Thursday, March 22, 2012

Audit email war Day II: Jarret returns

(Note from Mike: No idea why the font is so small and funky. Blogger sucks sometimes.)

Frank Cagle has a good read about county law director stuff right smack here. And speaking of law director stuff: You remember the email correspondence the other day between the builder, the auditor and the rogue? Click right smack here for the original blog entry and right smack here for all sorts of electronic goodness and read further.

If you don't want to click, then the short of it is that local developer Sandy Loy wanted the county's internal auditor, Richard Walls, to turn over some information (I think it was his notes) that he put together when he was investigating the PBA's handling of the Hardin Valley Academy project.

Walls refused, citing some state law stuff. Brian Hornback then sent Law Director Joe Jarret a note, asking whether Walls could turn down Loy. Jarret pretty much said that the information Loy wanted was public record.

Loy, then asked for it again. Now, however, Joe says that's not the case.

In an email to Sandy this morning, Joe said:

I misread Mr. Hornback's email. While the completed audit is a public record, the TN code does render confidential, audit working papers. I believe the purpose behind the legislation was to project (I think he means “protect”) innocent parties should the auditor's initial mental impression prove incorrect.

Now, before you get all crazy and say: “Jarret flipped flopped again,” Joe sent me a follow up email that reads:

This wasn't a "he changed his mind again" issue, I was cooling my heels at the hospital (where he is with his mother right now) and misread the email.

Now, this isn't a blog entry if I don't have a Sandy Loy follow-up to Jarret's initial email. Take it away, Sandy:


Thanks for your reply. I am constantly amazed at how complicated keeping the rules straight is in local government.

Private business people such as myself just don't understand how the same tasks we perform every day, place in the hands of government becomes so complicated and difficult.

Given the obvious, that there are enough laws and rules now passed to allow even the most inefficient and duplicitous of management schemes to be declared OK because it is “LEGAL” … I am going to get back to the work which I do understand.

At the audit committee meeting last week there were 28 people in the room at one time, of which 26 were being paid to be there by my taxes. I have to get back to work; so I can pay the 15 different types of taxes currently “LEGAL” to support those 26 people who obviously think I have no right to know they spend the money they collect 15 different ways from me and every other business in Knox County.

Just a “sidebar” … if I “accidentally” short one of those tax payments by even $6 do you think they will just forget about it as “insignificant”?

What an indictment of our county government.

Sandy Loy

On a side note, I was at the meeting and so, too, was Hornback. (He blogged about it right smack here and right smack here.)

OK, finally, Joe responds back to Sandy:

Sir, it is certainly understandable. The TN Legislature of late seems to be expanding rather than contracting the list of documents deemed confidential. This is one of the reasons why my attorneys must be constant students of the despite our respective experience levels.

Now, there is an inside baseball jab there right out of Screams from da Porch.


Brian Paone said...

What'd you do, copy this directly from your email to your blog post editor without stripping the formatting out first?

Unknown said...

if it looks like a xxxx, then it is a xxxx.

believe you are right here.