Search the ArchivesNavigation Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Commission: Sheriff’s secrecy bad, but our’s good The Fayette County Board of Commissioners is demanding accountability from the Fayette County Sheriff’s Department. At the very same time, however, the board is refusing to hold itself up to the same standards. The old political dance, the “double standard,” is alive and well. The County Commission recently denied this newspaper’s request to review a copy of a forensic audit of the sheriff’s department’s drug forfeiture fund. We also asked for a copy of the invoice for this forensic audit. The excuse from the county attorney’s office: The audit is protected by attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under Georgia law. That’s a flimsy argument at best. The lawsuit only seeks to have this drug fund administered through the county coffers. The suit does not allege or imply that Sheriff Randall Johnson nor his staff are misspending the money. The suit does not challenge what Johnson is purchasing with the funds, which come from money and items seized from drug dealers in federal raids. So how in the world can this audit reveal anything legally relevant to the lawsuit? No one’s saying. County Commission Chairman Greg Dunn has opined often that this lawsuit is about making the sheriff accountable for his funds. Yet when the tables are turned, the commission shirks its duty to be accountable to Joe and Jane Taxpayer. Dunn says the county won’t release the drug fund audit now because it might endanger the commission’s position in the suit against the sheriff. “Which is not to say that you won’t be able to get it at a later date,” Dunn said when I confronted him last week. He didn’t have an adequate response for how the invoice of the forensic audit is protected from disclosure. Fact is, this audit is on our dime — yours and mine — and we have a legal right to know how much is being spent. Is the County Commission afraid of what the audit, and its cost, will do to sway the court of Public Opinion? Will the results of the audit make the public wonder why we’re spending thousands upon thousands in legal fees to begin with? We are left with little other conclusion. Dunn and commission vice-chair Linda Wells are up for re-election this year. Slamming the books shut and cloaking documents in secrecy won’t fare well for their political careers. They are saying: “You have no right to know. At least, not until we say you do.” Strangely, the law does not force them to make the forensic audit secret. The County Commission simply chooses to do so. It’s not like we’re asking for attorneys’ memos and other insider information on legal strategy. We understand the matter is being litigated, and you can bet thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars are being spent on the lawsuit and related matters. By closing its books and refusing to cough up even the invoice for the audit, the County Commission is saying, “Just trust us. You’ll get to see it later, so what’s the harm?” The harm is in their assumption that just because they were elected means we trust them to do the right thing. If accountability was truly their goal, there would be no problem with releasing the results of the forensic audit. Instead, it appears they’re hiding the forensic audit long enough for the upcoming election to pass by, or at least the qualifying period when prospective candidates must declare their intentions. Taking on the political power of Randall Johnson is one thing. But for Dunn, Wells and company to take on the voters by denying access to records, that’s a horse of another color. I sure as heck hope we get a better pool of candidates to pick from this year. Is there anybody out there who doesn’t mind doing business in the sunshine and is committed to maintaining slow growth? Let’s hope so. login to post comments | John Munford's blog
|
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
