Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Auditor Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northampton finance committee debates auditor selection process, plans outreach to peer towns
Summary
At a remote June 16 meeting, Northampton—s finance committee split over whether the chair—s outreach to an individual auditor created the appearance of favoritism; members agreed to vet two firms (Scanlon and CBIZ), have staff check peer towns—experiences and reconvene to decide a recommendation to the full council.
Councilor Clemmer, chair of the Northampton City Finance Committee, opened the June 16 meeting by defending her outreach to potential auditors and urging the committee to focus on selecting an auditor that serves the public interest. "I have no financial interest in the selection of an outside auditor and, therefore, no conflict of interest," she said, and added that she had consulted the city solicitor who "confirmed that my actions as chair were appropriate."
The exchange that followed centered on whether individual councilors had improperly shaped the candidate pool before the committee agreed on a procurement process. Councilor Robbins argued the committee should decide its rules before soliciting vendors and warned against the "appearance of preferential access" to a single firm: "A common municipal governance principle is that individual councilors generally do not possess the authority of the council or committee acting as a body," she said, citing a state ethics reference.
Several members agreed on two near-term steps. First, the committee will invite both Scanlon (a long-standing local auditor) and CBIZ (a larger national firm) to present and be interviewed so members can compare approaches. Second, Laura (the council clerk) was asked to contact comparable municipalities from the mayor—s usual comparison list to ask whether those towns received timely audits and whether they would recommend the firms. Committee members identified timeliness, scope of services and cost as material factors to weigh.
The committee reviewed pricing information provided in the meeting: Clemmer reported Scanlon—s base quote at roughly $65,000 with single-audit line items around $12,000—$14,000 per program, while CBIZ—s preliminary figures were materially higher in examples she cited (roughly $90,000—$98,000 across years and higher single-audit fees). Members said price should be considered but not be the sole criterion; several suggested using a weighted scorecard and interview process similar to the 2015 RFP precedent.
Committee members also discussed process options. Robbins and others said a full, advertised RFP is the gold standard for transparency; Laura noted no single statutory procurement procedure binds the committee and that informal solicitation can be acceptable when appropriate, but staff help and clear criteria would be needed. Members recalled that a 2015 RFP had been posted and managed with procurement-office involvement and suggested adapting that template if they proceed with a formal RFP.
Next steps: Laura will contact peer municipalities to check CBIZ—s and Scanlon—s client experience and timeliness. The committee tentatively scheduled a follow-up meeting (aimed to fall before the next full council cycle) to review those calls, possibly interview the firms and, if appropriate, vote on a recommendation to send to the city council. The committee did not take a formal vote on a firm at this meeting.
