I previously posted about the Village's legally required annual financial audit. At the February Village Board meeting an item was listed on the agenda as "auditor recommendations," but it was not read aloud or discussed by the Board. A Freedom of Information law request was submitted for a copy of the "recommendations." The copy was shared with me and I posted it along with questions that occurred to me after reading it.
It would seem from the auditor's recommendations that there would be a full audit also available, as the recommendations appear to be based on the auditor having spent considerable time in the office. But what was missing from the recommendations was any mention of the financial conditions of the Village. That seemed curious, as the auditors have been working with the Village since the Fall of 2006, and it was certainly the public's expectation that the CPA the Village Board hired would be conducting a review of the Village's finances. NYS Village Law requires such review. Otherwise, why hire an auditor?
The person who submitted the FOIL thought so, too, and followed up with the Village Treasurer and asked for a copy of the full audit. Here is the response from the Village Treasurer:
"Ray Wager’s firm was hired to perform an audit however the original scope changed after they completed the preliminary testing and evaluations on data and procedures for the 2005-2006 FY (the summation of which is found in the brief report that you are questioning). It was collectively decided (by the Board publicly) to hire them in a “tech assist” capacity in an effort to ensure the validity of the numbers reported, as there had been some discrepancy going all the way back to 2000-2001 (& prior) in the Capital Projects fund. The tech assist has been completed, all cash accounts reconciled and verified, and all reports have been filed with the State. This administration sought to dispel any doubt as to the validity of the numbers reported on the AUD and to provide the public with assurances as well, and therefore authorized this additional work to be done by the CPA firm. Ray Wager’s firm has been scheduled to return after the close of the 2007-2008 FY to complete a full audit."The Treasurer claims the Village Board changed the scope of the CPA firm's work after the firm completed preliminary testing and evaluations on data and procedures for 2005-2006. But the CPA firm's recommendations are dated January 8, 2008, 15 months AFTER the firm was originally hired.
The public was told at the time the Comptroller rejected the Village's 2005 AUD that the Treasurer was "working closely with the Comptroller's Office" to resolve the material reporting discrepancies the Comptroller noted and would submit a correct report. The Comptroller offered to provide any technical assistance the Village needed in order to meet the requirements of the financial reporting. So can we then deduce from what the Treasurer stated above that the Village turned away the free technical assistance offered by the Comptroller in favor of paying a private CPA to fix the AUD?
Has it really taken the CPA almost 15 months to straighten out the Treasurer's 2005 annual financial report? The Treasurer states "there had been some discrepancy going all the way back to 2000-2001 (& prior)." However, each year until the current administration took office the annual AUDs were submitted without question or rejection by the state Comptroller.
The Treasurer claims that the annually required audit of the Village's finances will take place AFTER the current fiscal year. This was not brought up at the public Board meeting. If someone had not submitted a FOIL for the document and then asked for a copy of the full audit we would not know about the Board's recent actions and future plans for financial reviews.
Perhaps now the Village Board should come clean about how they have handled the issue of "material reporting discrepancies" in the Treasurer's reports, how much they have spent to straighten out the discrepancies when they could have utilized the Comptroller's office for free, and provide an answer as to why they needed to be cajoled to perform an audit in the first place when they budgeted for audits for three years but did not perform one.
