December 1, 2005

On the Radio

Remember: I listen to the local talk radio so you don’t have to. No, really, I can’t help myself. It REALLY is a sort of rubbernecking experience.

In any case, it gives me something quick to blog when I am busy.

Today’s topic was the audit of the City of Fall River’s books. Apparently, there was a call for an independent audit last election cycle. Actually, it was a call to ask the state to do an independent audit, and the state said “no” because it didn’t see a reason to spend the money when there is a yearly audit already.

The amusing thing is that we have callers calling in and suggesting that they don’t think there is any monkey business going on with the current auditors, but they still want another organization to handle the audits in the future. One reason given: to introduce fresh ideas into the audit.

Now, I’m no expert in accounting. But, as I understand it, accounting is one of those areas where you do not want fresh ideas. You want the same old accurate accounting ideas.

The only possible reason to call in another group is if you do suspect that the current audit is either incompetent or corrupt. But nobody wants to say that because, as far as I know, there is no evidence of this.

And this is how you fill hours of radio time talking about basically nothing.

Posted by James at December 1, 2005 11:54 AM
Create Social Bookmark Links

Thanks for being there for me, James. I appreciate your diligence. BTW, "The Audit" was used by one candidate (Gillet, who was eliminated in the primary) to enervate another (Lambert, who is still mayor) and was pushed by the usual "Don't-trust-gubmit-or-ties" crowd through a petition which got signatures by variously calling for: "a precedural audit," "a city-run financial audit," "a top-to-bottom shakedown" or some such nonsense. WSAR's brainrust further obfuscated the misleading petition drive by conjecturing what an audit might do ("clean house" was a favorite motif, although they usually spent airtime repeating stories about a school committeeman vacationing in the Azores on "YOUR taxpayer money"). Once the question appeared on the ballot, it was so ineptly (?) worded that it meant even less to the voters, who overwhelmingly supported it.
The newsguys at stations I worked at used to joke that Fall River was "a bad poli-sci major's evil lab experiment gone terribly terribly wrong." Still is, I guess.

Posted by: ThirdMate at December 1, 2005 4:11 PM

Once the question appeared on the ballot, it was so ineptly (?) worded that it meant even less to the voters, who overwhelmingly supported it.

If I understand correctly, not even a majority of the people who voted that day voted for it. (in other words, there were a lot of people abstaining from that question) So, you're probably right that it didn't mean much to them. It wasn't very comprehensible.

"Let's vote to ask the mayor to ask the state for an audit."

Watch the voters flex their muscles!

Maybe what really needs to happen is that someone needs to actually read the existing audit. Just a suggestion.

Posted by: James at December 1, 2005 4:37 PM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved