Letter to the editor (March 11, 2017)

Re: DP Article 3/10/17 — Leaked e-mails … support of ballot measure

Through litigation I obtained the 20/20 Network contract, which had a 12/31/2016 termination date, after the Town claimed to not have it. I asked if there was a new contract or an extension by council in closed session, to account for the cost of leaked e-mails in 2017.

The Town’s Director of Communications, whose function is to speak as the Town representative, said she was unsure about the renewal because the contract is between 20/20 and BB&K (Town’s Attorney), essentially throwing the attorney under the bus for a conflict of interest as a party to the contract, or did she not want to admit unreported action by council in closed session? This is the web they weave when they seek to deceive.

Not surprising, the contract has amounted to a blank check for the town attorney and 20/20 to charge whatever they want, and the finance department merely pays what BB&K bills as reimbursement for 20/20.

The result — either 20/20 or BB&K overcharged, receiving payments in excess of the original contract, during the original contract term. This was not best practices in fiscal management and presented an opportunity for fraud and abuse. Any new/extended contract will also lack necessary preventative internal control.

The same question arises on the Remcho, Johansen and Purcell contract, also appearing to be with BB&K, who similarly bills as reimbursement for Remcho et al.

Was our tenured auditor asleep at the wheel while finance paid BB&K for 20/20 without supporting documentation, and in relation to bonds, is his tenure currently violating SEC Regulations?

Those who have — and promote — a blind trust in the town, may want to think twice before giving the power to bond $150 million, at a cost that, spread across 30 years, will be close to $300 million.

Leane Lee, Apple Valley

Published: Daily Press, April 6, 2017