You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with us now is
Dr. Joe Vidos from Salsbury. Thank you,
sir.
>> Mr. Jim Atkins from Mardell. Thank you.
>> Morning.
>> So, we have a county council meeting
January 6th, tomorrow, Tuesday, 6:00.
>> Uh there's quite a few public hearings.
I think people need to to go to the
wakcomount.org website, look at the
agenda. There's there's some really
interesting things that are coming up.
But over the Christmas break, one story
in particular came up and that was about
the veto of the legislative bill that
allowed the independent auditor to audit
uh more of the the county especially on
the executive sides function and the
county council
>> councils. Yes.
>> Yeah. Um were you surprised
>> about the veto? Very surprised. I mean,
I thought that was a uh
>> an idea that was good and everybody
agreed with it. And I thought, you know,
when you get a six to zero vote from the
council on something with all the
different uh
>> philosophies sitting up at that table,
you you think, well, okay, things are
good. Here we go.
>> Joe, there was a lot of good information
that came out in the work sessions from
the executives team and at the
legislative meeting at the end of
December.
>> Yeah. that that got this passed. I mean,
there didn't seem to be a lot of
questions.
>> It was too good to be true. Uh
>> well, what I'd like to do is bring in
Mike Goldberg because he was at the
meeting and I'd like to talk to him
about the substance of that meeting and
what we can expect at this next meeting
on Tuesday. And then Joe, I'd like for
you to come back in because I want to
talk specifically on some of the issues
that were brought up by the county
executive and and the county council
about this veto. So
>> great.
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Mike Goldberg
and we're actually going to preview
tomorrow's meeting and talk about the
last meeting of December. So stay with
us. We'll be right back.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us now is Mr. Mike Goldberg
from Delmare. Thanks for coming out.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Jim, thanks for sticking around.
>> Sure. Sure. So, uh, the main thing we
want to talk about the the veto we heard
over the holidays about the the
legislation that the county council
passed back in December, uh, the county
executive is vetoed and and that would
allow the independent auditor. Uh, right
now it's Chantel to to audit not just
the, uh, county executives departments,
but also the county council with a lot
more leeway. Um, Mike, you were at that
meeting. Um, did it seem very
comprehensive or is there is there some
areas to be concerned about?
>> There's no areas that particularly
concern me. There are some um
potentially auditable functions that are
being excluded from meeting the global
standards. And I've got no issue with
those exemptions because they really
don't have anything to do with an audit.
>> Okay. Can you give me an example?
>> Well, there's there's several items that
were pointed out um where the uh they'll
have to meet global internal audit
standards for fiscal impact reviews of
budgets, budget amendments, other propo
other proposed legislation, hotline
administration and investigations and
special projects requested by the county
council.
This has nothing to do, none of these
items have anything to do with money
flowing in or flowing out. That's the
type of things that are auditable.
>> Well, Jim, if the county executive has
brought up these these couple points, is
there is there a reason why maybe we
should look more into this? Is is there
a reason why they would have exempted
these these five areas?
>> Not that I'm able to come up with. I
mean the county council currently gets
audited every 3 years
>> by an outside firm
>> by an outside firm. Uh the council
independent auditor
by statue is not allowed to audit the
council because she works for the
council and that was the whole purpose
of this legislation
to allow her to do audits of the
council.
>> Even on the council.
>> Yes. even on the council instead of just
the administrative side of of the
county.
>> Well, when when the county executive
brought up this this did concern me that
uh in in her press release, she says
that the that the council's not being
held to the same standard.
>> Yes.
>> But in the legislation, the the auditor
can actually audit the county council.
So, is is that a concern that should be
looked into more or has that been
>> clarified in the original legislation?
Well, I think it's been clarified in the
in the original legislation. The
director of administration
was involved in putting this together.
>> Okay.
>> The county attorney was involved in
putting this together, not the council's
attorney, the county's attorney.
>> And they were at the work session.
>> And they were at the work session. And
all this was hammered out and worked.
and everybody
thought that things were done, finished
and uh
>> it was a collaborative effort between
the council and the administration.
>> I thought this was actually handled
really well amongst all the different
branches.
>> Everybody worked together and
>> we've all been looking for some signs of
light and and to me this was one of
them. But in her press release, it came
out that she is not involved in this
until it has been passed. But I I
wouldn't want to see the county
executive not involved in legislation
and and until it's passed. And I don't
think from the meetings I've attended
the last couple years, I've been seeing
that.
>> Well, and these are her words. These
these are her words.
>> It's important for the public to
understand that the county executive
does not influence legislation while it
is before the council. My responsibility
begins only after a bill is passed and
delivered to my office. And that is why
the veto was issued at the appropriate
time consistent with the county charter.
My biggest problem with it right off the
bat is that
the county executive does not influence
legislation while it was before the
council. Well, just go back and look at
council meetings on on YouTube and
you'll see he uh
>> example after example after example.
>> Give me an example.
>> They talked about well you can use
several examples. You can talk about the
landfill.
>> What about when they were proposed in
the county executive's office brought to
the council last year in 2024 into 2025
u auditing the dispensary. Yeah.
>> Um there was work sessions in.
>> We understand that the liquor dispensary
uses PKS right now and PKS does a really
good job with the data that they're
given. Um there's a couple of things
that I feel should still be included in
that. One of them being profits and
losses that's not included. Salaries are
not included. So there's a lot of just
missing information and I don't think
that it would hurt anything and it is an
outside agency coming in. PKS does a
great job. We like I said we use them at
the county.
>> Okay. Next is a public hearing on
resolution number 04-2025.
This is authorizing a letter of support
for legislation to require the office of
legislative audits to regularly conduct
a performance audit of the liquor
control board for Wakcomo County. One of
the issues that we talked about was the
lack of information that had been asked
of the liquor board numerous times. What
were salaries? What were you know and so
not having that information sort of
draws a red flag. Why? Why can't certain
questions be answered?
>> Auditing something isn't an attempt to
tear anyone down. I mean, this county is
audited annually. The We have an
internal auditor on staff. The council
has her own staff. She audits on several
different things that this council um
chooses or can can request. And we don't
see that as her tearing down the county.
I don't know why this is even a debate
when we're the fiduciaries of the
county. We're the council. We're
responsible for the money and we are
questioning why we should audit anything
that this is stupid. No, we need to
audit if it if it's an extra audit.
What's wrong with that? I'd like to move
on and just have a vote on this if we're
going to just continue to argue about
having an audit.
>> I want there to be collaborative effort.
Uh, I think it's best for everybody. But
at that time, I I felt like the county
executive's office was proposing
legislation to to bring in the state to
to do a performance audit of the
dispensary. They discussed it. They
decided not to move forward with it, but
that was at a time that I think that the
county executive
>> she she came in and presented that plan
that she wanted the uh she wanted the
state to come in and independently audit
the dispensaries. Look, there there
there's nothing, you know, surprising
about the executive branch being
involved in drafting of legislation. In
fact, many bills ultimately originate
from the executive branch
>> and they should be involved in the
development.
>> Of course, they should be otherw why
would you why would the why would you
deal with legislation that the executive
knows is going to be dead on arrival?
No, you want to bring forth legislation
where there can be some back and forth,
where there is a reasonable chance of
that legislation being passed by the
legislative branch. So, you know, the
you know, her her whole premise there is
is just entirely false. I'm afraid it's
I think it's completely misleading.
Frank, Frankly, I think it's nothing but
a retaliatory effort. You know, the
council found some things in audits of
uh of the executive branch, such as
Safari at the quarry, such as the uh
payment cards, and now
>> the gift cards.
>> The gift cards. Yes. And and now, you
know, the the executive is looking to
extract her ounce of blood here. But
again, the the legislative branch
doesn't control the dollars. The
executive writes the checks. the
executive signs the contracts. If you're
going to find a problem, that's where
the problem is going to be found, not in
what's happening on with the legisl
legislative branch.
>> But this is what confuses me and I can't
figure it out. If the executive wants to
extract her point of blood from the
council,
she now has this legislation allows the
council's auditor to audit the council.
I'm going to be honest with you. I I'd
like to see that that be used if if
especially if necessary to to because
you know, you could even say, well, I
agree with the the current county
council, but maybe you won't on the next
one. Uh having that that ability, you're
talking about fiscal audits. When we go
back a year ago, we're talking about the
dispensary that was a performance audit.
And you know, in in the business world,
you understand those to be two different
things. Performance audit is are you
doing your job as well as you could be?
So, it's more subjective. Well,
>> a fiscal audit is completely objective.
It's money come in, money come out. Does
it add up and equal zero?
>> Why are you sending your
director of administration
and paying your county attorney to
attend these hearings, meetings,
have a trail of emails over
two to three months between the auditor
and the executive branch about do you
agree with this? do you agree with this?
And everything is agreed to and then lo
and behold, they bring it to the
council, but the legislation passed six
to zero. Everyone,
>> nobody opposed it.
>> So, it'll be interesting to see if that
changes over. So, one thing we always
encourage is the back and forth, whether
it's the public coming to to speak their
mind or or to get the two branches to
work together. There are a couple items,
a couple more items on the agenda that I
think will will bring this out in a good
way. One, the capital improvement uh
plan has a public hearing. This is where
the public gets a chance to go up and
after having reviewed the capital
improvement plan for about 3 weeks now.
Uh they can speak their mind about
what's on there, what's not. I know
we've brought up some concerns about
there's no new funding for EMS services
uh in the county, whether we're going to
go with one of the three options that
came out of the SWAT analysis. No
funding for the health department, no
>> for the for the renovation of horizon
building.
>> And that does lead me into the other
one. There is a resolution on the on the
on the agenda that would declare the
hurdle building as surplus. And I spoke
about this at the December meeting. I
think and and I'm in favor of moving the
health department out to to Mount Herman
Road. I I I like that idea. But we if
we're going to declare the hurdle
building surplus before we know how much
money we're going to spend on the
Verizon building to renovate it. Um you
know what what's the next step?
>> Well, that's kind of risky business and
I'm frankly I'm just shocked that we
don't know what costs will be incurred
to to renovate the Verizon building.
>> And I'm sorry. One of the things that I
I really think needs to happen again
this year that happened last year,
I think the CIP
needs to be moved back with the budget
to determine these financial situations
because the biggest elephant in the room
is the collective bargaining agreement.
Yes,
>> we have no idea what that is going to be
and we won't have an idea until probably
the end of March 1st of April before we
get that. How can you think about even
forming
any kind of budget in this county when
you don't know what that elephant in the
room is going to cost you?
>> That's one of them. And and I want to
give them credit now that I haven't seen
it yet, but they're saying that the the
financial audit from fiscal year 25 is
actually going to come out at the next
January meeting, which is much earlier
than last year.
>> That'll be a big improvement
>> because that was really the reason why
it got moved. You know, you referenced
the CIP getting moved to to June last
year. The reason why it did is because
partially because of that financial
audit was late. Uh the they've done a
much better job this year of getting it
done faster. We haven't seen it yet, but
they're they're kind of giving us that
promise. It's going to come out in a
couple
>> Well, the auditor's giving us that
promise, not not the county, the
auditor.
>> And when was it due?
>> Well, it's due at the end of the end of
December. And uh but look, progress is
progress. I mean, if they're three
months late one year and they're one
month late the next,
>> then then the goal would be to be on
time the next year.
>> Well, one could look at it, you know,
that way that it that it is progress.
The way I look at it, it's still a
failure to comply with the terms of the
charter by late submission, which is
inexcusable.
>> Yeah. The other area, and we've just
we've discussed this in some other
shows, is the sanitary advisory
committee. Uh so it looks like we are
going to go down the the road instead of
having a sanitary commission, which was
going to be three people who had a lot
of direct power, we're going to have
this advisory commission. Now, I I've
understand there's some folks who have
concerns about some of those who will be
on that advisory committee, right?
>> Well, I I have concerns over a couple
people who are on that committee and and
not personal concerns, but expertise
concerns because this is going to be a
high dollar long-term project for this
county. We're going to
>> the rest of everyone's life here in the
county. This is not once we start this
process this will this will last the
rest of everyone's life. I think we
should we should take a little bit of
pause to understand that
>> we should have experts that are that are
deal with it.
>> It would certainly be my preference to
have engineers and certified planners um
you know heavily involved in this uh
people with a real estate background.
Although it is applicable, they still
don't have the, you know, the depth of
uh technical experience. I have a real
estate background. I wouldn't feel
comfortable serving on a commission. You
know, I certainly understand the basics,
but I don't understand, you know, the
details.
>> The one the one good point about having
an advisory commission versus the
sanitary district is they'll still have
to come back to the council and the
executive for funding. So, they won't be
out out there on their own independent.
So there there'll be some checks and
balances there.
>> I would just hope that the council can
avail itself of expert consultants who
can advise them before they cast a vote
rather than relying on the experts that
are under contract with the executive
branch. And I think this holds true on
many different issues where, you know,
the council just doesn't have the
expertise and to rely on, you know,
another branch of government, especially
under the aura of um, you know,
distrust, you know, that we've been
dealing with over the past uh, several
years. I think that's problematic. Well,
a couple a couple things that that are
kind of in the weeds and really aren't
noticed is uh you have coming up in the
month of January,
you have a acting
director of public works whose 90 days
is going to expire soon. So, something
needs to happen there. you have a acting
director of human resources whose 90
days is just about ready to run up. So
people are going to have to be put put
up for those positions and views are
going to have to be had by the council
and and determinations are are going to
have to be made. And if the past public
works is any indication,
uh getting a public works director is
not going to be an easy chore because
we've had two in the past year. Uh
>> they've each have lasted less than a
month.
>> Each of them lasted less than a month
and were gone. and uh all of the
upheaval that we've seen in this
administration, particularly in the
public works department. Um you know,
it's why would somebody go from a stable
job, you know, working for a private
sector engineering firm or another uh
you know, another political jurisdiction
and come here. That seems to be a pretty
big roll of the dice. If it were me, I I
wouldn't want to take those bets.
>> Well, I I want to bring Joe Venosa back
in and and I want to talk to him a
little bit more about this veto override
and uh he he's going to have an
interesting perspective and I want to
bring him in and talk to him about that.
So, so when we come back, we're going to
bring in Dr. Joinosa. We're going to ask
him how he feels about the veto
override. So, stay with us. We'll be
right back.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. Dr.
Joinosa, thanks for joining us again.
>> Thanks, sir. Jim, thanks for sticking
around.
>> So, specifically, I want to talk about
this veto override because at the end of
the day, um I think the public is is
owed as much transparency as possible,
especially when it comes to fiscal
audits.
>> Uh I also think the county executive is
owed her her say in this. May maybe
she's had it already as you spoke to
earlier,
>> but um if there are some concerns about
the exemptions, I I do think that they
should be addressed. Joe, I want to ask
you. I mean, you were at the at the when
they proposed this at the last
legislative meeting. Uh, did you feel
like this was kind of cut and dry?
>> Yeah, it was pretty, I thought,
uncontroversial. And to, uh, your point
about people being owed something. I
think the county attorney, Mr. Paul
Wilbur, was owed something.
>> Yeah.
>> Which is, um, maybe being told by his
own county executive that she was going
to veto it.
>> Yeah.
>> Because I think this is one of the this
is one of the craziest things. if you're
watching this issue from the outside is
the county attorney was not consulted in
the executive's decision to veto this
previously unanimously passed piece of
legislation
>> that he that he was involved
>> that he was that he was involved in
crafting. But here's the other irony is
that it's my understanding that she
doesn't even have the authority to veto
this.
>> Well, there is there is precedent there.
Yeah, but uh but again, this is where I
think you're best off showing up.
>> It's just interesting to me that within
the executive office, the director of
administration, Mr. Bunky Lufman, Paul
Wilbur, and the executive who all
theoretically are talking and
communicating about all these kinds of
issues every day would not inform Mr.
Wilbur about this situation. It it part
you can look at it in a lot of ways. I
mean, on a human level, I think it's
downright insulting.
>> Okay.
>> Um, but I also think it kind of shows
that when we talk about transparency, we
all want we we want transparency in all
aspects and branches of our local
government. But what's remarkable here
is that there's actually a lack of
transparency among people within the
executive branch of government right now
to each other.
>> The one question is why did it get
vetoed? Um, what what do you think would
would be some of the concerns the county
executive would have other than what
we've seen her list in the press
release?
>> Well, let's look at this logically.
Let's look at this as a teachable
moment. You have the executive's office
that was working with the council to get
this passed not that long ago. There was
ample discussion between the branches.
It passed unanimously. Everybody voted
for.
And now all of a sudden in the period
from when it was passed to now, we get
this very surprising veto that we're not
even actually sure there's legal
authority for her to do.
If I'm looking at that as an outsider
and I know what these audits could mean,
one thing that I'm pondering is did
somebody go to the executive or did she
look and maybe realize we could get
caught with something? Okay,
>> maybe there's something that they're
going to find out of what we're doing
with their tax money that is not on the
up and up.
>> But I mean to to as of right now, other
than the PECARD uh audit, we haven't
seen anything.
>> Correct. And I'm not necessarily saying
that's true. But if I were an executive
who were worried about misappropriation
of funds or about not abiding by the
actual standards of auditing and our
budgets and being ethical, uh if I were
that executive who were doing those
kinds of misappropriation of funds or
activities, I would be worried about
this bill.
>> I can't put A and B together on this
because
this whole legislation
deals with
allowing
the council's internal auditor
>> to audit the council. But but we're
looking at it, too.
>> No, no, and I agree. But I think we're
looking at it factually in my opinion.
Now, again, I'm not put put aside my own
speculation about whether or not the
county executive may be misappropriating
funds. I'm not saying she is, but that's
in the realm of possibility that
somebody would be worried about in this
situation. But let's just say it's just
from pure politics. Maybe the whole
point is to try to reframe it as being
the hero by misrepresenting the facts of
what the bill does and then only
disseminating out to handpicked
followers who then get a spoonfed
narrative.
>> Okay?
>> Because as we've indicated, we know that
the information is not publicly
available in a neutral format. It's only
going out through a campaign
contributor's blog. Um it's not being
clarified to any capacity. So maybe at
some point, maybe it's just good old re,
you know, in the executive's mind,
retail politics of I have to spin this
in a different way now and say I'm
fighting
for transparency, even though it's the
exact opposite.
>> Well, and it may it may have nothing to
do with the audit. It may be the old
watch this little shiny silver ball over
here because I'm vetoing this
legislation. Watch that. Yeah. Well,
this little ball over here is
something's being dropped or not
handled. Yeah. I just it to me I'm sorry
again.
>> Yeah.
>> As a common person, this makes
absolutely no sense to me. There is
accountability in there. This allows the
internal auditor
>> to audit the council and have some more
accountability.
>> And now all of a sudden the executives
against that happening. So,
>> so Jim, it was brought up about whether
or not this can even be vetoed. Uh
what's your thoughts on that?
>> Well, I don't think it can be, but I'm
not an attorney. Um I'm going to leave
that up to Mr. Benson and let him uh let
him argue that point one way or the
other. But it just
it is another example
of creating a problem
>> where there wasn't a problem.
>> Yeah. I mean, it was agreed by the the
council, the director of administration,
and the county's attorney that this is
the road we should go down. So, why at
the very last minute is it vetoed?
>> And not only that, but it's vetoed and
communicated only through a local
bloggers generated press release that is
not available to many people in the
community. That was not communicated if
you're blocked.
>> Especially if you're blocked. But, but
>> and excuse a press release. a county
press release that was never put on the
county's website for the public to see.
>> Right? So if you're the executive of
Wamako County and you're only going
through a campaign contributor or
blogger friend to give information
rather than the public apparatus that
your office controls, you're in my
opinion either trying to hide something,
you're really sloppy and you're not
doing your homework, so to speak, um or
the wheels are coming off the bus at
every sort of angle and the council has
to actually go back and issue its own
counter press release. basically calling
out the executive for what I think is
intentional misinformation
>> when this was initially passed. Now,
Councilwoman Sheny Shields was absent
that night,
>> but there was six council members there
and it passed six to zero
>> to to for a veto to not be overridden.
You had to get at least three council
members
>> to to over to to not vote for the
override because they need five to two,
>> right?
>> Um I mean, do you expect anybody to
change their vote? I mean I mean they
all voted unanimously with a roll call.
>> I wouldn't I would not be surprised to
see one vote change but uh I don't
expect to see any other votes changed.
>> Yeah.
>> And I'm hoping that no one changes their
vote that they stand behind what they
initially said because it's not a
situation where you've learned more in
the past two weeks. In this instance
three weeks in between council meetings
you've learned something to make you
change your opinion. There's nothing new
to see.
>> No, I look, it's 100% going to be that
they will either override the veto
unanimously or it'll be 6 to1.
>> Also, too, one one thing that was
brought up in the county executive's
press release and and I definitely
wouldn't want to see this. I I wouldn't
want a county executive to be able to
come to the council and propose
legislation. And
>> uh even though it was brought up earlier
in the show, Joe, that that that she she
felt like she had to wait till it got
passed. But you and I witnessed in
December of 2024 into January of 25 the
this conversation about the the
performance audit of the dispensary.
>> Sure.
>> Um
>> among other things
>> among among other proposals the county
executive was there work sessions at
that time and at and at the legislative
during the
>> right but there's a reason for that now
because she's lying. She's lying because
as you have just said and we have ample
evidence, the executive has actually
been quite robustly aggressive in
trying to direct or commandeer the
council on certain policies and
legislation in the past as you've said
and to be fair that is the right of any
c county executive. You see this in
other counties, you see this in previous
county executives here. It is perfectly
fine. And there is historical precedent
certainly if you take basic civics it's
obvious to anyone who studies it that
the executive branch can propose and be
involved in legislation. So to act now
that this is some sort of sacred barrier
that can't be breached. I just think to
put it bluntly the county executive is
is giving a bold-faced lie uh as an
excuse for this in my opinion horrendous
dropping of the ball on her part. Thank
you both for your insight on this. And
obviously the next county council
meeting is January 6th, uh, Tuesday
night, six o'clock. And we hope that
folks go out, make their voice heard,
make the on some of these other topics
we talked about earlier, public
hearings. And, um, we'll we'll stay on
top of the the story and we'll update
everybody accordingly.
>> I pray we do.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode.
>> Try that again.
