Editorial: Columbia Borough’s Finance Turmoil Demands Real Accountability—and a Clear Plan to Fix It

Editorial: Columbia Borough’s Finance Turmoil Demands Real Accountability—and a Clear Plan to Fix It

Columbia Borough’s finance office has become synonymous with churn. Since late 2020, the borough has lost accountants and finance managers in rapid succession, with the most recent resignation announced at the December 2025 council meeting. Each departure arrives with scant public explanation, perfunctory references to “personnel issues,” and a request that residents accept the opacity as normal. That is not normal governance. When the custodians of public money cannot retain professional staff, taxpayers should insist on rigorous oversight, disciplined hiring, and measurable performance—principles that prioritize fiscal integrity and limited waste over vague assurances.

A Documented Pattern of Instability

This is not a matter of isolated turnover. An accountant resigned in December 2020, followed by a finance manager in January 2021. Temp staffing and contracted accountants bridged the gap briefly, and a full‑time manager hired in June 2021 resigned in July 2024. Another hire in September 2024 quickly quit, a successor hired in November 2024 was terminated by May 2025, and the latest hire in August 2025 resigned by December 2025—all while council deflected substantive discussion. The sequence is recorded across local reporting and council meeting summaries.

The borough’s audit history underscores why this matters. In early 2022, a publicly discussed audit discrepancy showed over $10,000 “misplaced” in the 2020 books—ultimately attributed to data entry errors, not suspected theft, but illustrative of how fragile processes become amid staffing upheaval and delayed audits. Council leadership acknowledged the explanation but could not identify the funds without considerable effort, signaling systems in need of tightening.

Conflicting Signals from Leadership

When a finance manager was terminated in May 2025, residents asked if a ban from borough property had been imposed—an extraordinary step for a former employee. The mayor described such bans as “standard procedure,” only to be contradicted by a councilman at a subsequent public meeting, who stated plainly that no such policy exists. These mixed messages are more than a public‑relations snag; they reflect a deeper incoherence in management and policy communication that erodes trust and complicates staff retention.

The revolving door wasn’t limited to finance. Even the borough manager position saw two departures in less than a year, further weakening continuity. Residents asked how searches would be conducted and whether outside firms would be engaged; council offered little detail beyond an executive session. In short, process clarity has been the exception, not the rule.

What’s Driving the Exodus?

While personnel confidentiality limits what can be disclosed, the pattern suggests organizational friction, unclear expectations, and the absence of disciplined performance structures. Residents raised morale concerns during meetings in July 2024, citing issues “especially in the office.” The borough’s official posture—avoiding details while turnover mounts—makes it difficult to separate private personnel issues from systemic problems. Good governance does not ask taxpayers to accept prolonged opacity. It proves, with data and policy, that controls are working.

A Practical, Results‑First Plan to Fix It

Below is a rigorous, commonsense reform agenda centered on fiscal discipline, measurable performance, and transparent processes—values that prioritize stewardship over politics, and outcomes over rhetoric.

1. Codify Merit‑Based Hiring and Require Job‑Relevant Credentialing
   • Adopt a standardized, public job description with minimum qualifications (e.g., municipal accounting experience, GFOA standards familiarity) and a scoring rubric for interviews.
   • Publish the process and candidate criteria post‑hire, redacting personal data but showing that the selection aligned with objective standards.
   • Rationale: Ending ad‑hoc decisions and favor networks improves competence and retention.
2. Install Tight Internal Controls and Close Audit Gaps
   • Implement dual‑control workflows for cash receipts, vendor disbursements, and journal entries; require segregation of duties and monthly bank reconciliations signed by both finance staff and an independent reviewer.
   • Mandate a quarterly controls report to council and post a summarized version for the public.
   • Rationale: The 2020 discrepancy—while not fraud—shows how weak data entry and delayed review create risk and destroy confidence.
3. Create a Public Finance Dashboard with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
   • Post monthly metrics: time to close books, reconciliation timeliness, aged payables, procurement cycle times, and year‑to‑date budget‑to‑actual variances.
   • Include staff‑level process metrics to identify bottlenecks before they trigger resignations.
   • Rationale: Transparency disciplines both leadership and staff, enabling residents to track performance without violating personnel privacy.
4. Adopt Clear, Written Policies—and Speak with One Voice
   • Council must ratify and publish policies on separation procedures (e.g., property access, exit interviews, document handoff), ensuring consistency between the mayor and council.
   • Require a brief public statement after any senior finance departure outlining process steps taken, without personnel details: who is acting in the role, how continuity is assured, and the timeline for replacement.
   • Rationale: Conflicts over bans and contradictions in meetings undermine trust and create a hostile environment for professionals.
5. Stabilize Leadership Through Contractual Clarity
   • Offer fixed‑term employment agreements (e.g., two‑year terms) with explicit performance plans, probation windows, and renewal standards.
   • Tie compensation adjustments to objective results: timely close, clean audits, improved vendor cycle times, and compliance with internal control audits.
   • Rationale: Professionals stay where expectations are clear and achievement is rewarded; they leave where politics or ambiguity rule.
6. Engage Independent Expertise for Transition Periods
   • If interim external accountants are needed, set deliverables: documented process maps, reconciled ledgers, and training materials for permanent staff.
   • Require a public summary of the engagement and its outcomes, not just a bill.
   • Rationale: Contracted help in early 2021 provided coverage, but without durable process fixes, turnover resumed. Make external help build capacity, not just plug holes.
7. Respect Taxpayers’ Right to Know While Protecting Privacy
   • Use executive sessions appropriately for personnel, but commit to post‑session communiqués that summarize decisions, timelines, and fiscal impacts.
   • Publish annual workforce stability metrics (average tenure in finance roles, vacancy days, recruiting cycle length).
   • Rationale: Residents consistently asked “What’s going on?” and were told “we can’t discuss personnel.” Over time, that answer is insufficient.

The Standard: Stewardship Over Sentiment

The public trust is not sustained by sympathetic explanations or vague nods to confidentiality. It is sustained by disciplined processes, verifiable results, and leadership that places taxpayers’ interests first—efficient operations, strong internal controls, and clean audits. When a government cannot keep a finance manager, residents should demand structure: merit‑based hiring, written polices, measurable performance, and transparent reporting. That is how you safeguard dollars, reduce waste, and keep politics from overruling professional standards.

A Call to Action

Council should pass a Finance Stability Resolution within 60 days, enacting the reforms above: publish job standards, implement control checklists, launch a public dashboard, and standardize separation policies. Within 90 days, the borough should report on progress and commit to quarterly updates. Residents should hold officials to these timelines—through public comment and ballot‑box accountability—until the finance department demonstrates sustained performance and retention.

Columbia Borough can end the revolving door by choosing clarity over improvisation and results over rhetoric. Taxpayers deserve nothing less.