6 ms·

So no accountability for the corrupt officeholders? Just the taxpayers have to foot the legal bill?

by csee 5y ago

MatthewWilkes 5y ago
I believe that one of the responsibilities of the board of auditors is hearing complaints against officeholders for waste of public funds.
johnebgd 5y ago
Isn’t government grand?
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  If a DA or States Attorney thinks they broke the law, they could be prosecuted, just like anyone else
infamouscow 5y ago
Yes. The taxpayers can elect new officeholders.
- slenk 5y ago
  They tried.
hiptobecubic 5y ago
In theory, if the town cares about money, this will lead to the people in charge losing the next election. In practice I'm sure this is mostly just people who do almost nothing for anyone collecting tax dollars for themselves with no consequences. That's what the auditors are supposed to be for, after all.
sgjohnson 5y ago
Which is probably exactly why a Libertarian got elected. It’s rare for a libertarian to get elected, even more so in a write-in scenario.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It was an off-season election (i.e. no Congress people or presidents up for election), which usually have an order of magnitude smaller turnout. That's the best opportunity for a dedicated candidate to rally enough support to get elected even if they aren't one of the two major parties, especially to a relatively small potatoes office like this.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    It doesn't matter how many votes he got, only that he won. Would hardly call refusing to seat an elected official a "molehill."
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      I agree - though if it is just a few local officials acting foolishly, and who will soon be put in their place, then there's nothing much to worry about. Society can handle a few dummies acting in character. If, on the other hand, it was happening more broadly - say, for example, a national election, with officials at the highest level of government acting in this way - then there would be much greater cause for concern.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      And where did they refuse? It's a dumbass game of telephone. Idiocracy incarnate.
  - jkaplowitz 5y ago
    Honestly, refusing to allow any duly elected official to be sworn into office and do their job as specified by law, whatever it is, is far more mountain than molehill regardless of the nature of the job or the qualifications of the person elected. You are of course right that a CPA is a better choice for auditor than a non-accountant. But that's either an argument to the state legislature to change how the position is chosen (e.g. making it an appointment with professional qualification requirements) or an argument to the voters to elect a CPA (assuming one chooses to run). It's not an argument to flout the system as designed by duly elected legislators and illegitimately shove aside the candidate duly elected by the voters.
floatingatoll 5y ago
If convicted of conspiring to obstruction or some such phrasing, they might be ineligible for office.

So no accountability for the corrupt officeholders? Just the taxpayers have to foot the legal bill?

by csee 5y ago

So no accountability for the corrupt officeholders? Just the taxpayers have to foot the legal bill?

I believe that one of the responsibilities of the board of auditors is hearing complaints against officeholders for waste of public funds.

johnebgd 5y ago

Isn’t government grand?

xadhominemx 5y ago
If a DA or States Attorney thinks they broke the law, they could be prosecuted, just like anyone else

infamouscow 5y ago

Yes. The taxpayers can elect new officeholders.

slenk 5y ago
They tried.

hiptobecubic 5y ago

In theory, if the town cares about money, this will lead to the people in charge losing the next election. In practice I'm sure this is mostly just people who do almost nothing for anyone collecting tax dollars for themselves with no consequences. That's what the auditors are supposed to be for, after all.

sgjohnson 5y ago

Which is probably exactly why a Libertarian got elected. It’s rare for a libertarian to get elected, even more so in a write-in scenario.

shadowgovt 5y ago
It was an off-season election (i.e. no Congress people or presidents up for election), which usually have an order of magnitude smaller turnout. That's the best opportunity for a dedicated candidate to rally enough support to get elected even if they aren't one of the two major parties, especially to a relatively small potatoes office like this.
throwawaygh 5y ago
- fallingknife 5y ago
  It doesn't matter how many votes he got, only that he won. Would hardly call refusing to seat an elected official a "molehill."
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I agree - though if it is just a few local officials acting foolishly, and who will soon be put in their place, then there's nothing much to worry about. Society can handle a few dummies acting in character. If, on the other hand, it was happening more broadly - say, for example, a national election, with officials at the highest level of government acting in this way - then there would be much greater cause for concern.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    And where did they refuse? It's a dumbass game of telephone. Idiocracy incarnate.
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  Honestly, refusing to allow any duly elected official to be sworn into office and do their job as specified by law, whatever it is, is far more mountain than molehill regardless of the nature of the job or the qualifications of the person elected. You are of course right that a CPA is a better choice for auditor than a non-accountant. But that's either an argument to the state legislature to change how the position is chosen (e.g. making it an appointment with professional qualification requirements) or an argument to the voters to elect a CPA (assuming one chooses to run). It's not an argument to flout the system as designed by duly elected legislators and illegitimately shove aside the candidate duly elected by the voters.

floatingatoll 5y ago

If convicted of conspiring to obstruction or some such phrasing, they might be ineligible for office.