This diary was prompted by reader bmike’s posting entitled “Salmon, dodging political crossfire?” Credit where credit’s due.

Man, I wish I was State Auditor of Accounts. Good pay, state bennies, and apparently not much to do. Because Tom Salmon CPA* must be really bored. He keeps coming up with stuff that has nothing to do with his job description. Which, according to state law, involves auditing state agencies and departments and funds held by the state or its officers. Regarding local government, the Auditor can audit entities that receive state funds. The office has no general authority to look into a city or town’s finances.

*That’s how he referred to himself in a recent press release. Has he legally changed his last name to “CPA”?

Still, he decided to send a 109-item checklist/questionnaire on local financial practices to the city of Burlington. And then he made a big stink when the city didn’t return it in by his self-imposed deadline. He’s also upset that Burlington hasn’t welcomed his offer to provide professional support.

That purported reluctance is rather understandable on Burlington’s part, given that Salmon has made himself a highly partisan Republican figure, frequently injecting himself into political issues, and having criticized Burlington’s financial management in the past. Welcome, fox, to my henhouse.

The brouhaha is written up in Vermont Digger. (The story is worth reading, and below it is a perceptive comment by Doug Hoffer.) By VTDigger’s account, Salmon sent the checklist to Burlington on January 3, requesting a reply by January 31. The city’s response was dated January 27, but “Salmon told VTDigger that he didn’t see it until about a week later.” By which time he had complained to a state House committee (on February 2, a mere three days “late” by Salmon’s standard) about Burlington’s failure to respond. And had issued a press release about his testimony, presumably seeking maximum exposure for his plaint.

January 27 to February 2. The Burlington-Montpelier mail run is usually faster than that, but never mind.  

After the jump: a possibly irrelevant checklist, a rationalization considered and rejected, and a revelation of piscine impotence.  

In a letter accompanying the city’s completed checklist, acting Chief Administrative Officer Scott Schrader defended the city’s financial practices and noted that the checklist “was intended to assist small Vermont municipalities” that might be lacking in basic accounting knowhow, and that no other Vermont community “undergoes a more rigorous and detailed review of its finances.”

According to Vermont Digger, the checklist was headlined as the “City Version” of the document, but that the only apparent difference between City and Town versions was a single question, “Has there been a theft or embezzlement in the last 10 years?” (The answer was “no,” by the way.)

If Salmon was serious about probing Burlington’s financial and auditing practices, you’d think he could have spent a little more time crafting a City Version.

Looking at this situation objectively, without regard to the personality or track record of our current State Auditor, one can see situations where the Auditor’s intervention into a local government’s affairs might be desirable, even if it’s tangential to the job description. If you’ve got a rotten town council who won’t take its citizens’ complaints seriously or is clearly squandering public resources, then somebody has to step in. And maybe the Auditor can be that somebody in certain situations.

But Tom Salmon has a track record of sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong, of making strong partisan attacks on Democratic officials and their policies, and of letting his attention drift from his core responsibilities like a dog distracted by a passing squirrel. In that context, his persistent prodding of Burlington looks less like the selfless act of a Good Samaritan CPA, and more like another move by an occasionally reckless attack dog. Er, attack fish.

Oh, two more things. First, there was a brief item about this on February 2 in vtBuzz, the Burlington Free Press’ politics blog. It included the line: “Salmon has asked legislators the authority to require municipalities to respond to his office’s requests.” (sic)

Wait. You mean that municipalities aren’t required to respond to your requests? Well, then, you really don’t have a complaint, do you?

And second, the best line in the Vermont Digger story:

“We passed on auditing Burlington Telecom because we didn’t want to be in a political crossfire,” Salmon told VTDigger. “We have a long history of patiently standing by.”

The sound you hear is the faint echo of laughter down the Winooski Valley and up the heights of the Green Mountains.