Saturday, August 10, 2013

When your state auditor is a liar for the CRC Scam and why is the Columbian covering for him?

Former State Auditor Brian Sontag was my one guaranteed democrat vote.  A man of unquestioned and proven integrity... you could take him to the bank.

Unfortunately, his replacement is a lying scumbag named Troy Kelley. 

Kelley, who has something off a checkered background, decided he would lie tonight to cover his efforts to overlook the various illegalities of the CRC Scam.

Funding restraints to limit scope of CRC audit

State auditor says it will look at contracts for any irregularities, overcharges

Washington State Auditor Troy Kelley speaks at The Columbian on Friday about a Columbia River Crossing audit mandated by the Washington Legislature.
Washington State Auditor Troy Kelley speaks at The Columbian on Friday about a Columbia River Crossing audit mandated by the Washington Legislature.

A new Columbia River Crossing project audit, which was mandated in this year's state transportation budget, won't examine all facets of the project because of funding constraints, Washington State Auditor Troy Kelley said Friday.
"The budget amount is very small, so in terms of a full-blown audit across the board, that's not something we can do," Kelley said while sitting down with The Columbian during a trip to Vancouver on Friday. "The worst thing would be to bite off more than we can chew and not be able to finish it. … The Legislature wouldn't be happy."
What the audit will focus on are architectural and engineering contracts awarded for the apparently defunct Interstate 5 Bridge replacement plan. Auditors will look to see if there were any overcharges or unauthorized services provided between 2005, when the first contracts were awarded, and June of this year, when the project began shutting down. Construction never began, but about $170 million was spent on the planning.
Earlier this year,state Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, a CRC opponent, worked a provision into the state's 2013-15 transportation budget that gave the state's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee $200,000 to conduct a "forensic audit" of the CRC. The committee decided to contract with the state auditor's office to do the CRC audit.

In excusing his malfeasance, Auditor Kelley indicated this:
Kelley, a Democrat, was elected auditor last fall. Kelley said his staff had tried to speak with several CRC stakeholders, including Benton and state Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, when deciding how to narrow the scope of the CRC audit. 
Senator Rivers commented after the story first appeared and the story was changed to reflect both that Kelley had allegedly TRIED to contact the stakeholders, including Benton and Rivers, and that Rivers had NOT been contacted about the CRC or anything else from Kelley's office, leading the democratian to add this line to their lie:
In a comment to an online version of this story Friday, Rivers denied being contacted by the auditor’s office “regarding narrowing the scope on the Columbia River Crossing audit or any other matter.
In reviewing this the problem is that not only did they add the line... but they then changed the declaratory fact that Kelley claimed he HAD contacted the stakeholders, including Benton and Rivers, to the observation that he'd said he'd "...TRIED to speak with several stakeholders, "etc, a line that makes absolutely no sense.

Here's a screen capture from a cached page of what the article said originally:

Here's a screen capture of what the article says NOW.  Notice the differences:

The change where Rivers denies being contacted speaks for itself.  Covering for the Auditor by walking back the lie that he'd actually contacted Benton and Rivers is a great deal more problematic and deserves an explanation on the part of the fiction writers at the democratian.

Updating the story with Sen. River's facebook comment makes sense.  Changing the allegation that Kelley HAD contacted the Senators to the claim that he had TRIED to contact them does not.

Why would a democratian reporter make these kinds of changes?

No comments: