You're watching Open Agenda.
>> Hi, welcome to this episode of Open
Agenda. With us in the house are old
friends Jim Atkins from Mardella,
>> sir. And Mr. Joe White from Parsonsburg.
>> Thanks for having me on.
>> Thanks for being here. And of course,
um, I've asked both of you to be here
because all three of us were at the last
county council meeting. And that meeting
really was in some ways the culmination
of some long-standing concerns and
discussions about the grants auditing
process or lack thereof.
>> So I attempted to uh conduct an audit of
grants in Wakcomo County. The focus of
the exercise was to evaluate the
controls designed to manage risks
related to grant management in the
county. Um I was unable to offer a
conclusion level um or management
recommendations at this time and I can
so um I I requested for 52 lines. I
received none of the um supports for any
of those 52.
>> One of the comments made by by the
executive's office was the fact that you
there was a personal bias on your part
unfounded. And yet you know you're here
today and you seem to be trying to
assist with every aspect you can to make
this happen.
In regard to the grants, um I understand
the fact that there's a lot of issues
and concerns right now with how grants
are being done and the fact that u the
impression on the part of the council
was no doubt that the internal auditor
was stonewalled
when she was attempting to get all the
information she needed and we sent those
type of concerns to the executive
branch. So, we will be having uh a work
session with the with the grants
administrator. She's actually Lori
Carter. She's actually very anxious to
sit with the council to try to go over
where they are with the grant process
and what what delays there are, if any,
and what all the concerns may or may be
on the part of the council. So,
>> good morning everyone. I thank you for
this opportunity to be able to set
before you today. Um, as I stated over
about a year ago, um, I took on this
role in October of 2024. One of the
things I think when I first had came on,
um, I was given the
opportunity to set in one of the first
meetings which was with the Department
of Emergency Services. Um at that
particular meeting um it was my
understanding that that particular
department was supposed to be reviewed
um and as time went on um that had
changed and that particular scope had
pretty much expanded um due to the fact
that
again this is a new position. I'm still
learning all of the departments, what it
is that they do. Um, it has required,
believe it or not, and I myself, I have
to admit, I thought this was going to be
pretty much an easy dunk. It is not. Um,
um, it has taken me a year and I guess
short of seven months to really get a
good feel of where we are. It was never
the intent to make anyone's life or work
difficult. It's just being able to pull
these things together appropriately.
>> Um so that's where we are at the moment.
>> What this means for the county's fiscal
health and also for the general um
issues of transparency uh and trust in
local government. Um we all were there
at the meeting. We all watched it in
detail as it happened in real time. Uh,
and what I'd like to do, if that's okay,
is dive into our own concerns and
critiques of that meeting because I
think we all would agree we all came
away from that meeting with more
questions than answers, if that's fair
to say.
>> Um, so I'd like us to dive into that.
Uh, and then what also I think would be
good for the public to know is that
after this episode, we're going to have
an additional addendum uh, episode where
we allow the public to actually see in a
more expansive way the key parts of that
session so they can see for themselves
the exchanges, the interactions, and
perhaps why many of us in the community
came away with more concerns.
>> So, we'll do the analysis and then we'll
set things up for a future episode.
Sound good?
>> Sounds good.
>> All right. Looking forward to it. So
stick around and we'll be right back for
our next segment and analysis here in
Open Agenda.
>> Hi, welcome back to Open Agenda. So back
with Mr. Jim Atkins.
>> Yep.
>> And Mr. Joe White. Gentlemen, um all
three of us being pretty involved in
county issues, we've seen a lot of
concerns over the years really regarding
county finances and particularly the
nature of concerns related to audits. Uh
so as we said in our previous segment,
one of the things that has now sort of
emerged is this very big concern
regarding roughly sort of the status and
the um trajectory of 50 plus audits. Um
so we had the legislative session on
July 21st uh in the government office
building where we had essentially the
internal auditor, we had the executives
team and we had the council. Uh, and
they really went into some depth or so
it would have seemed at first.
>> They skirted around.
>> They skirt they skirted around it. So,
let's let's go with your initial
impressions of what you saw happen
versus what you wanted to see happen.
>> Not impressed. Uh, [laughter]
I can get to that real quick. Not
impressed. Uh, we've been dealing with
this for several months. Actually, been
dealing with it for years. Uh, trying to
get information from the executive
office. There are several email
dialogues as you all are aware. Um but
then for for the public record um and in
executive email dated April 20th um it
states among other things the executive
branch will not participate in this work
session. Um there's more um in that
email uh two sentences though um one of
them ends this is more appropriately
handled as a personnel matter and should
be addressed in a closed and appropriate
setting not through a public work
session. proceeding in public proceeding
in a public forum under these
circumstances is neither constructive
nor appropriate. However, this um uh if
this is now a personnel matter, this is
a personnel matter that was um in the
management response which is supposed to
be in the um uh the public audit report,
right? So, so then now there's this
question about does this need to be
redacted because uh she's now claiming
this is a personnel matter. Uh, should
this be in close session instead? Uh,
further discussion and so um I don't
know if that needs to be addressed now
before we continue.
>> I don't think it needs to be I mean I
it's not a personnel matter at all.
>> I don't think so either. Matter of fact,
you can't even do a close session unless
it is a personnel matter. And the degree
of information that you have and what
you're sharing with the council um is
volumes beyond just a personnel matter
and cannot be cannot be expressed in a
closed session, discussed in a closed
session. So, I don't know where that
comes from. Um, there was also the quote
from the executive saying that section
314 prohibited the county from
interfering with departments, but you
can't selectively choose sections of the
charter that you want to maybe validate
your argument with. We have section 402C
that requires the executive to uh supply
the county council with whatever
information and and uh um that they
request, which would include having
people at this uh this meeting. It go I
mean it goes even further that you have
section 305 30 excuse me 9006 that feels
so strongly that the council has this
authority that that county in a certain
instance has subpoena power if we choose
to do so. I don't think we need to get
into such ridiculous circumstances and
worry more about policy than just trying
to get the salt problem solved. So, um,
you know, these this was on here. The
executive has chosen not to allow the
department heads to show up at a county
council meeting, which in my opinion is
a really serious violation. We had the
same problem with the prior executive a
few years back and it does nothing but
cause controversy and it isn't
productive at all. Uh, but it is the way
it is right now. I don't think, you
know, I don't think the council has any
intention of wanting to subpoena
anybody. We shouldn't have to go to that
level. But I think it is important to
understand that the work that you are
doing is important and no matter whether
the administration agrees or disagrees
the bottom line is that we are trying to
resolve the issue on behalf of the
executive branch and the county council
and the government and the citizens of
Economica County as a whole. You know,
anytime an internal auditor is involved
in a process, it isn't a means by which
to attack that individual. It's a means
by to try to create a dialogue with that
individual to see what the concerns are.
if there's any mis miscommunications or
missteps on the part of anyone to
correct it.
>> The internal auditor has uh done
previous audits, can't get information.
Uh she's doing this audit on the grants
and uh can't get information and they
want to come in there and the executive
branch wants to come in there and say,
"Well, it's just a a failure of
communication." Well, it's not a failure
of communication. It's a failure to do
what you're supposed to do. Now, just
for clarification, the charter
specifically lays out, right, a
requirement that the executive's office
has to comply with any audits.
>> You and and deputy director Charles
Schmeckle even referenced that yesterday
that that the auditor is due any records
that they ask for.
>> The executive branch has an obligation
to provide the internal auditor the
information that she requests,
>> right? And so I view as well as the
executive as my role is to ensure that
we are meeting that obligation.
>> I think the concern is this audit has
been going on for just about 2 years.
They decided to delay this audit because
Lori Carter, who's the grants
administrator, was just coming on board
at the time and they wanted to give her
some some some leeway to get to get her
feet wet. Um, and they did that. And now
we have this meeting yesterday. And I
think the key for for taxpayers in
Wakamaku County to understand is after
this meeting, which is by my record at
least the third different one between
work sessions and legislative updates,
we we have no extra information than we
started with two years ago.
>> And and and this is not shedding blame
on the executive's office or the council
itself or the auditor. M
>> all three failed to perform.
>> So this is a systematic breakdown of our
basic duty to
>> audit our finances
>> and they left there yesterday with no
plan on what the next step is which was
by far the most frustrating thing for
me.
>> The auditor sat there and said can't
complete the audit.
>> We're just asking for information that's
all. If people have problem giving up
information that creates mistrust. It
indicates he might have something to
hide and that goes down a road we don't
want to go down. Um, this audit began in
FY25. We are now one month into FY27.
Can this audit be done by the time we
leave office?
>> No. And and it's not if if I I have to
create an audit plan now because that
that report's been finalized. So, that
audit's done. I have to create the audit
plan for the next fiscal year. Um, and I
have a lot of documents in my office
right now to go through for other
audits. I could put other audits on hold
and, you know, get this audit plan, you
know, ready, give it to you guys next
week, stop everything else and do this
one potentially, but then that does a
disservice to all the other audits going
on.
>> The executives team said we had a
miscommunication
>> in this case. It was a simple
miscommunication.
There were
>> I can't interrupt you. Can't I can't
hardly believe that as many emails that
went back and forth trying to get
information that there was
miscommunication
of all the communication that went back
and forth. How was there
miscommunications? I'm sorry.
>> I think if you go back and read the
management response to this particular
audit, we went back, we found that the
scope had consistently changed. That
created a great deal of confusion. And
then when the requests were kind of
finalized,
there were key people that were dropped
from that communication.
I think that's what led to people who
would be able to say, um, we need to
direct that request to the department
heads.
>> You asked for 51.
>> 52.
>> 52.
>> Y,
>> but you got none.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Out of that 52 she asked for,
wasn't there one or two or three or five
that you could have sent her that she
could have worked on? said there was a
miscommunication.
>> I believe it.
>> I understand this is frustrating from
all points of view here and I appreciate
what you're getting at, but I mean
we've learned a lot from this process.
We're still trying to figure out how can
we resolve this issue so that we can
move on and make sure that everybody's
getting set up. We're getting the
information that the internal auditor
needs. We're getting the information
that the council needs. We're getting
the information that the director of
finance and I need in order to make sure
that we're providing proper stewardship.
>> It's just a matter of shifting
information if somebody asks for
information to shifting it to this one
person
in an email. I I I don't understand why
it can't go. I I'm not getting it why
why that information can't go.
>> I answered your question, Councilman. do
>> the auditor, Anelie Shantel,
>> didn't ask the right people for the
information. The council, I didn't think
asked a lot of questions, but they
didn't really get answers to the
questions.
>> Mhm.
>> The meeting broke up after an hour. That
part of the meeting lasted an hour.
>> After that hour, there is no path to a
resolution. Mhm.
>> Now, Vice President Jeff Merritt asked,
"Can this be wrapped up by November,
which is when he would leave office,
>> and attorney Alder said no."
>> Well, there was at least one answer
there. I mean, not a satisfying one, but
>> no.
>> I mean,
I mean, okay. So if we have basically
all three entities either unwilling or
unable to perform the function of giving
us information on an a on an audit that
involves millions of dollars. What do
you think the regular citizen comes away
from that meeting with?
>> So here's the questions I have because I
I'm listening to to folks who are in the
fire service for instance. They've done
a SWAT analysis.
>> If you can't come to a resolution of the
numbers that you have, how would you
plan for the future? And then you you
you take a o other other entities like
the fire service agreement. If you can't
agree on what the numbers are
>> amongst different entities
>> and what deadlines and meet them and
expectations and communication
[clears throat]
>> then we do not have a functional
government at that point. Well, and you
bring up something I think important is
that when we talk about the nature of
some of these grants, we're not
necessarily talking about superfluous
activities or or things like we're
talking about stuff that really matters
as far as emergency services, equipment,
personnel.
>> And we're not saying that anybody's
stolen any money, right? That's not
that's not the point of this. The point
is to make sure that one, the money was
spent where it was supposed to be spent.
>> Yeah.
>> That we we took advantage of all of the
opportunities that these different
grants gave us. How we could be better
in the future.
>> Yeah. as a business owner, that's just
normal everyday business practices.
>> And at the end of the day, they left
this meeting
>> with no plan.
>> With no plan.
>> It it it seems like the grants that have
come down in the past. And what Lori
Carter, I think, is really trying to get
her hands around is every department
took care of their own grants.
>> We didn't have a coordinator who took
care of it. And I I think Miss Carter is
is trying to get her hands around that
there's a central department that's
going to oversee these grants and take
care of them because you can't have 12
or 14 departments, however many this
county has, and everybody's doing their
own little thing.
>> And there are certain grants. I mean,
they talked yesterday about the uh doing
a audit on a grant at the airport,
>> which makes no sense.
>> Yeah. We we don't need to do audits on
grants for the airport. That's a federal
government problem.
>> Yeah. The FAA conducts the audits on
>> make sure that that money is spent the
way it was supposed to be spent. So,
don't even address that. Stay away from
that. Well, that that was something and
and I kind of want to go back to what
you said earlier, Joe, that this kind of
was a systematic failure among all
parties. And one of the things that was
a bit disappointing and and frankly a
little bit disturbing if if I'm being
totally honest, is there was a moment in
the meeting where the internal auditor
basically asks the council,
>> right, to your point, what what do you
want me to investigate or audit? And
that that that to me
>> she needs to be independent of the
council and of the executive position
that that otherwise and and President
John Cannon question on this. If you're
worried about the perception of your
bias,
>> you're already compromised.
>> You're already compromised.
>> Exactly.
>> And and uh you you you need that person
to not be worried if they're hurting
other people's feelings.
>> Yeah. I mean, when I ask my CPA to do
audit tests on my on my businesses,
>> it's not it's not to make me feel
better. It's to make sure I don't
overstep bounds or get in trouble.
>> Yeah.
>> That's all we're trying to do.
>> Yeah.
>> And yet, at the end of the day, the
taxpayers of this county aren't any
better off for all of these work
sessions and that meeting yesterday.
>> No. In the la the last two
audits that have been done by the
internal auditor, the statements from
the county executive has been that the
auditor is biased.
>> Well, do you I'm sorry. No, go ahead.
>> Well, do you think then that that might
explain why recently the auditor see the
internal auditor seems to sort of go out
of her way to not be not even
adversarial but just sort of like
neutral in the sense of this is what I
expect. Did you?
>> Well, she has she has to be to prove
that there is no bias to it. She cannot,
in my opinion, sit in front of the
council and say, "What do you want me to
do?" Yeah.
>> Because then it gives you a perception
of bias that the council is pointing you
in a direction. Your job is to audit the
executive branch, the legislative
branch, everybody. You shouldn't be
asking people, "What do you want me to
do?"
>> Go do it. Well, a a and I think that's
something that I'd like to explore in
our next segment is is sort of see well
in in a in a not in a even in a perfect
system, but in a in a better run system
where this is functioning as it should,
what do we hope to see in the future?
So, you stick around and we'll come back
and we'll we'll we'll keep on this.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Thanks very much. We'll be
right back with our next segment of Open
Agenda.
>> Hi, welcome back to Open Agenda. So,
gentlemen, thanks for sticking with us.
Um, clearly we've had a lot to sort of
dissect from the last meeting and these
broader concerns that have been
developing over the audit worries.
My question, and I guess I'm asking this
sort of on behalf of the public as much
as myself, is what should the public,
the taxpayers expect in the near future?
Uh, what should they be concerned about?
And what would you like to see develop
as these issues continue to play out as
the current term ends? I I think as a
taxpayer we should be thankful that we
have someone like Lorie Carter who's
going to be the grants administrator.
She has been for the last 18 months.
[gasps]
>> And I it is good that we have an
independent internal auditor who has the
ability to audit the council as well as
the executive. What we need to be asking
is whether you're getting results or
you're not. And if you're not, at what
point is the public allowed to come up
and say, "Hey, we're disappointed in
this." This is not about one audit.
>> But I will make one point that was made
in this meeting. 52
sets of of grants were asked for
documentation and zero of them were
submitted. That's a failure of the
auditor. That's a failure of the council
and that's a failure of the executives
team.
>> That's a failure to the taxpayers of
this county. That's simple. What do what
do they need to do to change it? And and
and how can the public see that and get
some credibility back?
>> And what's going to have to happen, and
we've talked about this on a lot of
shows, is there's going to have to be
some teeth put into the charter about
this
>> because
the charter states that the executive
branch is supposed to supply the
information.
>> Yeah.
>> But if they don't,
>> Yeah.
>> there there there's no followup. you can
you the uh council attorney said you can
subpoena these people.
>> There was also the quote from the
executive saying that section 314
prohibited the county from interfering
with departments but you can't
selectively choose sections of the
charter that you want to maybe validate
your argument with. We have section 402C
that requires the executive to uh supply
the county council with whatever
information and and uh um that they
request which would include having
people at this uh this meeting. It go I
mean it goes even further that you have
section 305 30 excuse me 906 that feels
so strongly that the council has this
authority that that county in a certain
instance has subpoena power if we choose
to do so. I don't think we need to get
into such ridiculous circumstances and
worry more about policy than just trying
to get the salt problem solved. So, um
you know, these this was on here. The
executive has chosen not to allow the
department heads to show up at a county
council meeting, which in my opinion is
a really serious violation. We had the
same problem with the prior executive a
few years back, and it does nothing but
cause controversy and it isn't
productive at all,
>> which is fine. You can subpoena them,
but in order to subpoena them, you have
to file a lawsuit against them, which is
going to cost the county money. There
needs to be something put in the charter
that says this is what's supposed to
happen and if it doesn't happen,
>> this is what happens and there's nothing
there. There's no there there. Yeah, I
had made that comment to some extent uh
in in the meeting and even in previous
meetings with regard to how our charter
operates is it seems as if we have have
a system where you know stipulations can
just be ignored with no consequence. So
then the question becomes what good is
having a law if you're not going to
enforce it. You know the charter is our
county constitution
>> if we're not following it
>> and and then so we can agree that it
wasn't followed and then we left that
meeting yesterday with
>> and it's not going to be followed. It's
still not going to be. So, we need to
just change that. And and Jim's right.
We need to do it without wasting
taxpayer money on a lawsuit. I mean,
we've already seen the executive's
office sue the council over uh
>> appointment process. We these are these
are funds that, you know, so many of us
work in the community to raise funds
from all for the fire service and for
sports. Yeah.
>> Let's stop wasting money. Let's stop
wasting time.
>> Yeah. There were several email dialogues
as you all are aware. Um but then for
for for the public record um and in
executive email dated April 20th um it
states among other things the executive
branch will not participate in this work
session. Um there's more um in that
email uh two sentences though um one of
them ends this is more appropriately
handled as a personnel matter and should
be addressed in a closed and appropriate
setting not through a public work
session. proceeding in public proceeding
in a public forum under these
circumstances is neither constructive
nor appropriate. However, this um uh if
this is now a personnel matter, this is
a personnel matter that was um in the
management response which is supposed to
be in the um uh the public audit report,
right? So, so then now there's this
question about does this need to be
redacted because uh she's now claiming
this is a personnel matter. uh should
this be in close session instead? Uh
further discussion and so um I don't
know if that needs to be addressed now
before we continue.
>> I don't think it needs to be I mean I
it's not a personnel matter at all.
>> I don't think so either. Matter of fact,
you can't even do a close session unless
it is a personnel matter. And the degree
of information that you have and what
you're sharing with the council um is
volumes beyond just a personnel matter
and cannot be cannot be expressed in a
closed session, discussed in a closed
session. So, I don't know where that
comes from. Um
>> uh Joe, I just have Joe John I had a
thought. Why don't we request a close
session with the executive branch and
the finance department and with Aneli
Chhatel so that we can iron this stuff
out to make sure that we're all on the
same page here because clearly someone's
missing the mark and we're not
understanding something.
>> I don't dis I disagree with you, James.
I don't think it should be closed.
>> Well, if you're talking about personnel
issues, Joe
>> Well, it's not personnel. That's not a
personal issue.
>> Personnel issue.
>> No, it's not. How's it a personality
issue?
>> How do you know?
>> It's not personal. I think I think I
think I think it is worthy of an open
work session.
>> Okay.
>> The topic of discussion uh any of the
items that we feel may involve personnel
issues uh prior to the meeting, Mr.
Benson could clearly help us with that
and we could have an open work session
for whatever portions was necessary
because the public needs to know. We
don't do this. Yeah. And then if there's
actually personnel matters that could be
an issue, then we would we could go into
closing. That's my that's my concern is
if it is a personnel if there is
personnel issues that obviously that
should be in a closed session but if
it's not then by all means let's do it
right here.
>> Yeah. Well, in many instances, it could
appear to be a personnel matter because
if you have inefficiencies in a
department, I'm sorry, but you have to
explain that publicly. Y and you know,
either the department head or
individuals within that department may
feel as if you know, they've been
singled out, but that's you know, when
you're that's just the nature of doing
business in a government environment. It
it it just seems to me that we need to
have some sort of work session um so
that we get this ironed out because
clearly like I said that we're someone's
missing the mark here.
>> Well, yeah. And you're not you're not
wrong. This has been going how long has
this been going on since you first began
this? It's been over
>> has it been two years?
>> I' I'd like to see this wrapped up by
the last meeting in November. However,
that has to happen through subpoena
uh working together with people. Um,
it's absolutely ridiculous that this has
taken this long. And as Councilman
Holloway said, this creates doubt by not
answering questions. It gives the
impression you might be hiding
something. So, um, I think there's a
word for that. I think it's called
transparency.
Um, we need to get the information that
you need to do your job. You cannot have
a council member sit up there when you
have a disagreement on the procedure on
what's happening and say, "Well, we need
to have a closed work session."
>> No, no, you don't need to have a closed
work session. The people are entitled to
know what's happening in their tax
dollars, how they're being spent.
>> A a closed work session should be
dealing with hiring, firing, and
discipline, not auditing. Well, this is
in regards to Councilman W's suggestion
at a previous meeting that
>> we have to have a closed work session.
>> Yeah. I I don't
>> So, let's hide Let's hide We're already
not getting the information we want.
Let's hide it a little more by having a
closed work session where nobody knows
what's happening.
>> Or at least that's the perception. Yes.
And and I heard the deputy director of
finance yesterday say that that he had
had two conversations with council
members and he was glad that they
answered their his questions. We don't
we don't know the question. Now, if you
don't have four council members there,
it doesn't violate the open meetings
act.
>> But why why is he able to thank a
council member for for supplying that
information?
>> Yeah.
>> But then the public's not supplied it in
a in a work session or a legislative
session. Well, it it it seems like no
matter where we're coming from with our
concerns, those concerns are still going
to remain in the near future because it
seems that it's just hanging there and
>> there is no path of resolution right
now.
>> No, it seems that the public is
ultimately going to have to respond to
those concerns. Make a change. All
right. Well, we're going to certainly
come back and see about those changes.
Thank you for watching this episode of
Open Agenda. We will see you very soon
with a new episode. Take care.
