Has any of the messy mud that forever has blighted the reputation of the city of Bell in the last six months splattered onto City Hall in Culver City since both governments employed the same now-notorious auditing firm, Mayer Hoffman McCann?
Should potential-guilt-by-association be allowed to arouse suspicion?
Or is it just another odious canard that mothers used to warn their children about, but that died when you outgrew your youth?
City Councilman Andy Weissman has been seriously studying City Hall, from the inside and out, probably longer than any prominent person in Culver City. When approached this morning, he was ready with stern responses.
He delivered a list of reasons that demonstrate, he said, how and why Bell’s forever scandal separates itself gapingly from Culver City where, additionally, an obscure state office has suggested that the Redevelopment Agency has deviated from arcane state regulations.
Leaving no doubt about his unshakeable conviction in the innocence of City Hall, Mr. Weissman said there is virtually no commonality between Bell and Culver City, except — flukishly, perhaps — for employing the same auditing firm, Mayer Hoffman.
“In Bell, by all accounts, you have a completely disinterested, uninvolved constituency,” the Councilman said. “A story in the Los Angeles Times this week said Bell has little to no press. Nobody was watching the henhouse.
“By contrast here in Culver City, you have an engaged community. You certainly have media attention.”
Even an unusual revolving-door scenario at the top of City Hall turns out to be a truth-proving weapon for Mr. Weissman.
“Through unfortunate circumstances,” he said, “in the last two years, we have had four city managers — the end of Jerry Fulwood’s term, Mark Scott, Lamont Ewell and John Nachbar.
“If there had been some questionable activities, certainly Scott, Ewell and Nachbar would have noticed it and they would have called it to our attention.
“You have labor organizations, bargaining groups, all of whom are now in the midst of negotiations. During the last two years, they have been called on to make, or to consider, wage and benefit concessions in view of the financial difficulties the city has been having.
“If there were questionable activities, you would have expected them to come to light. Nobody, at any point, has ever suggested that Culver City needs to be careful because it is walking a fine line in regard to any matter.
“I think a comparison is ludicrous. Merely because the auditor was the same just puts us in a position to verify the audit.”
City Manager John Nachbar last week instructed Chief Financial Officer to find an independent CPA firm to retrace Mayer Hoffman’s marks on the books of City Hall to certify them as correct.
“Hiring an independent party to verify the audit does not have any negative implications for how the city functions and how the city has accounted for its income and expenses,” Mr. Weissman said.
Question: If you have a notorious group investigating the city’s books, doesn’t that create an aura of potential liability?
“It raises questions regarding the integrity of the audit process. Now the city is spending time and money to have a third-party auditor check the work of Mayer Hoffman. When that review is concluded, the audit firm will tell us ‘We have checked it all out. We agree there is nothing here.’
“Or they will tell us, ‘We think more information is needed with respect to this area or that area.’”
Mayer Hoffman has audited City Hall’s books for the past three years, and Mr. Nachbar said the contract will not be renewed when it (soon) expires. Should association with Mayer Hoffman stain City Hall?
“No, it should not. We accept that the work of Mayer Hoffman has come under scrutiny. Because it has and to assure ourselves and our constituency in Culver City that the work done for Culver City by Mayer Hoffman is good and accurate, we are bringing in a firm to, in essence, do the audit all over again. What is the problem?”
If Mayer Hoffman missed or winked at egregious discrepancies in Bell, why couldn’t they have overlooked something elephant-sized in City Hall?
“Isn’t that what the new audit is going to do, whether there was a problem the size of a mouse or an elephant? If this third party concludes isn’t a problem, or wasn’t a problem, is that the end of the story?”
Turning to the 90-day-old report from the state Senate Office for Oversight and Outcomes blaming the Redevelopment Agency for spending earmarked funds on supposedly non-state approved services, Mr. Weissman shrugged at it.
“It is a report, just a report,” he said. “There is no investigation, no following. The report criticized the way the city spent redevelopment dollars. Our financial people and our Redevelopment Agency counsel all opined that they disagree. They don’t think the report is accurate. They don’t think the money was improperly spent. Somebody may disagree. But just because a report said something critical, does not , in and of itself, make it so.”
