Forensic Audit Findings...

I went to tonight's poorly attended Town Council meeting where Mayor Picard and Checkers announced the findings from the $65,000 forensic audit. I have to think that the lack of notice caused only about 100 residents to attend. I noted, however, that apparently every news agency in the area including WFSB, NBC30, WTNH, and the West Haven Voice were there. Strangely, there were not many cameras inside the building - most of the 'mobile newsrooms' set up out in the parking lot. Most taxpayers were either politically connected (such as Republican chair Paul Frosolone and State Representive Paul Davis), or they were generally older residents, with most seeming to be between the ages of 45-75 or so.

Most of the commentary came from Checkers, who read through a summary of the 30 significant findings. Over and over again, it was stressed to the town council that they need to read all 720 pages of the audit's findings, not just summaries, in order to understand the full scope of what has occurred.

Checkers indicated that the scope of their investigations was limited to the allocation of funds earmarked for the 5 year capital plan being used for non-capital expenditures and to investigate the area of homeland security in the budget. It was made clear that Sawmill Road was not part of THIS audit, but part of something separate (more than $65K worth? Ugh). Nothing was said about Homeland security again, though.

Of the more than 700 pages of the findings, about 220 pages are commentary, and are available from the City Of West Haven's website. Click on 'Download Center' and search on 'Official City Documents'. Don't bother trying to download the big document - last I checked, it didn't work. Instead, download the 8 parts of the document (and don't pay too much attention to the labels -- they appear to be whatever part was the boldest in the part that split). A full version of the report is to be made available at each of the libraries, and apparently, you can pay $20 for a full version from Town Hall, too.

Much of the discussion centered around something I'm all too willing to believe is accurate - that the city isn't properly providing accounting of their projects, and there aren't enough checks and balances in place to assure that the Mayor and the City Council are doing their job properly. Checkers stated that while the accounting system that the town has in place (MUNIS) can provide the level of accounting and accountability needed, that the town was not using it properly in order to be able to provide the level of detail needed to run efficiently.

Checkers also said that it was clear from the Town Council meeting tapes, that no one has properly educated the Town Council or Mayor's office regarding the proceduring for bonding. The rules for state grants earmarked for capital expenditures and bonds changed in 1997 - but unfortunately, our accounting practices did not reflect those changes. This is the primary reason for the restating of the 2004-2005 fiscal year end which now shows a $4.7M shortfall, after having been stated as a $6M surplus. It's also why it is projected that there will be a $10M deficit for 2005-2006.

Checkers stated that bonding is the only financial instrument available to city governments that can financially bind future generations. The method in which we have refinanced the bonds have resulting in a large debt burden to be placed on the city for the next 10 years, particularly in the years of 2014-2019, where there will be over $900K of payments required on the bonds for each of those years. To make matters worse, because of the changes in rules for bonding, and the fact that the refinancing of the bonds wasn't reported to the state, we will be responsible for reimbursing the state for a yet undisclosed amount of money.

I'm not going to go into the full details of the meeting, which really were a reader's digest form of the report. I haven't read all the way through everything - and there's a lot to go through. Let's just say that there is a LOT of things that were said that were disturbing, if not strictly illegal. For instance, state financial record-keeping requirements are only 3 years, which is what West Haven has done, spreading earlier documentation. Unfortunately, the mistakes in accounting practice mean that this documentation would have been invaluable in sorting out the mess.

The bottom line is that it appears that it is going to be a time of tightening our belt, should we want our taxes to be lowered. It's time to take a good, hard look at how expenses can be tightened, and time to trim the fat.