It is real simple, the town did not block an audit. They said, we have already audited ourselves, we have already investigated our selves, we have already been audited by an outside agency. There is no reason and there are no findings from thoses audits and investigations that would suggest corruption or fraud. THat is what the town said. THey went on to say, we welcome your audit, audit away.Originally Posted by WNYresident
The freeholders could have paid for that audit right there and then, and there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.
THe freeholders instead, decided to sue the town on the grounds that the town is corrupt and that if it was proven, they would HAVE to, by a court order pay for an audit. If it was proven that they where not corrupt or acting unlawfully, THen the obligation to pay for and conduct an audit would fall on the freeholders.
The town sought legal representation because it now found itself being sued and had to go to court. I think it would be irresponsible to go to court without legal advice - wouldn't you agree bob?
So they didn't block anything, they simply showed up to court with the same information that the freeholders had and it was determined based on the evidence that there was no wrongdoing.
So freeholders, because you lost the case, the obligation to pay for and conduct the audit is on you. Pay for it. Go get it done. The town said it would welcome it. They aren't stopping you, they just don't need to do it. If they don't need to conduct an audit, why should the waste money to do it. You lost, so if you want an audit pay for it.
Make no mistake, the town has not blocked an audit. THe lawsuit was about proving guilt and as a result would require an audit. The town said before the lawsuit, sure we welcome an audit, come and audit, but the freeholders didn't want to pay for it then and they don't want to pay for it now, THe lawsuit was only to assign guilt and then force the town to audit. Because the town did nothing wrong, the courts have no reason to force an audit. If the freeholders still want an audit, they can do one, so long as they pay for it.
About the legal fees, I can't answer that because I don't know the answer. Legal advice when facing a lawsuit against a town can get expensive. I've seem claims on small ding car damage hit $25,000 if nobody budges and it drags on. I'd say we got off cheap......at least this first part.
Ask all you want, I can't tell you anything...If I had the info, I would. The town and the lawyers are the only ones who can tell you this.
Ask the freeholders why if they were so intent on getting this town why they didn't just pay for the audit in the first palce. They could have sued with their findings after ward and recooped their losses, but now they were prooved wrong and they won't pay for an audit. The end result is that they simply just wasted $30,000.00 of taxpayers money for no net result. The answers we had 2 years ago are still the answers we have today, only the town is $30,000.00 lighter. Who are the crooks? THe freholders who siigned the Doering petition are.