When township attorney Steve Joppich was asked why changes were made to a resolution based on auditor Plante & Moran’s ‘confirmation? of $2.7 million in loans for the new township hall, he said he ‘didn’t know.?
‘I haven’t gone back through all of those things and read through them all, so I would have to reconstruct a lot of that stuff,? he said. ‘That was eight or nine months ago.?
According to the resolution discussed on Sept. 16, the auditors confirmed the transfer and loan from the water and sewer fund to the general fund ‘would not impair future operation or debt service payments.?
However, the purchase resolution approved by the board Oct. 21 stated it was ‘subject to the confirmation of the township auditors? and would be implemented only if ‘written confirmation is received from the township’s auditors.?
Plante & Moran never gave confirmation on the loan deal due to ‘ethical issues.?
Joppich wrote in a Nov. 4 letter to the board that Plante & Moran could not address the loan situation directly ‘because of the independence it must exercise between being the township’s auditors and making a management decision? Accordingly, the township’s finance director, who is certified public accountant, has reviewed the matter and issued her memo dated Nov. 3, 2008, to the board confirming these issues from a management standpoint, based on the opinions and advice provided by Plante & Moran in its presentations and reports.?
However, previosuly reported by the Clarkston News on June 17 Plante & Moran issued a memo Oct.29 stating current water rates of $1.79 per hundred cubic feet, including a quarterly meter fee, wasn’t enough to maintain the fund.
According to auditors, the fund would run out of money by 2011 without a rate increase or loan.
‘These events appear imminent even if the fund does not loan money to the general government,? the letter stated.
Joppich disagreed the letter signed by Hendricks ‘had no merit.?
Well I don’t know about that, I think you got to read it as a whole all together? You can make your own judgment,? he told the Clarkston News.
Joppich was also asked why in his Nov. 4 letter, he referenced Plante & Moran’s letters, but never included them with his letter.
‘Because it was my understanding they had been given to the board already as well as Susan Hendrick’s material, my understanding was it was all already in their possession,? he said.
In his Nov 4 letter, Joppich also stated if the board was not satisfied with the report by the township’s financial professionals then the board should ‘promptly readdress? the matter. ‘In absence of such and indication and action by the board, it will be concluded that the board is satisfied with this contingency in the manner it has been addressed and the closing will proceed subject to the finalization of the other contingences.?
When asked how the board could ‘promptly readdress the manner? when the eight page letter was sent on Election Day and the matter was not on the following evening meetings agenda and the next board meeting would be after the closing date.
‘The board can have special meetings,? he said.
Prior board member Dan Kelly when asked whether or not a special meeting could be called, he said ‘it was impractical to expect a board to deal with an issue without the information necessary.?
As to whether or not the resolution was met? Joppich would not directly comment.
‘The board is my client and I’ve given them the information and I respect their decisions on things, it’s not my place to judge all of that, the board made a decision to proceed with the matter,? Joppich said. ‘I pulled the legal paperwork together for the township. If the board doesn’t want to proceed I don’t pull the legal paperwork together.?