Comments so far on this story:

1. I have the answer: wrote on May 7, 2008 5:52 PM:
"Mike Aguirre. While I agree there are some good arguments in favor of making the auditor independent. There are other ways of doing that without making it an elected position. By making it a pulpit for political positioning you run the substantial risk of self-interested, or ulterior-motivated running for and winning the office. Can you imagine someone like Mike Aguirre being our elected auditor if he didn't like whoever the mayor was, or didn't agree with the policies being pursued? So, an elected auditor will never make sense here, at least not until MA is a distant, distant memory. Any other ideas to achieve independence? Best, Algernon Sidney"

2. Fed Up But Hopeful wrote on May 7, 2008 9:59 PM:
"It is important to Vote No on Prop C which allows the Mayor to control the "independent" Auditor. Unfortunately, It IS the fox in the henhouse AND it would be set in stone in the City Charter -- a place it isn't at present. Once it's in the Charter, as proponents well understand, it will be, well, set in stone. Prop C requires a new layer of "decider" fingers in the pie, so to speak -- an elaborate, confusing, unnecessary and potentially loaded intermediary "Audit Committee" of people who will mostly be mayoral appointees or friends. This "Committee" will seek and recommend the Auditor -- subject to some other people's confirmation -- and will be able to maneuver the Auditor's dismissal, again subject to some other people's ratification. Lacking direct public accountability and genuine Auditor independence, we must Vote No on Prop C."

3. Ann wrote on May 7, 2008 11:33 PM:
"There is nothing wrong with an appointed City Auditor, confirmed by the City Council. Why do we need another politician? How about a headhunt for a good Auditor? I believe in representative government where I elect a leader who can then make appointments. I don't have to elect every person involved in government. I expect those I elect to make good decisions. If they do not, then they don't get re-elected. Is there something wrong with that?"

4. Christopher Hall wrote on May 8, 2008 8:55 AM:
"Yes, Ann there is a problem with it -- you said 'I don't have to elect every person involved in government. I expect those I elect to make good decisions. If they do not, then they don't get re-elected. Is there something wrong with that?" // The politicians have serially made bad decisions AND they have often been re-elected. Look at the Peters/ Mainschein candidacies for current example."

5. Ann wrote on May 8, 2008 10:43 PM:
"So your answer to that is to have another elected official who is not appointed by an elected official? How is that better again? I'm not sure you are helping the argument. It's not a perfect system as sometimes even dead people get elected. I'm not always happy with the choices people make but I like the system. I think the bad decisions of Peters/Mainschein are overblown. If you look at every Council persons record, someone will be able to find "bad decisions" and they don't act alone. So what if we elect a bad Auditor and then the bad Auditor gets reelected?"

6. kb wrote on May 9, 2008 7:15 AM:
"My concern is what happens if a very skilled, yet dishonest person gets elected to the Auditor position? Accounting is very complex, and it is way too easy to use numbers to decieve. If the Auditor is appointed and is found out to be dishonest, he/she can be 1. fired and 2. charged with criminal and/or civil charges. The process to remove and prosecute an elected official takes so long that the damage done would worsen"

7. Barbara C. Anderson wrote on May 9, 2008 8:43 AM:
"The audit committee, the council and the Independent Budget Analyst should all have a role in hiring the Independent Auditor. The mayor should not hire the IA and the IA should not be elected. We need a qualified auditor that is not beholden to any one entity."