Mayor Declares Grambling Is Still Without An Auditor
The ongoing struggle for power between Grambling’s Town Council and Grambling’s Mayor has taken a strange and potentially explosive turn over the selection of a 3rd party auditor for the Town of Grambling. There is no dispute as to the legal procedure for such a selection as spelled out by the Lawrason Act by which the Town of Grambling is governed and state law LSA R.S. 33:404 (A) (3); the Mayor recommends and the Council approves or disapproves the Mayor’s selection.
At the time of Grambling’s Regular Meeting last February, no auditor had been selected as reflected in the Meeting Minutes. During the most recent Regular Meeting March 4, 2010 the Grambling Town Council unanimously approved the Meeting Minutes for Grambling’s Regular Meeting February 4, 2010 which reads (as pertaining to this matter):
“6. It was moved by Council member Jones and seconded by Council member Bryant to retain Allen, Green & Williamson as the auditors for 2009; the Mayor stated that she wanted to recommend Marsha Millican, CPA as the auditor for 2009.”
The reason no auditor had been selected for Grambling is because the Mayor and Council were not in agreement. After the Town Council voted for their choice, the February Meeting Minutes read: “The Board of the Council voted unanimous to retain Allen, Green & Williamson and the Mayor stated her unreadiness that she want to recommend Mrs. Marsha Millican, CPA, to perform the audit for 2009.”
In those February 2010 Meeting Minutes, the Grambling Mayor Martha Andrus is on record twice voicing her recommendation for Millican, with the Council voting to retain Allen, Green & Williamson. To settle the dispute during that February Regular Meeting, Grambling Town Attorney James H. Colvin Jr. stated “for the record” at that point Grambling did not have an auditor because the Mayor and the Council did not agree. Pretty simple right? Not so fast!
Six days later on February 10, 2010 Attorney Colvin recanted his statement about Grambling not having an auditor in a formal memo based on his interpretation of an Attorney General’s opinion and events he says took place during the January 2010 Regular Meeting. The memo reflects he “advised (Grambling officials) that no auditor had been retained as the law requires the Mayor to recommend and the Council to approve any auditor hired by the City” and after outlining various statutes and opinions, Colvin concluded the memo as follows:
“Thus, it is our opinion, that the City actually retained an auditor at the January, 2010 meeting, subject to the approval of the terms of engagement by the Legislative Auditor and the Council. At the January meeting, the Mayor proposed or recommended two applicants and the City Council approved one. At that time, a contract and appointment was made. As the Council approved the appointment in January and approved the terms of the appointment in February, the Mayor is required to execute the terms of engagement letter with Allen, Green & Williamson. Once that agreement is signed, the Town Clerk must provide a copy of same to the Legislative Auditor for approval.”
According to Grambling Town Attorney Colvin’s statements in this memo, the Mayor made a rather unusual and quite unprecedented proposal or recommendation of not one auditor to the Council but two auditors during the January 7, 2010 Regular Meeting, and the Council chose the one they wanted. There are two major problems resulting from such an inference.
First, if it were true that Mayor Andrus proposed or recommended two auditors, the critical determination of the legality for such an out-of-the-box proposal was NOT discussed in Colvin’s memo.
How could two recommendations satisfy the law when Colvin’s own memo states: [In analyzing the requirements for a Mayor to make a recommendation to a city council to retain an auditor, the Attorney General opined that “once the mayor provides a recommendation which is subsequently approved by the Board of Aldermen a contract is formed.” La. Atty. Gen. Op. 91-77 (07/08/91).]
Is Colvin changing what the law says and making something that is outside legal parameters valid? If the law provides for the Mayor to make “a” recommendation (single tense) for “an” auditor (single tense), how can it also be legal for the Mayor to make multiple recommendations? Where did this new law or rule allowing multiple recommendations come from?
Even elementary school children know that making “a” recommendation is not the same as making ‘two’ or more recommendations. The Grambling Town Attorney says Mayor Andrus made two recommendations for auditor during the January 2010 Regular Meeting, thus giving way for the Council to make their choice and Allen, Green & Williamson is now Grambling’s auditor for 2009 according to Colvin’s legal opinion.
Here is the second problem facing Grambling as a result of Colvin’s memo and his insistence that Mayor Andrus recommended two auditors: Are the words of a Town Attorney law and are governmental officials and the citizens obliged to abide by the opinion of a Town Attorney if he/she is mistakenly or otherwise wrong?
This is one of many situations in the Town of Grambling where the road has forked and permanently recorded decisions have been made. Did Mayor Andrus actually make two recommendations during that January 2010 Regular Meeting? Attorney Colvin was present during that meeting, the Grambling Town Clerk recorded certain events as well, and in plain public view a digital voice recorder recorded the entire meeting.
So What’s Really Going On?
During the March 4, 2010 Regular Meeting, fireworks flew over this issue. Attorney Colvin verbalized his report to the public and Grambling officials; he reiterated his position as stated in his 2/10/10 memo that he now believed Allen, Green & Williamson had been retained by Grambling.
Mayor Andrus refuted Colvin’s statements by verbally reading the February Meeting Minutes that had just been approved by the Council where (as quoted above) the Mayor is recorded twice by the Clerk to only have made one recommendation for a 2009 auditor. After reading those Minutes, Mayor Andrus stated again very clearly that she only recommended Milican, and Attorney Colvin then turned to the Mayor and said “I disagree Mayor.”
During an interview with Mayor Andrus after this Meeting, she explained why two auditors were even in the mix.
Mayor Andrus said she was discussing her reasons for recommending Millican for auditor over Allen, Green & Williamson with the Council during the January 2010 Regular Meeting. Mrs. Millican was the only auditor that provided a bid for the position; Allen, Green & Williamson had the same opportunity to provide a bid but did not, and Mayor Andrus liked Millican’s bid.
According to the voice record, Mayor Andrus did not recommend two auditors, but simply updated the Council as to what progress had been made in the selection process and stated that two auditors were under consideration because they were the only two who responded to Grambling’s outreach for audit services. And because Marsha Millican CPA provided a proposal and Allen, Green & Williamson had not, Mayor Andrus clarified by saying the Council voted to request a proposal from Allen, Green & Williamson – not to approve them as auditor yet.
To some, it appears that Grambling Attorney Colvin is attempting to override the outcome of two legally approved Regular Meeting Minutes (January & February 2010) which reflect that Mayor Andrus did not recommend two auditors but only Millican, whom the Council was opposed to. This controversial mess has even caused some to accuse Attorney Colvin of “strong-arming the Mayor” in order to appease the Council.
Attorney Colvin spoke briefly with The Fount and informed us that the matter is being forwarded to the Louisiana Attorney General’s office for resolution. We asked Colvin why he believes the Mayor made two recommendations for auditor and he referred us back to the January 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes which reads as follows pertaining to that matter:
“1. The Mayor stated there were approximately 22 solicitation letters sent to Qualified Auditors; she also stated Allen, Green, & Williamson and Marsha Millican, CPA were the only 2 (two) applicants who returned with an interest to perform the audit for 2009. It was moved by Council member Jones and seconded by Council member Bradley to retain Allen, Green & Williamson as the auditors for 2009. The Mayor stated that we need a proposal from the firm”
Somehow, from the above quoted section of the January 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes, (the only portion of the Minutes pertaining to this matter) Grambling Town Attorney Colvin concludes and adamantly insists Mayor Andrus made two recommendations for an auditor; he believes that the Council-approved February 2010 Meeting Minutes indicating she only recommended one auditor and the Mayor’s verbal statements to the same are invalid and says “I stand by my opinion.”
However, in reference to the exact same quoted section of the January 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes, Grambling Mayor Andrus says voice recordings and legally approved Meeting Minutes by the Council prove she never made two recommendations for auditor, that during the January Regular Meeting she was only updating the Council as to the progress made up to that point, that the Council was only voting on a request to obtain a proposal for services by Allen, Green & Williamson, that she only recommended Marsha Millican CPA and finally, that any preemptive recommendation/vote generated by the Council that excludes the Mayor’s requisite input is improper and invalid. “Therefore, Grambling is still without an auditor.” says Andrus.
Mayor Andrus vowed to follow up by letter officially declaring to the Grambling Council and to Allen, Green & Williamson that Grambling is still without an auditor for the reasons stated above.
Why is the Mayor opposed to Allen, Green & Williamson being Grambling’s auditor for 2009 and why does the Council want them? Why is the Council opposed to Marsha Millican CPA and the Mayor in favor of her? Please stay tuned for the next segment.
—The Fount Copyright 2010
All Rights Reserved – Syndication Available Upon Request
The Fount Online News 