When Did Asking Questions Become Micromanagement?

The Summary

Imagine being handed a financial report, finding a million-dollar discrepancy, and asking what happened.

Now imagine spending the next seven months trying to understand the answer.

That's the situation I've found myself in as a Village of Lakewood trustee.

Since April, I've been asking questions about errors in the Village's financial reporting. Along the way, staff identified incorrect journal entries, duplicate and triplicate entries, and fund balances that needed to be corrected.

And through all of this, the Village Board has continued to make decisions about spending, budgets, and Village operations while knowing that some of the financial information we've received was incorrect or still being reconciled.

Here's something I want to make very clear: Finding an error is not a condemnation of the person or firm who made it.

Mistakes happen. In accounting, in government, in business, everywhere. Pointing one out isn't an accusation that someone is incompetent or dishonest. The goal is to make sure the information is correct, particularly when we're using it to make decisions involving taxpayer money.

I don't expect perfection. I do expect us to acknowledge errors, correct them, and communicate about what's happening.

Which brings me to a word that's been getting quite a workout lately: micromanagement.

The Issue

There's a legitimate discussion to be had about the relationship between elected officials and professional Village staff.

Trustees shouldn't be directing day-to-day operations. We have a Village Manager and professional staff for that reason. I agree with that principle.

But there's a difference between telling someone how to do their job and asking them to explain information they've presented to you.

If a financial statement contains an apparent error, should a trustee ask about it? If the explanation doesn't reconcile with the numbers, should the trustee ask again? If weeks pass after being promised additional information, is following up inappropriate?

Those aren't hypothetical questions.

And I think the answer matters, because trustees are expected to exercise independent judgment. We approve expenditures, evaluate financial information, and make decisions that affect residents.

We can't do those things responsibly if asking questions is treated as interference.

The Truth: What Actually Happened

On April 17, 2026, I emailed the Village Manager about approximately $1 million shown as owed from the Golf Course Fund to the Utilities Fund in the FY2025 audit.

An hour later, the Village Manager responded that it was an error, that she'd sent it to the auditor, and that she'd share the response.

Here's the timeline that followed.

• April 24: Having heard nothing further, I asked for an update. Ten minutes later, I was told the auditor was preparing a letter and the board would be updated soon.

• May 1: The Village Manager forwarded an April 28 email from the auditor explaining adjustments that should have affected the cash balance. She also noted that duplicate journal entries had been discovered that were affecting the reporting.

• May 12: I followed up because I didn't understand the explanation. Within six minutes, the Village Manager responded that the auditor had made an incorrect journal entry, that duplicate entries had also been found, and that the fund totals were incorrect and would be fixed by the auditors.

• Twenty minutes later: I asked that we discuss the issue at the next board meeting and confirm that the correction would appear in the next audit. I also expressed concern about the number of errors being identified in an audit that had already been completed.

• Nine minutes later: The Village Manager confirmed that the auditor would restate the fund balances.

• Ten minutes after that: Another trustee asked for clarification from the auditor. The Village Manager said she'd provide the updated Golf Course fund balance once the auditors completed their adjustments.

• May 21: I asked for another update. There was no further response in that email chain.

• June 9: The new Village Manager sent updated fund balances. Fourteen minutes later, I thanked the Manager for the information but pointed out an error in the Excel spreadsheet. Thirty minutes later, I received two spreadsheets documenting duplicate and triplicate journal entries, along with an outline of four journal entries intended to correct a $548,000 transfer from the Impact Fund. These represented two separate accounting issues.

• June 11: I asked for help understanding the Impact Fund journal entries because the fund balances still didn't appear to reconcile with the explanation provided.

• July 7: After nearly a month without an answer, I followed up again.

Other trustees subsequently raised questions about the financial information as well.

As of November, additional information related to these issues has been provided to the board following the presentation of the audit and subsequent requests for revisions. My understanding is that the auditors are still working on some explanations.

Nearly seven months after my original question, they're still working through the accounting.

Now, I want to be fair. When I received responses, they were generally prompt. In several cases, I heard back within minutes. I appreciate that.

But a prompt response isn't necessarily a complete answer. And a promise to provide additional information isn't the same thing as actually providing it.

There's also something important about the timing here. I wasn't sending daily demands for information. I asked questions, reviewed what was provided, and followed up when the information didn't make sense or when weeks passed without the promised explanation.

I wasn't telling the Village Manager how to correct the accounting. I wasn't directing the auditor's work. I was trying to understand the numbers.

That's not micromanagement. That's doing my job.

And here's the part that should concern residents: throughout this process, the board has been expected to make sound financial decisions while knowing that some of the fund balances we were receiving were incorrect or still being reconciled.

That should frustrate anyone, particularly the taxpayers whose money we're responsible for managing.

What Do We Do About It?

I don't think the answer is complicated. In fact, I think two fairly straightforward changes could make an enormous difference.

1. Give requests a timeline, and communicate when that timeline changes.

I recognize the irony of a trustee suggesting a process for staff while writing about micromanagement. But this isn't about telling someone how to do their work. It's about establishing a reasonable expectation for communication.

If a question can't be answered immediately, that's fine. Some issues require research, outside expertise, or time to resolve.

But tell us that.

A response as simple as, "We're working with the auditor and expect to have an update in two weeks," would be helpful. If two weeks becomes four, send another update.

I understand that fixing an accounting problem can take seven months. What shouldn't take seven months is keeping the board informed about what's happening.

A timeline isn't a demand for an immediate solution. It's a way to make sure questions don't disappear into a void, and it would eliminate much of the need for follow-up.

2. Allow trustees access to information the Village already has.

This is the goal behind a recent agenda item I've requested.

Trustees should be able to request access to existing Village information when they need it to understand an issue or evaluate a decision.

I'm not asking staff to create custom reports. I'm not asking them to perform additional analysis or build something new for me.

I'm talking about information that already exists.

If the Village has a report, spreadsheet, financial record, or other document that would help a trustee understand the information being presented, there should be a reasonable way to access it.

That doesn't mean bypassing appropriate confidentiality requirements or inserting ourselves into staff operations. It means making existing information available to the people responsible for providing oversight.

And frankly, having access to the underlying information might eliminate some of the questions in the first place.

If I can review the numbers and understand how we arrived at a conclusion, I may not need to ask anyone to explain them.

That's less work for staff, not more.

The Bottom Line

I don't believe accountability and respect for professional staff are competing ideas.

We should be able to expect both.

Trustees shouldn't be managing Village employees. But we also shouldn't be expected to approve expenditures, evaluate budgets, or make policy decisions without understanding the information we're being given.

And when that information contains an error, identifying it should be viewed as an opportunity to make the information better, not as a personal criticism.

I don't need to be right about every question I ask. Sometimes the explanation will show me that I misunderstood something. That's fine, too. That's why I asked.

What matters is getting to an accurate understanding so we can make better decisions.

Because the goal isn't to win an argument about a spreadsheet.

The goal is to get the numbers right, understand what they mean, and make responsible decisions with taxpayer money.