Madden Doesn't Want An Audit #TroyCrazy

Lynn,

I am in receipt of your email today, March 8, 2016. This email cannot go without a response.

I would like to point out on January 4, 2016, you authorized me as Council President to seek proposals for independent auditing services for an outside audit, and that's exactly what I did. Now you seem to be arguing against the very same resolution you supported in January.

Furthermore, and most importantly, we wouldn't need to hire an outside auditor to do a Corrective Action Plan if the prior city councils had not violated the finance law and attempted to cover up a multi-million deficit. If I recall, you served as Council President as part of this time and were a member of the majority.

We are going to move forward to put the city in good financial condition through professional and non-political means.

I hope you will join us in our efforts.

Carmella


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn.Kopka
Sent: Tue 3/8/2016 10:05 AM
To: Carmella.Mantello; Patrick.Madden; All City Council Members
Subject: RE: Resolution 23

Carmella - Can you please provide your explanation of why adhering to the city's procurement policy and complying with state and local procurement guidelines for the expenditure of public funds and the purchase of services is seen as the executive branch usurping the legislature's ability to hire an independent auditor? There has been no interference with your ability to (correctly) issue an RFP, comply with policy, receive and evaluate proposals and select a firm or individual. Please detail why you refer to the hiring of an audit firm through an RFP as an appointment instead of the awarding of a contract to a successful bidder. It seems that complying with procurement procedures would get you to the same point - submission of bids and selection of a firm/individual - so what is the issue here? Again I ask for the name of your attorney who is advising on the interpretation and application of GML to procurement of services by a public body. Lynn




-----Original Message-----
From: Carmella.Mantello
Sent: Tue 3/8/2016 7:15 AM
To: Patrick.Madden; All City Council Members
Subject: RE: Resolution 23


Patrick,

I am in receipt of your email on March 7th, and must reject the threatening nature of your comments and your disregard for the legislative process.

I find it a glaring omission in your email that no mention is made of Resolution 12 of January 4, 2016 which passed unanimously. This resolution gave the council president the authority to seek proposals for hiring an independent auditor, and to submit the same to the city council. The city council pursuant to section C-24 and section C-74 (f) appointed an independent auditor with a bipartisan vote. Under section 56 of the city charter, council procedures and appointments are not subject to the mayor's review. In fact, section C-24 clearly gives the council the authority to employ consultants. This is a clear distinction from any section of the charter or procurement policy which pertains to purchasing certain items.

This process, read in conjunction with section C-74 (f), clearly states the council may provide for an independent audit at any time. These two sections C-24 and C-74 (f) are a key element of the council's independent legislative authority and process.

I would hope we can put this matter to rest once and for all, and allow the council to comply with the general municipal law and submit, through its independent audit, a corrective action plan.

Carmella R. Mantello
Council President


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick.Madden
Sent: Mon 3/7/2016 5:29 PM
To: All City Council Members
Subject: Resolution 23

Council Members,

I am writing in an effort to clarify my position regarding the Council's desire to procure consulting services as I do not think it was properly characterized last week.  In looking back on the matter, the manner in which I communicated to the full Council last week may have contributed to some of the misunderstanding.  If that is the case I will willingly take responsibility for any ensuing confusion.

First, let me state unequivocally that I am not trying to interfere with the Council's efforts to hire an independent consultant.  I will admit that I have never been terribly fond of the idea.  I didn't feel it was a necessary expenditure nor do I think you are going to get what you are hoping for.  Nonetheless, I recognize that it is your decision and I have never sought to stop or impede it.  We simply have a difference of opinion about its value.  Differences of opinion will happen from time to time.

Despite my misgivings about this engagement I actually would welcome the thoughts another set of eyes might bring to the discussion.  If nothing else the past three months have shown not just a willingness, but a real effort on my part to engage in a detailed and robust analysis of the financial challenges the City faces.  I have consulted with numerous individuals with experience in municipal finance, the State Comptroller's Office and NYCOM.  In the process some of my early assumptions have been challenged.  That's great and will hopefully lead to a better outcome for the City of Troy.  I would be curious to hear what your consultant might add to that chorus.

My issue has to do with process.  I came into this office, as I am sure each of you did, with the intention doing things properly.  I have made considerable effort to understand and apply the various and complex rules that apply to operating the City.  When mistakes have been pointed out to me I have taken steps to make corrections.  In this instance I cannot disregard the plain and unambiguous language in both the Charter and the City's Procurement Policy that the Policy applies to all purchases made by the City.  It is crystal clear that the City's Purchasing Agent is, by Charter and Procurement Policy, the person responsible for all acquisitions made with City funds.  She is now and always has been available to assist in any procurements undertaken by the City Council, as she has with past Councils.  She has been ready, willing and able to serve you since you came into office.  She ensures that a proper and legal process is followed.  This both protects the City and provides the best value for the dollars we spend.  She does not make a decision on your behalf.  That responsibility remains with you.  You lose no autonomy whatsoever.

Why, you ask, do I care about a seemingly small procedural matter.  Three reasons come quickly to mind.  We have had our share of criticisms leveled against us over the years by auditors and regulating agencies.  I am trying to bring that to an end.  The NYS Office of State Comptroller affirmed to me that the City's Procurement Policy applies to all expenditures of City funds and that intentionally failing to abide by that policy would result in an audit finding if discovered by their office.  We need the OSC on our side.  We need to show that office above all others that we are trying to change our ways.  We need their confidence in us.  This, however, conveys something quite contrary.  There is no small degree of irony in the fact that we would risk an audit finding with OSC in an effort to prepare a response to their earlier audit findings.

The second reason is that we are setting precedent for future Councils and Mayors that these rules can be disregarded or bargained away.  I don't think any of us want to go down that road.

Most importantly, however, is that you are now asking my administration to disregard the advice of the City's attorney and make a payment of public funds on what we have been advised is an improper procurement.  This is a serious legal matter.  Illegal disbursement of public funds can result in personal liability on the part of the person authorizing payment.  I don't want to be put in that position and I cannot ask our Purchasing Agent to be put in that position.  That's completely unfair.

I cannot ignore the plain language in both the Charter and the Procurement Policy.  I cannot ignore the legal opinion of our City's Corporation Counsel.  I cannot ignore the OSC position on the matter.  Nor can I ignore the 90 day clock that is ticking away relative to completing the corrective action plan.  That is the untenable position I have been placed in.

Since you do not accept my opinion or that of the City's Corporation Counsel, I have suggested to the Council President that we proceed as quickly as possible to agree upon and secure an independent third party legal review of the matter.  I will drop everything to work on this with you.

If that person can provide an opinion that states that this procurement was properly undertaken I will be comfortable to sign off on whatever is necessary to make this engagement happen.  If a contrary opinion is offered I'll have the Procurement Office prioritize working with you to procure the services you desire as quickly as humanly possible.  If you have any thoughts on how we can more rapidly expedite the matter I would be happy to entertain them.

Finally, I have heard that some of you may have taken offense to my request not to share my email with the press or social media.  I have made no secret of the fact that I thought the practice employed by certain past City Council members of playing out disputes in the press and social media to gain political advantage reflected very poorly on the City and contributed nothing to constructive solutions.  I was trying to avoid a similar outcome in this instance.   My communications over the past weeks regarding this matter were intentionally limited to the City Council President.  That was based on a sincere effort to not politicize a disagreement.  To the average person on the street it matters little who is right and who is wrong in public disputes.  It reflects poorly on us all and the City as a whole.  I was hoping that this could be resolved without making a big public hoopla over it.  I wrote to the full Council only when I was unable to make any headway with the Council President.  Nowhere in my message did I tell you what to do.  I may have urged or even 'implored'; words intended to persuade but still mindful of the fact that you make your own decision.  Nowhere did I demand action.  I even offered again to help make the process correct.

The predicament we find ourselves in is a self-inflicted wound over a matter of procedure.  It easily could have been avoided and it can just as easily be resolved.  I implore you to work with me to resolve this matter.

Please let me know if you have any questions,

Patrick