Village Of Valleyview

Mistakes Made???

The Finance Committee has more than one person. Someone else could have posted the meeting, or you could have had the meeting a day later. Nothing is that dire. If it was, a emergency meeting of all members would have been called.

You state that the audit cost the Village $12,000. If you had a clerk who knew how to keep things straight, the records wouldn't be in such a mess. And if Valleyview had people who didn't want to change the law and rule as they go.

During the 1999-2000 audit when ''you know who was in power'',the auditor told me that the records had been a mess for 20 years. It appears nothing has changed. It happened when I was there. Everytime I brought up a proven procedure, that was clear cut, you all said, ''We don't want to do it that way.'' I had checked these things out with the auditor.

As long as it is chosen to be this way, the Village will continue to pay thousands. I asked that the authority follow the auditor's suggestion in how to do things when I took office, it was said this would be done. But it wasn't or the audit would not have cost $12,000.

Council and clerk are the reasons the audit is taking money from the residents.

No Double Talk

There is no double talk. The Auditor stated that it was not approved in a ''timely manner''. They did not call the Ordinance illegal.

When should a salary Ordinance be enacted Ms. White? As long as it is enacted more than 5 days before the filing deadline then it is valid for that term. It was not valid for the term beginning in 1996, but it would be for the term beginning in 2000.

The Council last year (2004) passed a new salary Ordinance for the Mayor and Council. The first term that would be effected by the new salaries are 2006 for the Council and 2008 for the Mayor. Are you saying that because these were not enacted exactly 5 days before the filing deadline that they are illegal? Where do you draw the line?

Why did the past council not vote to change the Mayor's or Council's salaries as I proposed? What was your reasoning Ms. White for not lowering the Mayor's salary? Were you hoping that you would be elected and then collect the $12,000 a year? That Council had the opportunity to pass it in a timely manner but refused too.

I personally do not believe that the Mayor, Council and Solicitor knowingly broke the law. The Solicitor should have done the research.

I cannot comment on who dropped out and anything else that was involved with in passing the ordinance because I was not involved and anything that I would have to add would be heresay. If the individual that dropped out would like to address it than they are welcome too, but for anyone to speak for them would be wrong.

Cost of the Audit

The cost of the audit was higher than normal because of having to investigate all of the claims made by Ms. White. Only those claims that had any merit were included in the management letter and audit report. That would mean roughly 90% of what Ms. White has claimed in the past has no merit.

The Council and Clerk are not the reasons for the audit costing so much. Things have changed for the better. Records are in better shape than they have been and proper procedures are being followed. Ms. White's tried and true procedures are the reason that the Village was in the situation that it was in. The procedures needed to be changed and they have been for the better.

On the finance committee meeting it was not dire, but it had been planned in advance so that everyone on the committee could attend. Someone else could have posted the notices and it was my fault that I did not have someone take care of it for me. Again, I was out of town and returned later than I had hoped. Finance Meetings are now held after Council Meetings and every member of Council is a member of the Finance Committee.

As I Said

The procedures came directly from the auditor.