ShareThis Page
News

Allegheny County Controller Wagner to take attempt to audit county authorities to court

Aaron Aupperlee
| Monday, March 16, 2015, 11:36 p.m.

Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner's intent to audit the Airport Authority, Port Authority, Sanitary Authority and Sports & Exhibition Authority will head to court Tuesday.

Wagner will file a complaint in Common Pleas Court asking a judge to decide whether she can proceed with audits of the authorities, said James McGraw, a Downtown attorney hired as Wagner's solicitor.

The four authorities have denied or delayed Wagner's attempts to audit them, saying she lacks the power to do so.

Officials from the authorities had no comment Monday.

Wagner is running for re-election and lost the endorsement of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee to Mark Patrick Flaherty, a former county controller.

Wagner has said she wants to audit the Sports & Exhibition Authority's policy for giving out free tickets. She raised concern about a contract between the Airport Authority and a company owned by an authority board member. She has not said why she wants to audit the Port Authority or Sanitary Authority.

The Sports & Exhibition Authority gave Wagner data concerning tickets. The Airport Authority has said board member Robert Lewis did not vote for the asset management contract involving Orbital Engineering when it came up for renewal in December.

Aaron Aupperlee is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7986 or aaupperlee@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me