quote:
Originally posted by DowntownNow
An independent performance audit would have had a far greater chance of catching this than not doing anything, even while everyone is screaming "we want an independent audit."
The audit would have looked at everything I described above. It would have taken into account anomalies present such as discrepancies between approved contract bids and inflated invoices. Upon finding a discrepancy, an auditor, to be thorough, would have investigated the reasons for the discrepancy in order to find ouf it the best practices were utilized and efficiencies or detriments found that could be later corrected. It also would have provided a 3rd set of eyes pouring over invoices, contracts, inspection reports, etc.
Simply, when there's a question, doing something is often times better than doing nothing at all.
You're probably an auditor or familiar with their practices. Can't fault your logic that action in this case would have been preferable to status quo.
However, these are elected officials who have to run for office against clever partisans who know how to make no good deed go unpunished. Questions of funding, motivation, morale and allegations of poor management would be used to defeat even the best of candidates.
I still feel that the reason there was no independent auditing supported lay in those issues. There has to be a permanently funded solution that avoids these traps.