Glass City Jungle

It should have been expected that when earlier this month Republican Mary Taylor made it known that it had been 245 days since the fiscal year ended and her office did not have the numbers they needed to do the required annual audit that it was going to be political. She’s a Republican, Governor Strickland is a Democrat so when she said comments like:

“How will the governor know where to go fiscally if he doesn’t know where he’s been?”

It was pretty much game on. As soon as there was something negative to report about Taylor’s office, it would be pointed out. That happened today, with a media release sent out by the Ohio Democratic Party:

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary How Did Your Audit Go?

COLUMBUS – Just days after State Auditor Mary Taylor stood before the entire Statehouse press corps to accuse Governor Strickland of delaying the state audit, it was revealed that the audit of Taylor’s own office was months late, raising questions about the sincerity of her accusations.

As reported by the Columbus Dispatch (”Audit of Taylor’s office also late,” 3/7/09), under Ohio law, the audit of Taylor’s office had to be completed by October 15. It was not finished until December 8, nearly two months late.

While the Strickland administration acknowledged the delay in both cases is due to the complicated transition to the Taft-initiated Ohio Administrative Knowledge System, Taylor continues to use exaggerated partisan rhetoric even as she begins to backtrack. Now Taylor admits she “knew there would be delays” months before last week’s press conference.

“During these tough economic times, Ohioans deserve elected officials who will work together to solve problems. It is a shame that Mary Taylor chooses instead to engage in disingenuous attacks for partisan political gain,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern.

Of course if you point out that there is a clear time difference between the two, over 245 days versus 60, and that at least here in Toledo, and in the letter written by Taylor it does point out she’s aware of why this is taking so long.

Ms. Taylor said the numbers are typically available within six months of the close of a fiscal year and audits are usually completed by the following spring.

She said the state has said it’s been unable to get the numbers from its massive new computerized accounting and payroll system, the Ohio Administrative Knowledge System, which has been gradually phased into operation.

It would ruin the whole political game part of the process; but seriously…Anyone tired of the never ending finger pointing from both sides, would realize the whole OAKS system was adopted under a Republican Governor and is being implemented under a Democratic Governor, delays were expected but I don’t think this long of a delay was and that it’s questionable to make an issue out of being two months late when the state is over 8 months late but, if you aren’t totally on point yourself? Expect it back…If this was reversed and we had a Democratic Auditor in an administration that was Republican, the same exact thing would happen, the only thing that would differ is who’s lobbing what at who.

Now it’s being said OAKS is so horrible, and it’s was Taft’s idea, so I started to wonder who actually approved this thing…Yes! You know what comes next, the research…

I spent a bit of time going through the General Assembly records to find legislation authorizing OAKS, which considering how badly organized our General Assembly legislation finding system is, was an adventure. It appears as best I can tell, this bill, SB189 in the 125th General Assembly is the one that gives the authorization for OAKS.

Section 47. OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM PROJECT

The Ohio Administrative Knowledge System (OAKS) shall be an enterprise resource planning system that replaces the state’s central services infrastructure systems, including, but not limited to, the central accounting system, the human resources/payroll system, the capital improvements projects tracking system, the fixed assets management system, and the procurement system. The Department of Administrative Services, in conjunction with the Office of Budget and Management, may acquire the system, including, but not limited to, the enterprise resource planning software and installation and implementation thereof pursuant to Chapter 125. of the Revised Code. Any lease-purchase arrangement utilized under Chapter 125. of the Revised Code, including any fractionalized interest therein as defined in division (N) of section 133.01 of the Revised Code, shall provide at the end of the lease periods that OAKS becomes the property of the state.

Ironically? The Ohio Senate doesn’t share their journal for the 125th online…So, all we have in print is who voted in the House for this bill.

What’s interesting is Mary Taylor was a Representative at that time, for the 43rd House District, and she asked to abstain from the vote because it might be construed she had an interest in the legislation. Then…after all of the various amendments were passed or not passed it came to (see page 11):

The question recurring, “Shall the bill as amended pass?”
The yeas and nays were taken and resulted – yeas 91, nays 1

Brinkman was the only one who voted no. Chris Redfern voted yes…

I totally agree with Redfern’s statement that “Ohioans deserve elected officials who will work together to solve problems”– I wish both sides would remember that in their never ending game of tit for tat. It’d also be really cool if they would remember what part they played in the process (or didn’t play) when something doesn’t go the way it’s supposed to. Yes, I realize some of you will say “well SHE started it first” which will then be countered with “well THEY did this” — We’re only responsible for our own actions, and it takes at least two to play the tit for tat game, else it would stop with…

As ps, the Ohio Channel does have the video from February 18, 2004 from the Ohio Senate where the whole OAKS thing was not even mentioned as part of the discussion when they voted on the bill – they actually talked about the bi-partisan effort that went into this bill. 33 yeahs no nays…