News

UPDATE - April, 2008

This update is being printed in an effort to clarify an erroneous statement appearing in the April 9, 2008 issue of The Lincoln Journal and to make all aware that I have filed a complaint with the Secretary of State’s office pertaining to the ongoing favoritism for Charles McCann appearing in The Lincoln Journal.

1. Erroneous Lincoln Journal Information

The Lincoln Journal printed a false accusation against me in the April 9, 2008 issue. The false statement is in the article; “ Campaign finance reports show apparent relationships.” The accusation is that I improperly completed a portion of my financial statement. The insinuation is that I did not include the address of the employer of one of my contributors. Although candidates must give the addresses of certain contributors, candidates are not required to give the addresses of contributors employers.

The Lincoln Journal article states; “ Financial reports require that the address of employment for a contributor of more than $250 be listed. However, no address is listed for Custom Surroundings on Priestley’s report.”

The addresses of the employers of contributors are not required. Feel free to contact The Secretary of State’s office to clarify the requirement. I have asked for a correction and retraction to be published by The Lincoln Journal.

2. Election Complaint Filed

West Virginia code # 3-8-12 requires, among other things, that newspapers must provide equal coverage for candidates in their publications. This does not preclude candidates from purchasing all the ads that they wish but they can’t be given free advertisements unless the same is given to their opponents.

I contend that The Lincoln Journal has, and continues to, violate WV # 3-8-12. The Journal has given free publicity to Charles McCann under the guise of news events. I believe that any objective person reading the February 27, March 5, March 19, March 26, and April 2, 2008 issues of The Lincoln Journal would readily see the favoritism being provided Charles McCann. It was all free campaign advertising and I was not provided equal time.

Due to this ongoing violation of state election laws, I felt compelled to file a formal complaint. I filed a complaint on April 1, 2008. I intend to submit further documentation of this ongoing favoritism by adding the April 9, 2008 issue of The Lincoln Journal. Not only does the April 9, 2008 issue contain the false statement previously mentioned but it also has Interview # 6 with Charles McCann by Ron Gregory.

UPDATE - February, 2008

There have been several new developments relating to our county officials.   Questionable purchasing actions taken by the county commission and the latest “official” state audit reports reflect ongoing problems involving our county government.

#1 - Controversy over the awarding of “no bid” contracts has arisen.

The issue of awarding contracts that appear legally questionable was an issue at the February 8, 2008 County Commission meeting. Commissioner Vance questioned certain contracts that had been issued without competitive bidding as the law seemed to require at that time. 

Media accounts state that two county contractors were called by a county administrator and asked to perform work during 2004 and 2005. Competitive bids were not sought. It appears that competitive bids were required for those services at that time. It should be noted that the law was changed in 2006 and certain contracts now require competitive bids only if the amounts exceed $25,000.

According to media reports, one of the contractors involved stated that county administrator Judy Johnson told him to submit invoices for the work performed in increments less than $5,000. The contractors were merely performing their jobs and doing as they were requested to do. It is not their responsibility to know the legal requirements requiring competitive bids. It is the responsibility of county officials to know and follow legal requirements.

The action of requesting invoices in increments less than $5,000 was the concern expressed by Doctor Vance. Mr. McCann indicated that he and county administrator Judy Johnson reviewed and approved these expenditures.

Was there favoritism involved? Was the law being circumvented?

The question we must all ask ourselves is why county administrator Judy Johnson allegedly instructed a contractor to submit his invoices in increments of less than $5,000?

Please note that the “Issues” portion of my web site has alluded to the need for reform due to the lack of adequate financial over site in dealing with contracts. The Lincoln County Commission must have agreed that changes were necessary. A Public Notice was printed in the February 27, 2008 issue of the The Lincoln Journal seeking potential venders. The notice can be found right beside a portion of an interview with Commissioner McCann on page 12a.            (coincidence?)

SPECIAL NOTE:  The following comments concern the interview mentioned above with Charles McCann. An interview was conducted with Mr. McCann titled, It’s “a privilege to serve,” says McCann in The Lincoln Journal. It is quite obvious that this interview is politically motivated and should have stated, “Pd. by the Committee to re-elect Charles McCann and that McCann’s committee should have paid for this political ad. What is even more disturbing is that according to the footnote we can expect more interviews with McCann on other topics mentioned in the interview.

#2 - The State Auditor’s Office has issued audit reports for 2005 and 2006.

All governmental entities are required to be audited annually. The State Auditor’s Office conducts audits of county offices. The “official” Audit Reports for fiscal year 2005 (July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005) and fiscal year 2006 (July 1, 2005-June 30, 2006) for Lincoln County were released on January 22, 2008.

The State Auditor’s Office issued “Adverse Opinions” for Lincoln County for these years. An adverse opinion means that the county financial statements have important and significant errors and do not conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The audits received adverse opinions in part because certain data necessary to conduct these audits was missing and is necessary for complete and thorough audits.

However, the following were some of the problems identified:

 

The County Commission is responsible for monitoring and seeking solutions for areas of non-compliance. Since many of the same citations occur year after year, it is obvious that adequate over site is not occurring.   

It has recently been reported that an independent auditor has reviewed financial records and that county finances are now balanced. Please understand that only the audits conducted by the State Auditor’s Office are “official”. The 2007 and 2008 audits will occur in the future. It should also be noted that no one is saying that the areas of non-compliance stated in the latest official audit reports have been corrected.

If you would like to read the 2005 and 2006 Audit Reports, please do the following:

 

#3 - Water is not available to all county citizens

The major goal of the county should be to provide water to ALL citizens. It is curious that Mr. McCann does not mention providing water at all in his interview with The Lincoln Journal dated February 27, 2008. He talks about other accomplishments but never addresses the need that many have for the necessity of WATER. Granted it is shown as a County Commission goal in another segment of the paper but the interview doesn’t mention water. The writer states that Mr. McCann will be commenting on the other things in the article that he mentioned in future articles. However, once again, water was not mentioned. Think it will be now?

 

Lincoln County residents want clean government and clean water. There are certainly other needs but these are essential and must be addressed first!