DebFEE Suther Lie #2

"We don't have a budget problem in Bay Village"

Straight from the ... uh ... candidates' mouth (I would have used the old salt "horses mouth" but I don't want to stir up another 'pig in lipstick' controversy). Said loud and clear at debate #2.

Oh but we did have a budget problem, a $2 M gap in a $24 M budget, didn't we DebFEE. And how do we solve such a budget problem? Cut employees like she rails on the county commissioners to do?

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/04/suburbs_making_serious_cuts_to.h...

Well, first lets raise garbage and sewer fees and raise fees on seniors and their programs and kids and their recreation programs. Not enough? C'mon DebFEE, think. What to do? What would Sarah Palin do?

Cut public safety forces. Firefighters. We won't need them. Stretch 'em thin throughout the city.

http://www.cleveland.com/westshoresun/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/122174...

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/03/bay_firefighters_to_picket_sta.h...

Interestingly enough, here is what the "Official" website of the Bay Village finance department has to say about city finances.

"The
Finance Department is responsible for the fiscal operations of the City
including; payroll, accounts payable, municipal income tax, sewer
utility billing, cash management and investing, debt administration and
the annual audit. In fact the Auditor of State has annually given the
City an unqualified audit opinion, its highest rating."

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/government/finance.cfm

Where's the lie this time? Can you find it? It's tricky. Give up?

Here it is - In fact the Auditor of State has annually given the
City an unqualified audit opinion, its highest rating.

What are the facts:

According to the REPUBLICAN State Auditor:

Material Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency
Expenditures and Encumbrances Exceeding Appropriations*
Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.41(B) prohibits a subdivision or taxing unit from making expenditures unless they have been properly appropriated. Budgetary expenditures (that is, disbursements and encumbrances) as enacted by City Council may not exceed appropriations at the legal level for all funds.
The following funds had expenditures plus encumbrances in excess of appropriations as of June 30, 2006 at the legal level of control:

Up to $1.429 M

Material Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency
Negative Cash Fund Balances*
Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.10 states, in part, that money paid into a fund must be used only for the purpose for which such fund has been established. As a result, a negative fund balance indicates that money from one fund was used to cover the expenses of another fund.

During the following months of fiscal year 2006, the City experienced the following negative cash fund ranges:

9 line items ranging from $4000 - $900,000

SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS
Finding
Number
Finding
Summary
Fully
Corrected?
Not Corrected, Partially Corrected;
Significantly Different Corrective Action
Taken; or Finding No Longer Valid;
Explain:

2005-001
Bank reconciliations
No
Partially corrected; reissued as
management letter comment.

2005-002
Negative cash fund
balances
No
Reissued as 2006-002.

2005-003
Purchase order
certification
No
Partially corrected; reissued as
management letter comment

We consider the following deficiencies described in the accompanying schedule of findings to be significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting: 2006-001 and 2006-002.

"A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies resulting in more than a remote likelihood that the City’s internal control will not prevent or detect a material financial statement misstatement."

- Auditor of State, October 15, 2007

Doesn't sound like the highest rating to me. You can read for yourself.

http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/AuditSearch/Reports/2007/City_of_Bay_Vill...