August 25, 2006 Thank You to the Voters of the 14th District

At yesterday's August meeting of the Hamblen County Commission, I shared my thoughts and feelings about my decision not to run for re-election and my hopes for the future.

I want to share with my blog readers the statement that I read aloud and that I asked to be included in the official minutes:

Linda Noe Statement of August 24, 2006

I would like to express my gratitude to the voters of the 14th district for their support in electing me in 2002.

I have remained true to every campaign promise I made.

While I chose not to run again for personal reasons, I am still concerned about the handling of public money.

Accountability was my focus then and accountability is my focus today.

We have made some positive strides, but there is a long way to go.

Our system of government provides for a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by any of the three branches of government—executive, judicial, legislative.

The Hamblen County Commission should be a vital part in promoting accountability and ensuring that our system of checks and balances works to protect our tax dollars.

I encourage the incoming commission to reject the title of “rubber stamp commission.”

Work with the Mayor but expect the Mayor to work with you as well.

Co-operation is a two-way street. Ask questions and expect and demand answers.

You can’t do your job if you don’t know what’s going on with county finances. Listen to the answers and let common sense be your guide.

If the answer doesn’t pass the smell test, don’t hold your nose and go on. Ask more questions and get rid of the smell.

It is your duty to be a part of the system of checks and balances, not an elected spectator or puppet for power mongers.

I am proud that with the support of other commissioners, many of my goals were achieved over the past four years such as:

Hiring state auditors to handle the county audit and saving the county $72,000.

Airing commission meetings on local cable TV.

Opening up the bidding process in many areas to save the county money.

Using an open and fair process for hiring architects and engineers.

During part of the time that I served on commission, I attended law school, graduated, and passed the bar exam. The law license has my name on it, but it was achieved with the support of a loving family.

I thank my husband Ron, my son Will and his wife Katie Kanipe-Noe, and my twin daughters Jenny and Katie for their patience and encouragement over the past years.

I thank my mother Helen Catron for her support as well, and I gratefully honor my late father Bill Catron for his encouragement through the years.

Now with the support of a loving family, it is time for me to use that degree.

I will always be proud of having served on the Hamblen County Legislative Body.

As a citizen and taxpayer, I will remain concerned and involved in the public’s business.

To the new commissioners: the people have elected you. You owe them your loyalty and faithful service.

I hope that above all else that you believe in and will support open government.

Support Tennessee’s Open Meetings and Open Records Laws.

Keep the TV camera running at your commission meetings.

Tape and show your committee meetings---you know that that is where the most discussion of issues and deliberation occurs.

There are some goals that weren’t fully achieved in the past four years. I hope you will consider making more use of the county website. Put commission agendas, minutes of committee and commission meetings, and financial records on the web.

Consider having meetings at times that are most convenient for the largest number of working people.

Open the government up to the people you were elected to serve.

Encourage other elected officials--the Morristown City Council and the Hamblen County School Board—to put their meetings on TV.

You have been given a great honor by being elected to the Hamblen County Commission.

Serve openly, listen carefully, avoid conflicts of interest, and control spending and taxes.

I wish you well.

Linda Noe

October 28, 2005 State Auditors-They Have Reduced Our Audit Costs and Helped Us Improve Financial Procedures

One of my key campaign promises in the May 2002 primary election was to have state auditors come in and perform Hamblen County's required annual audit. After taking office, I introduced, and the commission approved, a resolution to enter into a 3-year contract with the state auditors.

Many positives have resulted from Hamblen County's switch from local private auditors to state auditors in October 2002. It seems that all the commissioners now recognize this, and Commission recently unanimously approved entering into another 3-year audit contract with the state for 2006-2008.

This change has had many benefits:

#1 Lower audit costs. The private auditors had charged the county $31,000/year for the required state audit. The state auditors, whose fee is based on the county's population, currently charge around $14,000/year. As a result, the county has saved a total of over $51,000 in audit charges for the past 3 audits (03,04, and 05).

#2 Improved audit procedures. Besides getting a new set of eyes to examine the county's books, which is always good in itself, there is a tremendous benefit in having "specialists" in county audits perform the Hamblen County audit.

The state auditors, who regularly perform county audits in Hamblen County and in other counties as well, are often aware of where financial problem areas are. They also are very aware of the many state laws that apply to county finances.

By the way, use of the term "state auditors" does not mean that these auditors live in Nashville. Generally, the auditors who perform the required audit of the county's books actually live somewhere in the East Tennessee area, and some may even live in Hamblen County. They work under the direction of the Regional Office of the State Comptroller in Knoxville.

#3 Improved accountability in the handling of county funds. The first audit (2003) by the new auditors was a real wake-up call. Hamblen County ended up with more findings and problem areas (29) than any other county in the state.

The flip side of all these findings is that the county was made aware of many specific weaknesses in financial controls that had not been pointed out before.

Some of the 29 findings in the first audit (2003) included:

1. Violations of state law where expenditures of up to $296,264 were made without the required appropriation by county commission and where transfers of appropriations were made without approval by county commission.
2. An overdraft of $34,737 in the Capital Projects Fund.
3. No central purchasing to control and keep purchases within budgeted amounts.
4. Deficiencies in controls over travel and credit card use.

The second audit by the state (2004) resulted in 15 findings.

Some were new findings: 1. A debt payment of $76,615 was paid twice (but we got the money back); 2. An interest payment of $45,236 was made by mistake out of the special debt service fund (we had gotten all but $408 back from the City of Morristown according to the audit); 3. Money was switched around--without the required approval of county commission-- from the general fund ($89,986) and general debt service fund ($274,730) to the capital projects fund to "restore" those accounts to the original appropriations of commission because, according to County Mayor David Purkey, payments had somehow been made in error out of these funds over the past several years.

There were also some repeat findings: 1. Deficiencies in purchasing. 2. Deficiencies in travel and credit card use. 3. Unauthorized expenditures and spending money that was not appropriated through county commission.

The state auditors are currently working on the 2005 audit for the fiscal year that ended 6/30/05.

Coming...A look at past audits. What I found, what audits tell you, and what they don't tell you!

September 15, 2005 Several departments respond quickly to vehicle request

See my post of September 13: COUNTY INVENTORY.

After reviewing the 6/30/05 County Inventory, I asked Finance Director Nicole Epps at a September 12 Finance Committee meeting if she would get mileage and condition information for all county vehicles listed on the county inventory. [County Commission passed a resolution almost two years ago that it wanted to have this information on an annual basis.]

Nicole Epps' boss (County Mayor David Purkey) was also at the Finance meeting. After I asked her for the information, she told me that it was not required by the auditors and then her boss (County Mayor David Purkey) said that I would have to ask each elected official and department head directly for that information myself.

Well, I'm not shy about asking for information, so I went ahead on September 13 and began sending out e-mails at about 3:35 pm requesting this information from officials and department heads.

About 45 minutes after I sent out my first e-mail request, I received a copy of an e-mail from Finance Director Nicole Epps showing that she was suddenly starting to request the information for me.

I was surprised by her e-mail since I had specifically asked her on September 12 if she would get this information and her response then was that it wasn't "required" and her boss's response (Mayor Purkey) then was that I would have to request it myself from each department.

I e-mailed her back that I had already started to get the information myself like I'd been told to, and we didn't need to duplicate our efforts.

Let's be realistic. County Mayor David Purkey detests financial questions. Since I ask them and actually follow through to get the answers (from others if necessary), County Mayor David Purkey detests me. He has made that evident in three years of vicious personal attacks.

I think that most of the anger that causes him to blow up so often can be traced to my proposal after taking office to have the state auditors perform the county audit in 2003.

The state auditors came in and suddenly Hamblen County, which had only one audit finding or problem reported by the local auditors in the 2002 audit, had 29 findings of irregularities and violations of state law in the 2003 audit. That was more findings than any other county in the whole state.

Mayor Purkey's anger bubbles to the surface every time I ask a question or try to get information. He even got upset when the full commission asked him to do something really simple--like put a county decal on his county car. Now, why in the world did he blow up and refuse to put a Hamblen County decal on the car that the taxpayers provide for him (along with gas, insurance, and maintenance costs, too)? Go figure.

FORTUNATELY, MOST COUNTY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENTS HEADS ARE CO-OPERATIVE, CIVIL, AND POLITE WHEN QUESTIONS ARE ASKED...

In my September 13 post, I mentioned that most elected officials and department heads are responsive and willing to share information about county (taxpayer) property.

Well, I want you to know that one official responded more quickly than anyone could have imagined. Assessor of Property Keith Ely sent the mileage and condition information back on the same day I sent the request. Keith is one of the most open and accessible elected officials around, and he is always willing to discuss and provide information about his office.

I worked with Keith about two months ago when I called him to let him know that I had found what appeared to be a rather large error in the new state-certified property tax rate that the state had sent us and that our Trustee and Finance Department were using in calculating our county revenues and budgeted expenditures. After my call to Keith, he called the state and asked them to review and check our new property tax rate.


The state agreed that it had made an error and sent back a corrected figure that reduced the new property tax rate for Hamblen County taxpayers by 11 cents. That 11 cents meant a total savings to county taxpayers of nearly $1.2 million dollars, and it was all taken care of in one day.


There are several other officials who have already responded to the request for vehicle information: Eric Carpenter (EMA), Danny Young (Planning Commission), and Cyndi Trent (Juvenile Court).

It will probably take a few days for a response from the Sheriff and the Road Superintendent/Garbage Dept. because those are the two departments that have the largest number of vehicles.

There are just one or two other departments that haven't responded yet, but I'm sure they will because, as I have said before, most elected officials and department heads are very open and very willing to share information about county (taxpayer) property.

September 2, 2005 Waiting for the other shoe to drop

What's ahead on the accountability front?

Hamblen County's deficit budget that I spoke out against and voted against on August 4 is going to come back to haunt us sooner than we think.

The Planning Commission will probably come back at some point and ask for more money. (Commissioners Herbert Harville and Joe Spoone serve on the Planning Commission)

Gas prices: It may be time to look at the county's vehicle use policy and possibly eliminate take-home privileges for some vehicles. Departments hopefully are already eliminating anything other than absolutely necessary travel. Families are certainly being forced to cut back and eliminate unnecessary travel and trips. Let's make sure the government does the same.

County Inventory: The county's fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The Finance Director indicated that she would have the county inventory ready by September 1. This is a multi-page document that lists each department and then the county vehicles, tractors, computers, desks, chairs, and other county-owned equipment assigned to that department.

I asked some questions after reviewing the 2004 vehicle inventory. In 2004, the inventory did not show a vehicle assigned to the Juvenile Court Department even though the county budget in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 had appropriated money to the Juvenile Court for the lease-purchase of a vehicle. (The car purchase had been placed in the line-item for "office equipment" but that is another audit story for another day.) I checked with Juvenile Court and they do have a Ford Taurus for transport. Maybe the Juvenile vehicle is listed in another department's inventory like the County Mayor's car is or maybe it was left off the county's inventory entirely.

In another strange twist, the car that County Mayor David Purkey drives is apparently listed in Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory. Since there is nothing in Mayor Purkey's budget for gas, insurance, and maintenance of a vehicle, I guess the gas, insurance, and maintenance for the Mayor's vehicle also comes out of Sheriff Purkey's budget.

There may even be a car or cars (that are not undercover vehicles) that are not listed in any department's inventory.

The state auditors require that the county maintain an inventory as part of the audit process, but the state auditors don't go through our inventory and check that every vehicle, desk, and computer is listed. The accuracy of the list itself is the county's responsibility. This is another example where local officials have to be paying attention and asking questions in order to provide the accountability that the citizens deserve and that the officials, in our system of checks and balances, are elected to provide.

The inventory problem ties in with other recent questions about the 2004 audit. In the 2004 audit, the state auditors reported that the County Mayor switched money (over $360,000) from fund to fund without coming to county commission for approval and without even informing commission of his action. The explanation that County Mayor David Purkey provided to the auditors was that after consulting with Trustee Bill Brittain and Finance Director Nicole Epps, he (Mayor Purkey) ordered the shifting of money (over $360,000) to correct errors in past years and to "restore" those funds to their proper amounts.

The obvious questions that local officials should ask are exactly what errors happened in the past? Was revenue put in the wrong funds or were expenditures paid out of the wrong funds or both? Were these truly mistakes? If so, how did these errors happen-- by Mayor Purkey's own admission -- for years without detection? Were these employee errors or a problem with our accounting system or both? What has been done to make sure that this isn't still happening and that it won't happen again in the future?

Aren't those the questions that you would ask if it were $360,000 of your own money? What happened? How did it happen? If it happened for "years," exactly what has been done to keep this from happening again? It reminds one of the famous Watergate question posed by Sen. Howard Baker: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

July 11, 2005 Response to Financial Questions: SILENCE

The Hamblen County Commission has committee meetings today--finance, personnel & policies, public services, and audit. All meetings are open to the public. They begin at 3:00 in the large courtroom on the 2nd floor in the old portion of the courthouse.

Silence. That is the response thus far to my June request for a review of the recently completed Russellville sewer grant, for documented verification of the total costs of capital improvements/building projects, for a revised (accurate) list of county-owned vehicles to address vehicles that have not been reported in the past or that were placed in the wrong department, and for an answer to what county money was switched around in 2004 and why this was done without authorization by county commission.

Silence is not an appropriate answer to financial questions, but that is the response thus far and that is exactly what I expected. Silence or attacking the messenger has been the favorite tactic of various individuals every time an audit, accounting, or financial question has been asked.

Both of these responses tell us that (1) there is a lot of financial information that no one is willing to talk about or explain openly, (2) there must be a lot to hide if no one is willing to answer questions about county finances, and (3) there are no or, at best, very inadequate controls over county spending.

Our new state auditors have done a terrific job in their first two financial audits (2003 and 2004). However, it's been a struggle to get some of the county officials at the local level to be open and transparent in discussing the state auditors' findings and to be open and transparent in answering questions about the handling of county funds.

The hallmark of accountability is openness. We're not there yet, but we're on the way.

June 22, 2005 State Audit Saves Us Money

Tomorrow is a regular commission meeting. Several important items are on the agenda. For those concerned about accountability--that would be me as in "noe4accountability"-- the biggest item is the county budget amendment process as we determine how amendments to the county's budget will be made and who can make changes. The big question to be answered is whether County Commission retains control and oversight over budget changes or whether we hand all control over to the County Mayor and his office.

I happen to think that the more eyes you have watching how tax dollars are spent, the better, so I will support County Commission retaining control and oversight over amendments that the county mayor brings to us. I will support the Commission and the Mayor acting together in reviewing and approving spending changes (amendments) as has been done in the past. Other Commissioners appear ready to give up Commission's oversight of the shifting of money.

You might wonder why the method of approving budget amendments is coming up at all right now and you might ask how budget amendments are done now. Well, in 2001, a year before I was elected to commission, the county mayor and county attorney drafted a financial management contract listing financial reporting requirements, setting up a finance department and a purchasing agent, outlining budget procedures and amendment procedures, etc. This contract was approved by the previous commission. Unfortunately, when it came to the budget amendment process, there was a problem with the wording in the contract--the wording about how amendments could be done violated state law although what was actually done in everyday practice did not.

The problem with the wording was pointed out to commission by auditors from the state when we received the 2003 county audit (the previous local auditors had never pointed this out). The state auditors said we needed to change the wording of our contract in regard to the amendment process.

NOTE: When I was elected in 2002, the very first thing I proposed was to have these state auditors come in and perform the annual county audit. This passed with an overwhelming majority and the first outside audit by someone other than the local private auditing company covered the 2003 fiscal year and saved the county close to $18,000. That audit was far superior to the previous audits and, as a result, revealed to citizens, taxpayers, and elected officials that handling of the county's finances was, at best, haphazard. The state auditors pointed out that state law was violated when money out of various funds was spent by the county mayor without appropriation or authorization by county commission. The 2003 audit showed a $5 million accounting error by the previous auditor in the posting of the debt of Morristown-Hamblen Hospital. I won't bore you with the other details--you can view the entire 2003 and 2004 audits at http://www.comptroller.state.tn.us/. Let's just leave it at this-- Hamblen County was #1 in the state with a total of 29 audit findings (problems, illegalities, criticisms of procedures, missing money) among Tennessee's 95 counties--a #1 ranking that nobody wants! On the flip side, at least we are now aware of some of the many problems, and we can start turning things around and being more accountable if we choose to.

June 21, 2005, at a budget committee meeting, our county attorney said that our budget amendment wording problem is minor and that we can do one of two things to correct the way our amendment policy is worded: (1) Adopt state law (TCA 5-9-407 a-b) which requires that amendments be brought to commission for approval (which is legal wording and would mean that we would continue to do what we had been doing in the past) or (2) adopt TCA 5-9-407 in its entirety (which is legal wording but this would provide for several different ways for amending the county budget, one of which takes County Commission out of the process and lets the county mayor and/or finance director make budget changes and then tell commissioners what has been done after they've done it.)

If it were your money (and let's remember that all government money IS your money), I'd be surprised if you would spend weeks and months preparing a budget spending plan and then just say to someone, anyone, here's the plan but you just go ahead and spend the money however you want to and then tell me every once in a while what you're doing. That's not accountability--that's commission shirking its responsibility for oversight of the spending of your hard-earned tax dollars. It's an especially questionable method when every Commissioner knows or should know that the 2003 audit had 29 findings and that the 2004 audit points out that the County Mayor and his office were still violating state law, were spending money that hadn't been authorized in five different funds, and were shifting money around between funds without even telling Commission.

On June 23, the Commission will vote on this issue. 11 Commissioners have already indicated in committee that they are willing to hand over fiscal oversight of county spending to the County Mayor and his office, so it seems this measure will pass when Commission votes tomorrow. At that point, Commission will have thrown up the white flag and will have surrendered the current system of checks and balances that have enabled Commission to have some input over spending changes and the shifting of money.

Now, why would Commissioners--who set a tax rate and take your money and who often claim to be "conservative" and "accountable"--vote to give up their current oversight of county spending? Some will say it's because they trust other people to handle this job. That sounds good, but they forget a very famous and very true statement about government that applies here--"trust, but verify." They also forget that our most recent audit for 2004 pointed out that the County Mayor and his office violated state law numerous times in spending money that was never authorized by County Commission and that the County Mayor and his office are still shifting large sums of money around between funds without even informing, much less seeking, County Commission's approval for such transfers. Trust is earned. The 2003 and 2004 audits, which only look at a few sample transactions in the mayor's office, found such serious violations of state law and violations of the county's own procedures that I find it incredible that commissioners can say with a straight face that we should hand all financial dealings over to the Mayor. You don't ask the people who got you into a mess to get you out of it--not when they have been covering up the mess for years.

It's really rather fascinating to watch as the very Commissioners who complain the most about having given up too much of their authority in the past (when the road superintendent became an elected instead of appointed position*) will now vote to give up what few decision-making and oversight duties that they still have. But then maybe accountability was just a word and a convenient campaign slogan for them. I guess they think it would require way too much thought and effort and time on their part to actually be accountable with your tax dollars.

Linda

*I wasn't on Commission when the road superintendent position became an elected one, but I frequently hear comments from those who were on Commission then who say that Commission gave up a lot in making the change from an appointed to an elected road superintendent.