"Contracts are geared to protect engineer's interests instead of Madison County taxpayers."
The report goes on to list that the cozy relationship Mr. Warnock has with his enablers on the Madison County Board of Supervisors has, in fact, resulted in his interest coming before taxpayers. But, one has to wonder why the auditor didn't want to come to that conclusion.
View Report: HERE
Related Posts: MCH: State audit probing county contracts
JJ: Stacy Pickering: What the hell?
State Auditor's office sends a response team to Madison County to look at Warnock and Associates Contracts
Warnock tells WLBT he embraces audit, but will there be a full investigation?
Madison County Journal-Report questions engineering fees
I read the performance report (not just a press release announcing the report). I thought it was interesting. I thought it was also interesting that someone thought a certain phrase was missing becasue I saw it and worse throughout the report. If you read the report, you will find these comments: 2nd page of the Executive Summary, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph: "The copies of signed, executed contracts provided to OSA by the County often included significant typographical errors, erroneous titles or subjects, missing information, and generally appeared to be more directed at protecting the engineer’s interests than that of the Madison County taxpayers."
ReplyDeleteBottom of P. 24, top of 25: "OSA finds that often, while the standard form was used, these contracts did not appear to have been carefully crafted or edited to protect Madison County taxpayers." (This was actually a finding also)
Page 27: "OSA has already concluded that most of the contracts that were reviewed are more
protective of the engineer than they are of the County."
Page 30: "The copies of signed, executed contracts provided to OSA by the County often included significant typographical errors, erroneous titles or subjects, missing information, and generally appeared to be more directed at protecting the engineer’s interests than that of the Madison County taxpayers."
Page 34: "How well constructed were the selected contracts compared to an industry standard
contract? While the majority of contracts reviewed were, on the surface, replicas of
such a contract, OSA found that by leaving in non-applicable terms and conditions,
failing to complete certain areas where information might be required, typographical
errors, etc., in those areas that were customized, and a lack of attention to details of
what was allowed to be billed, the County agreed to weak contracts that not only do not
strongly protect the taxpayers of the County, but that could have allowed for duplicate
payments, overpayments, and liability risks. Regardless of whether these weaknesses
were actualized, the risk remains due to the contract construction."
Why no criminal investigation? It's obvious the money was misused, but where did it go? Why doesn't the auditor want to finish the job?
ReplyDeleteIf the Auditor doesn't have the cahonies to subpoena the subcontracts, then the District D.A. should do it!
ReplyDelete