I read the editorial “A confused report” and found it to be surprisingly negative and critical. Although I have not read the Grand Jury report, from what is contained in the editorial, it sounded to me that the recommendations made by the Grand Jury were thoughtful and sound. On the other hand, the editorial made some unfounded CAO inferences, such as “eliminate the auditor-controller and there will be no one to stop the CAO from breaking the rules, sneaking raises through and ignoring the charter.”
Having served for a year on a previous Grand Jury (over 15 years ago) I observed at that time that the CAO lacked sufficient authority to initiate legitimate cost-savings programs. From the editorial, the Grand Jury recommendations may have been an attempt to resolve that issue.
I also think that it was a cheap shot that the editor criticized the Grand Jury as generally having “more ego than expertise.” I believe the editor has a “conflict of interest” in this matter and should not write such an editorial without identifying the conflict.
ROBERT EUGENE MCKEE