To the editor:

The recent independent audit submitted to the Portsmouth Town Council was said to be transparent and clean. However, there were actually two audits released. The first submission on the website claimed to be the official audit by the town administrator. Then without any indication, a modified version replaced it and now becomes a draft without any notification or stamped as such.

This is the first time I can find that our town audit has been changed after submission. The auditor works for the council, not the people being audited at the Town Hall. The fact is those changes were made at the request of the people being audited, seems to invalidate this audit as independent. 

When pressed, the auditor admitted there was indeed a deficit in the budget. The deficit was changed to a surplus by bringing in $600,000 from the bonds that were sold last year. That bond money was not part of the original budget. 

It was also brought up that such a movement of funds into the budget can only be done by the council, the council did not have prior knowledge of that transfer.

Taking money from the fund balance to cover the deficit and declaring a surplus appears to be an unethical practice by the administrator while acknowledging the protocols of the Town Charter and state law, but appearing to ignore them. There was a deficit, of which the Town Council nor state were properly notified.

When Larry Fitzmorris of the Portsmouth Concerned Citizens noted the state law requiring the reporting of a deficit and requested a legal opinion from the town's solicitor, Mr. Gavin flared up as did council member Linda Ujifusa, saying we should just take what was presented without question, citizens should not be allowed to question it and tried to close the discussion.

That may be her position and opinion, but it should never be ours, and definitely not in light of the facts that were brought out in this audit.

Council President Keith Hamilton stepped in to get us back on topic. He also acknowledged the protocols and stated now they are all documented in writing and won't happen again.

The auditor summarized by stating that last year's auditor handled the situation wrong. Parts of this audit are wrong as well. If the previous audit is wrong, fix it; do not compound the mistake by altering this one. Questions about this audit remains unanswered, while the transparency and the corrective measures are unclear. 

There should be complete transparency and understanding of what is being done with taxpayer's money and end the use of what is called “accounting tricks.”

We thank our councilors for their efforts in researching the budget and audit to expose these facts which were hidden in the audit.

Debra Faber-Cardoza

99 Summit Road 

Portsmouth