Some on Richmond council question proposed charter change regarding city auditor
READ THE DOCUMENTS: |
Some Richmond City Council members are thinking twice about sharing oversight of the city auditor in light of his revelation that the city violated purchasing rules on a nearly $1 million contract to buy police cars.
The auditor currently serves at the pleasure of the council. But under draft recommendations of the Richmond City Charter Review Commission, he would be appointed by the mayor subject to the approval of the majority of council.
The auditor would continue to be appointed to an indefinite term, and he could be fired if the mayor and a majority of council agree.
"The auditor's role as an independent and neutral investigator is best served by a structure that provides mayor and council equal roles in appointment and removal," the commission said in a summary of its recommendations, which call for similar changes for appointment of the city attorney.
The memo was presented to council members last Monday. A day later, City Auditor Umesh Dalal released a stinging report on then-Mayor L. Douglas Wilder's administration's purchase of 40 Crown Victoria police cars in 2007.
Dalal's office concluded that the department of procurement services violated its rules by not allowing multiple vendors to compete for the $993,520 contract, which went to Sheehy Ford of Richmond.
Director of Procurement Services Eric R. Mens has resigned effective Aug. 30. Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring plans to investigate.
Mayor Dwight C. Jones has named an acting director of procurement services and promised an administrative review. Wilder and former Police Chief Rodney D. Monroe did not respond to messages seeking comment Friday.
A spokeswoman for the Richmond Police Department referred questions to the city administration.
Several council members said the auditor's investigation and findings show why it's important to have him operate independently of the mayor's administration.
"Like in any form of government, there needs to be checks and balances," Councilman Charles R. Samuels said. "I think it would be hard for the auditor to do his job if he's investigating part of the administration and he can be fired by the administration. It is hard to be let go by nine council members."
Samuels emphasized that he's comfortable with the Jones administration but also mindful that no one knows what future administrations will bring.
Councilman Bruce W. Tyler said the procurement issues show "why we have a city auditor."
"My initial reaction is the auditor should report to City Council," he said. "Again, we are the governing body. This is part of the balanced government that was discussed when the city charter was conceived."
Jones has not commented on the proposed charter changes. John G. Douglass, chairman of the charter-review commission and dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, could not be reached.
The review commission, whose members were appointed by the council, Wilder and the commission itself, is seeking feedback on its recommendations through next month. A forum is expected to be held in September before a final report is released in October. Any charter changes endorsed by the city would be presented to the General Assembly for approval early next year.
Contact Will Jones at (804) 649-6911 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
“Independence” and “neutrality” almost sound enticing, but we’ve read about the previous administration’s attempts to usurp City Council’s power in the past. As a result, Council went to the courts in expensive litigation just to fight for its rights! Why on earth would we want to encourage some of the ugly scenarios of the recent past again? Didn’t we learn anything? Do we really think that we can extinguish fire by throwing gasoline onto it?
Is Neville Chamberlain on this review commission? He was the one who pushed appeasement foreign policy prior to the outbreak of WWII and was gullible enough to believe that Germany would honor its treaty with Great Britain back in 1939. (That didn’t work either!)
The RTD reported on May 10, 2007 that Council had to sue in 2007 and leave it for a judge to decide who had the power to hire and fire more than 50 employees of the Richmond City Council and the city assessor’s office after the previous mayor had his people order them to reapply for their jobs.
RTD reported on May 2, 2007 that the City Attorney determined that City Council had clear authority under state law to hire and fire the City’s real estate assessor after the previous mayor asserted otherwise and then had his staff act upon this assertion, yet the same proposal also includes the City Attorney to be hired and fired by the mayor! Who’s kidding whom? Is he being penalized for being forthright?
RTD noted on October 1, 2007 that the VA Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the previous mayor could be sued by City Council. According to RTD, the previous mayor’s attorney had argued that he was immune from being sued for his official actions.
Mr. Tyler’s point makes sense. The procurement issues, which date back to the previous administration, do show why we have a city auditor (who was independent of the mayor)!
Can any auditor realistically be expected to remain independent if the Mayor, the recipient or target of audits and investigations, can hire and fire him? That’s a little hard to digest because now a confict of interest has to be factored into his consideration!
The problems of the City’s recent past do not appear to be caused by the auditor. The auditor’s findings repeatedly demonstrated that the City’s processes were not working. The reports were full of instances illustrating noncompliance and abuse of procedures.
The auditor also introduced ideas for saving millions of dollars for us! From what we read today, that is still the case! Has the City realized these savings yet? If not, when can we expect this to happen?
Did the City Auditor fabricate these findings? Apparently not. There is not one article or documented instance supporting such a notion, yet there is a proposal to have the auditor be hired and fired by the mayor! We’re incredulous! Is this City Auditor being penalized for having too sharp a pencil or speaking the blunt truth?
We are forever hopeful, but we never know what each new administration is going to bring to the table. This proposal introduces the opportunity for an elected politician to influence if not rig an audit process or legal opinion that could serve us well as well as keep him accountable for our benefit as taxpayers. Why would we insist on burdening diligent, forthright and creative professionals such as the City Auditor and the City Attorney with a conflict of interest (by now having them be concerned with the Mayor’s reaction to audits or legal opinions)?
We just don’t understand this short-sighted and dangerous proposal. May wiser heads prevail and not cripple the balance of power that gives us genuine hope that our City government can continually improve and be the beacon of good stewardship and integrity that we think it can become—when it is held accountable! Let’s not muck it up now!
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement