Sutter County Grand Jury Response
In July, the Sutter County Taxpayers Association (SCTA) took the extraordinary step of responding to the Sutter County Grand Jury report. Here are a few of the highlights from SCTA.
What is “Team Sutter”? According to SCTA
One must address the term “Team Sutter” and the concept of “fluid working conditions” within all Sutter County Departments “working together for the people.” This is a nice phrase and concept but is not binding upon the participants. Frankly, it is the job of government to provide the taxpayers with the most effective and consistent services available. As presently implemented by the administration, “Team Sutter” appears to foster a “we against them” mentality that seeks to hide genuine accountability from the citizen.
Uneducated Public?
The Grand Jury said:
“…but considering the attack that they must endure from the public, who have little or no knowledge of the entire issue is uncalled for.”
SCTA responds:
Since the Grand Jury has not interviewed the public on this matter, you actually have no basis to know what level of knowledge the public has on any issue. You must remember that the Board of Supervisors can take an unlimited amount of time to discuss any matter. The Grand Jury can take its time with a captive audience. The public is routinely restricted to three minutes. If the Grand Jury was permitted only three minutes to write its report on this subject you would have failed to communicate your understanding of this subject or any other subject in your final report. If the Board of Supervisors were restricted to three minutes they could not have a fruitful discussion on any important subject.
Isn’t it interesting that those who have time to pontificate also appear to be better educated on the subject being discussed?
Special Audit Committee, Sutter County Auditor-Controller
The meat of the Grand Jury report is exposed. When is an action by the elected Sutter County Auditor-Controller criminal? SCTA responds:
The Appeal-Democrat also reported the following:
Combs said it was "an error" that was corrected.
"All large organizations have what I would call errors occur, and when you find them you take care of them. Errors are made. People forget policies," he said.There was "not a chance in the world Bob Stark would have been fired over finding an error," Combs said. "That's what he's paid to do."
Apparently finding and correcting errors is the job of the Sutter County Auditor-Controller. How the Grand Jury and Board of Supervisors reconciles the County Chief Administrative Officer’s statements to the Grand Jury findings is a mystery.
“The Sutter County Grand Jury 2004-2005 has looked into the operations of the Auditor-Controller’s Office and has discovered problems that indicate that there is great potential for harm to the taxpayers of Sutter County.”
This is an important allegation. It is a serious allegation that must be understood. However, you do not tell the public that your “outside auditor” (Marilee Smith, CPA), who was chosen for this job by the administration, apparently does not have an understanding of OMB Circular A-87 or the State Controller’s Guide on County Cost Plan preparation.
The Appeal-Democrat states “Smith said she tried to obtain some guidance from the State Controller's Office about A-87, the federal guideline that establishes principles for determining allowable reimbursable costs by government units.” This is an important omission of fact by the Grand Jury, as OMB A-87 is a central question in the IT dispute. We believe that an apparent lack of knowledge in this area would preclude Ms. Smith from issuing any report that includes the OMB A-87 issue.
(webmaster note: Apparently the State Controller has completed its audit of the County A-87 program with a report due in a couple weeks and the IT department has completed a report on its rates.)
“The Auditor-Controller Office does not have a policy and procedures manual.”
SCTA responds, Assuming that this is a factual statement, how does the County’s outside CPA audit and verify internal control procedures? If such a manual was not available, the County’s outside CPA would have noted this problem in their Management Letter to the Board of Supervisors.
“We also found that the Auditor-Controller does not follow the instructions of the Board of Supervisors. Instead he operates independently, even when given direct orders to do a specific task.”
The SCTA response was long so let me summarize. The Grand Jury ignored the Government Code related to the elected Auditor-Controller. The Grand Jury complains that the elected Auditor-Controller is independent. This last statement is important. Raise your hands if you think that the auditors of ENRON and Global Crossing were independent? Is this what the Grand Jury wants for your County government?
There is more but I have some space constraints. Suffice it to say that the Grand Jury apparently acted politically. In the September 23, 2005 edition of the Appeal Democrat, Local News, I found an article entitled “Stark defense fund-raiser Wednesday” which contains the following statement:
“Stark was investigated by a grand jury at the request of the Sutter County administrator and elected officials.”
Mrs. Combs, who receives marching orders from the Board of Supervisors, is smack in the middle of this “recall without the benefit of a public vote.” Maybe it is because, as the Grand Jury noted, that the public “…have little or no knowledge of the entire issue...” and might actually re-elect Mr. Stark.
What is “Team Sutter”? According to SCTA
One must address the term “Team Sutter” and the concept of “fluid working conditions” within all Sutter County Departments “working together for the people.” This is a nice phrase and concept but is not binding upon the participants. Frankly, it is the job of government to provide the taxpayers with the most effective and consistent services available. As presently implemented by the administration, “Team Sutter” appears to foster a “we against them” mentality that seeks to hide genuine accountability from the citizen.
Uneducated Public?
The Grand Jury said:
“…but considering the attack that they must endure from the public, who have little or no knowledge of the entire issue is uncalled for.”
SCTA responds:
Since the Grand Jury has not interviewed the public on this matter, you actually have no basis to know what level of knowledge the public has on any issue. You must remember that the Board of Supervisors can take an unlimited amount of time to discuss any matter. The Grand Jury can take its time with a captive audience. The public is routinely restricted to three minutes. If the Grand Jury was permitted only three minutes to write its report on this subject you would have failed to communicate your understanding of this subject or any other subject in your final report. If the Board of Supervisors were restricted to three minutes they could not have a fruitful discussion on any important subject.
Isn’t it interesting that those who have time to pontificate also appear to be better educated on the subject being discussed?
Special Audit Committee, Sutter County Auditor-Controller
The meat of the Grand Jury report is exposed. When is an action by the elected Sutter County Auditor-Controller criminal? SCTA responds:
The Appeal-Democrat also reported the following:
Combs said it was "an error" that was corrected.
"All large organizations have what I would call errors occur, and when you find them you take care of them. Errors are made. People forget policies," he said.There was "not a chance in the world Bob Stark would have been fired over finding an error," Combs said. "That's what he's paid to do."
Apparently finding and correcting errors is the job of the Sutter County Auditor-Controller. How the Grand Jury and Board of Supervisors reconciles the County Chief Administrative Officer’s statements to the Grand Jury findings is a mystery.
“The Sutter County Grand Jury 2004-2005 has looked into the operations of the Auditor-Controller’s Office and has discovered problems that indicate that there is great potential for harm to the taxpayers of Sutter County.”
This is an important allegation. It is a serious allegation that must be understood. However, you do not tell the public that your “outside auditor” (Marilee Smith, CPA), who was chosen for this job by the administration, apparently does not have an understanding of OMB Circular A-87 or the State Controller’s Guide on County Cost Plan preparation.
The Appeal-Democrat states “Smith said she tried to obtain some guidance from the State Controller's Office about A-87, the federal guideline that establishes principles for determining allowable reimbursable costs by government units.” This is an important omission of fact by the Grand Jury, as OMB A-87 is a central question in the IT dispute. We believe that an apparent lack of knowledge in this area would preclude Ms. Smith from issuing any report that includes the OMB A-87 issue.
(webmaster note: Apparently the State Controller has completed its audit of the County A-87 program with a report due in a couple weeks and the IT department has completed a report on its rates.)
“The Auditor-Controller Office does not have a policy and procedures manual.”
SCTA responds, Assuming that this is a factual statement, how does the County’s outside CPA audit and verify internal control procedures? If such a manual was not available, the County’s outside CPA would have noted this problem in their Management Letter to the Board of Supervisors.
“We also found that the Auditor-Controller does not follow the instructions of the Board of Supervisors. Instead he operates independently, even when given direct orders to do a specific task.”
The SCTA response was long so let me summarize. The Grand Jury ignored the Government Code related to the elected Auditor-Controller. The Grand Jury complains that the elected Auditor-Controller is independent. This last statement is important. Raise your hands if you think that the auditors of ENRON and Global Crossing were independent? Is this what the Grand Jury wants for your County government?
There is more but I have some space constraints. Suffice it to say that the Grand Jury apparently acted politically. In the September 23, 2005 edition of the Appeal Democrat, Local News, I found an article entitled “Stark defense fund-raiser Wednesday” which contains the following statement:
“Stark was investigated by a grand jury at the request of the Sutter County administrator and elected officials.”
Mrs. Combs, who receives marching orders from the Board of Supervisors, is smack in the middle of this “recall without the benefit of a public vote.” Maybe it is because, as the Grand Jury noted, that the public “…have little or no knowledge of the entire issue...” and might actually re-elect Mr. Stark.
<< Home