On page 17 of tonight's agenda for the Champaign County Board Finance Committee:
As happened last year, we did not receive several footnotes to the financial statements, or the Management's Discussion and Analysis until the date of this letter (June 27, 2008) from Tony Fabri, the elected County Auditor. I want to make it clear that no one else beside the elected Auditor is responsible for providing this information to us. The footnotes are considered to be an integral part of the financial statements. We cannot finalize our review of the financial statements until we receive all of the footnotes. Also, it forces us to date our opinions as of that late date, perhaps making our firm look bad. In addition, it puts extreme stress on both us and the Chief Deputy Auditor, who cannot accurately page-number the over 300 page document, print it, and get it bound until we have everything we need in order to provide audit opinions, all of which, under a 30-day extension granted by GFOA, is due June 30, just 3 days after he finally provided the documents. In our estimation, this simply is not fair to our firm, is not fair to the Chief Deputy Auditor, who puts in an enormous effort trying to get the document published on time, and is not acting responsibly to the County Board. We ask the County Board to officially name someone other than the elected Auditor to be responsible for these documents being prepared and provided to us and the Chief Deputy Auditor on a more timely basis, so that the report can be issued by May 31, its official date.
Bray, Drake, Liles & Richardson, LLP
Channel 3 did a story on this last night as well.
clearly this proves Fabri is only using the office for political gain. He doesn't have a clue about finances, has largely stayed silent about the nursing home mess and now isn't doing his job. Tony what are you doing with your time?
Wow, that channel 3 report makes Fabri look really bad. Did they ask him to comment, though? They don't mention it. Not having his response or saying they asked him for one and he didn't provide it makes the report seem biased.
Wow, that channel 3 report makes Fabri look really bad. Did they ask him to comment, though? They don't mention it. Not having his response or saying they asked him for one and he didn't provide it makes the report seem biased.
The print story says, "As of 10pm Wednesday night, WCIA3 tried to contact Fabri for a comment, those calls were not returned."
Ok. They should have mentioned that on the air, though.
On the positive side for Fabri, the local newspaper of record today didn't cover this because they were busy with important stuff like
Lame dogs sought for new study on supplementN-G Broadway Series to feature five touring musicals
The NG, for whatever reason, bought into the myth that the Auditor doesn't really need any financial expertise because the staff does everything for him.
Well, this pretty clearly debunks that, as the outside auditor is asking for an official function of the Auditor to be removed to staff, because this Auditor can't handle the task. We'll see if the NG is willing to acknowledge that, or if they'll ignore this incident so they can keep pretending that financial qualifications don't matter for an Auditor.
Fabri was just on CH. 3 saying"I find the report somewhat bizarre, and politically motivated"
Imagine that???
Fabri will probably blame the Republicans and George Bush for his not being able to do his job. Of course this is the same line of reasoning he used a few years ago when he took some surplus furniture from the county only to get his hand slapped by the board. He then wrote a letter to the editor blaming Republicans for his taking the furniture. I assume the GOP is also the reason he can't pass the bar exam.
How can you say the independent auditors are politically motivated? Did someone ask them to put that stuff in the report, and they just gave in? Am I missing something? Are the outside auditors right?
Fabri didn't offer up much last night in way of explanation as to why he failed to do his job.
He is acting just like the last "ladder climber" who held this position. There should be no surprises for the voters when this position is just a political placeholder for the party in power. The local political system is designed to cost the most and give the least----face it people, political patrionage in CC is just a small version of what goes on across the state. Fabri is just the latest player in the scheme.
It really was a stunningly direct bit of reporting by ch 3. "He is not doing his job."
Isn't this clown the leader of the local Demogogues or something?
Fabri is also the Chairman of the Champaign County Democratic Party.
How can you say the independent auditors are politically motivated? Did someone ask them to put that stuff in the report, and they just gave in? Am I missing something? Are the outside auditors right?
I have no idea what is going on in this situation, and from the information I do have, it sounds like he didn't do his job. So I've got no gripe here.
Just to answer your question, you can call independent auditors "politically motivated" in the same way you can call anyone politically motivated--i.e. one can be politically motivated without actually sporting a party affiliation.
It's also a handy catch-all, can't-be-disproved defense for all sorts of things for which there is no other justification.
Like this one.
"you can call independent auditors "politically motivated" in the same way you can call anyone politically motivated--i.e. one can be politically motivated without actually sporting a party affiliation."
True, of course, but in this case BDL&P are correctly pointing out that they can't do their job if the County Auditor won't do his. Furthermore, they are proposing a solution to the problem. The whole firm may be a hornets' nest of Raving Republicans (or Disloyal Democrats, to be fair), but they cannot be faulted for clearly stating the situation and its consequences. This is serious governmental reporting stuff we're talking about.
The whole firm may be a hornets' nest of Raving Republicans (or Disloyal Democrats, to be fair)
Ok, this is what I was wondering about. Given this characterization of the accounting firm's political ideology, now the question becomes what has been the performance of previous auditors on this same issue. The accountant's letter says something about missing footnotes. What were the footnotes? What caused the delay? Maybe there's an explanation for it. I'm not defending Tony, but if this has always been the case in the past, and now, in an election year, a group of 'raving Republicans' have decided to make an issue out of it, then yes, I'd call that politically motivated.
there are new auditing standards this year, curious.
This is only speculation on my part, but they may have felt compelled to report what they had been able to ignore (or just note internally) in the past.
the only problem is that Fabri is lazy. He has flunked the bar 3 times, got released from state jobs at IEMA and IDOT because he couldn't show up consistently. Do you begin to see a pattern here? Fabri needs to take a minute for some self reflection and take charge of his life instead of blaming everybody else. Tony is a decent guy, but you have to do your job.
The accounting firm has one product: their reputation. They should do anything within reason to protect their one and only asset. Furthermore, politics should in NO WAY have any impact on reporting issues that might prevent accurate and timely financial reports. I'm not going to assume that these accountants are political activists because they did their job. I would be more concerned if they didn't report this in fear it might look politically motivated during an election year. I would be more concerned if they didn't report this because there was a past incident where they didn't report something and might be used as political reference. I admit it does sound kinda whiny for an accounting memo with all that "not fair" stuff..
This accounting firm has an outstanding reputation as as an outside auditor of local governmental accounts. I have seen their work in several different areas and I can state 100% that politics has nothing to do with Karl Drake's assessment of the situation at Champaign County. For anyone to imply that a professional such as Drake would want to stake his professional reputation over political posturing is crazy.
As a public official, there's not much I can do about falsehoods said about me and my record, other than to try to put the truth out there, and hope people of good faith give me a fair shake.
The truth is that the Auditor's Office recently completed our 300+ page financial audit of Champaign County's finances, with footnotes included.
The truth is that it was completed and submitted on time. By "on time" I mean that we met the June 30th deadline set by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), the private organization that awards an annual Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting award, a program in which our office voluntarily participates. (We received that award last year, and I fully expect us to receive that award again this year.) By "on time" I also mean that we met the July 27th deadline set by the State of Illinois for completion of the audit.
I can't really be "tardy" when I meet both the voluntary deadline and the legal deadline, the latter of which has yet to even come yet.
The truth is that this audit achieves the highest standards of government accounting and financial reporting. It's a useful tool for County officials and taxpayers alike. I'm proud of the work that went into it, both by Auditor's Office staff, by other County employees, and by myself, too.
The outside auditor is hired by the County to verify the validity of the financial statements we make in the audit. The outside auditor does not set deadlines for the audit, or dictate how the work on the audit should be done. However, he does write a letter to the County Board, which is supposed to discuss issues impacting on the County's finances. Instead, he used that letter to make a political statement about "the elected County Auditor" that had nothing to do with accounting or finances.
There are some who simply won't give me a fair shake on this or any other issue – that’s politics, and I certainly understand. There are others who are open-minded and are trying to make judgments in good faith. To those of you in the first group, I suspect this comment is just providing more fuel for the fire. To those of you in the second group, I wanted to set the record straight and assure you that I'm doing my job as County Auditor, and doing it well. I can’t control the content of Mr. Drake’s letter, or the media coverage of that letter. I can help provide an accurate and useful financial audit for the residents of Champaign County, which is what I’ve done – and done on time – twice since becoming County Auditor last year.
(By the way, I only sat for the Bar Exam once, and it is true I did not pass. Thanks for mentioning it. Again.)
Tony, You were appointed to that job due to "Politics" Your IMEA and IDOT jobs were the same way. You have had 2 days to respond to the independent auditors letter and the Ch. 3 story and have not returned calls by the local media, Why not?? WDWS had a discussion about this today and yesterday, You do have a phone don't You? Also why have You been so tight lipped about the problems at the Nursing Home ? Isn't part of Your job keeping an eye on how that money is being spent? You might want to dust off those law books, I have a feeling after the next election you might want to try to pursue Your law career. Those elections are after all "Just Politics"
Thanks to Tony for the information. I appreciate your jumping into the fire.
I don't know why people keep mentioning the bar exam. What on earth does it have to do with this issue?
On July 11th, 2008 at 08:47 PM, curious said:
Thanks to Tony for the information. I appreciate your jumping into the fire.
I don't know why people keep mentioning the bar exam. What on earth does it have to do with this issue?
Yes the question that should be asked is "What accounting qualifications do You have?" I don't think being a member of the County Board or the "Good ol Boys Club" qualifies Fabri for anything! Like I posted earlier, We will see where Tony and the rest of His buddies are after the next election!
As usual, Tony's strategy is to cloud the issue and attempt to blame his accuser. Tony keps saying the audit was completed on time, so how could he be tardy. When Tony tries to twist what was said, he should remember that this document is readily available to verify his spinning. What the outside auditors actually said was:
"As happened last year, we did not receive several footnotes to the financial statements, or the Management's Discussion and Analysis until the date of this letter (6/27/08) from Tony Fabri, the elected county auditor. I want to make it clear that no one else is responsible for providing this information to us. The footnotes are considered to be an integral part of the financial statements. We cannot finalize our review of the financial ststements until we receive all of the footnotes. Also, it forces us to date our opinions as of that late date, perhaps making our firm look bad. In addition, it puts extreme stress on both us and the Chief Deputy Auditor, who cannot accurately page-number the over 300 page document, print it, and get it bound until we have everything we need in order to provide audit opinions, all of which, under a 30-day extension granted by GFOA, is due June 30, just 3 days after he finally provided the documents."
So the issue is whether or not the audit was completed on time, the issue is that Tony's delays caused major problems for everyone else involved in the process, which very nearly made the audit late. This has only been a problem for the past two years since Tony was appointed to the position. These "politically biased accountants" never had a problem with the work done by previous Democratic County Auditors. Tony's attempt to say the criticism is politically driven is ridiculous and shameless.
"The outside auditor is hired by the County to verify the validity of the financial statements we make in the audit. The outside auditor does not set deadlines for the audit, or dictate how the work on the audit should be done. However, he does write a letter to the County Board, which is supposed to discuss issues impacting on the County's finances. Instead, he used that letter to make a political statement about "the elected County Auditor" that had nothing to do with accounting or finances."
The outside auditor does not set deadlines for the audit - can we assume that any reasonable accounting service provider would like to have the reports audited by the time of the deadline and a reasonsable amount of time to do their jobs? If they (for example) were provided just a few days to complete an audit of a 300 page report, doesn't that increase the risk of error and/or fraud not being caught in their rushed audit?
or dictate how the work should be done - their ONLY job is to ensure that the reports are in compliance with accounting guidelines, unless there is a consultant arrangement I'm not familiar with. There are strict rules that determine how the work should be done. They CANNOT dictate how WELL the work is done.
that had nothing to do with accounting or finances - Having timely and accurate financial reports is what accounting is all about. It bothers me the voters would elect someone to the job of auditor who doesn't have basic finance/accounting experience. My opinion on that will not change based on party affiliation.
What does tardy mean? The GFOA had already provided a 30 day extension. Does that mean it's a month late or not? I suppose that could go both ways. I think it would be a good idea to complete the report in timely manner so that the report and the audit could be done in time to avoid the need for a 30 day extension. After already needing a 30 day extension and then only giving the auditor 3 day to complete the audit by the new deadline, if find that well... I find it bizzare and somewhat unprofessional.
The sooner we get accurate financial reports, the sooner we can start using them.
Sidenote: In another thread it was suggested that the quality of our healthcare should not be determine by the individual consumer, but the democratic process. I was referred to as a "defeatest" for not having any confidence in that proposal. There is some thought that the democratic process is will favor having "experts" in the appropriate position making the appropriate decisions. Call me a defeatest if you want, but I suspect that politicians will favor preservation of power over what's best for the constituents every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The County Auditor should not be a political position. That role is very important and should require some level of expertise to qualify. At the very least, let's ask the candidates this fall if they feel that can complete the work without requiring an extension and hold them to it, no matter who is elected.
There is some thought that the democratic process is will favor having "experts" in the appropriate position making the appropriate decisions. Call me a defeatest if you want, but I suspect that politicians will favor preservation of power over what's best for the constituents every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've already clarified this twice, so is it fair to assume you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said earlier. I called you a "defeatist" (I'm not sure whether it was me or you who misspelled it, but it's hardly material :)) because you didn't believe in the democratic process. That's a fair disagreement. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to respect the argument.
There is some thought that the democratic process is will favor having "experts" in the appropriate position making the appropriate decisions. In this context, this is a complete fabrication (;P) of what I said. The "experts" I was referring to were those with direct expertise in the situation--parents, students, teachers, and community members. If you are really arguing that such people deserve no input into the constitution of the school system--instead allowing business trends to determine how to constitute a school and district, that's your call.
In the current context, I don't see what your connection is. Either Fabri did a good job or he didn't. Until someone can link to the report, and point to problems, it's just going to be a partisan issue.
That might seem like I'm siding with Fabri if you are firmly immersed in the partisan games. But think about it this way:
You are on a deadline for you company. Your company hires an independent consultant. The consultant reviews your work and goes to the press and public without communicating with you.
Without reading the actual original report, there's no way to know. So I'll take everything the firm said at face value. There were a few missing footnotes in a 300-page document. Why not just call over or send someone over to get the missing information?
Then they said that the additional footnotes may have added a few lines of text and messed up page numbers. So what? Whenever we've had projects like this, we merely print up an original for everyone to review and refer to, and then when the next draft with the needed information comes out, we just reprint or if printing costs are an issue, simply release a memo correctly the page numbers.
Now perhaps this was impossible in these circumstances. Perhaps the firm did try to communicate with Mr. Fabri's office and he peed on their front lawn or punched them in the face. But it seems like these issues would have surfaced in their report then.
Note, I'm not saying the information should not have been released. This is a public position, so unlike the model of our national and state government, I strongly believe that the workings of our government offices should be completely transparent. But minus the explanation of the communications between the office and the firm, I'm going to assume they didn't act professionally.
"In the current context, I don't see what your connection is. Either Fabri did a good job or he didn't. Until someone can link to the report, and point to problems, it's just going to be a partisan issue." Accounting is not a partisan issue. Accounting should not be a partisan issue. The argument that the accountants are making this a partisan issue is more than a bit goofy.
"The consultant reviews your work and goes to the press and public without communicating with you." WHOA!!!!! I thought the report was provided to the County Board? Did they really go the press and public?
"There were a few missing footnotes in a 300-page document. Why not just call over or send someone over to get the missing information?" Please don't marginalize the importance of footnotes in financial documents. The footnotes are the details that back up summary data.
"When they said that the additional footnotes may have added a few lines of text and messed up page numbers. So what?"
Amen. This looked really whiny.
"But minus the explanation of the communications between the office and the firm, I'm going to assume they didn't act professionally."
No matter what you think about the accounting firm, don't forget that there was already a 30 day extension and the footnotes were only provided with three days to review before the revised deadline. As an experienced professional in the accounting field, I can assure you my concerns are valid.
What I kept wondering was why the accounting firm hadn't made sure that the contract was set up so that delays would be the county's problem and not theirs. For example, have a provision saying that the county had to turn over all the information by xxx, or otherwise the timeline for the firm would be pushed back. If it means that the county misses the deadline and gets fined, too bad for them.
The County Auditor should not be a political position. That role is very important and should require some level of expertise to qualify.
The comment reflects on the ignorance and apathy of the electorate as much as it does the quality of candidates.
However, Brad Jones who is running for auditor is eminently qualified with a background in accounting and he is a good fellow who is sincere about stewardship of the taxpayers money.
*
But, most of the public offices are roles that are important to We the People, and should require some level of expertise to qualify. Even the President of the United States should require expertise to qualify.
Indeed most candidates do have expertise but their expertise is in political manoeuvering, chicanery, plotting, deception, baffling oratory, cheating, lying, and robbery, although hardly any excel in all of these "qualities" sufficiently to be a John McCain or an Obama, Barack Hussein.
"What I kept wondering was why the accounting firm hadn't made sure that the contract was set up so that delays would be the county's problem and not theirs. For example, have a provision saying that the county had to turn over all the information by xxx, or otherwise the timeline for the firm would be pushed back. If it means that the county misses the deadline and gets fined, too bad for them."
What you are arguing is very logical and reasonable. Under your proposal, if a deadline is missed TECHNICALLY you (the accouning firm) are not on the line. Remember, the accounting firm only has one asset and that is their reputation. Would you risk that reputation and sign an agreement that implies/concedes that not meeting the deadline is acceptable? I wouldn't.
What you are arguing is very logical and reasonable. Under your proposal, if a deadline is missed TECHNICALLY you (the accouning firm) are not on the line. Remember, the accounting firm only has one asset and that is their reputation. Would you risk that reputation and sign an agreement that implies/concedes that not meeting the deadline is acceptable? I wouldn't.
With software consulting, it wouldn't be unusual for a project timeline to be pushed back because a client didn't provide you with necessary data on time. I wouldn't think that it would damage a firm's reputation if a deadline was missed because the client didn't provide them information on time, but maybe it works differently in accounting than it does in software. The memo did sound a little petulant, and I don't think that consulting firms generally like to send out communications like that - not the kind of PR they want.
Also Wayward, even if you (the accounting firm) were technically off the hook, how will the press report it and how will people perceive it if the report was late? Look at this situation as the perfect example and how crazy can get. You now have the left claiming conspiracy. The accounting firm will likely to whatever it takes to protect their reputation. First and foremost they will do their jobs to the highest standards. Toni Fabri, while technically providing the report before the deadline, did not take such proactive measures to preserve his reputation.
"With software consulting, it wouldn't be unusual for a project timeline to be pushed back because a client didn't provide you with necessary data on time." No offense to accountants or computer consultants, but accountants are typically more anal. Furthermore, financial reports are more adminstrative in nature. This is not a case of designing and implementing an accounting system. This is a situation of collecting, reviewing, and auditing financial reports. These financial reports are derived from standard accounting rules and procedures.
"The memo did sound a little petulant, and I don't think that consulting firms generally like to send out communications like that - not the kind of PR they want." I didn't like the writing style myself. The issues addressed in the letter are appropriate and legitimate.
Also Wayward, even if you (the accounting firm) were technically off the hook, how will the press report it and how will people perceive it if the report was late? Look at this situation as the perfect example and how crazy can get. You now have the left claiming conspiracy. The accounting firm will likely to whatever it takes to protect their reputation. First and foremost they will do their jobs to the highest standards. Toni Fabri, while technically providing the report before the deadline, did not take such proactive measures to preserve his reputation.
It's hard to predict how the media would report it. Maybe another option would be for the contract to require that the county pay the firm an additional fee if the information is delivered late and the firm has to drop everything to rush on that. Then county officials would get to explain the extra expenditure to the public, and the firm wouldn't have to send out anything except a bill and maybe a neutrally-worded memo explaining the charge.
"Maybe another option would be for the contract to require that the county pay the firm an additional fee if the information is delivered late and the firm has to drop everything to rush on that. Then county officials would get to explain the extra expenditure to the public, and the firm wouldn't have to send out anything except a bill and maybe a neutrally-worded memo explaining the charge."
Based on what has happend for the past two years, it sounds necessary. It shouldn't be necessary.
B, actually the process has worked, and the incompetency has been publicized which is the right thing. Publicizing and openness should be the norm. The concept of "releasing" information to the public is abhorrent, since everything they do should be public. The concept of closed executive sessions is likewise intolerable. These arrogant people who have become elected officials as well as the elected officials who have become arrogant all need to realize that they are public servants.
All due respect Reg, but the quality of elected officials and the quality of the job they do is a function of what us voters demand from them. The problem is not their arrogance, it is our fault for not demanding better and not working harder to ensure it. We get what we deserve.
Wayward is spinning as much as Fabri to try to explain his laziness. Suggesting the accounting firm place a late clause in the agreement is ridiculous. They signed the contract with the county years ago, and have never had this problem with previous county auditors until Fabri came on the scene. He has neglected his responsibility to promptly provide the information (which really was not that much to provide) for the two years he has been in the position. How could the accounting firm foresee his incompetence? And them to suggest that taxpayers pay some sort of extra fee because Fabri didn't do his job is not only absurb, but offensive. Think before you type, and stop trying to deflect the blame from Fabri. When his only defense is that the criticism was politically motivated, that should be all you need to hear to know he has no excuse.
Wayward is spinning as much as Fabri to try to explain his laziness. Suggesting the accounting firm place a late clause in the agreement is ridiculous. They signed the contract with the county years ago, and have never had this problem with previous county auditors until Fabri came on the scene. He has neglected his responsibility to promptly provide the information (which really was not that much to provide) for the two years he has been in the position. How could the accounting firm foresee his incompetence? And them to suggest that taxpayers pay some sort of extra fee because Fabri didn't do his job is not only absurb, but offensive. Think before you type, and stop trying to deflect the blame from Fabri. When his only defense is that the criticism was politically motivated, that should be all you need to hear to know he has no excuse.
Wow, reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I said that based on my experience working for consulting companies, it seems like a good idea to make sure that the client's behavior is the client's problem and not the consultant's. You know, like the saying, "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." It's also not unusual for customers to pay extra for expedited service, since it might cost the firm more to get it done on a rush basis.
However, it would certainly be unusual for a county experiencing a quite public cash crunch to pay for expedited service because the county auditor delayed getting basic information to the accounting firm. Also, I was told that Fabri's delay came within one day of costing the county an award that it has received every year for more than 25 years.
What are Brad Jones' qualifications for being auditor, I wasn't aware of his accounting backgroud.
What are Brad Jones' qualifications for being auditor, I wasn't aware of his accounting backgroud.
No matter what they are they are more than Fabri's, as he has proved. I'm fairly confident Jones' financial background would allow him to write a three page summary and provide a few footnotes without it taking two extra months. I really doubt Fabri's backers want to make qualifications an issue in the upcoming campaign.
Contrary to what's been written above, no footnotes were "missing" from the audit. Again, the CAFR was complete and submitted in time to meet both the GFOA and State of Illinois deadlines. Given what's been written about me for meeting my deadlines, I shudder to think what IP commenters would write about me if I'd actually missed one!
As for the accusation above that I've been "tight lipped" about the Nursing Home, the truth is that I've actually been quite vocal on the issue for a very long time. You can even go here (http://illinipundit.com/2007/09/24/fabris-contract-nursing-memo) to see a memo I presented to the Board (and also sent to IP) last year, warning about out-of-control spending on Contract Nursing. Back then, commenters on this site attacked me for raising the issue at all. Hundreds of thousands of dollars could have been saved if the County Board had acted when I first warned about Nursing Home spending. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Contract Nursing overspending continues to hurt both the Nursing Home and the County budget, even today.
(For what it's worth, Nursing Home Board members seem to recognize the seriousness of this issue -- at last week's joint committee meeting, one NH Board member described Contract Nursing agencies as "leeches" on the system, and advised the immediate end of all Contract Nursing services at CCNH. After almost a year of denial about this problem, these comments were a very good sign of things to come.)
Tony,Mr Fabri,The letter states that you provided the footnotes as of the 27th before the extended June 30th deadline. I read through this thread and nobody is claiming that footnotes were missing after the June 27 date. Nobody is claiming that this is after the June 30 deadline. People have argued that (1) lack of promptness causes (2) challenges to other people in the process to comply with the June 30 deadline which might lead to (3) rushed audit or a lower quality audit due to the compressed timeframe and risks (4) missing the deadline if the external auditors don't drop their other work to accommodate you at the last minute.
Can you please be more prompt in the future? It would solve all your problems and it would not leave your doubters speculating why a three page summary and some footnotes were not provided until June 27th.
"Hundreds of thousands of dollars could have been saved if the County Board had acted when I first warned about Nursing Home spending. " If I remember correctly, the issue a lot of people had with Mr. Fabri's warning was that he wrote a memo about a problem everyone was already aware of (contract nursing) without providing any solution. Telling the county board that the nursing home needs to hire more full-time nurses is already obvious to everyone, not just since Mr. Fabri issued his warning. How could the nursing home have magically hired these full-time nurses to "save hundreds of thousands of dollars" if they weren't available to be hired? I don't think the nursing home has still been able to hire these full-time nurses. How incredibly ridiculous to claim you could have solved a problem when you never provided a solution. The other issue was that Fabri went to the press with his "bold revelation" before presenting it to the county board's finance committee or anyone else involved with nursing home management. This made it obvious that Mr. Fabri was simply seeking media attention rather than working to improve finances at the nursing home. Does Mr. Fabri think we're all too stupid to see through his silly Fabrication?
For what it's worth, Nursing Home Board members seem to recognize the seriousness of this issue -- at last week's joint committee meeting, one NH Board member described Contract Nursing agencies as "leeches" on the system, and advised the immediate end of all Contract Nursing services at CCNH. After almost a year of denial about this problem, these comments were a very good sign of things to come.)
Is that the same contract nursing you voted to fund when you were on the county board??
Admit it Tony, You know less about your job than the highly overpaid people that are not smart enough to know they don't know ANYTHING about running a nursing home.
"The CCNH has contracts with several nursing agencies. One of them costs us $76/hour plus travel expenses for a nurse to come to CCNH. In contrast, County-employed nurses make anywhere from $16 to $32/hour. Even factoring in pensions and other benefits, we pay twice as much for an outside contract nurse as we do for most in-house CCNH nurses."
Can someone help me clarify something.....it is really annoying when I read a memo that says something like this. How much does
one of themthe average nursing contract worker make vs the average in-house nurse? That was not provided in the memo. "Even factoring pensions and other benefits....." Twice as much? Please show your work. What are the average benefits and what is the present day value of future pension benefits per hour for the in-house nurse. To say they are twice as much because you simply look at the cash expenditures is not accurate. It may likely be more, but I want to know exactly how much more and how you based your calculations to be able to fully assess the issue and make an informed business decision. If this is the quality of information the CB is leveraging to make business decisions, then we should not be surprised they are so bad at running a business.Any
accountantperson can look at the line item of a report and see that a certain expense has spiked. When my first question is answered, it would be nice if we could see both the the possible short and long-term impact of contract nursing using quality information.Making a graph of past expenses: administrative
Providing value-added analysis: yet to be seen
I guess the accounting professor consultant pointed this issue out recently. Did that person provide any analysis or did they provide a basic graph and say this line item expense is increasing?
The finances, indeed, need an expanded analysis and are very serious, as most posters agree. There are other aspects of contract nursing that are not economical, but detrimental to residents to the home. This concept is not unlike substitute teachers in that a nursing home administrator will not know who might turn up from the agency when a request is made. This creates the situation that residents are being serviced by people who do not know them well, maybe never have seen them before, and thus the residents are "shorted" receiving comprehensive care. A resident's chart only conveys the basics, nothing about the human being. A very important bottom line about contract nursing is the increased opportunity of "misgiven" care that could be dilatory to the life of a resident. All very hard to put into economical terms, but the "trump" card whether a nursing home, hospital, or an educational situation.
Another aspect that has not received much "ink" is how important it is to have a FULL staff so the employees are not scheduled for double shifts. This is about as dilitory as contract nurses in that the physical strain of double shifts creates an environment for poor decision making and this, in turn, could potentially be harmful for residents care. A known statistic in the nursing home literature is that there are more deaths on Sunday afternoon and evening than any other time during the week. The best analysis explanation is that these are the shifts that more than likely are filled by double shifters.
So this leads us to the point of the discussion about the availability of the workforce. It is my understanding based on a very small "n" of conversations with employees that the work environment needs immediate corrective action so nurses will want to work there. The issue is work environment not a desire to be engaged in a different type of nursing.
Pattsi Petrie
"The finances, indeed, need an expanded analysis and are very serious, as most posters agree. There are other aspects of contract nursing that are not economical, but detrimental to residents to the home."
Can we agree that in order to provide expanded analysis, the first step is to start by having timely, accurate, and usable financial data? The scope of this thread (for the most part) is the timeliness and quality of financial information that is used by the CB to make business decisions.
For instance when the auditor states that the county would have saved hundreds of thousands of $ if they would have listened to him sooner, I want our CB to ask him to explain that figure. After he is done explaining that figure, I want them to ask questions about his assumptions if they either seem convenient or appear to be ignoring important variables. I want the next time he states a figure, that he needs to show his work by default so that in time we won't have to keep on asking what should have already been provided in a memo.
Pointing out workforce availability may or may not be an important issue in making a business decision, but it distracts from the basic argument that we need quality and timely financial data (and preferably analysis) first and foremost. I don't know how we can have expanded analysis when we lack quality basic analysis. I don't know how we're going to measure challenging economic variable like you mentioned when the auditor can't provide basic financial reports and footnotes until three days before the extended deadline.
B is for Business--I understand your points completely. Data ought to be complete, timely, and transparent. All I am trying to do is introduce into this economic discussion the concept of what is best for the residents. Contract nursing is not in the best interests of the residents even if it can be proven mathematically that it is more economically efficient to use contract nursing. Since this type of nursing is not best for the residents, I am perplexed why this has not been stopped by all of the involved decision makers. The work environment needs revamping. Then "they will come" to work at the CCNH.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi, in this thread I will not engage any topics or argument that distract focus from the enormous opportunity to influence improvement with respect to the County Auditors roles, responsiblities, and potential. IMO, what you mentioned is worthy of its own discussion with many valid and debatable points. I'm looking at the number next to your name and I only see (1) post. I'm also intrigued by your previous claims that you can show why the county board (and their specific decisions) have led to the present debacle. I would pay money to see that laid out and easily (not have dig deep into semi-related posts) to reference the information. If you can't tell, I'm a big fan of govt accountability. Forgive me in advance for crtitizing some of your arguments and suggesting something much, much better. : )
B is for Business--indeed, I, too, am for government accountability at all levels. And I welcome a separate and thorough discussion related to how to create the environment for "best care" for the CCNH residents. I also welcome challenges to my contributions to the many intriging posts on this blog. It helps keep one sharp, honest, accountable, and on one's toes. :-)
Pattsi Petrie
Lets focus on the topic at hand, Fabri not doing his job, not only this year but last year as well. Fabri seems to make light of the GFOA award the county has received for years as if it is no big deal if the county doesn't receive recognition again. This is selfish on Fabri's part because many people contribute in achieving this award. I understand Fabri is used to under achieving (i.e. not passing the bar exam), but the citi1ns deserve better. Not doing your job is one sure way to get dumped at the ballott box and Fabri is well on track for achieving this.
Can we please stop bludgeoning Mr. Fabri with the bar exam?
It has no bearing or relevance on the issue being discussed today.
Anonymous:
You posted the exact same comment at 1 PM, 2:13 PM and 6:24 PM.
I've unpublished the latter two. Once is enough.
I too appreciate Tony Fabri 'jumping into the fire' and responding to both the attacks and the serious questions that have been posted. It sounds like Tony did meet the deadlines he was required to meet. No one has mentioned anything in any contracts, memos of understanding, etc. that state the Bray, Drake, etc. was to have received the final report with all footnotes by __ date, as wayward suggested above. It sounds like that would be a good idea as it would create clarification -- did Tony miss a deadline or not? It sounds like in this situation, despite the attacks on Tony, including on Channel 3, he didn't miss the deadline. It's too bad Channel 3 couldn't even do the investigative reporting of asking Brendan McGinty (Finance Chair) (who they appeared to interview), or Bray Drake, as to what was/were the deadlines. Of course, if they would have found the truth, it might have meant they would have one less story for the night, but I'm not sure how Channel 3 can explain themselves now. I'll certainly question the validity of the "news" I hear about them from now on.
It does seem like a memorandum of understanding might help. An MOU could spell out what needed to be provided when, and what would happen if the dates were missed. It'd make more sense than asking that someone else be put in charge of the audit information - what if the firm ended up being more unhappy with the next person than they were with Tony?
It doesn't matter to local liberals like Wayward and anonymous above that Fabri submitted his portion of a 300 page audit on Friday, June 27th when it had to be copied and finalized to be submitted on Monday June 30th (and already under a 30-day extension). No you're both right, ther is nothing at all wrong with that. Nothing at all. It's always a good idea to wait until the last possible minute to submit the audit. Makes everyone's job easier. But of course it's not Fabri's fault the audit was submitted on the last day and the outside auditor's effort to improve the process is just being driven by politics. I'm surprised Fabri didn't try to blame Bush.
Let me try to put this in a way that even Fabri defenders like Wayward can understand: Bush lied, Fabri tried, but he didn't get away with it.
It doesn't matter to local liberals like Wayward and anonymous above that Fabri submitted his portion of a 300 page audit on Friday, June 27th when it had to be copied and finalized to be submitted on Monday June 30th (and already under a 30-day extension). No you're both right, ther is nothing at all wrong with that.
Where exactly did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that it would be a good idea to come up with some kind of formal agreement about what the county had to provide to the firm by what date, and what the consequences would be if this didn't happen.
Wayward,
The fact remains that memos and agreements are an unnecessary diversion from the fact that any delays on this audit were caused by Fabri. Your suggestions convey to idea that it wasn't really Fabri's fault because some other party had not established a written procedure. The current procedures have worked fine with previous county auditors for years. They don't need to be changed just because Fabri can't seem to do his job. Whether or not you want to admit it, you are attempting to defend Fabri rather than admit that he might have actually screwed up.
The fact remains that memos and agreements are an unnecessary diversion from the fact that any delays on this audit were caused by Fabri. Your suggestions convey to idea that it wasn't really Fabri's fault because some other party had not established a written procedure. The current procedures have worked fine with previous county auditors for years. They don't need to be changed just because Fabri can't seem to do his job. Whether or not you want to admit it, you are attempting to defend Fabri rather than admit that he might have actually screwed up.
No, I didn't comment about whether it was Fabri's fault or not. I suggested that one solution might be to spell out what needed to happen, so that it wouldn't be an issue of whether the auditor and accounting firm saw "eye-to-eye" or not. If everything has to be submitted by June 30 or else, have a formal agreement that the auditor has to turn over all the relevant information to the firm by a certain date, e.g., June 1, and what happens if that date isn't met. That should (hopefully) make things more objective. It'd also provide some protection for the firm if they received the information much later than promised and weren't able to get the audit completed on time.
Another solution might be for Fabri to complete his part of the audit before the Friday prior to the Monday it is due. You see we don't need to establish additional procedures and parameters, we just need Fabri to use a little common sense. Especially since he did the same thing last year. When the accounting firm told him last year that they needed his part earlier, why did he wait until the last possible moment to complete his work this year? You're trying to make this much more complicated than it needs to be. If your want to claim that it is not an attempt to cover for Fabri, then so be it.