Jump to content



Photo

Land Fill ( Judgment Day )


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 12:42 PM

The State Board of Accounts called a secret meeting of both the Clark County Commissioners and Floyd County Commissioners in the basement of the Clark County Court House last Saturday.  

 

The Commissioners had to sign that they had read the audit.  The audit showed that here were secret meetings in Louisville. There are allegations of conflict of interest. The newspapers should investigate. Shay do you hear this?

 



#2 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 02:25 PM

Steve, I must have missed that meeting. Would love to know what they discussed.

#3 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 03:00 PM

The present commissioners did not meet with the SBOA last saturday.

#4 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 03:06 PM

Maybe my source gave me the wrong day, but lets be truthful, has there been a joint meeting with with the SBA, Clark County and Floyd county, did it meet in the basement of the Clark County Court house and did it deal with an audit of tf the Land fill operator?


Edited by Stephen Voelker, 23 March 2015 - 03:15 PM.


#5 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 03:07 PM

Waiting Rick


Edited by Stephen Voelker, 23 March 2015 - 03:08 PM.


#6 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 03:12 PM

No

#7 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 03:16 PM

Then my source was incorrect and I apologize.



#8 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 07:34 PM

Then my source was incorrect and I apologize.

 

Incorrect? it's more like a lie isn't it? 



#9 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 07:45 PM

Steve's question was specific to meeting in the basement, perhaps a better question is did any commissioner meet anywhere at anytime with the SBOA to discuss an audit of the landfill?


  • IntegrityMatters, kelley and TamK like this

#10 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 08:17 PM

Right.

Rick, was there any meeting and/or any discussion of a meeting at all like what Steve described? Do you have any thoughts on how such a rumor would form?

Edited by kelley, 23 March 2015 - 08:18 PM.

  • IntegrityMatters likes this

#11 Oldgoat

Oldgoat

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 08:44 PM

Hard to imagine getting state bureaucrats to do anything on Saturday. 


  • Quasar and grammy like this

#12 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 10:11 PM

Unconfirmed sources close to the situation,  via the always unconfirmed dern rumor mill,
allegedly say that yes there was a "basement meeting "
with a rep from an SBOA.
It could have been ..... a county commissioner from another county......
An SBOA rep might meet with each of the commissioners individually......
Individual commissioners may have been given three different "options"  to sign with their reactions
to a SBOA audit
according to those dern totally unconfirmed, speculative rumor mill thingies...
Apparently, a possibly  new SBOA audit may not been made public yet,
but some people may have read it and  may have been interviewed.
Funny, that the alleged meeting was allegedly on a Saturday in reference to an alleged  landfill....
Saturdays are rumored (Unconfirmed Again) to always have been the most  fun at a landfill...;)
 
A dang landfill thingy is always a really interesting item.....allegedly...


Edited by Savile Row, 23 March 2015 - 10:56 PM.


#13 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 23 March 2015 - 10:33 PM

SBOA:

Option 1: Agree.,

Option 2: Disagree.,

Option 3: Neither agree nor disagree.

 

Sign here:____________________



#14 theinformer

theinformer

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:17 AM

One from Clark and one from Floyd



#15 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:29 AM

The SBOA did complete an audit of the landfill. There were separate briefings as to the findings with Jack and myself a couple weeks ago. Until the audit is made public we did sign a confidentiality statement as to the findings.

As I stated there was no secret meeting. The outbriefing did not take place on a Sat in the basement. I do not know if the Floyd Co Commissioners were contacted.

I do not have access to all of the SBOA actions. As I have stated, I can not comment on the content of the audit until released to the public per the confidentiality agreement. This is standard for any audit completed by the SBOA.

#16 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 07:23 AM

Landfill Operator Practices
Indiana State Board of Accounts
The totally unconfirmed rumors about an alleged very recently completed SBOA audit of the Clark-Floyd landfill
is that the audit was presented to certain persons and they may have been given the opportunity to read it
and then respond as to 1, 2, or 3, noted above. The SBOA would allow additional comments
in writing or verbally to the SBOA concerning the audit by the persons interviewed.
 
 
What was released to them at this time to be read and commented upon
may have only covered a one year period of the landfill operation
for just the year of 2012. It is rumored that the persons
contacted and interviewed were not allowed
to keep  a copy of the audit. They will
subsequently receive their
very own copy.
 
They may have been asked to sign with response 1, 2, or 3.
They may have been asked to read it, respond,

and sign at the very recent initial

"exit meetings" with the

trusty SBOA auditors.
 
Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Coffman did not take office
until January 1, 2013 so they would not
have been in office for the alleged
audit year of 2012
referenced.
They would not be "on the hook" for that audit

if it only covered  2012 as they 

were not yet in office.


Edited by Savile Row, 24 March 2015 - 08:15 AM.


#17 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 07:51 AM

Maybe my source gave me the wrong day, but lets be truthful, has there been a joint meeting with with the SBA, Clark County and Floyd county, did it meet in the basement of the Clark County Court house and did it deal with an audit of tf the Land fill operator?

 

 

No

 

 

The SBOA did complete an audit of the landfill. There were separate briefings as to the findings with Jack and myself a couple weeks ago. Until the audit is made public we did sign a confidentiality statement as to the findings.

As I stated there was no secret meeting. The outbriefing did not take place on a Sat in the basement. I do not know if the Floyd Co Commissioners were contacted.

I do not have access to all of the SBOA actions. As I have stated, I can not comment on the content of the audit until released to the public per the confidentiality agreement. This is standard for any audit completed by the SBOA.

 

 

This is what really upsets me with politicians.   Rick --- you knew exactly what SV was referring to and instead of being upfront and responding as you did in post #15, you chose to just say "no" --- because the actual truth wasn't quite exactly as it happened in SV's original question.  I hate it when people play these "games" --- just like Ed Z did in the thread about the indoor "soccer" facility ---- When some of us referred to it as an "indoor soccer facility", he responded by saying "there has never been any consideration of an indoor soccer facility".    He knew exactly what we meant - but because we didn't call it an "indoor sports facility" and just called it "soccer", he thought he could tell us "no" there was no such thing.

I expect better from our elected officials.   When they obviously know what someone is talking about, please don't try to grasp at straws and technicalities because the wording isn't "quite" exact. 


  • Quasar, Debbie, Serve and 1 other like this

#18 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 09:36 AM

IM, I am sorry that you are so upset. I answered the questions honestly and to the best of my ability. It is very easy for you to sit in judgement of a person's actions when you can suffer no consequences. I signed the confidentiality agreement that carries substantial penalties if violated. Your screen name implies that Integrity Matters, yet you chastise me for answering questions honestly. In my two years in office I have not mislead or been dishonest in my dealing with anyone. I am on here to keep everyone informed as to the workings of this county, I am not on here to have my integrity questioned. In the real world we deal in facts and I give all the facts I can at the time I can. I assure you I have no hidden agenda.

It is standard procedure for the SBOA to have exit briefings when an audit is completed. All that is in the audit will be released at the discretion of the SBOA. Any speculation about what is contained in the audit is purely that. If anyone says they can tell you what is in the audit they are either breaking the confidentiality agreement or a liar.

Now you have all the facts I can give you about this issue. Once again, I will answer Steve's questions with a "NO".
  • Oldgoat and hillbilly highway like this

#19 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 09:50 AM

I don't believe Steve asked you to disclose confidential information.  He asked if a meeting had occurred --- to that, in my opinion, you should have said, "yes, but I can't disclose the details at this time".   Instead, you said "no" and he apologized as if he had been told a lie.   You then said, "the present commissioners did not meet with the SBOA last Saturday" --- while technically, that is correct I believe you should have disclosed that a meeting had indeed occurred but not on Saturday ("there were separate briefings with Jack and myself a couple weeks ago").     So in my opinion your responses were highly misleading.   And you should be the one who apologizes -- not Steve.


  • Serve and snowman like this

#20 JenS

JenS

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 315 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:07 AM

If I may jump in...as someone that has dealt with many many government audits, both federal and state an Exit Conference post audit is standard procedure. While I see IMs point, I have to say that MOST anyone who deals regularly with such types of Audits, the Closing Conference is simply standard Audit protocol and would not consider it "a meeting". I wouldn't. I totally respect your point but it really is very different than a meeting of the Commissioners called to discuss the Audit.
  • Oldgoat likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users