Another “love letter” from my anonymous Fan Club found its way to me. I’ve read the new edition, and I’m pleased to report that my public education campaign may already be paying dividends.

The original letter asked whether the City meets “GAP requirements.” In my answer to the seven questions, I explained that the term is GAAP, for generally accepted accounting principles. The new letter has both A’s. I’ll resist the temptation to take credit, but I do appreciate a second edition that incorporates reader feedback.

I could be wrong in believing this letter was addressed to me; as I reflect on what I read, it sounds like the author may be describing themself with the author of confusion name, because they are very confused. I don’t use my platform to talk TRASH about people. An anonymous letter is another matter. This one raises sweeping doubts about the City’s finances without identifying a valid example. I’ll stand by the facts and let readers decide what holds up.

I would be careful about taking financial advice from an anonymous writer who, two weeks ago, did not appear to know what GAAP was. Now they speak with certainty about municipal accounting while offering no name, qualifications, or supporting calculations. If they want their claims taken seriously, they should show their work and stand behind it.

The suggestion that using QuickBooks Online makes the City’s records incapable of supporting GAAP or GASB reporting is misleading. GASB sets the accounting and reporting standards for local governments; it does not certify a brand of software. QuickBooks Online can maintain a chart of accounts, track transactions by class, and produce cash or accrual reports. The question is whether the City’s records are properly classified, reconciled, adjusted, and used to prepare the required governmental financial statements. A QuickBooks report alone does not prove compliance – but the word “QuickBooks” does not prove noncompliance, either. If the anonymous author has found an actual accounting error, he should identify the fund, entry, or standard involved and show his work.

I have worked closely with our auditor through the bank migration and QuickBooks Online Upgrade. The auditor had been requesting that we upgrade for years and welcomed the update to QBO and is already working on the FY2026 Audit using the same reports. The audit also involves the records behind the reports, including transactions, reconciliations and supporting documentation as well, which we have already supplied to the Auditor.

I have shared financial information and explained it publicly through my posts and updates. Readers can judge those records for themselves. The anonymous writer is free to challenge a specific figure or document, but broad baseless accusations from someone unwilling to identify themself are no substitute for evidence.

What I couldn’t find was a figure in the report that the letter says is wrong. If you think a dollar amount is off, give me the page, the line, and what you think it should be. If your concern is that the same person performs two duties that ought to be separated, tell me which two. I’ll look into it and explain what I find. If we need to correct something, we will.

The capital letters can stay. Just put a real example next to them.

This reminds me of the MEEDS Contract that contained so much bad information and the costs that were so high that Daryl McIntyre, Mayor Pro Tem at the time, said it was too much money and he killed it. But this is anonymous, so we’ll never know.

There’s one request in the letter I do especially like. It asks Council to answer questions. I have some of my own.

At the November 2 meeting, I asked Council to repeal two ordinances because I believe they create legal risk for the City. We had an exchange about what the Attorney General’s office had said. Someone raised the agenda. Someone raised the fact that we were discussing legal issues without a city attorney. Those points deserve a fair hearing, especially the question about legal representation.

Then I asked what Council wanted to do. We moved to the next item without a motion to repeal either ordinance.

That’s the part I mean by “deafening silence.” What I’m asking is this: If you support keeping those ordinances, what purpose do they serve for Margaret today? If you want legal advice before deciding, when should we put them back on the agenda? Either answer gives residents something they can follow up on. I’m willing to hear both.

At the meeting, a council member said Council should compare the proposed budget with last year’s and pass a budget before acting on raises. I had already asked Council to do that review. On August 5, while department heads and I were preparing the proposal, I asked members in writing to review the current budget and submit specific changes by August 14, including the line item, dollar amount, reason, and funding source. The response was that Council would share its thoughts after receiving a preliminary draft. I wrote back to make clear that I was asking for their input while the draft was being built. I received no line-item recommendations by the deadline, nor any to date.

Council had an opportunity to shape this budget before it reached the meeting. To call for that work now, after ignoring the request to participate, leaves employees waiting on a proposal that includes a five percent cost-of-living raise. I’m sharing the August 5 email exchange with this post so residents can read what I asked, the response I received, and the dates for themselves.

The email speaks for itself. In August, I asked Council for their input and specific line-item changes while there was time to shape the budget. I received none. At the meeting, a member called for that very review, and our employees are still waiting for a decision on the cost of living raise.

Council is quiet where it counts – on line items, funding, doing the work and votes – while anonymous letters allege problems without naming one real example.

If that is damage control, it is a poor substitute for governing. An unsigned letter cannot submit Council’s changes or cast Council’s votes. Put the changes in writing. Show how to pay for them. Vote.

I have shown my work; now Council should show theirs. And to my anonymous correspondent, by all means, send a third edition, but please do better.