Facts may emerge

Storm Lake City Councilman Tyson Rice did the public a service on Monday by questioning whether the Ahlers law firm of Des Moines, if hired as city attorney, would have a conflict of interest when the city is in an adversarial contest with the county that could lead to litigation, since the Ahlers firm also advises the county on legal issues.

When Rice raised the question using vague references, and asked his council peers for response and got none, reporter Amber Mohmand approached Rice to probe what he meant by a conflict of interest. He refused to say more, claiming he would be misinterpreted. Mohmand asked City Manager Kari Navratil, who recommended hiring the law firm, about it. She declined to comment on matters that are obviously pending litigation.

The public is not supposed to know that the city is fixing to sue the county over lost tax increment financing (TIF) revenues intended for Project Awaysis. That’s true to style. The public has wondered for some time what happened to presumably millions of dollars in TIF revenues that the county sent to the wrong accounts over a period spanning several years. We do not know how many years, how much money was sent to the wrong taxing jurisdictions, or which jurisdictions benefited. We do not know if this was a mistake by the county auditor’s office or of computer software.

We have suggested repeatedly that the state auditor’s office do a forensic probe of the missing TIF revenues. Odd that neither the city council nor the county board of supervisors wanted an audit, even if not by the state auditor at least by a certified public accountant. Nobody tells us why that is a bad idea. Why is it a better idea to scheme behind closed doors — elected public officials dealing with missing public funds — about which documents can be concealed from each other, and how you get the best leverage going into court. A state audit could find out what happened and how, and then the state as impartial referee could suggest some sort of negotiated mediation. It would not hold as much intrigue, or generate the same sort of legal fees, but it would get to the facts.

We may well get to the facts in a trial. It will be terribly expensive. It will take a long, long time. It will all be out of public view until the trial occurs, which is a miscarriage of justice in its own right. It might be settled ahead of trial, which will deprive the public of the facts. At trial, not all facts might emerge depending on how things are presented. The goal of an advocate at trial is not necessarily to fully inform the public but to win the case.

Our hope is that Rice is misdirected, that the city is not bound to sue the county as the councilman indicated (we are left to interpretation in the absence of disclosure). First, a public audit is in order. If that is not satisfactory, the city could then hire another blue chip law firm to answer the question of whether the Ahlers firm has a conflict in city v. county. The public would like to know why involving the state auditor first is not the right sequence to pursue. An audit could be demanded by the mayor, a council member, a county supervisor, the county auditor or a petition bearing 100 signatures. Perhaps that avenue already has been exhausted and, as is typical, the public is the last to know.