posted August 26, 2008
The City Council on Tuesday night narrowly approved on first reading an ordinance dealing with an independent auditor, but the thorny issue remained unresolved.
In favor were council members Jack Benson, Dan Page, Linda Bennett, Debbie Gaines and Manny Rico.
Opposed were council members Leamon Pierce, Luther Shockley and Sally Robinson. Carol Berz abstained.
The ordinance calls for the current auditing office that is under Mayor Ron Littlefield to be under both the mayor and the City Council.
The office would be under an auditing committee including the mayor, the City Council chairman and a citizen CPA.
Councilman Pierce, who had pointed out that the council does not have an independent auditor as the city charter requires, said, "This should not be a joint venture. If we approve this, we are shirking our duty."
The council years ago set up a budget analyst, but officials said that person has never functioned as an independent auditor. Randy Burns currently holds the post.
The Littlefield administration beefed up the auditing office and several city employees were indicted.
Councilman Pierce questioned why those audits were carried out and some none of those arrested had been convicted. The cases are still pending in Criminal Court.
Several council members said they understood the need for the council to be independent, but said they wanted to find a way to have the existing auditing office headed by Stan Sewell to serve both bodies.
Councilman Page said it would be expensive to set up a second city auditing office.
City Attorney Randy Nelson said the mayor also had a need to have audits carried out.
The measure had to be passed on first reading Tuesday to have a chance to get on the Nov. 4 ballot before the voters.
Mayor Littlefield sent out this memo on the issue:
To: Members of the City Council
From: Ron Littlefield
Date: August 20, 2008
Re: Internal Auditor
There are two individuals remaining in public office who were present when the current charter was drafted: Ron Littlefield and Leamon Pierce.
He and I worked together to establish the checks and balances that would assure good and effective government in Chattanooga. The Council was given auditing authority as a way to make certain that policies and budgets passed by the council would actually be implemented by the administration. I was the principal author of that section of the new charter – but with the full knowledge and cooperation of others involved in the process. Councilman Pierce and I also worked together with the (then) members of the Council to hire the first individual for the auditing position and to establish guidelines and procedures for the office. I was the first Chairman of the City Council under the new form of government and Councilman Pierce followed me as the second chairman.
After the city elections of 1993, I was absent from elected office for eight years. When I returned in 2001, it was obvious to me that the discipline of the auditing function had been allowed to decline. There were some rather obvious problems in certain divisions of government that were not being addressed. Consequently, when I became Mayor in April of 2005, the Office of Performance Review established by the previous administration was reorganized and renamed the more traditional Office of Internal Audit. In this regard, I know of nothing that precludes an administration from proceeding with its own internal controls on financial matters without infringing the already legally established oversight of the Council’s performance auditing function. The principal sticking point seems to be job titles and office names rather than the important work at hand.
Now as the City Council once again focuses on the issue, I have offered three options:
The Council might re-energize its audit function and proceed to exercise its responsibility as outlined under the present language of the Charter. In this case, they can reclaim the title of “Auditor” and we will call our office something else – perhaps return to “Office of Performance Review”.
The financial audit function can remain as an administrative part of the Mayor’s office with oversight through the Budget and Finance Committee of the City Council and the Council’s Management Analyst. (Essentially, this is the status quo option.)
The City Charter can be amended to give joint responsibility to the Council and the Administration – like that exercised for the Office of City Attorney.
Given that Chattanooga’s “new” form of government has now matured, I suggest that joint responsibility for the audit function is the best course. Even if we change names and office titles, there is no assurance that either future councils or future mayors might not once again allow this most important function to languish.
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |