By Karen Hartley-Nagle, Former President, New Castle County Council (2016–2024)

September 25, 2025 | Investigative Report | The Audit Reckoning | Truthline Network

​

​“The law was clear. The guardrails were written. But the Audit Committee didn’t meet, the Auditor didn’t answer, and taxpayers were left unprotected.”​

​​

Executive Summary: The 30-Second Version

​

Delaware law is crystal clear: New Castle County must have a five-member Audit Committee that meets at least quarterly to coordinate the work of the independent County Auditor and safeguard taxpayer dollars (§1404). New Castle County’s Audit Committee went 1,036 days without recorded minutes—nearly three years. The law requires quarterly meetings. Instead, the record shows years of non-compliance—an Audit Committee operating with only three members and long stretches without public meetings, including an the almost three-year gap between January 26, 2021, and November 28, 2023. That isn’t a clerical oversight. It’s a breakdown of compliance.

​

When the watchdogs themselves fail to follow the law, the public has no reason to believe anyone else in government is following it either.

As Council President, I raised these concerns again and again on the Council floor. This report spells out in plain language what the Audit Committee and County Auditor are legally required to do, where the process has broken down, what’s missing from the public record—and the concrete steps needed to restore compliance.

​

Here’s the truth: oversight only works when the guardrails are real. The Audit Committee and County Auditor are designed to be the county’s immune system—independent, proactive, and by-the-book. When they fail, everything else is at risk: federal dollars, grant compliance, procurement integrity, pension security, and public trust itself.​

​

The Law: Five members. Quarterly meetings. Annual plan. Triennial quality review. Drafts shared; findings tracked; public informed.

The Failures: Three members, not five. Gaps of 5–11–34 months. Missing plan. No visible QAR.

The Fix: Seat five. Keep the calendar. Post the plan. Publish the QAR. Track and close findings—on the record.

​

​

​“Read the receipts. Demand the fix.”

​​

 

Written for residents who pay the bills, for public servants who want to get it right, and for reformers who believe receipts matter more than rhetoric.

​​

Oversight With the Lights Off​

​

This is a hard report to write because it isn’t about a single policy or budget line. It’s about the guardrails themselves—and how the very officials charged with following them have failed.

​

​“New Castle County’s Audit Committee went 1,036 days without recorded minutes—nearly three years. The law requires quarterly meetings. That isn’t a clerical error. It’s a collapse.”

When the watchdogs ignore the statute, taxpayers lose their last line of defense. This report lays out the law, the failures, and the fix—and puts dates on all three.

​

For years, New Castle County’s Audit Committee and Auditor have operated outside the minimum standards the law demands. The record is undeniable:

​​

• A legally required five-member Audit Committee reduced to three.

• Quarterly meetings skipped for months—and at one point, almost three years.

• Audit plans promised but never posted.

• Peer reviews of the Auditor’s Office that—if they exist—were never provided to Council or the public as the law requires.

 

That’s not oversight. That’s systemic noncompliance. And when watchdogs ignore the law, taxpayers lose their last line of defense.

​​​

​

The Promise the Law Makes to You

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​“The statute is simple: five members, quarterly meetings, an annual plan, and a triennial quality review. Drafts go to Council, findings get tracked, and the public sees the work. That’s the contract. We broke it.”

​​

​​The law is not ambiguous. Delaware Code, New Castle County Code, and Council’s own Rules of Procedure create a contract with taxpayers. Here’s what it says—plainly and specifically:

​

• Delaware Code (9 Del. C. Ch. 14)

  • §1404: Audit Committee shall consist of five qualified members, appointed by County Council, serving staggered terms.

  • §1405: Committee must meet at least quarterly with the Auditor to set schedules, monitor audits, and plan follow-ups.

  • §1406: Audit reports—drafts must be sent to the Council President, County Executive, CFO, and Audit Committee for review before release.

  • §1409: Auditor must track corrective actions; Audit Committee must report results to Council and the Executive.

  • §1410: Quality Assurance Review (QAR) required every three years under NALGA guidelines; report must be furnished to all Council members, the Executive, and the public.

• New Castle County Code (Title 2, Ch. 2, Sec. 2.04.001 et seq.)

  • Reinforces the five-member requirement.

  • Specifies qualifications, appointments, and staggered terms.

  • Requires Council confirmation of appointments.

  • Incorporates state law obligations on meetings and reporting.

• County Council Rules of Procedure

  • Require Council oversight of standing and statutory committees.

  • Mandate that committees follow statutory requirements for membership and meeting schedules.

​​

These are not “best practices.” They are the statutory and procedural floor—the baseline that guarantees accountability and transparency. (See 9 Del. C. Ch. 14; New Castle County Code, Title 2; Council Rules of Procedure, esp. Rule 2.3 and Rule 9 on committees.)

 

Why This Matters to Families

​

When oversight bodies ignore Delaware Code, County Code, and their own rules, small problems snowball into big costs: unresolved audit findings, higher compliance risks, avoidable lawsuits, and ultimately higher bills for families already stretched by utilities, groceries, and property taxes.

​

​“Strong oversight isn’t ceremonial. It’s structural. It means: a roster, a calendar, a plan, and a record. Without those, accountability collapses.”

​

A Word on Tone and Trust​

​

As Council President for eight years, 2016 - 2024, I raised these failures again and again on the record—because the law is the law. When an oversight body refuses to meet its own minimums, it doesn’t just weaken audits—it signals across government that deadlines don’t matter, statutes can be ignored, and Council rules are optional.

​

That cannot stand.

​

​“Fill the seats. Keep the calendar. Publish the plan. Deliver the reviews. Show your work.”

​

Because this isn’t drift. It’s a compliance failure that corrodes trust, drains accountability, and leaves taxpayers unprotected.

​

Long lapses between meetings - despite a quarterly mandate​

The statute requires at least quarterly meetings. The public record shows multi-month (and multi-year) gaps:

• January 26, 2021 → November 28, 2023: The November 28, 2023 meeting agenda explicitly adopted minutes from January 26, 2021—a gap of nearly three years without recorded Audit Committee minutes. (January 26, 2021 Audit Committee Agenda).

• November 28, 2023 → May 10, 2024: Next posted minutes were May 10, 2024—about 5½ months later (still not quarterly). 

• May 10, 2024 → April 10, 2025: The April 10, 2025 agenda adopted the May 10, 2024 minutes—an ~11-month gap. (Quarterly standard missed.)

• August 27, 2025: An additional meeting agenda was noticed for  Aug 27, 2025 , although posted on the main webpage as an April 10, 2025, Meeting Agenda.

 

When the oversight body itself misses its legal cadence, it signals that audit discipline is a "nice to have". It isn’t, it's  the law.

​

What the County has actually been publishing

​

If you go to the County’s own Audit Committee page, you’ll find three names, not five. A committee built to be a five-person watchdog has been, for extended stretches, a three-legged stool.

​

Now follow the paper trail. The minutes posted for May 10, 2024 show the committee meeting with those three members. The next posted minutes are for April 10, 2025—an eleven-month gap. “Quarterly” means four times a year. Eleven months is not quarterly by any honest measure. That silence is its own kind of statement.

​

​“1,036 days without minutes
Law: Quarterly meetings required
That’s ≈ 11 missed quarters”

​

You’ll also notice that the Auditor’s site promises an “Audit Plan (PDF)”—a roadmap the public should be able to open and read. Click it and, as of this writing, you hit a dead end. The last accessible “Audit Plan” on the site dates to FY 2019 (first half). The County’s budget materials for Council’s audit unit acknowledge there were no formal audit plans created for FY 2021–FY 2023. If oversight is a bridge, that’s three years without a central span.

​

And then there’s the peer review—the mandatory outside look at how the Auditor’s Office operates, required every three years, with a report that must be furnished to every Council member and made public. In my eight years as Council President, I did not receive that report. If one was done, the promise the law makes to the public—to put that report in their elected representatives’ hands and out in the open—was not kept.

​

Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs) not visible to the public

​

State law requires a QAR every three years and requires the Audit Committee to furnish the report to all Council members, the Executive, and the public. A search of the county’s Audit Committee pages and archives turns up no posted QAR reports in recent cycles, even though the requirement is explicit in § 1410(d). (If a QAR was performed and distributed, it is not posted for public review as required.) 

​

Audit planning and workload transparency

​

Budget documents for the Auditor’s Office note operational aims but, in recent years, the site’s “Audit Plan” references have been sporadic. The FY2025 budget brief shows 3 positions (unchanged across FY2021–FY2025), while also noting work assisting with external audits and program audits—underscoring why quarterly direction and posted plans matter.

​

Bottom line: With only three committee members and long gaps between meetings, the system isn’t meeting the letter or the spirit of the law. That weakens every downstream control—from grant compliance to vendor oversight.

​

Why this matters: real money, real risk

​

When oversight blinks, errors compound. The FY2023 Single Audit (performed by CliftonLarsonAllen) reported a significant deficiency in internal controls connected to the Hope Center’s cash, receivables, payables, and reporting—misstatements and late approvals stemming from vendor-managed accounting that the County had to correct. That’s exactly the kind of high-risk area where a sharp, fully-seated, quarterly-meeting Audit Committee should be leaning in.

​

None of this is abstract. It shows up in the work. The County’s FY 2023 Single Audit (the external audit focused on federal funds) and the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report are posted. They include findings and management responses—items that should be tracked in public, quarter by quarter, with corrective-action progress reviewed by a full, five-member committee. That is exactly why the law requires quarterly meetings. That is exactly what hasn’t been happening.

​

(Key documents and links are listed at the end of this report.)

​

“We couldn’t meet” is not a defense

​

During COVID, when offices closed and life knocked us all sideways, Council under my leadership did not miss a single meeting. We moved immediately to live, virtual sessions with public attendance and participation. Delaware’s open-meetings law made that possible and spelled out the rules. We followed them. People still needed answers; government still owed them a forum.

​

​“Council met virtually and on time. The Audit Committee could have, too. It chose not to.”

​

The Audit Committee could have done the same. It did not. The law did not ask the committee to be perfect during the pandemic. It asked the committee to be present—to keep the lights on, to meet quarterly, to show the work. If Council could do it, so could the watchdog built to guard your dollars.

​

Why this is so bad—and not just for accountants

​

When oversight is late, incomplete, or invisible, real people pay the price. Internal control weaknesses linger. Federal findings roll forward. Contract issues hide in the seams. Delays that would have been caught in April become budget surprises in October. And for families already stretched by tax bills, utility costs, and groceries, “we’ll fix it next quarter” isn’t an answer; it’s a lullaby.

​

There’s a deeper harm too. A thin committee and a spotty meeting record teach all the wrong lessons. They tell departments handling grants and contracts that compliance is optional and urgency is negotiable. They invite cynicism—the most corrosive force in public life. Trust doesn’t survive on good intentions; it survives on habits: meet when you say you’ll meet, publish what you say you’ll publish, follow the law you took an oath to follow.

​

What the Audit Committee should be doing—scope, cadence, deliverables

​

If you’re on the Audit Committee, your job is not ceremonial. By law and best practice you must:

​

1. Meet at least quarterly with the Auditor and CFO: adopt the annual audit schedule, review in-flight audits, and order follow-ups for the last 12 months. Document the decisions and publish the minutes. 

2. Coordinate across the Auditor, CFO, Council, and external auditors to eliminate gaps and duplication.

3. Staff the committee to five members with real technical chops (CPA, CIA, CGFM, CISA, CFE). Vacancies must be filled to maintain quorum and coverage. 

4. Run a QAR every three years using NALGA guidance and publish the report to Council, the Executive, and the public—on time. 

5. Advise Council on the Auditor’s salary schedule and ensure resources align with the risk footprint (federal funds, capital program, enterprise systems, etc.). 

​​

What the County Auditor should be doing—independence with accountability

​

The County Auditor is appointed by Council, must be a CPA, and must follow U.S. Government Auditing Standards. Key duties include:

​

• Oversee annual audits of every office handling county financial activity. 

• Secure an external audit of the County’s ACFR/financials; ensure findings are addressed. 

• Deliver final drafts of audit reports for factual review to the Council President, Executive, CFO, and Audit Committee. Include the 30-day written response window and attach responses to the final report. 

• Follow up on findings and report status back through the Audit Committee to Council and the Executive. 

• Provide assistance to Council when requested by a majority or as described in the job description (appropriations, program audits, etc.). 

• Maintain independence from partisan political activity as defined in statute. (This protects the credibility of the work.)

​​

About the Auditor—and the bright-line rules that protect the work​

​

Some residents remember the public controversies from 2015: disputes over the Auditor’s conduct and emails, accusations and denials, press statements and counter-statements. There’s one lesson no one should ignore: when oversight blurs into politics, the public’s confidence bleeds out. That is precisely why Delaware law bans active partisan political activity by the County Auditor.

 

​“Independence isn’t a slogan; it’s a boundary.”

​

When questions arise—about timekeeping, attendance, or political activity—the answers should come from documents and policy: timesheets, calendars, written standards, and, where appropriate, a neutral investigation. That did not occur and the public paid the price.

That’s how you protect the integrity of the office and the people who serve in it.​

​

Compliance has broken down

​

Oversight isn’t optional. It’s the guarantee written into law that taxpayer dollars are safeguarded, decisions are reviewed, and mistakes are caught before they multiply. In New Castle County, that guarantee is broken. The evidence isn’t scattered or ambiguous—it’s documented, repeated, and serious.​

​

1) Committee size: three members instead of five

​

What the law requires.
9 Del. C. § 1404(b)(1): the Audit Committee “shall consist of five members.”

​

What the County is doing.

• The Audit Committee webpage (2025) lists only three members: Linda Bailey, Stephen (Steve) Cordano, and Dr. Karl Brockenbrough.

• Minutes, May 10, 2024: Attendance—Bailey, Cordano, Brockenbrough. No absences noted.

• Minutes, April 10, 2025: The same three names—no indication two additional seats even exist.

​​

What this proves.

For 335 days (~11 months) the committee operated at 60% strength. As of today, only three members are publicly listed.

 

Why this matters.

• Quorum risk: With three seats, one absence = no meeting. Oversight collapses instantly.

• Expertise gap: Five members are mandated to ensure independence and technical skill; running with three narrows both.

• Credibility at risk: Every finding, approval, and report can be challenged because the body itself is not legally constituted.

 

Bottom line: Council must fill the two vacant seats immediately and publish terms and expirations. Anything less defies state law.

​

2) Compliance has broken down: The Audit Committee’s Meeting Record

​

What the Law Requires​

• Committee composition. Five members on the Audit Committee, appointed by Council, with the technical expertise to oversee County audits and financial reporting. (9 Del. C. §1404(b)(1))

• Meeting cadence. Meet “at least on a quarterly basis.” (9 Del. C. §1404(b)(2))

​​

These are not aspirational goals. They are minimum statutory requirements — the baseline that keeps oversight from collapsing.

​

What the Public Record Shows

​From the County’s own Agenda Center and archives, here are the posted meetings of the Audit Committee since 2021 — and the gaps between them:

​Jan 26, 2021: Archived Agenda Center – “Audit Committee”, 1,036 days (≈34 months)≈11

Nov 28, 2023: Audit Committee agenda (adopts 1/26/21 minutes, confirming no meetings in between), 164 days (≈5.4 months)≈1

May 10, 2024: Audit Committee Meeting Minutes, 335 days (≈11 months)≈3

Apr 10, 2025: Audit Committee Meeting Minutes, 139 days (≈4.6 months)≈1

Aug 27, 2025: Audit Committee agenda (next scheduled meeting)——

​

* Missed-quarter math: A quarter ≈ 91 days. Any gap over 91 days means at least one legally required quarterly meeting did not occur.

 

What’s Missing From the Record (2016–2020, 2022)

• No posted meetings for 2022. The November 28, 2023 agenda explicitly adopted minutes from January 2021, suggesting no intervening meetings for nearly three years.

• Sparse records for 2016–2020. In the County’s “Archived Agenda Center,” the only explicit Audit Committee record is the January 26, 2021 meeting. Council agendas from 2017 and 2019 confirm reappointments to the committee — proof it existed — but not that it actually met.

• Transparency failure. If meetings occurred but were not posted, residents and Council have no way to verify compliance. If they did not occur, the law was plainly violated. Either way, accountability is absent.

​​

The Bottom Line (2016–Today)

The documented record shows multiple, sustained violations of the law:

• A 34-month gap (Jan 2021 → Nov 2023) = ≈11 missed quarterly meetings.

• An 11-month gap (May 2024 → Apr 2025) = ≈3 missed quarterly meetings.

• Additional gaps of 5.4 months (Nov 2023 → May 2024) and 4.6 months (Apr 2025 → Aug 2025).​​

Each one exceeds the “quarterly” mandate of 9 Del. C. §1404(b)(2).

​

This is not clerical oversight. It is a pattern of systemic noncompliance that leaves taxpayers unprotected, risks compounding errors in County finances, and signals to every department that statutory deadlines are optional.

​

When the body legally charged with watching the books cannot meet on time, in full, and on record, the guardrails of accountability are already off the road.

 

3) Quality assurance (peer) reviews missing

​

What the law requires.

9 Del. C. § 1410(d) mandates a Quality Assurance Review (QAR) of the Auditor’s Office every three years, with the report delivered to Council, the Executive, and the public.

​

What the County is doing.

• In eight years as Council President, I never received a QAR report.

• Neither the Audit Committee page nor the Auditor’s Office page posts one.

​​

Why this matters.

• No independent check: Without a QAR, there’s no validation that methods or controls meet professional standards.

• Grant exposure: Weak quality assurance jeopardizes federal and state compliance and can trigger costly clawbacks.

• Bond market optics: Rating agencies scrutinize oversight maturity; silence on QARs signals fragility.

​​

Bottom line: If a review exists, publish it. If it doesn’t, schedule it now.

​

4) Audit plan, follow-ups, and public tracking

​

What the law envisions.
§ 1405(d) and § 1407(a) require an annual audit plan, tracking of corrective actions, and follow-up reporting.

​

What the County is doing.

• The Auditor’s webpage lists duties but no current plan.

• There is no public dashboard showing whether past findings were corrected.

• The “Audit Plan (PDF)” link resolves to a 404. The only visible plan is an FY2019 half-year plan.

​​

Why this matters.

• No roadmap = no accountability. Residents cannot see what risks are prioritized—or ignored.

• No tracking = no closure. Without public follow-ups, problems linger, compound, and cost more.​

​​

Bottom line: Publish the annual audit plan. Post corrective actions with owners and deadlines. Update quarterly at the Audit Committee.

 

Staffing, Budget, and Pay — What we Know (and Don’t)

​

Authorized staff (FY2025):​

• County Auditor (1)

• Senior Staff Auditor (1)

• Associate Auditor (1)
  Total = 3 FTEs

​​

Appropriated budget (FY2025):​

• Salaries & Wages: $291,149

• Benefits: $170,407

​​

Pay plan (structure and transparency).
Council’s unclassified pay plan (Ord. 20-108) lists Auditor salary ranges ($81,554–$132,843 in 2020–2022). Updated ranges may exist but are not posted. Current salary is not itemized in budget sheets.

​

Transparency gap.
Residents should not have to file FOIA to learn what the Auditor and staff are paid. Current titles, ranges, and salaries should be published on the Auditor’s page—alongside the audit plan.

​

Why this matters.​

• Capacity vs. workload: Three FTEs cannot realistically cover the county’s risk map without prioritization. The public deserves to see what is being left undone.

• Hidden costs: Lack of staffing transparency obscures whether outsourcing, legal review, or duplication is driving up costs.

​

​​Public Posture vs. Compliance: A mixed message — with dates, times, and quotes

​

Public remarks have praised the Auditor’s “work and transparency.” At the same time:​

• The Audit Committee listed only three members, not five.

• Quarterly meeting requirements were missed.

• Quality assurance reviews were not posted.

• The audit plan link was broken.

​​

Compliments are not compliance. Five members, quarterly meetings, triennial QARs, and a posted audit plan are legal requirements—not talking points.

​

August 26, 2025 — New Castle County Council Finance Committee (4:00–5:00 p.m.)
At the Finance Committee meeting (posted 4:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.), councilmembers publicly praised the County Auditor’s “work and transparency.” As The News Journal reported that night, “the auditor, Robert Wasserbach, received rave reviews for his work and transparency from all council members at the finance committee meeting.”

Same day — Full County Council meeting (6:30 p.m.)

Two hours later, at the County Council meeting (gaveled for 6:30 p.m.), council took up the high-stakes reassessment fight. The next day’s coverage captured the split between public praise and legal compliance:

• Vote. Council narrowly rejected a resolution that would have formally directed the Auditor to review Tyler Technologies’ reassessment methods.

​

See full New Castle County Council Finance (4:00 PM) and County Council (6:30 PM) August 26, 2025 meetings below.

​​

Why this contradiction matters now

​

The public accolades came the same day the County’s own record showed an oversight structure failing basic statutory requirements:

• Audit Committee membership below the legal minimum: only three members listed (Linda Bailey, Stephen Cordano, Dr. Karl Brockenbrough), rather than the five mandated by 9 Del. C. §1404(b)(1). April 10, 2025 committee minutes confirm all three present; no fourth or fifth member exists in the record. 

• Quarterly meeting lapses: statutory requirement is at least quarterly under §1404(b)(2); documented gaps far exceeded the ~91-day interval. 

• No posted tri-annual Quality Assurance Review (QAR) as required by §1410(d)—no report to Council, Executive, or public is visible on committee or Auditor pages. 

• Audit plan missing from the website: the “Audit Plan (PDF)” link routes to a 404; the only accessible plan online is FY2019 (first half)—no current plan posted. ​

​

Bottom line

​

On August 26, 2025, councilmembers’ on-the-record praise of the Auditor’s “work and transparency” (4:00 p.m. Finance Committee) collided with a noncompliant oversight reality visible in the public record by 6:30 p.m. the same evening. Compliments do not equal compliance. A five-member Audit Committee, quarterly meetings, tri-annual QARs, and a published audit plan are legal requirements—not talking points. Until those are fixed, every assurance of “transparency” is undercut by the County’s own documents. 

​

Primary sources & coverage cited above include the County’s official calendars/agendas/minutes and reporting by The News Journal (via syndicated copy where needed) and Delaware Public Media.

​

The Law and the Committee’s Role

​

Under 9 Del. C. §1405(d) and §1407(a), the County Auditor must operate with an annual audit plan that sets out the scope of reviews, follow-ups, and corrective actions. By design, that plan is supposed to be approved and tracked by the Audit Committee—which is the taxpayers’ protection against arbitrary or ad hoc work.

​

The Audit Committee isn’t just a discussion forum. Its statutory role is to meet with the Auditor, approve schedules, monitor progress, and ensure findings are followed through. Without its formal action, there’s no legal or procedural backbone to what the Auditor undertakes.

 

What Happened in August 2025

​

The Audit Committee’s August 27, 2025 agenda included only a generic line item:

“Presentation and Discussion on Reassessment.”

​

There was no posted agenda item authorizing a scoped special examination, no vote defining objectives, and no resolution adopting an audit plan amendment. In other words: the committee never gave formal direction for a reassessment review.

​

That means, on paper, the Auditor could claim to be “reviewing reassessment,” but there’s no approved plan, no adopted scope, and no documented accountability milestones. This is not a technicality—it’s a compliance failure.

​

Could Council Have Required It?

​

Yes. Council had two tools in hand:

1. State law (§1407) — requires an annual audit plan with follow-ups. Council, through the Audit Committee, has a legal duty to demand that the plan include the reassessment review.

2. Council’s own rules (Rule 5.3.4) — place the Auditor’s budget and work plan under the review of the Council President and Finance Committee before public recommendation. Council could have insisted that the reassessment review be formally scoped, adopted, and recorded as part of that process.

​​

In short: Council absolutely could have required the Audit Committee to adopt and publish a scoped reassessment audit. By not doing so, members left the review in a gray zone—talked about, but never codified.

​

Why This Gap Matters

​

• Legal exposure: Without a scoped plan, the reassessment review isn’t protected by statute; findings could be challenged as unauthorized or incomplete.

• Transparency deficit: Residents cannot tell whether the review is real, symbolic, or stalled.

• Accountability void: No scope means no deadlines, no assigned responsibilities, no required follow-ups.

 

Bottom line: On August 27, 2025, the Audit Committee had its chance to lock down a lawful, scoped review of reassessment. It chose instead to “discuss” without authorizing. That decision left the Auditor free-floating, the reassessment unchecked, and taxpayers unprotected.

​

Past controversies: why process matters

​

This is not the first time the County’s audit function has been under fire. In 2015, disputes between the Auditor and the administration triggered ethics complaints, dueling public statements, and contentious fights over audit methods. The pattern is familiar—and today’s stakes are higher.

​

The lesson has only grown sharper:​

• Process is the firewall. Without it, politics and personalities replace standards.

• Documentation is the proof. If it isn’t posted, the public cannot trust it exists.

• Transparency protects everyone. Council, the Executive, the Auditor—and most importantly, taxpayers.

​

Bottom line: Yesterday’s warnings are today’s alarms. If New Castle County does not restore compliance—fully, visibly, and quickly—taxpayer trust won’t just erode; it will collapse.​

 

What the Council Rules require of the Council Auditor

 

Rule 5.3.4 (Council Budget Review — Finance Committee) establishes a two-track budget path:​

1. Council’s Financial Advisor prepares the overall Council budget; and

2. “The Council Auditor shall prepare [the] Council Audit budget,” submit it to the Council President and Finance Committee Chair for review, and then have it scheduled before Finance Committee for review and recommendation.

​​

Why this matters: The Auditor is not a free-floating office. This routing creates a paper trail and a public meeting record—an enforceable accountability checkpoint.

​

Beyond Rule 5.3.4, Auditor business follows normal committee processes (noticed discussions, presentations in jurisdiction) and open-government requirements (posted agendas and minutes).

​

Bottom line: Council rules provide a clear enforcement hook the public can audit.

​

Website transparency issue: the “Audit Plan (PDF)” link is broken

​

From the Auditor’s Office page, the “Audit Plan (PDF)” navigation item resolves to a 404 (“Custom404”) (/DocumentCenter/View/21852). If a plan exists, it must be posted and current. If it does not, the page should explicitly state that and provide a delivery date. A missing plan deprives Council, the Audit Committee, and the public of the annual work program that drives risk-based oversight—especially troubling alongside membership and meeting lapses.

​

​

​“The Auditor’s site promises an “Audit Plan (PDF).” Click it and you get a 404. Accountability shouldn’t be a broken link.”

​

 

Add to findings:
Broken Link / Missing Document. The “Audit Plan (PDF)” link routes to a 404. Without a posted plan, neither Council nor the public can verify scope, priorities, or timing.

​

Required corrective action:
(a) Publish the current-year audit plan;
(b) Restore prior-year plans to an accessible archive; and
(c) Fix the Audit Plan link on the Auditor’s page.

​

The broken chain of reporting and a culture of non-accountability

​

Delaware law requires the Auditor to route drafts to—among others—the Council President and to file finished audit reports with the council’s Clerk (9 Del. C. § 1404(e), § 1405(a)). In eight years as Council President, I never once received the audit committee’s legally required Quality Assurance Review of the Auditor’s Office, because no such report was ever furnished to Council or publicly posted—despite the statutory command that it “shall be furnished” and “shall be made available to the public” every three years (9 Del. C. § 1410(d)). 

​

That same culture shows up elsewhere. The Auditor’s Office website promises an “Audit Plan (PDF),” but the link leads to a dead end. What is posted is an Audit Plan for the first half of FY2019—a seven-year-old document—underscoring the larger problem: the public cannot see a current, council-reviewed, legally compliant plan. (Under § 1407(a), that plan is supposed to be submitted every year before the year begins.) 

​

When the Watchdog ducks accountability

​

Accountability isn’t paperwork—it’s personal. And in New Castle County, what's required of the Council President. The President must sign the County Auditor's and staff timesheets—without the ability to verify them. I fought that. By custom and long-standing internal policy, that role falls to the Council President as the elected head of Council.

 

I pressed Council’s own lawyer, because I knew if the facts came out and didn't square up, the question would be simple: who signed? And the answer would be me. That broken loop needs to be closed.

​

But while Council’s hand is forced, the Auditor’s is not. He has refused to be accountable to anyone—dodging questions about time, attendance, even showing up for Council meetings. He has stonewalled on investigations, staffing and work product, the basic measures of whether an office is doing its job.

​

And there’s more. Reports suggest the Auditor has attended political events on county time. If true, that’s not just bad judgment—it’s a direct clash with § 1401(d), which bars the Auditor from active partisan politics. That’s the one bright-line rule: the watchdog cannot be a political operative.

​

Yet here we are. No answers. No documentation. No accountability. Council doesn’t have it. The public doesn’t have it. And until we do, the office entrusted to protect taxpayer dollars remains its own unanswered question.

​

Receipts that matter: the Hope Center and the single audits

​

Oversight failures aren’t just process fouls; they show up in the books. The FY2023 Single Audit—the independent, federally required compliance review—reported ongoing control weaknesses. Most striking: the auditors documented a prior-year issue in which, during FY2021, (FY2022 Single Audit is still missing and not posted on the website) a checking account was established in the County’s name for the Hope Center, and the balance and related revenue were not properly identified and reported to Finance. The amount of revenue excluded from the County’s records? $1,090,633. That is not a rounding error—that is a systems failure.

​

​“In FY2021, a checking account in the County’s name for the Hope Center wasn’t properly reported. $1,090,633 in revenue was excluded from County records. The Single Audit flagged it. A five-member, quarterly Audit Committee should have been on it—fast.”

 

The same report qualified the County’s compliance opinion on the CDBG program because of reporting noncompliance. That matters because federal granting agencies and credit analysts both watch a government’s internal controls as a bellwether of fiscal health.

A vigilant audit committee would have been pressing quarterly for remediation and publicly tracking progress. Instead, it went almost a year without meeting.

​

Meanwhile, the reassessment storm—and public praise for the Auditor

​

In 2025, property reassessment collided with real life. Taxpayers saw new values, confusion, and fear that “revenue neutral” might not feel neutral. Delaware Online reported on August 26–27, 2025 that County Council voted against initiating a review of Tyler Technologies’ reassessment work; coverage the prior week outlined a narrow “review of the review” assignment to the Auditor with an October due date. Those stories also captured how, even amid public anger, several councilmembers praised the Auditor’s work in committee.

​

At the same time, Delaware Online explained how property taxes would change in 2025 and flagged the County’s proposed tax rate—evidence that for families already stretched by utilities and groceries, even “neutral” can feel like more. Oversight isn’t about optics; it’s about predictability and fair administration.

​

Here’s the disconnect: public plaudits for the Auditor’s professionalism while basic statutory obligations—quarterly meetings, five qualified members, current audit plans, triennial quality reviews—go unmet. You can’t praise the process when the process isn’t happening.

 

Why this is so bad—and why it’s fixable

​

This is where the it's time to be  blunt. Voters forgive honest mistakes. They do not forgive preventable ones—especially when the guardrails were written in black-letter law.

​

When the audit committee doesn’t meet, findings don’t get chased. When it sits at three members, groupthink replaces challenge. When there’s no current audit plan, staff drift to ad hoc projects instead of a risk-based program bound to deadlines. When the Auditor won’t deal transparently with the Council President, the public loses its most direct line of accountability. Put it together and you don’t just invite errors; you normalize them.

​

And the county’s best practice isn’t mysterious. Quarterly public meetings. A full five-member committee with independent expertise. A posted, current annual audit plan. Drafts routed to the Council President. A triennial quality review report in every council inbox and on the website. The mission statement on the Auditor’s page promises “independent, objective audits” to protect taxpayer dollars and promote transparent, ethical governance. It’s time to match the mission to the mechanics.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

What the Audit Committee should be doing—every quarter (Statute + GAGAS)

​

• Seat five qualified members (CPA/CIA/CGFM/CISA/CFE). Publish terms, expirations, and a running vacancy log.

• Publish a year-long calendar of at least quarterly meetings—and keep it. Missed meetings = noncompliance.

• Approve and post the annual audit plan before the fiscal year; review progress and follow-ups every meeting.

• Track corrective actions in a public dashboard with owner, due date, and status (open/in progress/closed).

• Schedule the triennial Quality Assurance Review now (if overdue) and publish the report.

• Receive the Single Audit and ACFR briefings in public session with actionable timelines.

• Post every set of minutes and materials within statutory timelines; never allow multi-year gaps.

• Publish staffing and pay (title, range/step, current salary) on the Auditor’s page and update after budgets pass.

​

What the County Auditor should be doing—continuously

​

• Operate under GAGAS, free from partisan activity; maintain time and calendars that reconcile to work product and meetings.

• File reports simultaneously with the Audit Committee, Executive, CFO, and Clerk of Council; report irregularities immediately; document follow-ups (§ 1405).

• Publish the annual risk assessment and plan summary; log hotline allegations and outcomes (protecting lawful confidentiality).

• Disclose staff roster, roles, workloads, and productivity metrics that demonstrate value.

​

Immediate corrective actions

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

• 30 days: Fill the two Audit Committee vacancies; publish roster/qualifications; post a 12-month meeting calendar (with hybrid public access).

• 45 days: Publish the current Annual Audit Plan; fix dead links; archive prior plans.

• 60 days: Commission the Quality Assurance Review (if overdue); set a public presentation date; commit to same-day publication.

• 90 days: Launch a public findings & corrective-action dashboard (owner, due date, status) and issue monthly one-page status memos until all open items are closed.

​

​“Message to residents: The watchdog is back on duty.”

​

• Immediately: Reaffirm § 1401(d) standards (no partisan political activity) and adopt a public timekeeping/event policy for the Auditor’s Office.​​​

​​

What residents should see—every quarter, without fail​

​

• A five-member Audit Committee, publicly seated, with five names, bios, and areas of expertise.

• A posted annual audit plan adopted before the fiscal year and revisited quarterly.

• Quarterly meetings that occur on schedule with prompt minutes.

• A public tracker of findings and corrective actions (owner, due date, status).

• Peer reviews (QAR) posted every three years—proudly.

• Clear staffing and pay information by title and grade.

• A written, annual acknowledgement of non-partisan standards by the Auditor and staff.

​​

None of this is radical. It’s the job.

​

The fix - immediately​

​

• Fill the seats. Appoint to any Audit Committee vacancies and maintain a public roster of terms and expirations.

• Publish the plan. The Auditor must submit—and the Committee must review and release—an annual audit plan under § 1407 each fiscal year (archive prior years online).

• Set and keep the calendar. Adopt and post a full-year quarterly schedule now—no drift.

• Restore the QA cycle. Conduct and publish the three-year QAR required by § 1410 with a firm delivery date.

• Standardize reporting. File every audit with the Clerk and post online with a public findings tracker until closed (§ 1405).

• Measure what matters. Link staffing and budget to audits completed and risks reduced—not promises.

​

​“Read the receipts. Demand the fix.”

​​

This isn’t the ceiling—it's the floor. It’s housekeeping. It’s the promise we owe to families who feel the squeeze of rising bills and expect the basics—controls, compliance, integrity—to simply work. It’s about doing the job the law requires. Fill the committee. Meet quarterly. Post the plan. Publish the quality review. Close the findings. Restore the chain of reporting. That’s what taxpayers are owed. That’s what I’m asking for—plainly, publicly, and with receipts.

​​

“Meet on time, publish the plan, show the receipts

—or step aside.”

​

Sources and documents (the receipts)

​

• Delaware Code—Title 9, ch. 14 (County Auditor & Audit Committee): (dead “Audit Plan (PDF)” link; legacy FY2019 half-year plan) five members, quarterly meetings, audit plan, reports, triennial quality review. https://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c014/

• Audit Committee page (membership & minutes links): shows three members; links to posted minutes. https://www.newcastlede.gov/388/Audit-Committee

• May 10, 2024 Audit Committee Minutes (PDF): three members present. https://www.newcastlede.gov/DocumentCenter/View/54751/Meeting-Minutes-05102024

• April 10, 2025 Audit Committee Agenda & Minutes (PDFs); (shows 11-month gap and only three members present): https://www.newcastlede.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04102025-2704 ; https://www.newcastlede.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04102025-2704

• Auditor’s Office—Audit Reports/Memoranda: advertises “Audit Plan (PDF)” while last accessible plan is FY2019 (first half); BROKEN LINK. https://www.newcastlede.gov/1177/Audit-ReportMemoranda ; https://www.newcastlede.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28573/Audit-Plan-FY-2019-first-half

• FY2023 Single Audit and ACFR (external reports):

  • FY2023 Single Audit (documents Hope Center bank-account reporting failure and other findings) : https://www.newcastlede.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43668/FY-2023-Single-Audit-Report

  • FY2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): https://www.newcastlede.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3565

• Delaware FOIA (Title 29, ch. 100): https://delcode.delaware.gov/title29/c100/

• New Castle County Council Rules (Rule 5.3.4 reference): https://www.newcastlede.gov/1760/Council-Rules

• Coverage of reassessment votes & praise for the Auditor: (Aug. 21 & 22, 27 & 28, 28 & 29, 2025):

  • https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2025/08/21/new-castle-county-council-review-reassessment-values/85743918007/

  • https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2025/08/27/new-castle-county-council-declines-to-review-reassessed-values/85832588007/

  • https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2025/08/28/new-castle-county-auditor-information-assessments/85867749007/

  • https://www.delawarepublic.org/politics-government/2025-08-27/new-castle-county-council-fails-to-approve-audit-resolution-as-county-auditor-reviews-reassessment-process

• Historical context (2015 reporting on Auditor disputes, Council Meeting - Auditor Wasserbach Facebook Screenshot 9-29-2015:

  • https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/23/fallout-new-castle-county-audit-continues/26279621/

  • https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2015/05/16/emails-wasserbach-activities-spotlight/27462459

  • https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2015/06/10/embattled-ncco-auditor-files-harassment-claim/71006842/

  • https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2015/04/23/26244693/

  • https://www.newcastlede.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/793?MOBILE=ON

  • https://www.newcastlede.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2276

  • https://www.bobweiner.com/news.asp?NewsID=631

  • https://www.bobweiner.com/news.asp?NewsID=633​

​​

​​

References (APA)

​

• Delaware Code. (n.d.). Title 9—Counties, Chapter 14: The County Auditor. https://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c014/

• New Castle County. (2019). Audit Plan FY 2019 (first half) [PDF]. https://www.newcastlede.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28573/Audit-Plan-FY-2019-first-half

• New Castle County. (2024, May 10). Audit Committee Meeting Minutes [PDF]. https://www.newcastlede.gov/DocumentCenter/View/54751/Meeting-Minutes-05102024

• New Castle County. (2025, April 10). Audit Committee Agenda & Minutes [PDFs]. https://www.newcastlede.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04102025-2704 ; https://www.newcastlede.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04102025-2704

• New Castle County. (2024). FY 2023 Single Audit Report [PDF]. https://www.newcastlede.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43668/FY-2023-Single-Audit-Report

• New Castle County. (2024). FY 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) [Archive]. https://www.newcastlede.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3565

• State of Delaware. (n.d.). Title 29—State Government, Chapter 100: Freedom of Information Act. https://delcode.delaware.gov/title29/c100/

• Wilson, X. (2015, April 23). Bickering over New Castle County audit continues. The News Journal.

• Wilson, X. (2015, May 16). New Castle County legal teams clash over making auditor emails public. The News Journal.

​​

 

​“Five members. Quarterly meetings. A posted plan.

A public quality review. That’s the floor, not the ceiling.

Read the receipts. Demand the fix.”​

​

 

Disclaimer: The videos below are provided for the purpose of transparency, public education, and commentary under the Delaware Freedom of Information Act and the principles of fair use in U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. §107).