MPW Waves Caution Flag on Mayor's Personal Auditor

Michael Paul Williams has it right this morning when he waves the caution flag in the race to revise Richmond's Charter.

The commission charged with revising the Charter has been kicking around for a few months, and recently released their preliminary recommendations -- including a proposal to move the City Auditor and City Attorney positions from their current reporting relationship to City Council to the Mayor's Office.

Funny. It seems like having the foxes and the guard dogs all hanging out together in the chicken coop makes for bad business all around. MPW agrees:

But does anyone doubt where the loyalties of mayoral appointees would lie? They're his people. Dancing with the guy who brung ya is much easier than placating nine politicians with often-competing priorities.

City Auditor Umesh Dalal is highly regarded and has functioned with demonstrable independence.

Wilder loved Dalal when the auditor's reports napalmed the school system, not so much when he excoriated waste within the city administration. If he could have, Wilder likely would have canned Dalal, whom he once called a "political lapdog."

The same goes for City Attorney Norman Sales, who absorbed shots from the then-mayor during the legal standoffs between the council and Wilder.

Granted, Doug Wilder is a rare and unique bird. (Thought with Richmond's karma, we're likely to end up with disruptive, unfocused or slightly maddening mayors for time immemorial.)

It's apparent that the commission is seeking to clean up the mess made by the creation of a powerful, elected mayor five years ago, and hats off to the group for tackling the job. But these recommendations are no way to ensure accountability for Richmond's future mayors.

Comments

[Tom]

So what do you do when the auditor becomes a political tool for a councilperson who runs for mayor? Oh wait, that didn't happen with Dalal and Pantele, did it, when the audits were released to the media before the CAO ever saw them? Dalal does excellent work, but what is the difference between two bodies finding someone to do the job who can hire AND fire(as proposed), and one body (council, as it stands today) have complete and unfettered control? If you have TOTAL hire and fire control over an apointment, you are beholden to that body for your job and will serve them before anyone else(see the City Attorney). The commission is not proposing that but have shared responsibility. Besides, I think any council person or the mayor can ask for an audit at any time.