Trumbull Councilwoman Questions Audit

This was written by Town Councilwoman Martha Jankovic Mark as a letter to the editor.

The Town Council Republicans voted as a majority recently to spend a minimum of $65,000 of taxpayer money on a contract with an auditing firm that does not have experience with a large scale, post construction, school project. This firm was interviewed by a committee created by the First Selectman, which violates our Town Charter. Our Town Council should have overseen this initiative, not our First Selectman, who is coincidentally embroiled in a legal matter involving our owner's representative for this project.

While I do approve of conducting an audit of this largest project in our Town’s history, I am very much opposed to this particular audit, which was proposed last night [July 1, 2013] as Resolution 24-139, because of the incorrect process followed in bringing it before us. I enthusiastically welcome outside eyes to review this project, given the contentious and litigious atmosphere which Mr. Tim Herbst has created. 

Mr. Herbst appears to have violated our Town of Trumbull Charter by usurping the Town Council’s power to conduct external audits. Mr. Herbst went behind the backs of the Town Council, forming, selecting, and appointing people to an Audit Committee, having the purchasing department submit an RFP for an auditor, involving himself in the acceptance of bids and interviewing bidders, and choosing one without ever asking or notifying the full Council. Chapter II Legislative Branch Section 10 Audit Powers of our Town Charter gives the Town Council external audit powers.  No such power exists for the First Selectman.  

Also disturbing to me was the impetuous push to pass this Resolution without having one, concise document for a contract. The Republican majority of the Town Council, except for Councilman David Pia, voted for the audit, despite that the “contract” consists of two letters dated March 6, 2013 and June 3, 2013 and one addendum, with conflicting provisions, since the March 6 letter has been referred to in our committee meeting and council meetings as still relevant. There is a lack of clear scope, with one clause referring to legal matters about which we have no clue.

This unclear clause is part of the “scope of services” and refers to Grant Thornton conducting a “forensic accounting and related services in connection with an internal investigation being conducted by the Town.” When I asked our First Selectman about this matter and whether this clause is no longer relevant and should be removed, based on the report in the press that all Ethics complaints brought up recently were dismissed, he did not agree that it should be removed but discussed the privacy of Ethics issues.  I moved last night to send this back to Committee so that we could have this agreement codified into one document; but my motion was voted down.  So the majority of the Council signed off on the agreement not knowing whether there still is an ongoing investigation or what that clause means.  

At the June 3 Town Council meeting, the Republican majority voted against going into executive session to discuss any possible legal matters being considered at this time related to the project.  It is disturbing to me that these matters which relate to this project, which is the Town Council’s project, run by the Town Council’s Building Committee, are being kept secret from the Town Council by the Republican majority of the Council.  

This resolution was for an audit.  I see no valid reason to have rushed it forward. I see more value to allowing the project to be finished first before an audit is conducted. It might even cost less to wait.  I would have considered allowing our Internal Auditor to examine the project and to gather together information first. Councilman Gregg Basbagill’s motion to include a start date for the audit to be added to the agreement, of October 1, after the NEASC accreditation examination period and likely the entire project has been completed, was voted down by the majority.

From what I’ve heard at our meetings, the $65,000 which the majority approved for this audit will most likely be exceeded; Grant Thornton may return to us to ask for more funding to finish it.   Those interviewed by Grant Thornton may feel it necessary to hire attorneys to accompany them to interviews; there may be more expenses to our Town than we’ve anticipated to date. 

Once again, Mr. Herbst is promoting lavish spending of our tax dollars. Several of us on the Council noted that through our telephone conference with Grant Thornton at our Legislative and Administration Committee meeting on June 25 that their experience is not exactly on target with large, post construction school projects.  I would have liked to have been involved in the process of acquiring our auditor for this project, not merely playing a role in rubber stamping its approval.