A case of deflected argumentation?

Please listen to the following audio clip from Monday's school board meeting. A reader sent me the 54 seconds clip along with this commentary.  Very interesting!

    Attached is an edited clip from last night's SB meeting, which is classic Jan Klein, answering a question that wasn't asked.  David Huston asked about the auditor contracts, and mentions that, while they don't have to comply with it,  Sarbanes–Oxley and the PSBA recommend changing auditors every five years.  Later, during the vote on the contract, Mr. Goldman asks if there is a "requirement or recommendation" to change auditors and how long have we had our current auditors.  Mrs. Klein answers and says there is no legal requirement for the District to change independent auditors, and does not answer the second part of his question.  But Mr. Goldman didn't ask if there was a legal requirement only; he asked if there was a "requirement or recommendation" to change auditors.  The rational answer would have been, "There is no requirement to change auditors every five years, but Sarbanes-Oxley and the PSBA do in fact recommend it."  Then Mrs. Posti, noticing that Mrs. Klein didn't answer the second part of Mr. Goldman's question, asks how long the District has contracted with the current auditors and Mrs. Klein replies "at least 10 years."  Jo may not have realized it but she played right into Mr. Huston's hands by asking Mrs. Klein how long the District has used the same auditors, and made his point for him - very well, I might add.
     Again, this is an edited clip.  Mr. Goldman's question comes some time after Mr. Huston brings up the auditor subject; I just cut out the dross in between.