Why 'definitely' when they didn't seat the last one?

Let’s also not forget that Person C does not seem to know anything themselves about the rules and procedures.

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.

> They just showed up at the next meeting hoping everyone had everything figured out for them.

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?

I've served on councils like this before and if anything unexpected comes up, the default answer is always going to be "uhh we're not sure but we'll address it at the next meeting." Sometimes someone may know the answer but more often than not the manager or solicitor will get the answer before the next caucus meeting and they'll formulate the actual response then.

They didn't defer addressing the issue, they said they'd swear him in. Also, since they had been operating without an elected auditor since the last time they elected one, did no one there know this?

> 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?

So, it's okay that they refuse to swear in the elected auditors because you think the position is unimportant? In what other circumstances do you think it's okay for government entities to ignore the law?

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....

Again, I don't see a refusal. I see a game of telephone gone wrong.

> I don't see a refusal

> 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?

Noted. I've never gotten involved in local politics but friends who have seem to have nothing but stories of batshit crazies coming out of the woodwork for the past two years. So this is what that looks like? But giving him the benefit of the doubt that he means to do the job, how is he supposed to request the books for an audit if the council won't acknowledge his position?

I can assure you "the past two years" are irrelevant, I've been involved with politics at various levels since 2004 and local politics are almost exclusively the domain of people unqualified and uninterested in anything else.

That doesn't even approach answering my question. You're just saying he did things wrong, which is not what I was asking about: why you said he'd 'definitely' be seated.

> They're complaining about not being sworn in. To an auditor position. In a township.

Why is this weird, if this is an elected position? Doesn't he need to be sworn in for the position to be official?