Senate President Craig P. Blair of Berkeley County suggested this week that a working group be appointed to discuss volunteer fire department (VFD) reviews by the Legislative Auditor’s Office.
President Blair, following a detailed “post-audits” presentation Tuesday by Mike Jones, Audit Manager in the Post Audit Division, said during a Post Audits Subcommittee meeting that he believes the state’s 428 VFDs would be better served if the Legislative Auditor’s Office were more proactive in terms of VFD reviews, which attempt to ensure that public funds allocated to VFDs are spent in conformity with law.
When asked whether he knows how the Legislative Auditor’s Office could be more proactive in securing VFD review details, Jones said, “I don’t have an answer for you at this time.”
Moments earlier in his presentation, Jones noted his office corresponds with VFDs by hardcopy letter and e-mails, but he stressed that decentralized VFDs lack “tech savvy” in many instances.
“That’s too late,” President Blair commented. “They’ve already done these things.”
He said the Legislative Auditor’s Office could bolster its VFDs’ review effectiveness if VFD officials completing reviews would have instant access to the Legislative Auditor’s Office for questions or instructions in completing reviews.
Delegate Kayla Young of Kanawha County also noted the state Auditor’s Office is more “public facing” than the Legislative Auditor’s Office — a point Blair opined, saying the Legislative Auditor’s Office, which Jones said has a staff of “two” besides himself, may not be best equipped for VFD reviews. He cut short of stating the Legislative Auditor’s Office should be removed from the process.
President Blair said VFD officials are in the process of “putting out fires, not shoving out paperwork” both as a result of mission and varied staffing in terms of accountability for funds. President Blair said a “helpline” or other means could enhance or ease communications with VFDs, although Jones said his office is accessible.
The Legislative Auditor’s presentation distinguished the differences in role and function of that office and the state Auditor’s Office, especially in terms of divergent roles – that of “review” and that of an audit. Jones, however, noted some VFDs conclude they are audited twice, although the situation occurs infrequently.
“We hope that through the new procedure of notifying the state auditor’s office of our audits and our continued efforts to keep the departments informed and work with them we can continue to improve this process and continue to reduce the burden on the departments,” Mr. Jones said, but noted he didn’t have considerable detail about the state Auditor’s Office protocols, although both entities are communicating, he said.
Based on the Legislative Auditor’s Office findings, 27 Departments were in full compliances with Legislative Auditor directives, while 67 of the 94 VFDs providing review information were cited for co-mingling state-allocated moneys with local or other funds.
In most instances, the Legislative Auditor’s Office noted that VFDs correct review findings, although not always.
Those comments prompted House Speaker Roger Hanshaw of Clay County to ask about correspondence he received about a VFD allegedly “saving” state-allocated funds with other funds for future purchase of a “vehicle.”
Mr. Jones said state funds could be “saved” for vehicle purchases.
Speaker Hanshaw questioned whether the Legislative Auditor’s Office is encumbered by conflicting laws or regulations. He said the Legislature and Auditor’s Office should be seen as “one.”
A central question posed is whether moneys, based on reviews, could be withheld from VFDs until review findings were corrected. Mr. Jones answered in the affirmative, pointing to a slide that noted the process.
Once reports are prepared, the state Treasurer is notified of each VFD not in compliance, and funds spent out of compliance are withheld from distribution and subject to distribution to “compliant departments.” |