Finance Chair Michael Peterson - Master of the Lie and the Smokescreen

Acting chair of the Board of Finance Michael Peterson says in a letter to the editor of the New Haven Register today that he has "never indicated that I was opposed" to conducting a forensic audit.

Originally I thought this was just another case of the politician's double negative. Peterson may never have indicated he was opposed to a forensic audit, I thought, but he has made it clear that he is not in favor. And in the original form of this blog entry, I looked into what he said in his response to my letter requesting the hiring of a forensic auditor.

But my analysis of his subtle wordmanship is now meaningless, since I learned from reading a transcript of the April 5 Board of Finance meeting, about setting up the auditor subcommittee, that Mr. Peterson has in fact opposed hiring a forensic auditor. Nothing subtle in the following exchange:

Michael Peterson: “One of the things that we would like is a, as Kevin just said, is to have a subcommittee put together that would include Mike Freda and Tim. ... this is the time when we normally would appoint the auditor for this year. So rather than do that we’ll do a RFP to, look at other auditing fir...you know, to come up with a spec...to look at other auditing firms, as to what we want them to do in addition to the audit. You know, perhaps some review of procedural policies and how they’ve been administered and that type of thing. So, if you [the two Democrats on the Board of Finance] want to caucus, we’ll adjourn for 15 minutes to allow you to go over what you’ve just gotten." ...

Janet McCarty: “I have a question, are you looking at forensic auditors?”

Michael Peterson: No!

No, Peterson did not even want to have forensic auditors considered by the audit subcommittee, which is why they were not provided with a list of forensic auditors. Peterson's letter to the editor is as dishonest as the budget he and his colleagues have presented to the town. Peterson owes this town yet another apology, but don't hold your breath. He still seems to think he can get away with saying and doing (and not doing) anything.

There is, however, another, actually more serious issue that arises in Peterson's letter. Peterson seems to have changed his tune, but this is merely another smokescreen, one of the North Haven Republicans' specialties, along with defamation.

His solution has one principal goal: to put off the forensic auditor's report until after the November election. How? By having it be done by the new annual auditor and appear in the annual audit report at the end of the year. No revelations until the election is over -- what more could the people responsible for what happened want?

In addition to the timing, there is a conflict having the same firm that becomes North Haven's annual auditor do a forensic audit. The firm that wins the North Haven contract is not going to have a strong incentive to make its new employer look bad, which is the goal of a forensic audit. A forensic audit must be separate from an annual audit.

Peterson and Kopetz (who supported the same thing in his latest weekly column) know this, but the Republicans' reelection is more important to them than getting to the bottom of what happened and moving forward to gain the public trust. They want what happened to stay under wraps until after the election. This cannot be allowed, not for the Democrats, but for the town.