City's Manager's Electronic Information Systems Ordinance Results In Cat Fight

.
From:  “Ted Noftall” <Ted@TedNoftall.com>
To:   “Margaret Roberts” <mroberts@port-orange.org>  City Attorney
Good afternoon Margaret,
Can you help me understand which specific  “public records “ Manager Kisela is requesting that I forward to the City clerk pursuant to the “City’s newly adopted Electronic Information Systems ordinance”
The e-mail in question was sent  to Manager Kisela,  and while  it was not originally copied to the City clerk it has been on several occasions since.
How at this point can the e-mail in question,  or this one,  or any other one that I send to a City e-mail address  not be preserved in the public records of Port Orange.
Ted Noftall

---

ginal Message—–
From: Kisela, Greg [mailto:gkisela@port-orange.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:58 PM
To: Ted Noftall; Fenwick, Robin
Subject: RE: Not so fast Mr. Kisela
 Ted:
All I know it what I told you in the e-mail.  I was informed you had transmitted electronically the document to other individual(s) not on the original distribution list.  If that is not the case than I stand corrected.
Greg Kisela
City Manager

---

From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@TedNoftall.com]

 
Thank you Manager Kisela,
Which  “public records”  are you referring to ??
Ted Noftall

---

—–Original Message—–
From: Kisela, Greg [mailto:gkisela@port-orange.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:34 AM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Fenwick, Robin; Roberts, Margaret
Subject: RE: Not so fast Mr. Kisela
 Ted:
I understand that you may have transmitted this document to another party or parties that are not included in  your original distribution.  If so, please provide within seventy-two (72) hours of being sent, pursuant to the  City’s newly adopted Electronic Information Systems ordinance,“these public records” to the following e-mail address cityclerk@port-orange.org<mailto:cityclerk@port-orange.org>.   Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
Greg Kisela
City Manager

---

From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@TedNoftall.com]

 
Thank you Manager Kisela,
You have made clear that you are operating under the same misconception as the former manager and finance director  …… namely internal control is something the Auditor comments on and,  and to which you dutifully respond back that you have resolved,  as in  …. “21 of the 24 findings and comments identified in FY 2012 were resolved”
The problem with operating under that misconception is that the Auditor’s  review of the City’s internal control is for a very limited purpose  and use — as he makes clear on P 180 of the CAFR.
 
“In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major state project to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in  accordance with Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance.
 
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
 
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Florida Auditor General. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose”    (09-30-2013 CAFR  P 180)
 
 
The practical effect of operating under your  misconception is that every half dozen years or so taxpayers get hosed with major asset misappropriations  due to improperly designed, implemented or monitored controls  as typified by the water debacle in the fall of 2012 which was in full swing  when  you came on board.
 
Since you find considering  “internal controls” in these terms   to be “ baffling”  let me help as best I can.
 
“The design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.“   ( Independent Auditors’ Report – CAFR  P 21 )  IS MEANT TO BE AN  ONGOING PRO-ACTIVE OPERATION.  
 
That means the City NEEDS TO TAKE A PAGE from the private sector where misappropriated assets belong to shareholders with a vested interest sufficiently high to be insistent on meaningful responsibility and accountability to hopefully prevent, but if not  punish such misappropriations  AND START DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, and  MONITORING  NEW AND ENHANCED INTERNAL CONTROLS  ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
 
ACCORDINGLY   I would again ask;
 
Does the City  sub out the  design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control,    OR  does it perform that task in house,     OR is that task not performed at all ??
 
 
AND IF  the City  performs that task in house who actually  performs that design, implementation, and maintenance ?
 
AND   WHAT   qualifications and experience does   that individual or individuals   possess to adequately discharge  the  important task of designing, implementing and monitoring  controls adequate to safeguarding taxpayer assets  .…. because  if any of your Finance staff including your  Finance Director or Comptroller  is a degreed accountant, or holds a CPA designation , or has any recent professional accounting or auditing experience  those facts are well concealed on their resumes. ??
 
I will address your  threat or promise, real or implied   to  “remove  administrative officials”  critical of what can only be characterized as your   ‘good enough for government work standards’   in a subsequent e-mail.
 
Ted Noftall