2009.01.02
Money management in Christiansburg
The Christiansburg Town Council on Tuesday will receive its annual financial report. The town isn't big on releasing information to the public, but Carol Lindstrom over at Depot Dazed got hold of the audit (pdf). I haven't had a chance to dig into it too deeply, but one reader pointed me to a troubling passage.
The auditors (p. 40) point out a significant deficiency in internal control, which is one that creates
more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the Town of Christainsburg's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the Town of Christiansburg's internal control.
In other words, it's some failing at Town Hall that could result in a big financial mistake that no one notices. Someone could steal a bunch of money, and the town might not know it.
The problem in question?
The town's employees and management lack the qualifications, training, skills and knowledge to apply generally accepted accounting principles in recording the town's financial transactions and preparing its financial statements.
Management has made a conscious decision to accept the degree of risk associate with the significant deficiency listed above because of cost and other considerations.
So let's get this straight. Probably the most important thing the town does is manage the public's money, and the town's staff is not qualified to do that. And that's not something that warrants immediate fixing?
RSS feed 
Having worked for the U.S. Treasury and have quite a bit of audit experience its time for the State of Virginia to be notified through the attorney general. This should be looked into to safeguard the citizens of the Town of Christiansburg.
Comment by Grant — January 2, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
A couple of questions:
1) If the Town isn't big on releasing information to the public, how did Ms. Lindstrom get the audit? It seems this piece is just another conspiracy theory intended to make the public think that the government must be trying to hide something if every document it produces isn't hand delivered to every citizen and posted on the internet for those who are too lazy to follow the actual process of accessing those records?
2) Did the audit actually show that money has been mishandled, or did it just say that the possibility exists that money might be mishandled in the future? Doesn't that possibility exist anytime money is being managed anywhere? It's a shame we don't indict criminals on the possibility that they might do something bad in the future. I bet there would be much recidivism by criminals. An accountant recommending that only trained accountants handle money, imagine that.
It seems like the Roanoke Times is advocating more of what is wrong with society today. We already have lawyers and accountants making all the decisions and look how efficiently government works. I wouldn't be so quick to advocate more of the same. Putting bean couters in charge seldom accomplishes little other than putting the bottom line above service to citizens and valuing the dollar over the safety of the workers.
Second, it seems that the Town of Christiansburg could shut its critics up fairly quickly if they decided to, by, in my opinion, wasting unknown amounts of taxpayer money by hiring a team of CPAs to handle the money (we all know how cheaply they work) and by hiring a division of new IT workers to transcribe and post on-line every record of every meeting and any document that passes through the Town Hall. I mean after all, why not spend a lot of money to provide a service that the vast majority of citizens don't want and wouldn't use. But what the hell, it's only our tax dollars. Let's make sure everybody pays a lot so a very small minority doesn't actually have to do their own research.
Comment by Jack — January 3, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Oh, Jack. Enough with conspiracy theories. Too lazy to follow a process developed 50 years ago, when most data today is available immediately via the internet. This old fashioned process is just a way to monitor who is asking for what, using up citizen time, and controlling access. There should be more options provided and if the town had intended to keep citizens informed they could have had a viable webset years ago, instituted public meetings just for getting out information, and done more marketing/public new releases. Safety of workers is not a strong suit for the town, either, and a sore subject best left alone. A question remains why all the previous audits by a firm that has been hired by the town for nearly two decades is now identifying concerns. Transcribing is a think of the past: Most documents are already created in an electronic format and anything else can be scanned as quickly as copies were made by mimeography machines. Click, link. Little to no cost. Don't advocate hiring IT people because the ones hired over the last 7 years by the town couldn't even maintain a basic web site. The audit reports shouldn't cost anyone anything to view, we already paid our taxes. But they do show where a lot of questions arise, from why budgets were exceeded and a minimal number of grants not awarded. If Jack doesn't know and doesn't care, fine. Many others are interested in how elected officials and the people they hire are conducting public business.
Comment by Frugal — January 4, 2009 @ 2:28 am
Response to Jack - the quoted comments made by Ms Lindstrom in her article above are quoted verbatum from the letter submitted with the Audit by the Accountant who did the audit. From these quoted comments by the Accountant, irregularies could be may and the internal controls of the Town would not be able to detect them with the present accounting procedures.
Comment by Grant — January 4, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
"I mean after all, why not spend a lot of money to provide a service that the vast majority of citizens don't want and wouldn't use. But what the hell, it's only our tax dollars." Is Jack talking about basics like providing financial due diligence and public information, or the town's sports facilities? What is the % of revenues that comes from real estate and personal property taxes, and how much of this goes to Rec Center, Harkrader and the new pool?
Comment by Niki — January 5, 2009 @ 12:09 am
First, Jack, the Town of Christiansburg DOESN'T like to release information to the public. They do it under threat of FOIA non-compliance, a history of which was exposed late spring of 2008. Ms. Lindstrom had to request - and pay for - that information. Which was not posted on the Town's new web site, which still isn't finished.
Second, the auditor's report is full of statements like "... no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported." What kinds of noncompliance DON'T need to be reported? This firm says "We believe that our audit process provides a reasonable basis for our opinions." Good grief. If they are worth their fee, wouldn't their work be good enough for their own use?
Christiansburg government processes spark many questions. The fact that they are finally getting asked is a good thing.
Comment by TECarter — January 6, 2009 @ 9:46 am