Tom Salmon’s slippery evasion of responsibility has recently come under discussion here at GMD, and it seems to be attracting attention in the mainstream media as well.  As the Bennington Banner discovered in an interview they conducted with Tom Salmon this week, the current auditor accepts no responsibility for missing the five year-long embezzlement practiced by a state employee which targeted the Department of Children and Families’  “Reach-Up” program.  Says Salmon:

“While that was being identified, our auditors in our office were doing a look at another payment system, $8 billion in payments over a 24-month period. So the argument that we weren’t attentive — we were actually in the field, we just weren’t looking at that particular system,” Salmon said. “Unfortunately, the Newport thing was going on and not being caught. Vermonters need to know that we’re on it. We’re not reacting to Newport because while that was happening, we were doing the same work somewhere else.”

Say what?

Mr. Salmon’s opponent in the upcoming election, Doug Hoffer, fairly points out that the state auditor should be able to attend to more than one audit situation at a time.   The embezzlement took place over a period of five years, beginning two years before Salmon took office, and continuing for three years hence.  Even if the office might be excused for missing it for one or two years, it is baffling to understand why Salmon doesn’t see that he failed to fulfill his obligation as Auditor by allowing it to continue for a full five years.

In response to Mr. Salmon’s rationalizations to the Banner, Mr. Hoffer had this to say:

In my view, Auditor Salmon made some comments that deserve additional scrutiny.

The Banner’s reporter noted my suggestion that the five-year long embezzlement scheme should have raised red flags in the Federal Single Audit.

First, the implication is that the Auditor’s Office can only do one thing at a time, which is absurd on its face.  Moreover, the Single Audit (which missed the embezzlement scheme) is done primarily by consulting auditors from KPMG under contract to the State Auditor.  So regardless of what the Auditor’s staff were doing at the time, the Single Audit was taking place and it is the State Auditor who is responsible for and oversees the work of the consultants.  Note also that the explanation offered was for one year and ignores the fact that the embezzlement was a multi-year scheme.  What is the Auditor’s excuse for missing it the year before?  And the year before that?

Second, the suggestion that the Auditor was attentive but was simply looking at a different system is just a diversion.  This was not an either – or situation.  It is irrelevant what the staff was doing at the time because the Reach Up program is covered every year by the Single Audit, which (as was mentioned) is done by consultants under contract.  

Third, the reference to “payments over a 24-month period” could lead a reader to think that the audit that supposedly kept them from the embezzlement scheme took 24 months.  That is not the case.

Mr. Salmon tried to reassure us.  “Vermonters need to know that we’re on it. We’re not reacting to Newport because while that was happening, we were do the same work somewhere else.”

The effort to avoid responsibility is troubling because we don’t know if Mr. Salmon has taken any steps in-house or with the consultants to review the procedures that failed to see any red flags.  How can Vermonters be persuaded that the Auditor’s Office is “on it” if no one acknowledges the problem or explains how it will be corrected?  Finally, one wonders why under these circumstances the State Auditor is “not reacting to Newport”?