Pointing the finger at each other!
Who is right? God Almighty only knows!!!
The issue?
Who shielded, if anyone, the "letter of arrangement" memorializing the terms of conditions of the Ohio auditor' forensic audit of the Stark County treasury (April, 2009) from the public view?
Letter of arrangement?
Yes, a "letter of arrangement."
According to Kelli Young (politics and government editor for The Rep - Special audit letter from the state absent from county files, online April 18, 2010), the Ohio auditor had a need to memorialize an arrangement between the auditor and the Stark County treasurer (circa April, 2009) that "outlines the nature and scope of services the state auditor’s office will provide, the timeline for the audit, the county’s required involvement and the associated fees" for forensic audit services growing out of the alleged theft of county funds with Treasurer Zeigler accusing and then firing his chief deputy Vince Frustaci.
An interesting revelation in the Young account is this Young statement:
Zeigler, who signed the letter without consulting with commissioners, said he didn’t keep the letter he signed or get a copy.Hmm?
Take a look at another excerpt from the March 12, 2002 "letter of arrangement."
How about then county auditor Creighton, county treasurer Zeigler and county commissionerJackson.
What has happened from 2002 to 2010 to obviate the need for Auditor Perez and Commissioner Bosley (president of the Board of Commissioners) to sign the "letter of arrangement?"
Was Treasurer Zeigler authorized by Ohio law to sign for the county on his own? Was the Stark County prosecutor's office consulted by Zeigler prior to signing?
Other questions. Were the commissioners empowered to pay the more than $209,000 plus paid so far on the basis of the 2002 "letter of arrangement?"
Was the prosecutor's office consulted prior to commissioner action?
Back to the discussion of how the 2009 "letter of arrangement" got removed from public view.
As the SCPR understands Young's account, Zeigler's office claims that Taylor's office advanced a suggested way for the county treasurer to avoid having the April, 2009 "letter of arrangement" in the public view.
Here is how the failsafe (in terms of shielding it from public scrutiny) plan seems to have unfolded.
Simple, the plan? apparently goes. thusly:
(From the Ohio auditor, again, according to Zeigler's office and recreated in The Report's words)
Just don't maintain a copy of the letter in the county treasurer's file. Return the original to our [the Ohio auditor] office. And bingo!, while the the audit is in process the Ohio auditor can [and will?] legally withhold the letter from the public and its a win-win for both the county treasurer and the Ohio auditor.Now we hear that the Ohio auditor is, in fact, exercising its "claimed" legal prerogative and withholding a copy of the original from the public as represented by The Repository. No surprise here.
What will be the public reaction to the Young revelation of the the chain of events as interpreted by the SCPR?
Here is one reaction which The Report believes articulately expresses what most of the public will think of the Young expose..
As Fenno points out, the net result is a further jading of the public attitude towards government.
Is this what government wants. A complete breakdown in citizen trust of government?
Mary Taylor, who is the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, wants to govern - if elected - an increasingly skeptical, cynical public?
What joy would there be in that?
We know that Taylor likes to issue press releases. Just go to her website or read your daily newspaper.
One final question for Mary on a "yet to be issued press release."
When is her office "finally" going to issue an auditor's forensic report on the Stark treasury's missing funds?
Is she tied up running for lieutenant governor?
Is that the reason for the delay Auditor Taylor?
No comments:
Post a Comment