Without receiving an answer to a question, there was a moment of realization for Dunkirk Councilwoman Nancy Nichols. Before approving a plethora of modifications to the city budget, Nichols sought clarification for the actions.

Treasurer Mark Woods said it was “standard accounting practices.” Nichols was unsatisfied with that response noting Woods had not answered her inquiry.

So that brings an even larger question: is Woods capable of doing the job.

Throughout mayoral terms that date back to Robert Kesicki before 2000, Woods has been treasurer of the city. He’s the one who is elected to oversee the financial side of Dunkirk’s operations.

Based on the $16 million deficit the city is currently facing — and no one really saw coming until this past March — it’s time for Woods to be on the hot seat. Why, if the cash situation is so dismal, is he still in the position?

During the council meeting this week, he gave a generic answer to an important question directed to him by a council member. It appears almost flippant.

By the way, at no time in the last 18 months has he even hinted the city has a cash-flow problem. If he’s not there to sound an alarm, what is his purpose?

Dunkirk is one of the few municipalities that still elects a treasurer. That means all the individual needs to have the position is more votes. They don’t need to have an accounting background or know simple arithmetic.

Just win an election.

Years ago, this position was scrutinized over whether it should be elected or appointed. The choice was made to allow voters to decide.

Once again, they chose Woods — who normally runs unopposed.

Today, the city is bleeding red. A longtime treasurer, at a meeting this week, talks about “standard accounting practices.” If that is his best answer, then he’s sorely let his constituents down.

There is no high “standard” to being $16 million in the hole. That is utterly poor oversight — from a position that is supposed to be in a watchdog role.