Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Pittsburgh won't audit water authority debt deal

Pittsburgh won't audit water authority debt deal Pittsburgh City Council voted tentatively against commissioning an audit of a Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority debt deal today, denying Councilman Patrick Dowd the review he has sought of the $414 million borrowing.
The finance deal smelled bad when I first saw it. All authority dealings need to be put under a microscope. Hell, I'm in favor of getting rid of all the authorities. Liquidate them all.

Plus, a good way to put real accountability into the authorities is not to micromanage each deal. Rather, put some real democracy into the operation of the respective boards. All authority board members should have to face the citizens after being appointed and pass regular 'retention votes.'

The board members need to watch the authorities. Now, however, we've got goofy governance.

Patrick Dowd is a board member of the Water & Sewer Authority. He should insist that they audit themselves.

But most of all, when it comes to audit capacity and powers -- engage the city controller. Mike Lamb, my loyal opponent, used the word AUDIT every other sentence when he was running for office. Get the controller and Lamb to do the blasted audits. We can hold Lamb accountable for audits -- or not re-elect him.

If there is a lack of audits, and I bet that could be the case, as Dowd is trying to make, then blame Michael Lamb, the city's controller.

The job of City Council is NOT to run audits. No way. The job of council is to handle the purse strings and to write legislation.

If council wants to choke the authority -- do so with votes at the purse strings. Dowd didn't deploy his true power when he should and could have. Votes matter.

1 comment:

Mark Rauterkus said...

I would love to see the city sue for copyright infringement on a re-broadcasting of a city council meeting. That will be the day we get a new city solicitor, for sure.

If I was elected, I'd move to put a public domain statement on everything that the city does.

I'm a big fan of public domain.

As to the P-G interview, the first point would be a claim of fair use. There, humor helps. It is sorta a lampoon in a sick and twisted kinda way. The P-G lawyers are better served looking at employee buy-outs now, not campaign issue noise finding its way on YouTube.

Hell, Matt (or whomever), might want to send the P-G a bill for advertising its P-G web and turning the content into something that others should take notice of.

BTW, I remember when this came before council from the PWSA. It smelled bad then.

Laggard vs. Young Fluke. Humm...

I think that the YouTube clip is effective as a dis-credit to the mount of the campaign. We're watching. How one handles the bumps in the road are telling the most, it seems to me. There are sure to be other chapters.

Set the stage for the debates. They become more important as time shrinks. Carmen could rise as the two men sustain their blazing boyhood ways.