We want curious conversation here. When you get to the point of fulminating about what "HN" has been saying, or you feel "HN" has been saying, the thread has left the path of curiosity a long time ago, and is well into the brush. We don't want that here.
I'm not saying your views are wrong (I have no idea what they are, and no idea what the situation is). But if your views are correct, this is the worst way to advocate for them, because it discredits them. No more of this, please.
I'm not saying that's the case, it's a made up scenario, but it's exactly how underpaid public servants "make up the difference", and it's why you need an auditor. The hired CPA wouldn't see anything wrong.
In this case, they are paying $570,906 in 2022 in Pension benefits for 4 active employees. Now they certainly aren't paying $142,726.50 to each active employee so that means they have a string of retired workers that they're paying a good amount of money for.
An appropriate thing for an auditor to do is to then research how those employees earned their benefits. Did they "buy 15 years of tenure" for $3,200 thereby increasing their yearly benefit $40,000 per year? Did they "work" 120 hours per week of overtime in their last year to jack up their final year salary? These are real examples from a town near me.
None of these things are illegal and won't necessarily be flagged by a CPA who is being paid by the people giving or receiving these benefits. But they sure stand out to taxpayers who are footing the bill!
Think about it - all a CPA will do is check to make sure a supervisor signed off that someone worked 120 hours of overtime. They aren't going to investigate how that is even possible or likely.
They just showed up at the next meeting hoping everyone had everything figured out for them.
I find the entire attitude here extremely interesting, because it’s most likely a repudiation of their preconceived ideas. The idea that there is this singular powerful “establishment” that has all the power and works hard to keep outsiders from breaking up their way of doing things.
What this episode really shows is that government in the US is singularly disorganized, driven by largely a whole bunch of self interested individuals, who are largely winging it as they go along.
If indeed it was the “establishment” that was so worried about this auditor position, why would they not put up a better fight to win the election in the first place? The actual winner seems surprised they won, which indicates they didn’t put much effort in campaigning. The “establishment” surely has enough money to run a campaign in a tiny town to win the election?
Further, if the “establishment” was so scared of this individual and so powerful, why would they do something silly like basically say something that is contrary to the law over email? They’d probably be better off just ignoring him and/or having an attorney come up with a legally plausible communication that would have conveyed that he isn’t likely to be seated without doing so in a manner that is apparently contrary to the clear law.
So what? He turned up, and they said they'd swear him in, then sent a letter saying they wouldn't. If the first auditor was not needed, why not mention that at the meeting?
It's also not clear the "rules and procedures" are being followed here - it appears normal to swear in Auditors after their election, is it unreasonable to expect that process to be figured out beforehand?
> and they'll formulate the actual response then
How long should he wait until he can officially conclude he's being given the run-around?
The auditors have duties beside auditing, and the law[1] explicitly say they "shall perform the other duties of the office" even if an accountant has been appointed. There is clearly a reason the town government dosen't want anyone to preform one or more of these other duties.
[1]: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1933/0/0069....
> The supervisors assured me that I would be able to swear in at either the next meeting
> three days after that meeting, I received an email from the township manager to the effect of, "sorry, we hired a CPA to do that job and we have no need for elected auditors to oversee the township."
Is seems these town meetings are roughly 3 weeks apart, and he has contacted various people who have not returned his call. The previous auditor (elected) describes as being given a "runaround" also.
So yes, they didn't refuse, they just ghosted his attempts to resolve the issue. What's the big difference? As long as they stay silent, they technically didn't refuse? At what point can you say they are acting in bad-faith?
Why is this weird, if this is an elected position? Doesn't he need to be sworn in for the position to be official?