Internal Auditor

which is right in line with her philosophy of "if she thinks its wrong..then it is"...

- palmetto_native

Almost right, PN ...

The last philosophy should be amended to read "if she thinks any other realtor other than herself should make a buck . . . then it is . . ."

- SSHM

If we're going to consider the opinion of an Attorney General the law then we should be consistent about it.

Attorneys General have issued opinions that Cindy Wilson was entitled to public information she requested and more recently McMaster said that Joey Preston's past employment evaluations were public record.

Lee, good questions. It will be interesting to now see what happens with those so called "public records". It will also be interesting to see if those other counties that have auditors reporting to Council have to give those up.

Im curious to see how people scramble to try and explain away the recent decision by the Attorney General.

I could have sworn some of our "experts in residence" had assured us that it was clearly legal and OK for that position to report to County Council..

Of course, breaking the law is nothing new for cindi, nor is asking council in open session to do so either.

It wouldnt be the first time that she has tried to codify an illegal action. I guess she thinks that "if she thinks its right, then it is"...

which is right in line with her philosophy of "if she thinks its wrong..then it is"...

- palmetto_native

PalmettoNative, Henry McMaster's opinion notwithstanding, I continue to believe it is legal under Home Rule to have an internal auditor answering to County Council rather than to the County Administrator, just as many of you continue to believe - despite McMaster's repeated statements - that Joey Preston's annual evaluations should not be a matter of public record and that other public record shouldn't be made public.

That doesn't make anybody a "self-styled" expert. It's just a difference of opinion, and no matter what Mr. McMaster thinks he may be, he is not the final arbiter of such legal issues in the State of South Carolina.

As far as "explaining it away" as you said, there is no need to do that. It is what it is, and I respect the process - even when I disagree with it.

Now, are we going to get to see Joey's job evaluations and all of those financial records without going to court, or are we to ignore an Attorney General's opinion and explain it away?

You just can't selectively pick and choose which AG's opinions you'll respect, you know - at leasts, if you're going to consider his worde to be GOSPEL.

But Lee...i dont recall seeing anyone insisting that Joey was dead right in some of his practices. Even his most passionate of supporters has indicated that he was making an interpretation that was definitely in a grey area,and open to legal challenge.. in some cases.

You also forget to mention the caveat about cindi's original FOI requests..the whole "attorney-Client" priveledge thing. Nowhere is there anything comparable in their demands for an internal auditor position. No legal precedence that they could claim justified having an independent person. Only their own personal dislike for teh Administrator.

I am merely pointing out that we have some that insisted..even showed up what they ineterpreted to be supporting documentation...that county council could hire an internal auditor. Some were quite vociferous in their predictions that bob and cindi could hire an employee...

So I am interested in seeing if this changes their minds any.

PalmettoNative, I don't recall ever reading where "Bob and Cindy" could hire an employee. I do recall some of saying County Council could have an internal auditor who answered to Council, not to the Administrator. You want to cite the "Bob and Cindy" line, or are you just playing?

As one of those "self-styled experts" you derisively referred to, let me say that I continue to disagree with McMaster on this one. But I'll not try to "explain it away" or anything along those lines.

By the way, I also continue to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion a Federal issue, just as some disagree with various Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action and surveillance of communications without a warrant.

There are always arguments on both sides of every issue.

On this particular issue, though, I do remember when Home Rule was still an issue on the table prior to it's becoming law through a statewide referendum.

And I recall part of its intent - at least, the intent that was stated to us voters during the run-up to that referendum - was that it was designed to return local control to local voters and eliminate the all-powerful "county supervisors" that existed back then who answered directly to no one.

It was certainly NOT, based on its billing, intended to perpetuate that old system, but perhaps we were misled some 35 years ago. The old system is alive land well, just wearing a thin disguise.

I and others are very curious. Will the Council, County Attorney, and the Administrator follow all of the Attorney General's opinions? Or will they be "cherry picked" to only back up what the current majority in Council allow to happen?

The AG's opinions are what they are. But to abide or not abide in a consistant manner? That is the question.

This was a suggestion in a previous forum:

“Could the Council not contract with a CPA firm to write up new internal audit policies and procedures and then to test the compliance thereof by the Finance Dept ? Would that not partially satisfy the audit recommendations ?”
“That would be a lot cheaper than a unnecessary forensic audit and would probably satisfy the audit recommendations as well as quiet most of the continuing criticism of weak controls.”

Councilman McAbee thought it might be worth a try, per his response in that forum:

“I think I understand what you are saying. When the audit firm completes the audit have them submit a list of recommendations for the county to use in their financial record keeping. Have the council adopt the recommendations by ordinance and then, the following year, have the audit firm test compliance with the adopted practices.
I hadn’t thought of that it could work.”

I wonder if the Councilman intends to pursue this suggestion ?

Cmon JD..there is a big difference between a contractual interpretation...and a constitutional one..

though Im not suprised to see that red herring thrown up..

All council has to do to avoid that issue is change his contract. Simple and legal, if they dont want to obey the AG.

As far as bob and cindi, of course I am merely waxing rhetorically..we all know that "they" cannot hire anyone. But they are the ones that want to, so I merely referred to them.

maybe this county does need an independent financial oversight office that reviews all the county expenditures. Of course if this were to happen it would have to be elected so they they couldn't be threatened by certain individuals or council people.

If we're going to consider the opinion of an Attorney General the law then we should be consistent about it.

Attorneys General have issued opinions that Cindy Wilson was entitled to public information she requested and more recently McMaster said that Joey Preston's past employment evaluations were public record.

- Lee Cole

Don't forget that Ms. Wilson admitted in legal depositions that she HAD received the information she asked for. Funny how being under oath the real story comes out ????

Which deposition so I can look it up.

Im curious to see how people scramble to try and explain away the recent decision by the Attorney General.

I could have sworn some of our "experts in residence" had assured us that it was clearly legal and OK for that position to report to County Council..

Of course, breaking the law is nothing new for cindi, nor is asking council in open session to do so either.

It wouldnt be the first time that she has tried to codify an illegal action. I guess she thinks that "if she thinks its right, then it is"...

which is right in line with her philosophy of "if she thinks its wrong..then it is"...

- palmetto_native

McMaster correctly summed up this situation. As he did the other in which he said publically that Preston ought to comply with FOI requests. The AG pretty much determined what most of us with a brain know about the great saga, they are both right and they are both wrong.

What's sad is the two sides could not sit down and work things out before someone told them the obvious.

I doubt it is over. Jay Bender is an outstanding lawyer. The McNair Firm is outstanding as well. Who knows how far all of this will go?

But wouldn't be nice if someone would step up and try to get Preston and Wilson to sit down over coffee somewhere and work all of this out? Is there anyone trusted by both sides that could negotiate an end to this situation?