custom ad
OpinionDecember 27, 1993

To the Editor: I am intrigued! In your newspaper, Friday, December 17, 1993 edition, one of the headlines reads, "Kelly: Ten School Districts Violated Law," with a subcaption, "State Auditor Says Districts Raise Taxes Unconstitutionally." Previously, the Southeast Missourian and its staff writers have reported extensively on the State Auditor's claims in Marble Hill in which the State Auditor rendered a variety of legal opinions about the meaning of certain trust language...

John L. Oliver Jr.

To the Editor:

I am intrigued! In your newspaper, Friday, December 17, 1993 edition, one of the headlines reads, "Kelly: Ten School Districts Violated Law," with a subcaption, "State Auditor Says Districts Raise Taxes Unconstitutionally."

Previously, the Southeast Missourian and its staff writers have reported extensively on the State Auditor's claims in Marble Hill in which the State Auditor rendered a variety of legal opinions about the meaning of certain trust language.

Why am I intrigued? Because your newspaper, as most others, reports the statements of the State Auditor as if they came from the mount with Moses!

A review of the December 17, 1993 article and a review of all of the articles written with respect to Marble Hill indicates a total failure of your reporters to examine Article IV, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, nor Chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. The Constitution requires that our Auditor be at least 30 years old, be a citizen of the United States for 15 years, and a resident of Missouri for 10 years. No other requirements exist. To my knowledge, the current State Auditor has never claimed to be a lawyer, nor has she claimed to have studied law, nor does she claim to have any particular learning with respect to the Constitution of the State of Missouri or any amendments thereto.

Certainly, no mention is made of the office of Attorney General or the qualifications for that office (which include legal training), nor of the statutes with respect to the Attorney General wherein the Attorney General is required to provide legal representation (and opinions) to the various executive branches, which include the office of the State Auditor.

I note also that the Auditor's press release does not assert that any attorney participated in this "audit."

Chapter 29 is also interesting and I would direct your attention to that statute. I find nothing in that statute which authorizes or directs the office of the "State Auditor" to render legal opinions or to opine as to the application of law to fact, nor to opine as to violations of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Illustrative language is contained in Section 29.200.

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

"The State Auditor shall post audit the accounts of all state agencies."

Note the use of the word "accounts." "Accounts" have nothing to do with the application of law to fact, nor with the constitutionality of the laws of the State of Missouri, a job which is constitutionally and statutorily given to the Attorney General.

Further intrigued, I examined the official manual of the State of Missouri and the list of employees of the office of the State Auditor. Lo and behold, I discovered one "legal counsel" whom I am led to believe did not participate in the so-called audit, and I find no one else who is not either an administrative person or a CPA. I do note that in her official write-up, the Secretary of State says:

"The powers of the State Auditor are constitutionally derived from Article IV, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. Legal duties are detailed in Chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri."

All of this being the case, why do we trumpet the opinions of an untrained CPA who has neither constitutional authority to, nor a legal duty to opine on legal matters. What is worse is that the articles create the impression that there is sanctity to these opinions.

Might I suggest that when the Auditor reports on auditing matters such as the disappearance of funds or the misuse of accounts, one should attach some sanctity to it, but when the Auditor opines on matters which are in the province of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri, the press release might better find its way to the round circular file generally known as File 13. At the very least, the article should carry a warning that the Auditor's opinion is neither authorized nor required by statute and is the opinion of a lay person unschooled in the law.

John L. Oliver, Jr.

Oliver, Oliver & Waltz, P.C.

Cape Girardeau

Advertisement

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!