LET TERS
BIG TIMBER ENTITLEMENT
Kelly Kenoyer’s article “Rx: Fire”
(June 22) hopefully generated some inter-
est in prescribed burning in people other
than foresters and ecologists.
The general public can learn more by
reading Indians, Fire and The Land In
The Pacific Northwest, edited by Robert
Boyd. It is a collection of scholarly articles
detailing how Native Americans used fire
to manage resources for their hunter/gath-
erer lifestyle for thousands of years before
the white man came to the area.
Another article in the same issue about
the Goose timber sale makes it obvious, if
you read between the lines, that both the
Forest Service and private timber compa-
nies feel a sense of entitlement to lands
they took from Native Americans for a
song.
Read between the lines in The Lewis
and Clark Journals and Otter Skins, Bos-
ton Ships, and China Goods by James R.
Gibson, and other similar books about the
slow takeover of the Pacific Northwest by
VIEWPOINT
European fur hunters, traders and settlers.
They all felt the territory was wide open
and theirs for the taking.
Chuck West
Eugene
MAYOR’S EMPTY RHETORIC
I was quite surprised yet baffled to read
Eugene Mayor Lucy Vinis’ guest view-
point (“Do More,” June 26-22).
My surprise was that the mayor’s view-
point came out of the blue and seemed to
be a defensive reaction to the pending bal-
lot initiative for a publicly elected city au-
ditor, although she was careful not to make
any such reference. And, if she is as en-
thusiastic as she sounded, she could have
attended the Gary Blackmer independent
city auditor presentation, which was held
at the library several weeks ago.
I was baffled that either the mayor
didn’t seem to understand why an “inside”
city auditor (or performance auditor) will
in fact be tainted and diminished by city
control, or that she is not sincere about re-
viving trust and accountability in Eugene’s
city government.
I appreciate her stated goal “to improve
our (the city’s) framework for communi-
cating and accounting…etc.” However,
that sounds more like empty political rhet-
oric, and does very little to revive taxpayer
trust. If anything, her proposed perfor-
mance auditor, as a hedge against an inde-
pendent auditor, may instead further erode
trust in the city.
An independent auditor who is free
from city control is the only way the mayor
will achieve her goal of reviving trust and
accountability.
Brian Weaver
Eugene
EUGENE NEEDS
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
As someone who has long seen the
need for an elected city auditor, I was dis-
appointed by Mayor Lucy Vinis’ June 22
column. She mentions the trend towards
electing auditors as a way of ensuring their
independence, but fails to inform readers
of the recently filed citizen-led initiative
to create an elected independent auditor in
Eugene.
No doubt she’s aware. It’s been in the
news, and the mayor, councilors and city
manager were all invited to the May 17 li-
brary presentation by government auditing
expert Gary Blackmer. The former auditor
for Portland, Multnomah County and the
State of Oregon showed how elected audi-
tors make cities more accountable to their
citizens and significantly improve services,
with cost savings covering the auditor’s
salary several times over.
How unfortunate that Vinis appears to
want an essentially handpicked group of
“shareholders” to write a competing initia-
tive. I don’t see how they could improve
on giving Eugene voters the opportunity to
elect a qualified independent auditor.
Only a publicly elected auditor — an-
swerable to the citizens rather than the
council or city manager — will provide
the objective, unbiased reporting needed
BY BONNY MCCORNACK
‘Accountability’ vs. the Real Deal
A RESPONSE TO MAYOR LUCY VINIS ON A CITY AUDITOR
R
eaders of Lucy Vinis’s June 22 viewpoint may have thought the mayor
was voicing support for the citizens’ initiative petition, filed in May,
that would amend the Eugene City Charter to establish an Office of an
Independent elected city auditor. But the mayor’s intent, in sync with
city officials, is to undermine the citizens’ effort with their own self-
serving version of an audit function.
In 2002, the city refused to pursue an auditor function, despite sending various
other charter amendments to the voters. City officials have ducked this issue for the
ensuing 15 years while presiding over escalating community distrust due to a lack of
transparency and accountability. Suddenly, six weeks after citizens filed their peti-
tion, city officials have a newfound zeal for having an auditor.
The subtext of Vinis’s editorial is the introduction of a city-orchestrated-and-
subsidized process to create a subordinate auditor position — in order to thwart the
citizens’ initiative for a truly independent and autonomous City Auditor’s Office.
It is important that the public understands the differences between the city’s sub-
ordinate auditor — beholden to city officials and the citizens’ proposal for an elected
city auditor who is independent of council and/or manager control, and accountable
to the public.
City officials will aggressively oppose opening their books to anyone they cannot
influence, manage, penalize, fire, demote, stonewall or otherwise control.
For starters, an auditor who is appointed by the City Council and/or the city man-
ager can see their responsibilities or position eliminated whenever a new manager or
different council takes office. With the citizens’ charter amendment only the voters
can fire the auditor.
Vinis specifically rejects auditor oversight of “financial audits” saying, “We al-
ready have a strong audit department in our finance division.”
Her bias underscores our initiative’s emphasis on transparency and accountabil-
ity. When auditors are subordinate it is city officials who decide whether or not to
make audit reports public. Have you ever seen a finance division audit made public?
In contrast, the city accountability petition measure guarantees that all audit reports,
follow-ups, schedules and findings are available to the public and posted on the audi-
tor’s website.
Vinis thinks that the auditor shouldn’t have oversight of financial audits because
the city has it covered. But, the city’s primary financial audit, the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is limited to determining whether the city followed
4
June 29, 2017 • eugeneweekly.com
certain accounting procedures. The CAFR’s auditors are contracted by the manager
and he provides them the data. Verifying the thoroughness and accuracy of the data
is not the objective of those audits.
In stark contrast, the citizens’ initiative authorizes the elected city auditor to con-
duct, or cause to be conducted, financial, compliance, performance, special studies
or other audits of all aspects of the city of Eugene’s government operations. Which
means the elected city auditor can go to the source and verify the data’s accuracy.
The city is laying the groundwork for an audit position that is subordinate to the
manager and/or council, possibly with an appointed “audit committee.” In such a
case, the City Council and/or manager (and cherry-picked committee) will determine
what the auditor may audit and, more importantly, what the auditor must not inves-
tigate. Such an auditor would have no control over their ability to access materials,
evidence, and witnesses to complete an audit.
Alternatively, the citizens’ initiative authorizes the auditor to have complete con-
trol over which audits to pursue and when. It also guarantees that the auditor has the
authority to compel access to all data, material, witnesses, or evidence necessary to
complete an audit.
Vinis casually suggests the city could share an auditor with Lane County. It’s a
bad idea, and serves to demonstrate the downside of having a competent, but subor-
dinate, auditor who is forced to adhere to a limited objective as defined by the com-
mission/committee — and where the data is provided by the supervising officials.
Here is a direct quote from “Lane County Financial Indicators Audit,” which is typi-
cal of this circumstance;
“As nearly all financial information presented is from the CAFR, we relied on
the work performed by the County’s external financial auditors. We reviewed other
information for reasonableness and consistency. We did not independently audit the
accuracy of source documents.”
In other words, they were not authorized by the commissioners to turn over any
rocks or look under the rug. They did not investigate whether current department
budgets are being spent cost-effectively.
Eugene’s elected independent city auditor will be authorized to follow the money
— if the ballot measure passes.
Former City Councilor Bonny Bettman McCornack is a chief petitioner along with former City Councilor
George Brown and neighborhood leader David Monk, for the citizens' initiative to establish a Eugene Audi-
tor’s Office headed by an independent, elected city auditor. For more info: cityaccountability.org