County Auditor Controversies

It must be pointed out up front that many of the accusations in this post are disputed by the County Auditor George Danos. They include staff complaints from the auditor's office, an IT forensic report about pornography on the auditor's work computer, and accusations of nonfeasance. I've tried to lay the accusations and the denials out as fairly as possible with links to the documentation available.

If one believes the County Auditor and his public supporters, the controversies laid out in this post are part of a smear campaign to undermine his stance on the County budget and a possible 1/4 cent increase to the Public Safety Sales Tax. Those issues are covered in more detail in a previous Cheat Sheet post here. There is a special study session meeting of the County Board on the specific issue of adding a sale tax referendum to the November ballot tomorrow as well.

The Auditor's critics have pointed to a regular flow of complaints coming from multiple staff members in his office during his tenure. At this month's meeting of the County Board's Labor Committee there was a draft resolution to censure the auditor (page 19 and 20 of the agenda packet PDF). There was a discussion on the complaints received by administrators received in the County Administrator's office in addition to those documented in a recent set of documents made public after a FOIA request.

Those FOIA documents were discussed in a special meeting of the County Board at the beginning of the month and included in the agenda packet for that meeting. Most of that documentation appears to be a list of complaints from at least one staff member of the County Auditor's office. It alleges bizarre and inappropriate behavior and nonfeasance on the part of the Auditor. The discussions in that special meeting and later in the Labor Committee meeting revolved around additional complaints that have been verbally reported, but not officially documented by the staffers themselves.

IT Forensic Report and Pornographic Material:

A brief one page IT Forensic Report in the FOIA documents has received a great deal of attention due to the fact that it noted "compelling documents were found on Danos’ hard drive, which included numerous files which could be construed as pornographic, as well as some images which featured fully naked men."

There has been speculation on what that could mean, from inadvertent pop-up ads to whether the images were actually explicitly pornographic. Multiple members of the County Board from both parties were able to view the images from the IT forensic investigation and described it as "explicit" and "curated" pornography. It was similarly described by the County Executive and administrative staff that observed the material found on the Auditor's computer as part of the forensic investigation.

In the Labor Committee meeting, Director of Administration Michelle Jett pointed out that the initial "bland" language related to the pornographic material may have been due to hopes that the matter had been successfully resolved. Continued staff complaints about inappropriate behavior by the Auditor, however, undermined those hopes.

Munis Log Ins:

The FOIA documents also included records of the Auditor's use of the Munis budget software application. His critics have pointed out a rarity in log ins and accused him of not fulfilling his duties as Auditor. They similarly praised the staff in his office for producing the office's work product in spite of him. 

The Auditor disputed those accusations in his recent presentation to the County Board, in which he also disputed the accuracy of the budget director's financial forecast and opposed a sales tax increase. He argued that he can access the Munis budget data in other ways and can work from the generated compiled reports the system sends out.

During the presentation he responded to a number of questions and concerns about his process. He entered in data and updated his Excel spreadsheets in real time as board members raised various items and alleged discrepancies. The Auditor denied any substantial differences with his main point: that he forecasts an ongoing budget surplus and views the budget director's forecasts as fear mongering.

FOIA Request and "Cookie Cutter:"

We haven't been able to confirm who made the very specific and seemingly targeted FOIA request that led to the public release of these documents. In the documents the FOIA request is attributed to someone who calls themselve "Cookie Cutter." Jim Dey, a notable critic of Democratic Party Politics, has repeatedly claimed in recent opinion pieces that "Cookie Cutter" is former Champaign County Democratic Party official (and former Cunningham Township Assessor) Wayne Williams. He initially appeared to base this confirmation on public statements by the Democratic chair of the County Board, Samantha Carter.

Those statements at the April 4th special meeting included accusations against the County Executive being part of some coordinated effort with Wayne Williams to talk to her in the parking lot of the County's Brookens Administrative Center and perhaps other activities. The source of the FOIA request seems more relevant to the Auditor's defenders and issues of intraparty distrust than the accusations themselves.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide what relevance the FOIA requester's identity may or may not have to the content of the documents themselves.

Taxes and Budget Forecasts

One of the larger controversies and disputes in the County government right now is on the budget and a possible 1/4 cent tax increase. There is a special study session of the County Board tomorrow April 23rd to discuss both (agenda). The County Board would have to vote to put a referendum question on the ballot for voters to approve a tax increase first. They would have to do that sooner rather than later if they want to meet the deadline to put the question on the November general election ballot.

County officials and board members who believe a tax would bring some stability to the county budget face a couple big hurdles: 

• First and more generally, practically nobody likes having their taxes raised, even if you can convince them it's necessary. 
  
  
• Second and more specifically, the county budget funds are atypically in the green and plush beyond the recommended fund reserves at the moment. It's hard enough to convince people to dish out more tax money when the situation looks dire, let alone when there's an annual surplus. That's where the dispute over financial forecasts come in to play.

For folks who have been following the County's budget woes over the years, the idea of a budget surplus might sound far-fetched. The county has faced dire budget scenarios for years and years, with the threat of a structural deficit almost always looming over the horizon. Prior to the pandemic we've seen desperate attempts to increase revenue, failed tax proposals, skeleton crews in county offices, facilities and IT systems desperately needing maintenance, replacement and repair, etc.

The federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) pandemic relief funding played a role in giving the county budget woes a lifeline, of course. Other positive economic factors have helped keep tax revenue strong. More negative factors like staffing shortages have provided a mixed bag of problems and savings. Personnel costs are some of the biggest chunks of the budget, after all.

So it all comes down to the future and budget forecasts and when, not if, the next recession comes into play. Recessions are notoriously difficult to predict, but you'll find a lot of economists arguing we're overdue and pointing to the various indicators that have preceded recessions in the past. Only time will tell, however.

For the official budget forecast presentation from the April County Board Committee of the Whole meeting you can jump to this video link (presentations slides here) or read the financial forecast report itself.

The County Auditor has very publicly disputed the county budget director's financial forecast at the regular County Board meeting this month. A video link to his presentation and some heated Q&A with board members is available here. 

The auditor is facing a possible censure from the board on his treatment of county staff in his office and some more salacious accusations. An early draft of the censure was discussed at the County Board's Labor Committee meeting this month (page 19 and 20 of the agenda packet PDF). He and his supporters believe that this is a coordinated smear effort over his budget and tax positions. There is a separate Cheat Sheet post on the Auditor controversies.

2025 Budget Process and Forecast:

It's very early in next year's FY2025 budget process for the County Board. The county government's Fiscal Year (FY) matches its calendar year, so we can talk about the 2024 or 2025 budget without much confusion. Some other local government budgets have a fiscal year offset from the calendar year, and that can take some adjustment. The process is laid out each year and generally takes most of the year to complete and pass with a final vote by the County Board itself. From the financial forecast presentation this month:

The County Auditor and his supporters have pointed out that past financial forecasts were not predictive, which is generally true. If one looks at financial forecasts by government bodies, including the county government, they tend to be conservative estimates of how current policies might play out over time (holding for certain economic factors like a steady economy or a possible recession).

Their role as a budget planning tool is typically explained up front. It was the second informational slide of the budget director's financial forecast presentation, for example. They generally don't claim to be predictive and they aren't typically judged on how close they end up coming to future outcomes. They can include "what if" scenarios requested by board members and others curious how an additional tax, spending cut, or economic change may impact long term planning. That's typically just for getting an idea of how that may impact long term budget numbers, not a prediction of the future.

Board members who have defended the county budget directors numbers don't appear to dispute the non-predictive nature of financial forecasts, but also point to the context of why the recent budget surplus exists. One argument raised in the Q&A of the last County Board meeting was that they can't model a budget based on staffing shortages and other costs savings that may be undesirable or temporary at best.

I encourage people who are interested in this debate to watch both the county budget director's presentation and the auditor's presentation to decide for themselves. One might have different opinions on the necessity or political plausibility of passing a sales tax increase at this time, regardless of where one falls on the financial forecast dispute, however. The County Board meeting on that tax issue tomorrow will probably get into the nitty gritty of arguments for and against such a measure.