By Barbara Cleves Anderson, San Carlos

Mike Aguirre. While I agree there are some good arguments in favor of making the auditor independent. There are other ways of doing that without making it an elected position. By making it a pulpit for political positioning you run the substantial risk of self-interested, or ulterior-motivated running for and winning the office. Can you imagine someone like Mike Aguirre being our elected auditor if he didn't like whoever the mayor was, or didn't agree with the policies being pursued? So, an elected auditor will never make sense here, at least not until MA is a distant, distant memory. Any other ideas to achieve independence? Best, Algernon Sidney

Posted by I have the answer: | reply to this comment
May 7, 2008 5:52 pm

It is important to Vote No on Prop C which allows the Mayor to control the "independent" Auditor. Unfortunately, It IS the fox in the henhouse AND it would be set in stone in the City Charter -- a place it isn't at present. Once it's in the Charter, as proponents well understand, it will be, well, set in stone. Prop C requires a new layer of "decider" fingers in the pie, so to speak -- an elaborate, confusing, unnecessary and potentially loaded intermediary "Audit Committee" of people who will mostly be mayoral appointees or friends. This "Committee" will seek and recommend the Auditor -- subject to some other people's confirmation -- and will be able to maneuver the Auditor's dismissal, again subject to some other people's ratification. Lacking direct public accountability and genuine Auditor independence, we must Vote No on Prop C.

Posted by Fed Up But Hopeful | reply to this comment
May 7, 2008 9:59 pm

There is nothing wrong with an appointed City Auditor, confirmed by the City Council. Why do we need another politician? How about a headhunt for a good Auditor? I believe in representative government where I elect a leader who can then make appointments. I don't have to elect every person involved in government. I expect those I elect to make good decisions. If they do not, then they don't get re-elected. Is there something wrong with that?

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
May 7, 2008 11:33 pm

Yes, Ann there is a problem with it -- you said 'I don't have to elect every person involved in government. I expect those I elect to make good decisions. If they do not, then they don't get re-elected. Is there something wrong with that?" // The politicians have serially made bad decisions AND they have often been re-elected. Look at the Peters/ Mainschein candidacies for current example.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 8:55 am

So your answer to that is to have another elected official who is not appointed by an elected official? How is that better again? I'm not sure you are helping the argument. It's not a perfect system as sometimes even dead people get elected. I'm not always happy with the choices people make but I like the system. I think the bad decisions of Peters/Mainschein are overblown. If you look at every Council persons record, someone will be able to find "bad decisions" and they don't act alone. So what if we elect a bad Auditor and then the bad Auditor gets reelected?

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 10:43 pm

My concern is what happens if a very skilled, yet dishonest person gets elected to the Auditor position? Accounting is very complex, and it is way too easy to use numbers to decieve. If the Auditor is appointed and is found out to be dishonest, he/she can be 1. fired and 2. charged with criminal and/or civil charges. The process to remove and prosecute an elected official takes so long that the damage done would worsen

Posted by kb | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 7:15 am

The audit committee, the council and the Independent Budget Analyst should all have a role in hiring the Independent Auditor. The mayor should not hire the IA and the IA should not be elected. We need a qualified auditor that is not beholden to any one entity.

Posted by Barbara C. Anderson | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 8:43 am

Prop. C is another power grab by the Mayors office. We need a truly independent auditor to make sure things like stealing from the water department, over charging home owners and undercharging business for water,giving insiders free reign @ DSD and out and out lying about the pension fund/healthcare of retired city employess. Someone along the lines of Mike Agurrie would make sure that reports on city money would be transparent to all who want to look. If the Mayor appoints the auditor he/she would be the Mayor's toadie and we would get more of what we have seen in the past 10-14 years. The auditor should be independent of political pressure and manipulation by one man. Prop C is just "BUSINEES AS USUAL @ ENRON BY THE BAY"

Posted by Will Dawson | reply to this comment
May 21, 2008 1:06 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.