Here we go again?
To the editor:
On Monday, an attempt will again be made try to convince the members of the council to pursue a forensic audit of certain UEP areas concurrently with a construction contract performance audit. I, and many others, have stated since the 2006 Kessler firm ‘forensic’ audit engagement occurred that a construction contract performance audit of any large project is generally reasonable. And, in fact, this was the the audit type which the Kessler firm was originally commissioned to perform by the City’s Audit team in 2006. Unfortunately, the engagement contract and the engagement pursuits were not appropriately in sync, and the results, and their value, were, and still are, questioned by many.
What the results of the 2006 effort did show was that the expense of a “forensic” audit is not warranted without specific information that would typically result from a previous project audit or other specific information divulged during the project that strongly suggested activities that could result in litigation. To recommend pursuits of both audits concurrently suggests a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of each, and to pursue both concurrently could lead to more unnecessary expenditures at a time when the taxpayers’ funds should be carefully utilized.
As a result of the upcoming request on Monday, there once again is, unfortunately, a proposal that the taxpayers provide the funds for another “forensic” audit on completely different areas than those of the 2006 “audit,” when that “audit’s” value obtained for the residents for the previously spent $130,000-plus has been greatly questioned.
Whatever the underlying motivations are, and they seem to be singularly focused on pursuits of the UEP contractor versus the contract performance itself, now is the perfect time to stop this incessant determination to perform the same actions again in the hopes of reaching a different outcome. If the supporters of these audits are so convinced of malfeasance and conspiracy, let them bring their charges and evidence to the DOJ or the State Attorney directly and pursue their agendas with their time and their monies. This council is urged to review the proposed approach carefully, and to conclude responsibly, that a construction contract performance audit is generally reasonable and to pursue that if they truly believe it is warranted, required, and will provide valuable information for when we do move forward with the UEP.
If that approach is chosen, and the results then warrant the pursuit of a forensic audit, then do so.
At least the council will then have taken a reasoned, and responsible, approach. Truly, though, it is time for this council to focus on the future of the City and all of its residents and to stop supporting those who continue to chase ghosts with taxpayers’ monies in support of their personal agendas.
Steve Riggs
Cape Coral