January 22, 2006 2001 Spending Reported to/by the Tribune

Before you read this post, it would be helpful to review previous posts of January 4th, 20th, and 22nd for background information on county spending figures as reported in the official 2001 audit.

This is the text of an article that appeared in the Citizen-Tribune on April 16, 2002.

The 2002 primary elections were about 3 weeks away.

The article refers to and compares county spending in 1997 and in 2001 (the year that the audit of county spending showed hundreds of end-of-year adjustments).

The headline is shown in red.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purkey: County Spending within Bounds
BY ROBERT MOORE
Tribune Staff Writer

Political candidates and interested bystanders who say Hamblen County government spending is out of control are wrong, county officials say.

Between 1997 and 2001, expenditures on county government-- not counting the school system-- grew at a slower rate than the rate of inflation, Hamblen County Executive David Purkey reported Monday afternoon.

During that five-year period, county government grew by 5.8%. In the same period, the inflation rate was 8.5%, according to statistics compiled by Trustee Bill Brittain.

"The answer is the management of money," Purkey said. "It's very simple. I get real upset when I hear people in the community and candidates who are running against us wail and gnash their teeth about spending being out of control. That's not true. We do a lot of things here in the courthouse and in county government to share duties. Employees are being shared."

The audited numbers indicate that the 1997 non-school budget was $14.1 million. The non-school budget in 2001 was $14.8 million. Purkey's comments came at a county commission work session Monday afternoon.

The school system's budget is not included in the report because it has its own board that decides how money should be spent. Also, once the county commission allocates money to the school system, the county commission has not spending oversight function.

The numbers take into account general-fund expenditures, garbage and highway funds and debt service, including the initial debt service on the $34.7 million school spending program, according to Brittain.

"They tell me that spending in county government is out of control as the accusations have been made," the trustee said. "We're providing quality service for a reasonable price. It insults me for people to go out there and say that spending is out of control when every day we try to find ways to be more efficient and save money."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you automatically accept the statement in this front-page "news" article that 2001 expenditures were $14.8 Million without any checking or verification, then you would think that county spending increased by only $700,000 (5.8%) between 1997-2001.

But if instead you decide to check and verify the 2001 expenditures by actually looking at the 2001 audit, you will find that the total of 2001 audited expenditures for those four funds is approximately $16.5 million (not $14.8 million as reported).

I put out this information with a cautionary note: Questions about the difference in the 2001 reported spending and the 2001 actual spending have been asked and ignored. A citizen told the entire commission that she had asked County Mayor David Purkey to tell her what the true total of 2001 audited spending really was in the four funds. No response other than a threat to sue her.

My expenditure total of $16.5 Million is based on the total of expenditures for each of the four funds as found in the 2001 audit. (The expenditure total as shown in the audit would be even higher, but I deducted the amount used to pay back tax anticipation notes at the end of the year).

After you review the audit, everything that was said and reported to commissioners and to the public changes significantly.

County spending appears to have increased by $2.4 million (not $700,000 as reported).

County spending appears to have increased by 17% (twice the rate of inflation and not the 5.8% increase that was reported) jumping from $14.1 Million to $16.5 Million.

"Trust but verify" applies everywhere.

Nowhere is verification more important than in situations where the government or government officials are providing the facts and figures and have a vested interest in what is reported and how and when.

Political spin ---taking actual facts and actual figures about 2001 county spending and "spinning" them to present the best possible appearance--is one thing. That's a bit like the expected "huffing and puffing" by a car dealer in describing the vehicle he has for sale.

But why are incorrect facts and figures about 2001 county spending put out publicly to the commission, to the press, and to the citizens of Hamblen County nine months after the 2001 fiscal year had ended?

What is the correct figure? Is it $16.5 million? Or is there something that doesn't show in the audit?

Everyone makes mistakes. Small ones are usually ignored. I have certainly made my share of mistakes.

But what exactly was going on in 2001 in connection with Hamblen County finances?

Surely at some point truthfulness about the county's finances is important. Was the audit wrong? Is there an accurate record anywhere of the county's expenditures in 2001?

The next post will be about the 2002 audit, the last audit by the local, private auditors. At the end of fiscal year 2002 on 6/30/02, the county showed its largest spending deficit since 1992 as the county spent $923,000 more than it took in.

And isn't it ironic that this huge $923,000 deficit came on 6/30/02 ----- just 10 weeks after Tribune headlines trumpeted that county spending was "within bounds"!