Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Auditor Office topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses vote on proposed external‑auditor law after detailed public questions; hearing continued to August
Summary
A public hearing on PLLN2025 (an outside/local auditor role) drew technical questions from residents and trustees about scope, audit standards and RFP language; the board agreed to revise the draft and adjourn the hearing to the first meeting in August for further review.
The Village Board opened a public hearing on a proposed local law (PLLN2025) to establish an external auditor to supplement internal controls and audits. Village staff described the office as a supplement to existing in‑house processes: audit work would be performed, then documentation would be sent to the external auditor for review and a report to the board.
Stuart Teekert, a frequent commenter who said he had reviewed the draft law and the RFP, urged the board not to adopt the measure that night and pushed for clearer, written standards for the auditor’s work. Teekert raised several concerns about the RFP: that it did not reference a required level of audit standard, that financial limitations and evaluation criteria appeared inconsistent or missing, and that the RFP language allowed substantial post‑award negotiation of terms. He also presented invoices and asserted there had been overpayments on prior sanitary‑sewer‑rehabilitation contracts; he asked whether the external auditor would perform contract‑level depth reviews that might identify improper payments.
“Will the auditor also be auditing Westchester Joint Water Works claims against the Village?” Teekert asked; he also recommended that payroll be included explicitly in the definition of claims if the board intends the auditor to cover payroll. Board members and the village attorney noted that Village Law and existing obligations guide what must be audited; one trustee proposed adding payroll to the claims definition, and the village attorney offered to amend specific language on the record and recirculate a corrected draft.
Board and staff comments emphasized the hearing’s purpose: the law is step one to establish the auditor’s role, after which the RFP review and procurement process will define specific scope, schedules and compensation. Because several participants asked for revisions and additional technical clarifications, the board moved and voted to adjourn the hearing and reconvene consideration at the board’s first meeting in August to allow staff to update language and circulate a final draft.
No final adoption of PLLN2025 occurred at this meeting; trustees said they would re‑notice any substantive edits as required and return with a corrected draft and the RFP responses when available.
