THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, July 14, 1995 TAG: 9507120203
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 104 lines
The inability of the Chesapeake City Council to act decisively on the proposed audit of education department accounts underscores the cavalier attitude about public funds that has become pervasive at every level of government. This attitude should be less pronounced at the local level, where citizens have far more influence over affairs politic than they do at state and federal levels.
Part of the problem may be the meaning of an audit. The way some council members have described it, an audit is a process that uncovers new ways to achieve savings. For example, they might expect the audit team to point out that frequent, often duplicate, mailings to the parents of the city's 35,000 students throughout the school year could be accomplished more economically by having students take the materials home. They might even find that some materials lack sufficient substance to qualify for distribution, thereby saving even the cost of publication. But these are not the results of an audit; they are recommendations that result from an operational efficiency review.
An audit, properly defined, is an examination of records or financial accounts to check their accuracy. A common example is what we expect the IRS to do when we have been too creative about tax deductions. This is the kind of audit we need in Chesapeake generally and at the Education Department in particular.
The Chesapeake Taxpayers' Association gathered totals of actual expenditures by the Education Department for the fiscal year ending in 1994 from four authoritative public sources. These are the documents and the total expenditures that each records:
School Board's Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-1996, $151,481,884
1993-94 Superintendent's Annual Report for Virginia, $188,238,179.56
Chesapeake Proposed Operating Budget 1995-1996, $152,127,397
State Auditor's Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures: Year Ended June 30, 1994, $162,772,660.
The fact that none of these sources agree, and the breadth of the discrepancies, does not leave much room in the public mind's eye for the warm assurance that they are carefully accounting our tax dollars. According to the state, $36.8 million were spent on education that we know nothing about from local reports. How many of our hard-earned tax dollars must go unaccounted before we can expect an audit? We cannot brush these discrepancies aside as inadvertent clerical errors. They are substantial and disturbing.
If the council is unwilling to move forward, then the School Board should take immediate action. Throughout the private sector and most of government, a change of management triggers an independent audit automatically. It is a standard practice everywhere but Chesapeake. It gives the incoming team a clean slate and the stockholders periodic assurance that fiscal matters are in order. Should we expect less?
In view of the published discrepancies, this is hardly the time for council to make a public display of their timidity. If the School Board, with three members appointed by the current council, cannot muster the resolve to proceed, it is time to start asking some serious questions.
First, we should ask to whom citizens may turn, to return integrity to government? Then, we should ask ourselves what happened to the criteria we once used to decide whom we would entrust with public leadership? If we take our cues from council's inaction, integrity and leadership do not count for much in Chesapeake anymore.
Edward Weidner
President
Chesapeake Taxpayers' Association
eweidner(AT)ix.netcom.com Councilman responds
In response to your editorial ``Political science'' (The Clipper, June 25) it is unfortunate that you have chosen to show this councilman in such an unfavorable light.
The phrase ``. . . it needs to be taken off the list immediately'' was taken completely out of context and even embellished with the word `immediately.' ''
I have received fair and professional treatment from The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star and do not believe this editorial to be intentionally slanted, but that is the effect. Our most contentious problems could be more adequately addressed with open dialogue, accurate reporting and genuine discussion.
Dalton S. Edge
Sherwood Drive Two nice ladies
Clerk of Court Lil Hart is a nice lady. Nearly everyone I've met says so. She has served as clerk for many years. She faces a challenge from Vista Cotten, who is also a nice lady.
So how can voters decide which nice lady is better for this job? Ms. Hart has experience as clerk and promises to continue service, while Ms. Cotten has built a successful business and is familiar with the new technology and work methods which can increase the effectiveness of the clerk's office.
Chesapeake has grown tremendously since Ms. Hart has run the clerk's office and growth will continue through the turn of the century. Record filings and court caseloads have increased and will continue. Voters would do well to ask if the methods of the 1970s are suited to present and future needs. Methods and whose experience will better carry the courts into the 21st Century are the critical questions.
Shall we look to the past or to the future when electing a clerk?
James G. Thomson
Lake Shore Drive by CNB