
The outside attorney hired to oversee an audit of Westhampton Beach Village finances insinuated that the trustees who hired him somehow manipulated the final report that was completed earlier in the week—so that it more positively reflected village finances—before storming out of last Thursday night’s Village Board meeting.
Scott B. Augustine of Bellport, who was hired by a divided board in the fall to review all of the municipality’s finances after a payroll error was uncovered, stated that his copy of a detailed 300-page report from Satty, Levine & Ciacco, the village’s auditing firm, had been altered and that two copies of the final report are now in circulation. He told trustees that the document in his possession, which he received on March 1 and reviewed last week, has fewer pages than the one given to them last Wednesday, the day before the board meeting.
Mr. Augustine—who appeared agitated during his 10 minutes at the podium, and grabbed his coat and left the meeting after a tense exchange with Mayor Conrad Teller at the end of his remarks—went as far as accusing the mayor and trustees of contacting the Jericho-based auditing firm and having the report changed. He did not offer specific details of what had been added or removed from the document.
“I would like to know if somebody contacted [John] Lundy and asked the report to be altered between the date that I received it and the date you received it,” said Mr. Augustine, referring to the CPA with Satty, Levine & Ciacco who oversaw the report. He noted that his copy of the report was dated February 17; the version received by trustees was dated Tuesday, March 5.
The suggestion angered Mr. Teller, who stated that the final report shared with trustees was the same one that arrived at Village Hall at 9:35 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, and that if there is an issue, it was Mr. Augustine’s fault. Mr. Teller, who has made it clear that he never wanted to hire Mr. Augustine in the first place, also said he called the auditing firm over the weekend, before the final report was sent to the village, to ask if auditors had found any red flags.
“I talked to Mr. Lundy [over] the weekend,” said Mr. Teller, who was yelling at Mr. Augustine at one point during last week’s meeting. “I don’t ask him a damn question on their audit other than is there a red flag or not.”
Mr. Augustine’s comments also angered Richard Haefeli, the village attorney, who stated that he was violating the municipality’s attorney-client privilege by making such comments during a public meeting. Mr. Haefeli said that the attorney’s concerns should have been brought up in executive session when all parties, including Mr. Lundy, are present.
“This is something that should have been discussed with the board in an attorney-client relationship and not in front of the audience that is here,” he said. “Then it could have been cleared up. The village could have found out what the issues are.
“But you are not supposed to be discussing these sorts of issues in front of the board and in front of the audience,” Mr. Haefeli continued. “You are an attorney.”
Mr. Lundy, who did not attend last week’s meeting because he was in the hospital, could not be reached for comment this week.
On Friday, Mr. Teller said the only document in his possession dated March 5 is the three-page cover letter that’s signed by Mr. Lundy and accompanies the report. The mayor would not specify what the cover letter states. He speculated that the document might not have been included with Mr. Augustine’s copy. Mr. Teller added that there was a letter from Mr. Augustine also attached in the packet and dated March 1.
When reached on Friday, Mr. Augustine said he regretted his actions the night before, stating that he did not mean to accuse the trustees of misconduct. He said his intention was to alert the board of a possible discrepancy.
“I did not handle that as well as I should have,” he said on Friday, regarding his prior behavior. “That was not my intention and I could have handled it a lot better.”
Mr. Augustine refused to say what had been added to the version of the report received by trustees, but noted that he was alerted to the discrepancy by members of the board that he would not identify.
According to Mr. Augustine, he first received his report, which was dated February 17, on Friday, March 1. At the time, he was told the trustees would have the report for review by that Monday, March 4. They did not receive the document until March 6.
At that time, Mr. Augustine said that at least two trustees contacted him to ask why the report is now dated March 5. At that point, he had one of the trustees fax him the first five pages of the report so he could compare them. It is then, he said, that he realized that the report had been altered.
While somewhat convoluted, the statute below says the Village does not have to disclose stuff the agency has not finished, except external audits....
PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW
ARTICLE 6. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW
NY Public Officer’s Law § 87 (2012)
2. Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying ...more all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:…
(g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;
iii. final agency policy or determinations;
iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government;…
4… (c) The court in such a proceeding may assess, against such agency involved, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by such person in any case under the provisions of this section in which such person has substantially prevailed, [fig 1] when:
i. the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access; or
ii. the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time.
And from the Village Code
§ 134-2. Designation of records access officer.
A. The Village Clerk's office shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations herein and shall designate one or more persons as records access officers by name or by specific job titleand business address, who shall have the duty of coordinating the response to public requests for access to records. The designation of one or more records access officers shall not be construed to prohibit officials who have in the past been authorized to make records or information available to the public from continuing to do so.
§ 134-5. Requests for access to records.
A. All requests for records shall be made in writing.
B. Requests for records shall be honored within five business days of receipt of such request.
C. Requests shall reasonably describe the record of records sought. Whenever possible, the request shall specify dates, file designations or other information that might help in describing the record sought.
D. Should the Clerk fail to provide or deny access to the records sought within five business days of the receipt of such request, the Clerk shall furnish a written acknowledgment of receipt of the request and a statement of the approximate date when the request will be granted or denied. Failure of the Clerk to either grant or deny a request within 10 business days after the date of acknowledgment or receipt of a request shall be construed as a denial of access that may be appealed.
§ 134-7. Denial of access; appeals.
A. The Board of Trustees shall hear appeals or shall designate a person or body to hear appeals regarding denial of access to records under the Freedom of Information Law.
B. Denial of access shall be in writing stating the reason therefor and advising the person denied access of his or her right to appeal to the person or body established to hear appeals, and that person or body shall be identified by name, title, business address and business telephone number. The records access officer shall not be the appeals officer.
C. If an agency fails to respond to a request within five business days of receipt of a request as required in § 134-5D, such failure shall be deemed a denial of access by the agency.
D. Any person denied access to records may appeal within 30 days of a denial.
E. The time for deciding an appeal by the Board of Trustees shall commence upon receipt of a written appeal identifying:
(1) The date and location of a request for records.
(2) The records that were denied.
(3) The name and return address of the appellant.
F. The Board of Trustees shall transmit to the Committee on Public Access to Records copies of all appeals upon receipt of an appeal. Such copies shall be addressed to:
Committee on Public Access to Records
Department of State
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12231
G. The Board of Trustees shall inform the appellant and the Committee on Public Access to Records of its determination, in writing, within seven business days of receipt of an appeal. The determination shall be transmitted to the Committee on Public Access to Records in the same manner as set forth in Subsection F of this section.
H. A final denial of access to a requested record, as provided for in Subsection G of this section, shall be subject to court review, as provided for in Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Also a simple password on a document also secures the data
I don't know to what level the State's audit was conducted. I would think it was more superficial just based on the notion that they were not physically present (to my knowledge) in the Village.
In publishing they call it "POP" which means publish or perish. The implication is it is final and the further implication ...more is it could contain an error but not one of consequence. I'd hate to think in an audit there was no "final" document.
Overall this is a horrible way to run a government. Considering he bulk of the property tax collected goes to the school budget and that appears not to be in question, it is pretty heinous to mess up given the small dollars and transaction amounts involved.