Leaderboard

Absolutely. It is not prepared by the auditor. It is prepared by the treasurer’s office and it can be included in the audit booklet or as a separate document. The auditor would have to review it to make sure it complies with the GASB standards . The ACFR is not required by law to be prepared, only the basic financials are but the preparation of it does represent the best practice of government finance. For those that are not aware of the difference between run of the mill financials and the ACFR, the ACFR gives more detail. You get guided through the financials, you are given statistics and analysis. You are also given a comparison to how the actual matched up to the budgeted. For basic financials you are just given the income stmt, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows and left to understand it yourself.

Note worthy, if you look into what the award is, it has nothing to do with the financial health of the county but rather shows that the county is putting together extra reporting during the audit process of financial disclosures in order to receive the certificate. Not being eligible because of the type of opinion issued by Insero doesn’t mean the treasurers office can’t still make the choice to produce the work for the required reporting. As I have looked into what this award means and does for the county, the only benefit to the extra work on an already overworked department is further transparency for the tax payers which can be achieved without the certification. https://www.gfoa.org/coa-award

For the record.... Although I believe it’s wrong for Moss to shirk the ACFR reporting, I tend to agree with the other point he made in his letter: If the County taxpayers are stakeholders (“owners”) of any facility or venue that has operating expenditures and revenue, the operations and financials of said facility need full transparency and accountability. This has been the case since.....forever. The Airport, Park Station and the Nursing Facility are county-owned "operations" that draw revenue from utilization. And all of their personnel decisions and expenditures are transparently reviewed and approved by the Legislature. Their revenue/expense books are transparently included in County financial reporting. Example: The Aviation Director's appointment (and his salary) are approved by the Legislature, and if he wants to pay someone to wax the floors at the Airport.....that process is subject to oversight and approval. The same premise should apply to the Arena (as well as the Fairgrounds Community Center, once it comes to fruition). However under CCCR, we don't know who appointed Robert Kramarik Marketing & Sales Director for First Arena. Is the “operating team” made up of volunteers or are they salaried positions? We also don’t know how events like “Cabin Fever” are funded. We know they had “carnival activities” (like inflated attractions and giant games). But no idea if those attractions were donated by a sponsor, or if the Arena put out for bids.....or if the Marketing Director has the authority to hire Bobby K Entertainment if he wants. On a final note: Just as Moss seems determined to clash with the Legislature, there are also a few Legislators who continue to look for reasons to clash with Moss. I think most of the public has had enough of the bickering and tit-for-tat attacks between the local branches. And we do appreciate those Legislators who don't engage in that petty power struggle.

At a press conference held earlier today, Chemung County Sheriff William A. Schrom announced the release of a custom smartphone application for the Sheriff's Office. The app will serve as an innovative way for the Sheriff’s Office to connect with Chemung County residents and visitors, providing information quickly and efficiently to anyone with a smartphone. The Chemung County Sheriff’s Office app was developed by TheSheriffApp.com, a brand of OCV, LLC., which specializes in mobile app development for sheriffs’ offices and public safety organizations across the country. The app offers quick access to items of public interest and is easy to use. In just a few clicks, users can access features such as: Meet The Sheriff - Most Wanted News & Alerts - Submit a Tip Programs & Services - Contact Us Inmate Information - More! Warrants List “Over 80 percent of people in the United States own and use smartphones as their primary means of communication,” OCV Partner and CRO Kevin Cummings said. “Mobile apps offer agencies a better way to alert, inform and prepare the public. Apps allow public safety agencies the ability to reach and serve their citizens where they are: their smartphones.” The app is now available to download for free in the App Store and Google Play by searching “Chemung County Sheriff, NY” or by clicking here.

Yes....he definitely seems to be looking to provoke Public Servants. This (and some of his other videos) highlight a lot of examples of civil servants inappropriately reacting to his (First Amendment protected) goading. As long as they are a threat, members of the “public” are within their rights to probe and/or express disapproval of Public Servants’ actions (even in an irritating and/or disrespectful manner). And employees are expected to remain professional at all times, even in the face of “provocative” public scrutiny.

So, the County can still prepare/submit an ACFR report for the sake of transparency/accountability......even if ineligible to receive the “gold star” COA? Yeah.....This sort of makes me wonder if the decision to “likely not continue” could be reaction to the suggestions (made 2 days earlier during Monday’s meetings Monday’s meetings HERE), by Legislator Sweet that the Legislature should have the Exec’s actions scrutinized by lawyers and auditors. Around the 2hr23min mark, the Multi-Services Committee discusses an earlier tabled resolution ("Resolution renewing agreement with ClearGov Inc. on behalf of the Chemung County Department of Information Technology") This was tabled at last month's meeting for lack of Budget Committee approval. And tabled again this month because the Multi-Services Committee still "wasn’t sure" whether it had been addressed by The Budget Committee yet. The answer is yes....The Budget Committee did vote on (and pass) the renewal agreement for this software in their April 1st meeting HERE . However, it was noted that payment for this (unauthorized) renewal agreement had already been disbursed to the vendor in February. These are legitimate concerns.... the Legislator approved this software in May 2023 HERE, with the clear expectation that it was a “trial basis”, and the Executive team absolutely would need additional approval before renewing this agreement:

Bingo

Just struck me as an attempt to create more drama.