LARGO - Resistance is strong and determined to an idea brought forward by a citizen long active in Largo city affairs and the big question being raised by many observers is why?
Curtis Holmes, a familiar figure at the podium during citizen comments at City Commission meetings, broached the idea of a city auditor under the control of the commission June 6. He reiterated it two weeks later.
While Holmes's initial discussion got a quick brush off, his second mention June 20 was received in near panic by City Manager Steve Stanton and Alan Zimmet, the city's lawyer.
They quickly shot down the idea - there is no way they want an outsider looking into any city business, although there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything being hidden.
As a follow up to his idea, Holmes sent the mayor and commissioners an outline of just what an auditor would do and a model law of how to implement it.
That information came from the authoritative National Association of Local Government Auditors.
Having governmental auditors is far from unique. Such a role is more common than uncommon among cities and counties.
While the average Largo citizen will undoubtedly think of a scrutinizer of check books and income and expenditures when the word "auditor" is heard, actually the scope of the job goes far beyond checking the financial books.
And therein lies, perhaps, the reason that the highest levels of the administration in Largo does not want an outsider poking around.
In his long tenure as city manager, about 15 years now, Stanton has created what appears to be a highly efficient and effective government in Largo.
Stanton has control over all governmental functions in the city. The commission's job is to approve budgets and expenditures, pass laws and decide on policy, to name the major elements.
But no one can remember the last time a piece of legislation originated with a commission member and Stanton, who submits the budget, thereby controls, in effect, what the tax rate will be. He is effective as a political figure.
Last year, for example, when the commission voted to use the rollback rate as the tax base, immediately there came from Stanton's office a laundry list of services that would have to be cut or discontinued.
Many of the programs would not have been effected at all by the tax situation, but the release of the "cuts" set off a panic in the city.
Stanton calls himself "ultimately responsible" for all that happens in the city. Of course, this is a piece of hyperbole. Some would argue that other powers are "ultimately responsible." In political terms, the elected officials are ultimately responsible.
An auditor would be the eyes and ears of the commission in terms of knowing what was happening inside the machinery of city government.
An auditor would provide accountability for management's performance. There is no real close accuracy for this now.
The manager, in effect, does this which is the equivalent of the fox guarding the hen house.
An auditor would assure that the city operates in accordance with laws, rules, regulations and policies, would respond to citizens' needs, would assure that the city is functioning economically, efficiently and effectively.
In addition, an auditor would determine the extent to which goals, desired results and benefits established by the commission are being achieved.
If the commission engages an auditor, it will have given itself a powerful tool. It will add to the power that it now putatively has, but is not always able to exercise because of a lack of focus among commission members.
Of course, power is a zero sum game. Whatever the commission gains will be at the loss to the manager.
And that is why Stanton is adamantly against the idea.