office
when the town votes to eliminate the office will expire on the 45th day after the vote
or on the date when the selectboard first contracts with a public accountant,
whichever happens first.
Has there been such a vote?
As a taxpayer, trusting or otherwise, I cannot say that I see the wisdom in giving up one of the very few positions directly accountable to voters.
2.) From your text:
To summarize: we have a professional audit performed annually by an outside contractor, thus the Town Auditors are unnecessary, redundant, and counter-productive.
Another perspective on this might be that the professional audit--assuming there has not been a vote to eliminate the town auditors (and why would you be asking this question if there has been?)--is unnecessary, redundant, and counter-productive.
3.) Also from your text:
given that we have qualified, polite, and willing volunteers to check our books a second time
Is the implication meant to be that our town auditors are not qualified and polite?
As one of the elected auditors, who is also a CPA and professional forensic accountant, I have to admit to being baffled by the Selectboard's almost "hostile" view of having elected town auditors. (Present company excluded.) All the elected auditors, with whom I have served, have been very qualified accounting and financial professionals. We are unpaid and our work is in addition to the very limited 1-2 days of field work performed by the outside auditors. It seems like Jericho only benefits by having qualified elected auditors willing to serve.
ReplyDelete