Report Inappropriate Comments

The so-called fiscal note someone mentioned is not worth the paper it is printed on. When it comes to figuring out who is right, you apply the old standard rule, which seldom if ever fails. You look at what they do, not what they say. Regarding the city, the list is long. The most recent item is the annual audited financial statement. It was due no later than 6 months after the end of the fiscal year, June 2019. As we know, that deadline came and went. It seems like six months should be plenty of time. Failing this deadline should speak volumes.

The annual audited financial statement has disclaimers, like this:

“Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.” (June 2018 audit statement, dated July 23, 2019)

This means the auditors rely entirely on city management. For this system to work, management must have credibility. This gets back to the simple requirement to meet a deadline. If you can’t meet a deadline, your credibility takes a hit. When the council passed the contract, they acted in the absence of a June 2019 audited financial statement. This shows they don’t see it as even relevant. If the city council doesn’t see it as relevant, then this is another credibility hit on management.