ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: MAWC, invite state audit now |

Trib editorial: MAWC, invite state audit now

Joyce Hanz | For the Tribune-Review
Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County crews located a water leak that had interrupted service to about a dozen homes along Banfield Road in Gilpin on Jan. 3

If legislators change existing state law that prohibits his office from auditing municipal authorities (unless he’s invited to do so), Auditor General Eugene DePasquale says the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County would be among the first he’d target.

Rather than reject what MAWC officials call “a redundant performance audit,” they should take the opportunity to clear the air by inviting an audit by Mr. DePasquale’s office.

That would give approximately 145,000 ratepayers a much better idea of MAWC’s fiscal health and internal financial controls, separate and apart from the audit MAWC commissioned that covered its 2016-17 fiscal years. MAWC officials say such private audits haven’t produced negative findings — which amounts to “take our word for it.”

To the contrary, a state audit would provide much better insight into such issues as MAWC’s recent acquisitions of three smaller systems and imposition of rate increases of 25 percent for 2016, 7 percent in 2017 and another 7 percent on tap this year.

DePasquale says “the No. 1 consistent request” he receives from the public “is to audit municipal authorities.” Westmoreland County Controller Jeff Balzer says MAWC is “the No. 1 topic as far as questions I receive out in public.” Whether MAWC likes it or not, these are the public’s perceptions.

MAWC’s unelected officials should neither wait for nor resist that change in state law. They should provide what ratepayers want and deserve: greater transparency and accountability, which a voluntary state audit would deliver — along with dispelling any doubts about the efficiency and integrity of MAWC’s operations.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.