Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Everett council delays vote on creating separate city auditor position after public hearing
Summary
Councilors opened a public hearing on an administrative-code change to create an independent city auditor, heard mixed public testimony and council concern about the proposed reporting structure, then voted to postpone so the administration can address independence and timing questions.
The Everett City Council opened a public hearing on an administrative order to create a separate, distinct city auditor position and postponed a final vote to allow more work with the administration.
The order, offered by Council President Stephanie Martins, would amend the City of Everett Administrative Code to create a separate auditing post that the order describes as independent of the chief financial officer. The council opened the hearing and heard public testimony both for and against the change.
The inspector general's recommendation prompted supporters. One speaker said, “I support this measure as was recommended by the IG's report,” and accused the existing structure of concentrating too many functions in one office after a recent $180,000 matter drew public attention (speaker: public commenter; record). Peggy Sereno said the inspector general made the recommendation “and maybe if this had been how it should have been, then we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now.”
Several councilors said they favor separation in principle but raised a procedural and structural objection: as drafted the auditor would still report to the mayor, not to an independent body, which they said would undercut true independence. “An auditor is independent. An auditor does not report to the CEO,” Councilor Smith said during consideration, adding that an auditor should report to “an independent audit board” rather than to the mayor.
Council discussion touched on timing limits in the city charter. The clerk advised the council it has up to 60 days to act on an administrative code change; after that period it goes into effect automatically if the council takes no action. Several councilors said they preferred to postpone rather than vote down the order, because a no vote could allow the separation to lapse without change.
After debate, the council voted to postpone the item to the next meeting to give members time to work with the administration on language that would create stronger independence than the draft provides.
The council did not take a final vote on the substantive change; the matter remains pending. The postponement preserves the 60‑day timeline while giving councilors and the administration more time to negotiate reporting language and other details.
Looking ahead: the council will expect revised language from the administration addressing the auditor’s reporting relationship and any salary or contract changes tied to the separation before the postponed item returns for a vote.
