We all do it. From time to time, we all send emails or text messages to the wrong person. But sometimes, we might accidentally send an email meant for someone else that actually trashes the people who get it. That's what NorCo Administrator Mark Aurand did following last week's budget hearing. Unfortunately for him and his boss, the people he trashes are Northampton County Council members. I'm beginning to understand why one of my readers recently called him an "arrogant fop."
Northampton County Executive Tara Zrinski proposed budget next year calls for a very unpopular 43.5% tax hike. During two budget hearings, Council members have asked tough questions as they attempt to cut expenses. And following the latest budget hearing, Council member Jason Boulette questioned how many county employees are issued cell phones. how much they cost and whether they are needed.
What follows is a firestorm ignited by an email that Administrator Mark Aurand trashing Council. He thought he was sending it internally, but accidentally sent it to County Council
1) Aurand insults County Council for requesting information as they review proposed budget.
Oh geez: “As soon as possible”. We get to it when we get to it.
And should we decide to respond, we’ll need to find a way to account for the intangibles: more time w family; better morale; which leads to higher productivity; retention; etc.They are enjoying the power rush this whole process is giving them way too much. We may need to pick a spot to say no just to reel this in a bit.
2) Aurand realizes he screwed up after the horse has left the barn but complains he has other things to do.
Hey everyone. Please accept my apology for the below that I inadvertently sent to you all. It was intended for internal circulation only.This does show the frustration that we are feeling in the Administration. But I did not intend to share it or to be disrespectful.I do believe you all are exercising your prerogative but I do think you all need to recognize that we have other responsibilities- like running Gracedale and elections, which we all want to go well. Also, a valid point is buried in here which is that much of the detail you are demanding relates to decisions within the discretion of the County Executive (like who gets a cell phone for example).It would be helpful if we could discuss this respectfully understanding that we all have good intentions. It has not felt that way from the Administration’s perspective.I know the budget has been a challenge for all of us. I do believe we can work together to get through this in a way that serves the best interest of the County.I wish you all good weekend. Respectfully , Mark
3) Boulette believes asking questions and digging into budget is his job.
Mark,
I would dispute that any of us are enjoying a power trip. Speaking for myself, I don't enjoy any aspect of this budget process. It's difficult and frustrating but necessary. I've spent hundreds of hours going through every line in the budget. It's not fun. I believe that asking questions and digging into the budget is responsible governance and that's what we were elected to do.
On the cell phone comment, since that ties back to an inquiry I made. The question I sent was:
"The county spent $293,000 on cell phones in 2025 and is projected to have spent $271,000 in cell phones in 2026. I would like a report listing every cell phone in the county, the employee it is attached to, the department it is attached to, an indicator of whether the phone is strictly necessary for job performance, the number of minutes used in 2026, the number of texts sent in 2026, and the amount of data used in 2026. If it's easier to send this broken down by month, that's fine."
I believe the information I'm asking for is legitimate. Is every cell phone we're paying for being used? Do we still have cell lines attached to employees that no longer work at the county? I think these were appropriate things to ask.
If you disagree with my questions, I would have been open to a conversation with you about it. Yes, you're correct that it's the Executive's decision which employees get cell phones out of the cell phone budget. But it's Council's job to approve the budget and to ensure we're allocating money appropriately. I asked the questions I asked to try to ensure we're making cuts responsibly, rather than just submitting amendments to cut every department's cell phone budget by 50-75% and letting you figure out how to work with that.
The 300,000 is not a huge amount when weighed against the 540+ million budget. But it adds up. And every dollar matters.
I'm sorry you folks are frustrated. I recognize that I in particular am asking a lot of questions. This is my first budget and I want to have a better understanding to help me in doing my job of amending it. Given the size of the increase being asked for, I think it would be irresponsible of us not to ask questions.
4) Zrinski chimes in with a nonapology that insults a Council member and complains about being tasked with answering questions from the county's governing body.
I am writing in the hope that we can reset the tone of our budget discussions and establish a more constructive working relationship between Council and the administration. We share a responsibility to the residents of Northampton County to manage public resources carefully, preserve essential services, and approach difficult decisions with professionalism and mutual respect.I want to begin by apologizing for Mark’s lapse in discretion and tone. Although his comments were not intended for Council, they became public, and I understand the concern they caused. They also reflected frustrations within the administration that I believe deserve to be addressed directly and respectfully.I remember the frustration surrounding the newspaper’s criticism of Kelly Keegan’s Facebook posts and how that experience affected her, and I would hope she could have more compassion for Mark’s obvious reply all mistake.While the circumstances are not identical, this experience is an opportunity to call for a reset and for us to re-approach one another with empathy when our words become the subject of public criticism. We all make mistakes, and sometimes our words have consequences we did not intend. That does not relieve us of the responsibility to acknowledge their impact, apologize when appropriate, and learn from what happened. I offer that context not to excuse Mark’s tone, but to ask that we extend one another the same understanding while holding ourselves accountable.This is our administration’s first budget, too. Our staff have spent months reviewing expenditures, evaluating needs, and making difficult choices while continuing the daily work of county government. Budget preparation does not replace those responsibilities; it happens simultaneously. I recognize the considerable time Council members have devoted to reviewing the budget, and I appreciate that commitment. I ask that the administration’s work and operational experience receive the same consideration.Councilman Boulette, your detailed requests concerning cell phone and copier usage raise an important question about the distinction between legislative oversight and executive administration. Council should ask questions about spending, and the administration should provide meaningful answers. My concern is when those requests move beyond evaluating appropriations and into a detailed examination of individual usage and day-to-day management—work that, in scope, resembles an operational audit.These are not matters the administration has overlooked. We already monitor county-issued cell phone usage, and Brandone receives reports identifying phones that are not being used. Employees designated to receive county phones have them because their responsibilities call for county business to be conducted on county-issued devices rather than personal phones.We have also reduced copiers through our internal review. Further changes must account for existing contracts and their timelines. A reduction that looks straightforward on a budget page may not be immediately achievable without contractual consequences or an impact on services.This is an important concern when you scrutinize line by line— a line item represents more than an expenditure. It supports a service, an employee’s responsibilities, a contractual obligation, or an operational need. Some arrangements reflect decisions made by this administration others were inherited. Explaining that history and those constraints takes time, but they are essential to understanding what can responsibly be changed.We welcome questions, but what becomes frustrating is the impression that an issue has only now been identified because it has been raised during Council’s review, when staff may already have spent considerable time evaluating and addressing it. I ask that these conversations begin with recognition of that work, rather than an assumption that it has not occurred.If Council seeks a comprehensive review of cell phone utilization or similar operational matters, I suggest working with the Controller’s Office to determine the appropriate scope and process. That would distinguish an audit request from the information needed to make budget decisions and help avoid placing an additional audit-like workload on staff during budget preparation.Similarly, Ken’s request concerning the impact of the holiday decision on Career Service employees, overtime, and collective bargaining agreements is legitimate. I made that decision, and I accept responsibility for explaining its effects. The analysis nevertheless requires staff time and coordination.We also undergo an annual external audit by Maher Duessel, and the county’s annual financial report is available on the website. Those materials provide an important foundation for reviewing prior-year finances, even where additional operational questions remain.I also want to clarify our expectation regarding budget amendments. When Council proposes to change the administration’s submitted budget, I believe Council should identify the corresponding adjustments necessary to keep it balanced. This is the way it has been in the past. The administration can explain feasibility, contractual obligations, and service impacts, but it should not be left solely responsible for finding unspecified cuts to accommodate Council’s amendments.More broadly, I am concerned that the phrase “power of the purse” is sometimes being used in a way that blurs the distinction between fiscal oversight and directing daily operations. Both Council’s oversight role and the administration’s management role are essential. Neither is strengthened when the boundary between them becomes unclear.Recently, someone told me they would not want my job because of how they perceived the relationship between Council and the administration. They characterized it as unsupportive. That stayed with me—not because I expect agreement or freedom from scrutiny, but because I do not want our working relationship to appear so adversarial that public service itself seems discouraging.In my experience serving on boards and working with executive leaders, effective oversight combines thoughtful scrutiny with respect for the people responsible for implementation. We can disagree about priorities without questioning one another’s commitment. We can request accountability without creating an expectation that every operational decision must be reconstructed during the budget process.My hope is that we can move forward with clearer expectations about information requests, reasonable timelines, responsibility for amendments, and the distinction between oversight and administration. Above all, I hope we can rebuild “trust”. Our employees and residents deserve a county government whose leaders can work through disagreements with respect and a shared commitment to getting the work done.All the best,Tara Zrinski
5) Keegan claims Zrinski nonapology tells County Council to "pound sand."
Dear Members of County Council,After reading Tara’s email, I have to say that if the intention was to reset the tone and establish a more constructive working relationship, I believe it accomplished exactly the opposite.Quite frankly, Tara might as well saved her diatribe and sent an email containing two words: Pound sand! Because that is how the message reads.She speaks at length about mutual respect, empathy, accountability, and rebuilding trust, yet the substance of her email is largely a defense of the administration, a criticism of Council's oversight, and an explanation of why Council's questions and requests are frustrating to her. There is very little acknowledgment that Council has a responsibility to ask those questions, demand answers, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately.Furthermore, let's also address something I find particularly inappropriate: the reference to my Facebook post and the Charlie Kirk situation.How dare Tara bring my personal Facebook post into this discussion as some sort of comparison to Mark's email? My Facebook post was my personal expression. It was not a snarky email about Council that was inadvertently sent to the very people it was criticizing. Those are two entirely different circumstances.Mark's email was about Council, contained comments directed at Council, and ultimately landed in Council members' inboxes. That is not the same as someone expressing a personal opinion on Facebook and subsequently facing public criticism. To suggest that I should therefore have some special obligation to extend compassion in this situation is misplaced and, frankly, insulting!If Tara wants to talk about accountability, then let's have an honest conversation about accountability for everyone, not just when it is convenient for the administration.Council's responsibility does not end with approving a budget. The power of the purse is a fundamental part of our role, and asking detailed questions about expenditures, cell phone usage, copier contracts, employee costs, overtime, and collective bargaining impacts is not an attempt to run county government. It is oversight. It is our job.The fact that these questions may be inconvenient, time-consuming, or frustrating does not make them unreasonable. Nor should Council be made to feel as though asking questions somehow demonstrates a lack of respect for the administration's work.Regarding budget amendments, Council should certainly be expected to make responsible and financially sound decisions. But the administration should not approach the budget process as though its submitted budget is beyond meaningful examination or that Council's role is simply to accept it and identify a few cuts. We are elected to represent the residents, not to rubber-stamp the administration's recommendations.What concerns me most about Tara's email is the contradiction between its opening and its message. She asks for empathy, but offers little toward Council. She asks for trust, but seems unwilling to accept the scrutiny that is necessary to build it. She asks for a better working relationship, yet repeatedly characterizes legitimate questions as burdensome and frustrating.And then there is the reference to someone supposedly saying they would not want her job because of the relationship with Council. That is unfortunate, but it is not Council's responsibility to shield the administration from the realities of public accountability. Disagreement is not hostility. Questions are not disrespect. Oversight is not interference.If we are truly going to have a reset, it cannot be one-sided. Council cannot be expected to extend understanding, soften its questions, limit its oversight, and accept explanations without meaningful discussion while the administration simply asks to be trusted.Trust is earned through transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and mutual respect. It is not something that can be demanded in a lengthy email while simultaneously criticizing the very people from whom it is being requested.I would have welcomed an email that genuinely acknowledged the frustration caused by Mark's comments, recognized Council's legitimate role, and offered a sincere commitment to improving communication. Instead, we received a lengthy explanation of why the administration is frustrated with Council and why our questions are creating additional work.There is no meaningful effort to bring the parties together in that message. Quite the opposite. If the intention was to extend an olive branch, it was difficult to find it among the criticisms and justifications.I am perfectly willing to have difficult conversations, ask difficult questions, and work toward solutions. But I will not apologize for doing the job I was elected to do, and I will not accept the suggestion that legitimate oversight is somehow an obstacle to effective county government.The residents of Northampton County deserve better than an administration and Council that communicate through frustration, defensiveness, and carefully worded lectures about each other's responsibilities.A reset requires two sides willing to participate. It cannot begin with one side effectively telling the other to pound sand while wrapping the message in language about trust and mutual respect.Respectfully,
Kelly Keegan
6) Zrinski Stands by her nonapology.
Dear Councilwoman Keegan and Members of County Council,My previous words were sincere. My intention was to acknowledge the frustration caused by Mark’s comments, apologize for his tone, and explain concerns that I hoped we could address together. I understand that you received the message differently, and I regret that it added to the tension rather than helping to resolve it. However, the phrase “pound sand” neither reflects my words nor my intent.Your response was addressed to Council, but the administration remained on the email chain. That may or may not have been an oversight. I will not make any assumptions about the intent. Regardless, it conveyed a clear message to those of us included about how our concerns were received.My intent was to share our concerns about how we carry out our respective responsibilities, how requests are communicated, how their scope and timing are managed, and how operational information is considered when decisions are made. Explaining the staff time, contractual obligations, and service implications involved in answering a question is not a refusal to answer it. Direction to request an audit is also not a refusal but a mechanism for council to seek an impartial and independent determination of what they are trying to figure out in their requests.To be clear, mutual respect does not mean the absence of accountability. We can acknowledge someone’s frustration without excusing their conduct. We can apologize for our words and/or missteps while still explaining the concerns behind them. Neither empathy nor an apology requires us to abandon a substantive disagreement.I recognize Council’s responsibility to examine the budget, ask detailed questions, and hold the administration accountable for the use of public funds. I am not asking Council to apologize for that work, accept our recommendations without scrutiny, or refrain from difficult questions. The administration’s proposed budget is not beyond examination.Likewise, acknowledging the administration’s frustration was not intended to dismiss Council’s frustration. A constructive relationship must leave room for both. Council should be able to explain when it believes information is insufficient, and the administration should be able to explain when a request presents practical challenges, without either explanation being treated as evidence of bad faith.I agree with you that disagreement is not hostility, questions are not disrespect, and oversight is not interference. I would ask that we also agree that explaining operational constraints is not obstruction, expressing a concern is not rejecting accountability, and asking for mutual respect is not asking to be shielded from scrutiny.I also want to address your concern about my reference to your Facebook post. I was not suggesting that the circumstances were identical, passing judgment on your personal expression, or implying that you had a special obligation to excuse Mark’s conduct. I offered it only as an example of how difficult it can be when our word choice becomes the subject of public criticism. It was intended as an appeal to empathy, not a personal criticism or an attempt to touch a sensitive subject. I recognize that the reference was unwelcome, and I am sorry that it caused hurt rather than conveying the understanding I intended.I take responsibility for communicating my intentions more clearly. I also hope we can avoid attributing dismissive sentiments to one another that were neither stated nor intended. Describing my message as a “diatribe” or an elaborately worded dismissal makes it harder to discuss the actual concerns I raised.My apology for Mark’s tone stands. So does my commitment to transparency, responsible budgeting, and a professional working relationship with Council. I do not expect us to agree on every issue. I do believe we can address our disagreements directly without questioning the sincerity of every effort to improve the relationship.That was the purpose of my original message, and it remains my purpose now.We will work on assembling the information we deem appropriate in response to your requests.Respectfully,Tara
7) Keegan is done and is hopeful Tuesday's election will be fair.
All,My "reply all" was very intentional. I'm done talking about this now. I'm looking forward to Tuesday's results and a fair election and then working towards the best we all can do for the budget.
