I personally do not have anything against Crown. Also, the matter of whether or not the City should sell the old sewer plant property appears to be past the point of debate. No, the thing that bothers me is how “we” got to this point. Suddenly, we have an agenda item that is an yes or no vote: “should staff begin the process of negotiating the terms of the sale?” When, and by whom, was the decision made to sell the property in the first place?
Why didn’t the citizens of Santa Paula have the opportunity to voice their feelings on what should be done with the property?
The City Manager stated that to make the property available for use, lease, or “sale ready” as he put it, the city would have to spend funds for clean up, including possible toxic waste. According to him, the cost estimate for that clean up could reach 3 million dollars or more. I have no reason to doubt that is true, BUT, don’t you think it is a bit strange that such information was not included in the staff report provided?
Here is what bothers me about the whole situation; a series of significant decisions were made, away from the public view, and the whole matter came down to what amount to a meaningless, symbolic, “rubber stamp” vote by the Council.
If our City leaders were truly interested in representing the citizens of Santa Paula, here is how the whole matter should have been handled from the beginning.
1) There should have been an agenda item for the Council where a decision on what to do with the property would be made; sit on it, clean it up for sale, clean it up for lease, sell it “as is”. Staff reports as to the costs and issues involved could then have been presented, the public could have given their input, and the Council would have voted on one of those choices.
2) If the vote had been to sell the property “as is”, then staff would be directed to open a “RFP” period to solicit buyers for the property.
3) The RFP process would be completed, the citizens and the Council would have heard from the prospective buyers, public input could then have been given, and then Council would have voted for the best choice.
That is how the process is supposed to work.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
City Accounting
At the City Council meeting on September 4th, a citizen got up and addressed the Council. During his remarks he talked about how two years ago the Council was working to prevent the City from having a budget deficit of over 1.5 million dollars that year. The speaker also mentioned that he and others have looked at the City’s financial records and could not come up with the same conclusions. In other words, when they did the math, they got a different answer. That, to me, is a concern.
Accounting, at it core, is nothing more than keeping a record of money transactions. You write down how much money you take in and how much money you spend. You also write down how much money people owe you and how much money you owe others. The purpose of accounting is such that two different people, unrelated to each other, should be able to take the “ins” and the “outs”, the “due” and the “owe”, add and subtract them all, and both come up with the same answer.
If that is true, how can two people come up with different answers? Either they did not have the same information to start with, or they don’t agree on which numbers should be added and which should be subtracted.
What about the annual independent audit that is conducted; wouldn’t that have exposed a problem with the City’s accounting? Not necessarily. In this case the auditor is hired, (by the city), to look at the numbers that the City has published and determine if the adding and subtracting was done correctly; does “line A” ,minus “line B”, equal “line C”. These types of audits DO NOT check to see if all of the numbers that should be there, were included. In other words, the auditor only looks at what they are given.
What seems to be needed is a different kind of audit. One where the auditor goes in and “digs up” the financial records, and doesn’t just take what they are given. It needs to be someone that is not biased either for or against past or current city administration, nor past or current Council Members.
Accounting, at it core, is nothing more than keeping a record of money transactions. You write down how much money you take in and how much money you spend. You also write down how much money people owe you and how much money you owe others. The purpose of accounting is such that two different people, unrelated to each other, should be able to take the “ins” and the “outs”, the “due” and the “owe”, add and subtract them all, and both come up with the same answer.
If that is true, how can two people come up with different answers? Either they did not have the same information to start with, or they don’t agree on which numbers should be added and which should be subtracted.
What about the annual independent audit that is conducted; wouldn’t that have exposed a problem with the City’s accounting? Not necessarily. In this case the auditor is hired, (by the city), to look at the numbers that the City has published and determine if the adding and subtracting was done correctly; does “line A” ,minus “line B”, equal “line C”. These types of audits DO NOT check to see if all of the numbers that should be there, were included. In other words, the auditor only looks at what they are given.
What seems to be needed is a different kind of audit. One where the auditor goes in and “digs up” the financial records, and doesn’t just take what they are given. It needs to be someone that is not biased either for or against past or current city administration, nor past or current Council Members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)