UPPER POTTSGROVE TOWNSHIP — Just weeks after receiving its annual independent audit—an extensive review conducted over several months by an outside accounting firm—the new Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners has voted to initiate a second audit, prompting sharp questions from residents about cost, purpose, and transparency.
The original audit, presented publicly at last month’s meeting, certified that the township was in full compliance with generally accepted accounting principles and complimented the township on its investment strategy and on its returns (established by the previous board). Despite that outcome, the new board has now engaged a firm known as Transcends Finance to conduct another review. This move, observers say, is highly unusual for a municipality after the township’s contracted accounting firm conducted a full independent audit.
Although expensive, annual audits are a necessary cost to taxpayers; however, ordering a second review without a clearly articulated justification has led to growing skepticism among attendees at the most recent public meeting. Several residents questioned what specific issues the board believes were left unresolved, or what new concerns have emerged to warrant duplicating the process. Commissioners Albert Leach and, particularly, Elwood Taylor, repeatedly stated that Matt Dallas, a local businessman, told them that they needed to conduct the second review.
Others pressed further, asking what the board ultimately hopes to accomplish.
One resident, a retired federal law enforcement officer and township volunteer, did not mince words, suggesting that absent a clearly defined purpose, the effort resembles “a taxpayer-funded fishing expedition.”
Board leadership did little to narrow the scope of that concern. Leach stated that he did not know what the output of the second audit may be, citing possibilities ranging from simple errors to more serious issues, or potentially nothing at all. Taylor echoed that uncertainty, remarking, “We don’t know what we are going to find, but we are looking for it” (A taxpayer-funded fishing expedition by definition). He invoked Matt Dallas’ name once again.
For some in attendance, those statements only reinforced concerns that the township is committing public funds without a defined objective.
The meeting also featured contentious exchanges over Taylor’s claims about the transition between the previous and the new board. Taylor publicly stated that the previous board instructed the township staff to withhold information from them, a statement that members of staff during the transition period deny. Taylor did not state which staff member made this charge.
Additionally, multiple accounts contradict that assertion. Records and participants indicate that the incoming board was provided with at least one comprehensive meeting with the township manager before being sworn in, during which a wide range of topics—from environmental testing to financial reporting—were discussed in detail. Commissioners were granted a separate session with township solicitor Eric Frey, where legal matters were reviewed as well.
The one exception that the then solicitor did not discuss involved litigation concerning the same incoming commissioners—Taylor, Leach, and Tyrone Robertson—who were plaintiffs against the township (the Gilbertsville building case). Under those circumstances, legal ethics and standard practice prohibit the township solicitor from discussing the case without the presence of opposing counsel.
The discrepancy between Taylor’s public statements and documented events has raised further concerns among residents about the accuracy of information being presented by township leadership.
For more background, in mid-December, after the staff provided multiple sets of information and supported the meetings stated above, Board President Trace Slinkerd and Vice President Hank Llewelyn sent a note to all commissioners, township manager and solicitor, stating that requests beyond reasonable information requirements, without acquiring authorization from the board officers, will not be met. This action was to get control of calls for additional information and to reduce unwarranted strain on the staff. To note, the board officers received no requests for any information, and the new board would take office in two weeks with access to whatever they wanted.
Asked about the Taylor comment, former Board President Trace Slinkerd stated, “Soon after the election, the staff was pushing hard to meet all their information needs and providing face-to-face in-briefings as well. After a month and a half of multiple requests, Hank and I felt it was too much and asked that requests come to us. We didn’t receive any requests from the incoming members.” Slinkerd continued, “Taylor was just taking another opportunity to take a shot at the prior board and to justify his action.”
Former Vice President added, “Current Commissioners Cathy Paretti and Dave Waldt were taking part in the in-briefs and information gathering as well. They have been on the board for over six years, but they waited until after the election to start asking for information. Trace and I felt that we needed to say something to get control of the situation. We had a great staff, and they would have kept grinding out all of the information requests, so the action fell on Trace and me to intervene.”
Former Commissioner Read added, “As it relates to Paretti and Waldt, both were given the same packets, information, and access to the staff as the rest of the board for 6 years, yet they claimed repeatedly that they didn’t receive any information. This claim of not getting any information seemed more of a tactic than anything; however, the fact remains that they did get everything and could have passed it along to Taylor, Leach, and Robinson, and, in all probability, they did.
These developments come as the new board continues to emphasize its commitment to transparency—a central theme of their campaign messaging. Yet critics argue that inconsistent statements and decisions, such as commissioning a second audit without a clear rationale, risk undermining that claim.
With attendance at meetings rising and scrutiny intensifying, the decision to pursue a second audit—and the explanations surrounding it—appear likely to remain a focal point in the ongoing debate over governance, accountability, and the use of taxpayer funds in Upper Pottsgrove Township.