By Andrew Walsh
awalsh@wbcowqel.com
There was nothing at Tuesday’s Galion City Council meeting that suggested the relationship between Treasurer Paula Durbin and council is improving. The latest row was over proposed legislation that would allow a facsimile or automated signature of the treasurer for checks when Durbin was out of the office.
Actually, it was the inclusion of two ordinances on the agenda that met with instant and heated opposition during public comment. Ordinance 2015-2 seeks to clarify the division of powers and duties between the treasurer and auditor and Ordinance 2015-3 deals with the aforementioned facsimile signature.
This facsimile signature is a machine program that can provide an automated treasurer’s signature to an otherwise valid check should the treasurer be unavailable for any reason. It is a fairly common procedure, one that is implemented across the state and one that Galion has used in the past.
It is also, according to members of the current administration, necessary for the City to progress out of fiscal emergency.
Objections to these ordinances were voiced even before they had been placed on the table. Gina Powell, Roberta Wade, and Durbin all spoke out against these proposed measures.
Durbin began the night by once again protesting the roll call of elected officials, reiterating her belief that it was “intimidation and discrimination” to have her attendance taken alongside the other elected officials. She was initially prevented from speaking by Council President Carl Watt. He stated that she was already on the agenda as the city treasurer and would be permitted to make her presentation then.
In the interim, Wade made her presentation. She acknowledged that during her tenure the facsimile signature was used, but she disapproved of allowing it to the current auditor, Brian Treisch. She repeatedly questioned the trustworthiness of Treisch and cited this as reason why the facsimile signature should not be allowed.
It was Wade, who as the city’s law director at the time, had Treisch escorted out of his office over the lack of a security bond.
Wade also stated her belief that responsibilities that were being assigned to the auditor in 2015-2 should actually be going to the Treasurer.
When Ordinance 2015-2 did come to the table, Law Director Thomas Palmer elaborated that the office of treasurer is very “ill-defined” in the Ohio Revised Code. This ordinance is an attempt to clarify just who is responsible for what when it comes to the auditor and the treasurer.
The “what” legislation determining which reports are to be presented was passed several weeks ago; Ordinance 2015-2 is serving as the “Who” legislation, as in who is responsible. Ordinance 2015-2 passed the first reading as is, but council stated it would likely be amended in some. There was even discussion of combining the two ordinances so that all the info would be in one place.
Upon Ordinance 2015-3 being placed on the table for consideration, Durbin quickly registered a complaint that she had been informed that this ordinance was set to be removed from the agenda. Watt just as quickly asked her to give council “a chance to do this.” Immediately following, Thomas Fellner put forth a motion to return the legislation to committee.
When Durbin did take the floor she did so with a prepared statement. In this statement she further questioned the logic behind this facsimile signature and the distribution of who submits what reports. She maintained her belief that council sees her merely as a check-signing tool and devoid of any real responsibility.
She once again questioned why she does not have complete access to the City’s computer accounting system. The written portion of her statement not read aloud stated, “If you pass these ordinances tonight, you will have also participated in the Mayor’s political shenanigans to undermine the authority of the City Treasurer, and Council has no right to do that.”