("not really" understood).....

So I'm assuming that the commissioners investigated their options, checked your credentials, discussed the best person/agency to use and decided you are the one. Then yes it is public record. Fact is your example makes no sense and is a weak argument at best and I think you know it.

As I remember(always faulty as I get older)they decided the audit needed to be done. They chose that business/person best suited professionally to do this then hired them. One would hope these simple actions were taken. If so then you live with the info given to you and move forward. Again if they did not like the results they have the opportunity to speak out but not the right to hide it if they do not like what was said. I can think of no reason to hide the report.

MWMI, they're not hiding THE report; it's a rough draft that is not complete per the parameters of the agreement. I guess I've missed you consistently moving to have AB city council executive sessions held in public.

Turnow, yeah, I am. The code is huge. I totally disagree with you. It would be like hiring a bicycle mechanic to work on my car, imho.

And Willis wasn't commissioner yet.

Wasn't aware a report publicly requested done for the benefit of the public was the same as executive session. Really you know better than that. I'm dumbfounded you would even consider that a valid argument/comeback. Fact is blacking out a report rough or not is hiding. Pretty simple really. Rough or not if its released it should have been released whole or not at all.

I don't pretend to know any more of the details than have been provided.

However, executive sessions are allowable for personnel issues or contract (eg property purchase) negotiations. Those issues frequently solicit outside advice. The planning department problems are alleged to be all about personnel issues.

It doesn't sound improper to me for the elected officials to get that outside advice without reading about it in the newspaper first.

The commissioners are accountable to me. I want them to read the report, understand its recommendations, then tell me what the problem is and what they're going to do about it. I don't feel the need to know every piece of anecdotal information which they use to develop their plans.

I would hope that their plans aren't 40 redacted pages followed by a "There is no problem. Everything is fine. Please return to your business." But I find that unlikely given that they elected to spend $20,000 for the audit. It doesn't cost 20 large to sweep stuff under the rug.

If that was the case then it would not have needed to be released at all. The way I remember it (memory disclaimer again) it was an audit of the performance of the department as a whole not of individual employees therefore not subject to being held back or edited. And your more trusting than me I guess. I want to see the report, hear the response then see what action is taken.

If you wanted an audit of the City of Aberdeen building department, would you explicitly prohibit the auditors from looking at any personnel issues they might find?

If not, would you be comfortable with the legal risk to the city that releasing their findings without prior review implies?

"I understand, but disagree with what the plaintiff is saying. I was surprised that the audit report said that Brian Shea is a no-good lyin' pig-stealin'* grifter. Yes, we paid for the report, and yes we authorized its release to the media, but it's not the official position of the council, and I think the plaintiff's request for $1m is excessive, your honor."

*as far as I know, Mr Shea has never stolen any pigs.

In sticking with the pig theme I believe your grasping at straws.

I'm done wallowing in this filth.

bacon really does go with everything.

I do not know the specifics of this situation but there is a tradition in local governments of commissioning independent audits, research papers, reports, et al, and then when the commissioned report is completed and submitted per contract specifications and the money for the report is then paid and the contract closed, to then delay the release of that report indefinitely if it is embarrassing or otherwise not to the liking of the governing body by calling it a draft and promising release, which may or may not come at some future undefined date. This tactic for instance has been used by Ocean Shores in the past to delay release of an independent report to the public until after a vote on the issue has been taken and the public is denied the opportunity to form an opinion based on the same information afforded the council members. (In other words, they knew the majority of the public would not agree with their decision if they were privy to the same information).

Again, I am not at all clear if this is a similar situation here but am merely pointing out that there is valid cause for healthy skepticism on the part of the newspaper and the public as the release of information is postponed.

I think the newspaper is doing its job holding public officials accountable to the extent possible under the law, i.e. it starts to smell funny when you start delaying the release of an independent audit for months on end when the audit is functionally complete as submitted per the public contract. The funny factor is increased when the report is released only when the county's hand is forced and has to comply with state open records law. The fact that the report looks like something you would get from the CIA does nothing to mitigate suspicion. This is only logical and, I would think to any rational person, to be expected. Which begs the question, why all the games?