A team of auditors say Councilman Keith Alexander may have a conflict of interest that violates state law because he is also a city employee.
Three auditors from the Salt Lake firm of Pinnock, Robbins, Posey and Richins recommended the city draft a conflict-of-interest policy to address the issue of Alexander serving on the City Council and also working full-time at City Hall as a business retention specialist.Auditor Mike Beach said the firm is obligated to report this potential violation to the state auditors. Midvale City Attorney Martin Pezely said he will ask the State Attorney General's Office for a legal opinion.
It all may be a moot point, said Midvale City Manager Lee King. Alexander's job is being recommended for elimination in the 1997-98 budget.
This was one of several eyebrow-raising things the auditors found during a weeks-long inspection of Midvale's books. The independent auditors were contracted after the previous city manager, Mike Siler, resigned in January. Auditors examined city procedures for purchasing, handling of utilities funds, the finance department and the municipal courts.
Some critics had expected auditors to find the city's books in disarray. That was not the case, though there were some areas of concern.
In some cases, auditors found that not all the city purchasing policies were followed to the letter, or employees did things manually that could have been done faster and more accurately by the existing computer system.
For example, the data entry clerks who enter municipal court docket information into the computer system are lagging behind by four months. That could create a situation in which someone could be arrested despite having already resolved their case.
"We recommend you correct this problem as soon as possible to protect the city from lawsuit," said Beach, who added that Midvale needs to hire a part-time, temporary typist to help get the information up to date.
"You're not the only city who's struggled in this area," auditor Roger Richins reassured the city.
Also, auditors noted transfers of money from water and other utilities accounts were done without properly notifying residential and business users as state law requires. Most recently, this occurred in June 1996.
As a result, King said, the water fund reserves are dangerously low and may require a modest $1.20 per month fee increase that residents would begin paying July 1.
"Transfers that took place in previous years are having an impact on fund balances and partially responsible in our consideration of fee increases," King said. "We don't have an emergency right now, (but we have to) build that fund back up."
There was a smattering of smaller matters such as lack of storage space at the municipal court that auditors felt needed to be addressed by city officials.