Search
Archives
Categories

Rebecca Otto knows that she doesn’t stand a chance of winning her lawsuit on appeal. If she thinks she has a fighting chance, then she’s too stupid for public office, especially statewide office. Despite that, Ms. Otto is fighting on, with the taxpayers’ money of course. She’s appealing the straightforward ruling because she’s a sore loser.

It’s impossible to fight on when the ruling states “The Legislature has the power to modify the State Auditor’s duties under State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski. Modifying who does the initial audit does not transfer her core functioning of auditing counties.”

The Constitution creates the office of State Auditor, aka OSA. It doesn’t assign it its responsibilities. Every constitutional office is told by the legislative and executive branch what its responsibilities are with one exception. The Constitution spells out the governors’ authorities and responsibilities. The responsibilities of the attorney general, the auditor and the secretary of state are spelled out by the legislative branch — without exception.

Sarah Anderson is the chair of the House State Government Finance Committee. She issued this statement that spells things out perfectly for taxpayers:

It’s unfortunate for Minnesota taxpayers that Rebecca Otto is choosing to continue this ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit. Further attempts to overturn this bipartisan law amount to an exercise in futility coming at the expense of Minnesota taxpayers and counties.

What’s obvious is that Ms. Otto is fighting this fight because she’s fighting for the members of the public employee unions that will lose their jobs once counties hire CPA firms to do the audits rather than being forced to pay for unionized auditors. There’s an old saying that goes ‘if you always rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have Paul as an ally.’ Ms. Otto wants the public employee unions to forever be her ally.

This is important information, too:

To date, Minnesota taxpayers have been forced to pay at least $220,000 in legal fees thanks to Otto’s legal challenge, in addition to the tens of thousands in legal fees incurred by the counties named as parties in the lawsuit.

Why would Ms. Otto appeal this ruling knowing that she’s costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and counties tens of thousands of dollars? Does she care that little about the taxpayers?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Otto fights on (with our money)”

  • eric z says:

    Tom Bakk is a Republican in drag, dressing up as if a Dem.

  • JerryE9 says:

    “Does she care that little about the taxpayers?” may one assume that your tongue is firmly in cheek asking that question? I’m sure you know the answer.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Actually, Jerry, the question is a serious one. It’s stunning that a politician cares that little about the people they’re elected to serve. It’s time to stop looking at politicians and say ‘yeah, they’re just career politicians. I don’t expect them to be people of integrity.’ It’s time to start saying that, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is a liar and she’s disqualified to be POTUS. It’s time to start pointing a finger at Paul Thissen & tell everyone that he’s an elitist scumbag who should be thrown out of the House for how he mistreated GOP staffers.

    This stuff has to end & end fast. If it doesn’t, our society is finished.

  • Gary Gross says:

    I know you hate Sen. Bakk but he isn’t a Republican. He just isn’t as hardline progressive as you’d like. There’s a difference.

Leave a Reply