Earlier this month Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg leveled a series of charges against the County Council, saying certain members were playing politics with Prometa (read his full comments here).

Here’s a scorecard on the executive’s claims. His complaints about the council’s failure to give public notice about its decision to suspend Prometa funding are on target. But his most inflammatory accusation is demonstrably false.

[More:]

The details:

• Accusation 1: “Certain Council members secretly directed staff to write a negative (Prometa) report and to finish it quickly so they could have it for the day a budget ordinance was scheduled. They kept this information from the Executive and other Council members.”

Verdict: False.

Explanation: In an interview, Ladenburg admitted he has no evidence anyone on the council ordered a negative audit, just a “gut feeling based on how it came about and how it was kept secret.”

County performance audit coordinator Matt Temmel persuasively denies he was ordered to write a negative Prometa report and refutes the claim the report was kept secret (read his full comments here). He notes the Performance Audit Committee – which oversees Temmel’s work – includes representatives of the council and the executive and two citizens. On Sept. 13 the committee unanimously approved plans to conduct a pre-audit study. The Oct. 24 meeting date to discuss the findings was set on Sept. 29, when Temmel notified committee members, council staff and the Pierce County Alliance of the date (see the e-mail).

Temmel sent members of the Performance Audit Committee – including Ladenburg’s representatives – a copy of the report at 12:45 p.m. Oct. 23 – the day before the committee meeting (see the e-mail here).

• Accusation 2: ”The report was hurried onto the committee agenda only hours before the whole Council meeting on the budget ordinance.”

Verdict: False.

Explanation: As noted above, the Performance Audit Committee’s Oct. 24 agenda – including the Prometa report discussion – was scheduled in Temmel’s Sept. 29 e-mail.

• Accusation 3: “Certain Council members, perhaps a majority, agreed before the (Oct. 23 council) meeting to offer an amendment taking away Prometa funding without telling other members or the Executive.”

Verdict: Partially true.

Explanation: The measure suspending Prometa funding was a last-minute addition to a supplemental budget amendment the council considered on Oct. 23. However, Councilman Shawn Bunney, who offered the Prometa amendment, notified his fellow council members of his intentions in an e-mail at 2:34 p.m. Oct. 22 – nearly 24 hours before the meeting. And the council discussed the Prometa amendment at its noon Oct. 23 study session.

Bunney didn’t inform the executive or his representatives about the proposed Prometa amendment.

• Accusation 4: “Rather than postpone the budget ordinance so appropriate notice could be given to the public, the affected agency and the Executive, the amendment was hurried through.”

Verdict: True.

Explanation: Councilman Tim Farrell noted the council didn’t follow its own procedures when the full council took action before the Performance Audit Committee had even discussed the Prometa report. Assistant attorney general Tim Ford said the council did nothing illegal, but said it did not provide “meaningful notice” of the Prometa discussion.

• Accusation 5: “The amendment was to a budget ordinance that had nothing to do with the Prometa program so there was no way a citizen or the Alliance or the Executive could have expected it to be debated.”

Verdict: True.

Explanation. The measure suspending Prometa funding was a late addition to a supplemental budget ordinance originally introduced in September. Prometa didn’t figure in the discussion until Bunney introduced his amendment Oct. 23.

• Accusation 6: “The Council was more concerned with making a political statement than the treatment of drug addicts.”

Verdict: Unknown.

Explanation: Only council members know for sure what motivated them to suspend Prometa funding. But their explanation is plausible: the negative performance audit staff report, combined with troubling media reports about Hythiam Inc. – the company that licenses Prometa – and its CEO.