A 45-page report by the Oklahoma State Auditor has cleared Henryetta of any wrongdoing.
The report was released Friday concluding an eight-month investigation that saw state officials going through city records and interviewing a number of people.
The audit had been started with a petition drive that netted some 300 signatures. In an email to Thehenryettan.com local city hall critic Howard Sheward took credit for starting the petition.
That audit cost the city $40,000 and resulted in a $4 per month surcharge added to water bills for a four-month period.
The audit covered nine objectives ranging from Oklahoma Open Meeting Act to the Shurden-Leist Industrial Park. Also investigated were contributions to the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension System, misappropriation of funds with the water plant, failure to follow city ordinances and policies regarding sale of city property, CLEET compliance, nepotism and abandoned houses within the city limits. Much of those investigations covered the 2012 fiscal year.
Each of those objectives include a summary of findings and conclusion which is broken down into the background of each and findings by investigators.
They included:
Objective 1: Determine if the city has complied with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.
Auditors pointed out the city has no formal process for a citizen to be added to the council meeting agenda.
They said the petitioner alleged several requests had been made to be on the agenda without success. After looking at the city code book it was determined there is not a process that has to be followed. In addition, the Open meeting Act, "does not provide a process for citizens to be included on meeting agendas."
They did find one case in the December 20, 2011 council meeting where council members approved filing a declaratory judgement regarding contributions to the Firefighters Pension and hired a law firm to represent the city.
Also found was no minutes being kept for executive sessions contrary to a 1996 Attorney General's opinion.
The investigators also found a vote to put Michael Dickey and Audie Cole on a committee to revive a strategic plan for the city. That discussion and vote was in the minutes but not included on the agenda.
Other issues were a wrong date for an October 11, 2011 meeting and no agenda found for a June 5, 2012 budget workshop. No action was taken during that workshop.
Objective 2: Compliance with the Open Records Act.
Investigators said the petitioner said he requested records on 16 occasions. Of that, the city complied with three but not 13. Two of those requests were made available but never picked up. The 13 requests covered a period from Nov. 25, 2013 and July 15, 2014.
The auditor report said city officials did not deny they had not complied with those requests because of the disruption that would be caused fulfilling them and whether or not costs associated with those would be paid.
In a three-page written response, the City identified several reasons for not providing the records requested. A summary of the primary reasons the City had not complied included:
1. The requests made by the petitioner would involve substantial time and effort to research and identify records requested due to the broad nature of the requests.
2. The petitioner's position that he desires to “inspect" records, and therefore not incur a cost for reproduction, was unreasonable. The City would still incur significant costs associated with having an employee supervise a citizen's inspection to ensure original documents were not altered.
3. Three of the records requests were for records that did not exist.
4. Two of the requests for records would require extensive review and redactions for either attorney/client privileged information or private citizen's information which is not subject to disclosure.
5. The petitioner requesting the documents, by his actions, has created an environment in which City employees are fearful for their personal safety. In various emails he has accused City employees of various crimes, and of being incompetent, liars, cheats, thieves, or conspirators to commit crimes against the citizens.
Another claim wanted three records that did not exist as well as all records for police intake logs,, case logs, OSBI reports and "any other related records of police enforcement protocol."
Inspection of the records to avoid paying for copies was requested but the city said an employee would have to be supervising the inspection to prevent any original documents from being altered.
The November 25, 2013 request included, "any and all records related to emails or any other correspondence to and from PAST CITY MANAGER RAYMOND ELDRIDGE WITH THE WORDS "SHEWARD", "BUCK", "HOWARD", "ROB", "BARRIS", "DUKE", "RON", "ROBERT", "FROST", MICHAEL/MIKE", "DICKEY", "RICE", "ED/EDDIE", "STEVE", "NORMAN", "DONNA", "WHITE", "CINDY", "TYLER", "ANGEL", "ELLIS", "LOU", "ANN", "MOUDY", "OKLAHOMA", "FIREFIGHTER", "RETIREMENT", "PENSION", "FUND", SINCE FEBRUARY 2012 BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ME FOR INSPECTION."
that was similar to a January 10, 2014 request for, "any and all records related to emails or any other correspondence to and from POLICE CHIEF STEVE NORMAN WITH THE WORDS "SHEWARD", "BUCK", "HOWARD", "RAYMOND", "ELDRIDGE", "HERB", "TITSWORTH", "ROB", "BARRIS", "DUKE", "RON", "ROBERT", "FROST", MICHEAL/MIKE", "DICKEY", "RICE", "ED/EDDIE", "STEVE", "NORMAN", "DONNA", "WHITE", "CINDY", "TYLER", "ANGEL", "ELLIS", "LOU", "ANN", "MOUDY", "OKLAHOMA", "FIREFIGHTER", "RETIREMENT", "PENSION", "FUND", SINCE FEBRUARY 2012 BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ME FOR INSPECTION."
On the city's response saying employees are fearful for their personal safety, a number of emails from the petitioner were turned over for inspection. The investigators said they reviewed the emails and, "from our review, noted several emails in which the on-going communication between the petitioner and various City officials appeared to be on a non-professional level. The emails contained accusations and language unsuitable for this report."
Also being brought into play were information covered by attorney/client privilege.
Objective 3: Dealing with the contributions to the Firefighters pension and retirement system and dual offices held and payment for Raymond Eldridge.
That portion of the report covered 11 of the 45 total pages of the audit. The investigators said they came up with a dozen findings and conclusions:

• The meeting minutes were vague on what positions were held and what responsibilities were being accepted and/or appointed.
• The City was not in compliance with state law requiring that cities with paid fire departments maintain a full-time fire chief.
• The title of ‚Äúfire chief" appeared to be in name only. As such, the firefighter pension fund did not accept the related pension contributions.
• The City discontinued submitting pension payments on behalf of the former City Manager Raymond Eldridge, after OFPRS notified the City that Eldridge's appointment to city manager prohibited him from serving as full-time fire chief.
• The city manager portion of Eldridge's salary was not submitted to OFPRS for credit towards his firefighter's pension.
• The City Manager/Fire Chief was receiving compensation for dual offices contrary to state law and City Code.
• The City Manager appointed himself to a previously non-existent position of City Fire Marshal.
• The position of ‚ÄúFire Marshal" appeared to be in name only.
• OFPRS did not accept the pension contributions of Eldridge during his term as fire marshal.
• The City continued to submit Eldridge's pension contribution checks after OFPRS stated they would no longer be accepted.
• The City did not advertise the Fire Marshal position.
• Eldridge received a clothing allowance subsequent to his appointment as fire marshal, and during his transition to ‚Äúvolunteer city manager".

Objective 4: Misuse, mismanagement and/or misappropriation of grant funds and other funds, including but not limited to, funds intended for the City of Henryetta's new $9.5M water system.
The investigators said the project does not work as designed and the city is currently going through legal channels to take care of both construction and engineering problems.
Objective 5: Irregularities and failure to follow ordinances and policies regarding sale and disposal of city property and equipment.
That issue had been investigated by law enforcement with one former city employee pleading guilty to embezzlement. It has gone to court and been settled.
Objective 6: Compliance with CLEET certification.
The city is in compliance.
Objective 7: Nepotism violations of city or state laws
No statutory prohibitions from the state although one instance may have gone against city code but it was resolved by a retirement.
Objective 8: Circumstances related to the number of abandoned houses in the city.
Investigators were told the average cost to tear down a dilapidated home is between $4,000 and $5,000. The city lacks the funds to do them.
At the same time, there was an allegation that the city failed to inspect a home being built. State officials went to the site and found the city's inspection tags.
Objective 9: The city's responsibilities on the Shurden-Leist brownfield site.
Investigators said the city was not responsible for the cleanup and any allegations about the land remediation is outside their scope. EPA allows the property to be used for commercial and industrial projects and the city is complying with that consent order.