I asked a simple question at the Morristown City Council meeting on November 16.
Short Question: Are some city residents paying the garbage fee while other city residents are not?
Short Answer: Yes.
My question and City Administrator Tony Cox's response were not reported in the "news"paper, but two days later Bob Moore had a front page article trying to provide cover for the fact that the City of Morristown is charging the new $10/month garbage fee to some city residents but not to others.
After this came out on November 16, Moore talked to Asst. City Administrator Buddy Fielder. Fielder apparently said that the city's billing system is 95% complete and added that the City is resolving all MUS-related bills before addressing billing difficulties in the Alpha-Talbott, Witt, and Russellville-Whitesburg utility districts.
For some reason, Moore didn't describe the billing difficulties that the City needs to address in AT, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Why?
As soon as Fielder said there were billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB, a reporter would ask certain obvious questions especially for a front-page news article: What are the billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB? What are you doing to address these difficulties? When will these difficulties be resolved?
But IF Moore had asked the obvious questions, then Fielder's statement about billing difficulties in the Alpha, Witt, or RV-WB utility districts would have unraveled.
There are no current billing difficulties to address with the Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB have NOT sent a single bill for the city's garbage fee to city residents in their areas because the City has NOT yet asked or authorized them to add the city's garbage fee to water bills of city residents.
Moore, in my opinion, wrote the article solely or primarily to allow the City to provide front-page "spin" for its actions in billing some residents and not others. To make sure that the City had free rein to "spin" its response, Moore adopted a new journalism standard that could be described as "don't ask (the obvious questions) and don't tell (what's really going on)." Just front-page governmental "spin."
What we have is the City directing MUS to jump in and add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September 2010, but the City did NOT and still has NOT (as of November 16) directed or authorized AT, Witt, or RV-WB to add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September or in October or in November. Why start billing some but not others?
Assistant City Administrator Buddy Fielder said that City residents who weren't billed for September, October, and November won't be charged for past service. "Those were issues on our part, not on their part....I don't think it makes sense to do that."
As a matter of fairness, Fielder is probably right that the City should not go back and try to collect past garbage fees from city residents who didn't receive a garbage fee on their utility bill because of the city's "issues." Especially when the "issue" in this whole thing is that the City didn't even try to bill city residents served by AT, Witt, or RV-WB.
But what do Fielder and City Administrator Tony Cox and Mayor Barile and City Councilmembers think about the flip-side of this mess? What about those city residents who did receive a bill and who did pay the $10/month garbage fee for a service that others didn't pay for? What's fair for them?
Just looking at what's fair and addressing some potential legal problems in this "charge some/don't charge others" situation, the City should stop billing the garbage fee to city residents served by MUS until the city residents served by Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts have been billed an equal number of months.
After all city residents served by Alpha, Witt, RV-WB utilities have been billed for the same number of months that MUS customers have already been billed for, then billing of city customers thru MUS would resume.
Sadly, this post is about proper billing of a new garbage fee instead of the fee itself. The new garbage fee is the city's poster child for years and years of financial mismanagement and an almost total lack of accountability.
The new garbage fee is nothing more than a way for the Mayor and City Council to take more money from the citizens and use that money for pet projects--like brick pavers on city roads--while providing financial cover for the problems brought about by years of financial mismanagement, sweetheart deals, and illegal money switcheroos.
It's not rocket science. Mayor Sami Barile and City Council wanted more of "other people's money" so they decided to make city residents start paying a separate and new "fee" for garbage pick-up, a service which used to be provided thru property taxes and other city revenues.
[The only person to vote against the new $10/month garbage fee was Councilman Gene Brooks.]
Of course, making the taxpayers shoulder the financial burden created by the Mayor and City Council's years of financial mismanagement, neglect, and lack of accountability is nothing new.
Let's see...property tax increase in 2007, sales tax increase in 2008, red light cameras, sewer increases almost every year, and now a new garbage fee! Next year?
Showing posts with label Mayor Sami Barile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor Sami Barile. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
June 3, 2010 Mayor Barile Refuses To Comply with the City Charter and City Ordinance
The question for Morristown Mayor Sami Barile at the June 1 meeting of City Council was simple. Will you comply with the City Charter and obey a City Ordinance?
Mayor Barile's answer was a simple "No."
Apparently, Mayor Barile feels that the City Charter and laws and local ordinances do not apply to her or to council despite her sworn oath of office and her duty to enforce all ordinances: It shall be the duty of the mayor...to see that all the ordinances of the city are duly enforced, respected and observed within the city; [and] to take an oath of office before he enters upon the duties of the same....
Mayor Barile, Councilmembers, and City Administrator Tony Cox have been provided with a copy of the section of the City Charter and a City Ordinance--both of which state that city sewer money must be kept in a separate bank account and not mixed with other city funds. Click here.
[Presently, sewer funds are mixed with all kinds of other city funds in one big old bank account. This is a clear violation of the City's governing charter and of an ordinance that was passed many years ago.]
Almost four months ago, I asked Cox to address this violation and set up a separate bank account for sewer funds. He did nothing.
On May 4, May 18, and again Tuesday (June 1), I asked Mayor Barile to address this violation and set up a separate bank account for sewer funds. She did nothing.
In fact, on June 1 Mayor Barile made it clear that the City Charter means nothing to her and that city ordinances apply to other people but not to her. Despite the fact that it is her sworn duty to enforce the laws and ordinances of the city, Mayor Barile refuses to direct that the Charter and Ordinance requiring that sewer funds be kept separate be followed.
With Mayor Barile's arrogant disregard of city law, is it any wonder that many elected officials are held in low esteem?
It was just a few short weeks ago that Mayor Barile and councilmembers were sitting as judge and jury and giving businessmen a choice of (1) $1000 civil penalty or (2) suspension of beer license for 30 days.
But when the shoe is on the other foot--and it is the Mayor and Council and City Administrator who are violating a City Ordinance AND the City Charter--Mayor Barile apparently thinks it's OK for elected and appointed officials to violate the law. The "Barile Doctrine."
So, the next time you get a red light ticket or a parking ticket in Morristown, just tell the officer that you are covered by the "Barile Doctrine" ----the law doesn't apply to you, and even if it does, you'll obey it only when you are good and ready!
[What I expect the Council to do now that THEIR violation of the Charter and Ordinance has been brought out is to change the Charter and Ordinance at some future date. In the meantime, however, the City is violating its own Charter and Ordinance and the Mayor is clearly violating her oath of office in refusing to enforce the Charter and Ordinance requirements.]
What about the City Attorney and Councilmembers? On May 4, May 18, and June 1, City Attorney Dick Jessee and City Council did nothing and said nothing as the City continues to knowingly and willfully violate its Charter and Ordinance and as Mayor Barile openly violates her oath of office and fails to enforce the ordinances of the City.
Mayor Barile's answer was a simple "No."
Apparently, Mayor Barile feels that the City Charter and laws and local ordinances do not apply to her or to council despite her sworn oath of office and her duty to enforce all ordinances: It shall be the duty of the mayor...to see that all the ordinances of the city are duly enforced, respected and observed within the city; [and] to take an oath of office before he enters upon the duties of the same....
Mayor Barile, Councilmembers, and City Administrator Tony Cox have been provided with a copy of the section of the City Charter and a City Ordinance--both of which state that city sewer money must be kept in a separate bank account and not mixed with other city funds. Click here.
[Presently, sewer funds are mixed with all kinds of other city funds in one big old bank account. This is a clear violation of the City's governing charter and of an ordinance that was passed many years ago.]
Almost four months ago, I asked Cox to address this violation and set up a separate bank account for sewer funds. He did nothing.
On May 4, May 18, and again Tuesday (June 1), I asked Mayor Barile to address this violation and set up a separate bank account for sewer funds. She did nothing.
In fact, on June 1 Mayor Barile made it clear that the City Charter means nothing to her and that city ordinances apply to other people but not to her. Despite the fact that it is her sworn duty to enforce the laws and ordinances of the city, Mayor Barile refuses to direct that the Charter and Ordinance requiring that sewer funds be kept separate be followed.
With Mayor Barile's arrogant disregard of city law, is it any wonder that many elected officials are held in low esteem?
It was just a few short weeks ago that Mayor Barile and councilmembers were sitting as judge and jury and giving businessmen a choice of (1) $1000 civil penalty or (2) suspension of beer license for 30 days.
But when the shoe is on the other foot--and it is the Mayor and Council and City Administrator who are violating a City Ordinance AND the City Charter--Mayor Barile apparently thinks it's OK for elected and appointed officials to violate the law. The "Barile Doctrine."
So, the next time you get a red light ticket or a parking ticket in Morristown, just tell the officer that you are covered by the "Barile Doctrine" ----the law doesn't apply to you, and even if it does, you'll obey it only when you are good and ready!
[What I expect the Council to do now that THEIR violation of the Charter and Ordinance has been brought out is to change the Charter and Ordinance at some future date. In the meantime, however, the City is violating its own Charter and Ordinance and the Mayor is clearly violating her oath of office in refusing to enforce the Charter and Ordinance requirements.]
What about the City Attorney and Councilmembers? On May 4, May 18, and June 1, City Attorney Dick Jessee and City Council did nothing and said nothing as the City continues to knowingly and willfully violate its Charter and Ordinance and as Mayor Barile openly violates her oath of office and fails to enforce the ordinances of the City.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
June 2, 2010 The Comptroller Requires That the City of Morristown Submit Monthly Financial Reports to the State
At yesterday's meeting of the Morristown City Council, City Administrator Anthony Cox once again had to read a letter from the State Comptroller into the Council minutes. This latest letter from the State to Mayor Barile is dated 5/21/10 and confirms that the City can go ahead and borrow $3,000,000 to make debt and other payments. The Comptroller adds that this TRAN (Tax Revenue Anticipation Note) must be repaid by June 30, 2010. [See the April 20, 2010, Comptroller's letter here.]
After granting permission to obtain the loan, the State lowered the boom with very specific monthly reporting requirements and a cautionary reminder that the State could force the City to cut expenses or levy additional taxes to fix the mess. The reading of the letter was met with silence from Mayor Barile and all councilmembers.
You can click once or twice on the images above to enlarge and read the full letter.
Page two includes: "We [the State Comptroller] are requiring that the City submit to the Office of State and Local Finance monthly financial reports (beginning May 2010...) indicating progress on meeting the above requirements, including the maintenance of a balanced cash budget."
Silence.
The final paragraph: "The Administration of the City and the City Council need to be aware that if there is a failure to comply timely with any of the above requirements, this office has the power and authority to direct the City of Morristown to cut expenditures or to levy additional taxes."
Silence.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
May 19, 2010 Mayor and City Council Are Called Upon To Quit Violating Their Charter and Ordinances
The Mayor and City Council and City Administrator have been violating the city charter and a city ordinance for years. The City Charter, which is the governing document for city government, states that Sewer Fund monies must be kept separate from all other funds. An Ordinance that was passed by the Mayor and Council years ago says the same thing.
Despite its own Charter and Ordinance, the City lumps its Sewer Fund monies in the same bank account with General Fund monies and other funds. Why? Would it be so General Fund expenses can be paid with checks drawn off the one bank account, thus accessing Sewer Funds to pay General Fund expenses when General Fund cash has been depleted as occurred in 2007, 2008, and 2009? Only the Mayor, Council, and City Administrator and staff could answer that question, and, of course, auditors who apparently made an "adjusting entry" for each illegal and unauthorized switcheroo.
I initially tried to get these violations addressed and resolved privately. I gave a copy of the Charter provision and the Ordinance to Administrator Cox shortly after he arrived, and I discussed the matter with Councilman Gene Brooks and Cox. At that time, Cox said he would "research" this matter. I waited several weeks on the "research," called Mr. Cox again, and was told that nothing had been done and that this situation was not a priority. Yes, a Charter and City Ordinance violation is not a priority for the City Administrator.
With no action being taken, I finally made my concerns public at the May 4 council meeting. Cox responded by repeating that he had more pressing things to take care of and planned to look into this later in the summer. Councilmember Senter said that the council was "aware" of the situation. Yes, the City Administrator, Mayor, and Councilmembers are aware of their violation of the City Charter and City Ordinances, but not one of them expressed any concern or took any action.
[And no, the "news"paper did not report my May 4 statement to council about its violations of its own Charter and its own Ordinance. And, no, the "news"paper never asked for documentation of this allegation when I first made it public on May 4. Apparently, the "news"paper thinks that violations of City beer ordinances are front-page material (see "news"paper article of May 6), but the "news"paper doesn't consider the Mayor and Council's violations of the City Charter and City ordinances newsworthy.]
Another two weeks passed and nothing was done, so at yesterday's May 18 council meeting, I repeated my concerns about the city's violations of its own charter and ordinances and handed the Mayor and each member a copy of the Charter provision found at http://www.mymorristown.com/Charter.html:
Sec. 4. Be it further enacted. That all proceeds received from the sale of bonds issued under this Act and all fees, rents, tolls or other charges received by the city from the operation of sewerage system...shall be paid to the city administrator, or in the absence of the office of the city administrator, the mayor, who shall not commingle any money so received with any other monies of the city, but the monies received shall be deposited in a separate bank account or accounts, in the name of the city.
And a copy of the Ordinance found at http://www.mtas.utk.edu/public/municodesweb.nsf/5cde681dbdedc10f8525664000615fc4/97d6f0faecb79831852569220068c28a/$FILE/morristown.t-18.pdf
18-308. Recorder to keep sewer charges in separate accounts. The recorder shall keep the funds received from sewer charges in separate accounts...as set out in § 9 of the resolution adopted by the city council on May 15, 1959...
Silence.
I asked council to uphold their oath of office. I asked the Mayor to uphold her oath and perform her duty to ensure that City ordinances are enforced:
It shall be the duty of the mayor...to see that all the ordinances of the city are duly enforced, respected and observed within the city; [and] to take an oath of office before he enters upon the duties of the same....
Silence.
Why is following these charter and ordinance provisions important?
1. Because a separate Sewer Fund might have prevented or could, at least, have provided advance warning that the general fund was in a deficit cash balance situation at the end of FY 07, 08, and 09.
2. Because separation of the Sewer Fund ensures better accountability for sewer fees and expenditures.
3. Because the Sewer Fund is a business enterprise fund or operation of the City while the General Fund is a government operations fund.
4. Because the Mayor, Councilmembers, and the City Administrator-- as much or more so than any other person in the City---should follow the charter and ordinances of the City of Morristown.
This is not rocket science.
The Mayor and Councilmembers took an oath of office. One of the specific duties of the Mayor is to see that the Ordinances of the City are enforced and respected.
For the Mayor and Councilmembers and City Administrator to follow the Charter and Sewer Ordinances requires no more than setting up a separate Sewer Fund bank account and getting checks for that account.
There is absolutely no excuse for the Mayor, Councilmembers, and the City Administrator to knowingly and willfully continue to violate the City Charter and City Ordinance(s). [The City Attorney is aware of the Charter and Ordinance provisions and is also aware of the continuing violations by the Mayor, city officials and staff.]
Despite its own Charter and Ordinance, the City lumps its Sewer Fund monies in the same bank account with General Fund monies and other funds. Why? Would it be so General Fund expenses can be paid with checks drawn off the one bank account, thus accessing Sewer Funds to pay General Fund expenses when General Fund cash has been depleted as occurred in 2007, 2008, and 2009? Only the Mayor, Council, and City Administrator and staff could answer that question, and, of course, auditors who apparently made an "adjusting entry" for each illegal and unauthorized switcheroo.
I initially tried to get these violations addressed and resolved privately. I gave a copy of the Charter provision and the Ordinance to Administrator Cox shortly after he arrived, and I discussed the matter with Councilman Gene Brooks and Cox. At that time, Cox said he would "research" this matter. I waited several weeks on the "research," called Mr. Cox again, and was told that nothing had been done and that this situation was not a priority. Yes, a Charter and City Ordinance violation is not a priority for the City Administrator.
With no action being taken, I finally made my concerns public at the May 4 council meeting. Cox responded by repeating that he had more pressing things to take care of and planned to look into this later in the summer. Councilmember Senter said that the council was "aware" of the situation. Yes, the City Administrator, Mayor, and Councilmembers are aware of their violation of the City Charter and City Ordinances, but not one of them expressed any concern or took any action.
[And no, the "news"paper did not report my May 4 statement to council about its violations of its own Charter and its own Ordinance. And, no, the "news"paper never asked for documentation of this allegation when I first made it public on May 4. Apparently, the "news"paper thinks that violations of City beer ordinances are front-page material (see "news"paper article of May 6), but the "news"paper doesn't consider the Mayor and Council's violations of the City Charter and City ordinances newsworthy.]
Another two weeks passed and nothing was done, so at yesterday's May 18 council meeting, I repeated my concerns about the city's violations of its own charter and ordinances and handed the Mayor and each member a copy of the Charter provision found at http://www.mymorristown.com/Charter.html:
Sec. 4. Be it further enacted. That all proceeds received from the sale of bonds issued under this Act and all fees, rents, tolls or other charges received by the city from the operation of sewerage system...shall be paid to the city administrator, or in the absence of the office of the city administrator, the mayor, who shall not commingle any money so received with any other monies of the city, but the monies received shall be deposited in a separate bank account or accounts, in the name of the city.
And a copy of the Ordinance found at http://www.mtas.utk.edu/public/municodesweb.nsf/5cde681dbdedc10f8525664000615fc4/97d6f0faecb79831852569220068c28a/$FILE/morristown.t-18.pdf
18-308. Recorder to keep sewer charges in separate accounts. The recorder shall keep the funds received from sewer charges in separate accounts...as set out in § 9 of the resolution adopted by the city council on May 15, 1959...
Silence.
I asked council to uphold their oath of office. I asked the Mayor to uphold her oath and perform her duty to ensure that City ordinances are enforced:
It shall be the duty of the mayor...to see that all the ordinances of the city are duly enforced, respected and observed within the city; [and] to take an oath of office before he enters upon the duties of the same....
Silence.
Why is following these charter and ordinance provisions important?
1. Because a separate Sewer Fund might have prevented or could, at least, have provided advance warning that the general fund was in a deficit cash balance situation at the end of FY 07, 08, and 09.
2. Because separation of the Sewer Fund ensures better accountability for sewer fees and expenditures.
3. Because the Sewer Fund is a business enterprise fund or operation of the City while the General Fund is a government operations fund.
4. Because the Mayor, Councilmembers, and the City Administrator-- as much or more so than any other person in the City---should follow the charter and ordinances of the City of Morristown.
This is not rocket science.
The Mayor and Councilmembers took an oath of office. One of the specific duties of the Mayor is to see that the Ordinances of the City are enforced and respected.
For the Mayor and Councilmembers and City Administrator to follow the Charter and Sewer Ordinances requires no more than setting up a separate Sewer Fund bank account and getting checks for that account.
There is absolutely no excuse for the Mayor, Councilmembers, and the City Administrator to knowingly and willfully continue to violate the City Charter and City Ordinance(s). [The City Attorney is aware of the Charter and Ordinance provisions and is also aware of the continuing violations by the Mayor, city officials and staff.]
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
April 13, 2010 Planning Commission Sends Controversial Sign Ordinance To City Council for Approval or Rejection
The Morristown Planning Commission met this afternoon. Members are (Mayor) Sami Barile, Jim Beelaert, Katy Tindall Klose, Homer Harrell, Kelley Hinsley, Jack Kennerly, (Councilmember) Frank McGuffin, Rose Parella, and Bill Thompson.
The big item that brought a crowd to the city council chambers was discussion of a new sign ordinance for the City of Morristown. Despite a crowd in attendance, Chairman Beelaert stated that he would limit public comments to 10 people at 3 minutes each for a total of 30 minutes.
No one spoke in favor of the sign ordinance. Numerous businessmen, including Steve and Jerry Isaacs, Steve Mills, Richie Broyles, Greg Hurst, Martin Daniel, and Nick Davenport spoke against the ordinance or parts of the ordinance. Some commented that they had only recently learned that there was a new sign ordinance under consideration, and several of those pleaded for the commission to hold off on a vote until there could be more time for input from business people and the community.
There were business people who noted that signs were the lifeblood of their business--providing product and price information to draw customers in.
There were comments about the size and height of signs that are allowed.
Realtors and auctioneers expressed concerns about being unable to place signs in public rights-of-way as is allowed under the current sign ordinance with posting of a bond and placement of stickers on the signs.
Constitutional issues were raised. Attorney Mary Ferrara, who drafted the ordinance, stated that constitutional issues prohibit government from allowing some signs in rights-of-way but not others. Government signs that are geared to public safety (traffic signs) or governmental actions (zoning notices) are, of course, permitted in rights-of-way.
Several speakers claimed that the new sign ordinance is overly restrictive and unfriendly to business.
Sami Barile made the motion to approve the new sign ordinance and to send it on to City Council for consideration. Barile's motion included a provision that the ordinance would not be enforced until January 2011.
Here's the vote: Barile: YES
Beelaert: NO
Klose: NO
Harrell: YES
Hinsley: YES
Kennerly: YES
McGuffin: NO
Parella: NO
Thompson: YES
The last time there was a vote on this issue, there was a 4-4 tie vote (Close was absent). With Close present and voting NO today, many thought that her NO vote would kill the new sign ordinance. However, Kelley Hinsley apparently changed his previous NO vote to a YES vote today, resulting in approval and recommendation of the new sign ordinance to the city council.
Prior to casting her vote, Katy Klose made some very good points about getting more citizen and business input first and not being in such a hurry, particularly since the new sign ordinance will not take effect or be enforced until January 2011. Klose's suggestions echoed the sentiment of most of the business people in attendance, but they fell on deaf ears.
The big item that brought a crowd to the city council chambers was discussion of a new sign ordinance for the City of Morristown. Despite a crowd in attendance, Chairman Beelaert stated that he would limit public comments to 10 people at 3 minutes each for a total of 30 minutes.
No one spoke in favor of the sign ordinance. Numerous businessmen, including Steve and Jerry Isaacs, Steve Mills, Richie Broyles, Greg Hurst, Martin Daniel, and Nick Davenport spoke against the ordinance or parts of the ordinance. Some commented that they had only recently learned that there was a new sign ordinance under consideration, and several of those pleaded for the commission to hold off on a vote until there could be more time for input from business people and the community.
There were business people who noted that signs were the lifeblood of their business--providing product and price information to draw customers in.
There were comments about the size and height of signs that are allowed.
Realtors and auctioneers expressed concerns about being unable to place signs in public rights-of-way as is allowed under the current sign ordinance with posting of a bond and placement of stickers on the signs.
Constitutional issues were raised. Attorney Mary Ferrara, who drafted the ordinance, stated that constitutional issues prohibit government from allowing some signs in rights-of-way but not others. Government signs that are geared to public safety (traffic signs) or governmental actions (zoning notices) are, of course, permitted in rights-of-way.
Several speakers claimed that the new sign ordinance is overly restrictive and unfriendly to business.
Sami Barile made the motion to approve the new sign ordinance and to send it on to City Council for consideration. Barile's motion included a provision that the ordinance would not be enforced until January 2011.
Here's the vote: Barile: YES
Beelaert: NO
Klose: NO
Harrell: YES
Hinsley: YES
Kennerly: YES
McGuffin: NO
Parella: NO
Thompson: YES
The last time there was a vote on this issue, there was a 4-4 tie vote (Close was absent). With Close present and voting NO today, many thought that her NO vote would kill the new sign ordinance. However, Kelley Hinsley apparently changed his previous NO vote to a YES vote today, resulting in approval and recommendation of the new sign ordinance to the city council.
Prior to casting her vote, Katy Klose made some very good points about getting more citizen and business input first and not being in such a hurry, particularly since the new sign ordinance will not take effect or be enforced until January 2011. Klose's suggestions echoed the sentiment of most of the business people in attendance, but they fell on deaf ears.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
April 11, 2010 Brian Janish, City of Morristown Internal Services Director & Budget/Human Resources Director, Applies for Asst. City Administrator Job in Sevierville
Brian Janish, Internal Services Director and Budget/Human Resources Director for the City of Morristown, has applied for the position of Assistant City Administrator in Sevierville. Janish was former City Administrator Jim Crumley's right-hand man for 9-10 years.
[In mid-2009, Crumley left the City after negotiating a "retirement" package instead of facing the prospect of a rancorous removal process. Shortly afterwards, the City was found to have made unauthorized transfers of money from the sewer fund to the general fund for at least three years to cover up the City's true financial position. Click here and here and here for some background on sewergate/bankruptcygate.]
Based on Janish's application in Sevierville, it looks like Janish, as Internal Services Director & Budget/Human Resources Director, had his hands on all city operations during Crumley's tenure. Click or double-click on each image to enlarge and read Janish's application.
The application is dated January 20, 2010. Surely, there has been something in the local "news"paper about this during the past three months! Reporter Bob Moore knows everything that goes on at the City. I guess I missed his article. Could someone please leave a comment on this post to tell me the date of the "news"paper report on this?
I want to go back and read the "news"paper article and the reactions of the Mayor and City Council and new City Administrator Tony Cox at the possibility of losing Internal Services Director & Budget/Human Resources Director Janish who was such a vital cog in Crumley's financial machine.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
February 28, 2010 City Needs To Borrow $2 Million for April-June Operations + A $2 Million Line of Credit "Just in Case"
More info from last Thursday's City Finance Committee Meeting.
The $2 MILLION "loan" that new City Administator Tony Cox has said that the City must have in order to meet its everyday operating expenses came up. Tony Cox turned the explanation over to Brian Janish, City Budget Director. Click here for Cox's February 11 financial presentation to council and his proposal to get a $2 Million loan to make payroll and pay debt and other expenses through June 30, 2010.
On February 25, Janish said that the city needs to borrow between $2-$4 MILLION to meet its budgeted expenses (payroll, debt, etc) for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Janish added that the city needs to be able to access at least $2 MILLION of these borrowed funds by April 1 with the extra $2 MILLION as a line of credit that is available as, or if, needed.
Since all previous discussion was about a $2 MILLION short-term loan, Kay Senter asked about the extra $2 MILLION that Cox and Janish want as a line of credit.
Janish replied that the extra $2 MILLION is being requested so it can be in place if there is a need without the city having to go back and start another loan process.
Also, for the first time in public, Janish mentioned that the loan/line of credit would include the Sewer Fund in addition to the General Fund. That is an interesting development, but no councilmember asked why the Sewer Fund is being mentioned now in connection with the loan/line of credit.
[In the past three years the Sewer Fund has had excess cash that has been used by the General Fund to meet General Fund operating expenses. What has happened to the Sewer Fund?]
Jinks asked how repayment would be made in six months. Janish said that "after WE borrow the money," it will be up to YOU seven councilmembers to decide how to pay it back.
Janish and Cox then said it will require, drum roll please, "Revenue Enhancements!"
"Revenue Enhancements" is polite political code for "we messed up, now taxes and fees have to go up again."
How were things messed up? Let's look back.
Historic 40-cent property tax increase in the City in 2007. Click here.
Desperate push for sales tax increase in 2008 with a 15-cent rollback in the 40-cent property tax increase. Click here (Feb 2008 countywide sales tax increase defeated) and here (City came back with a city only sales tax referendum that passed).
Big sewer fee increases one after the other. Click here and here.
Council passes 2010 budget in summer of 2009 after City Administrator Jim Crumley recommends cuts of $1.7 Million. Click here.
Crumley canned despite Frank McGuffin's vote against the firing and Mayor Barile's protest that Crumley was being "railroaded." Click here.
Interim Administrator Lynn Wampler comes in and tells Council that they are on the road to bankruptcy (my word) and that the budget that they passed a few months before is a disaster.
Wampler and Council make additional cuts of $900,000 to stave off or at least postpone a deficit situation. Click here.
Mayor Barile admits that the City had no money in reserves (no rainy-day funds) in 2007 and that she and the Council were just becoming aware of this and a lot of other stuff. Click here.
Tony Cox comes in as City Administrator, looks at the finances, and says on February 12 that the City needs to "borrow" at least $2 Million for the General Fund to be able to meet its operational expenses, to pay its debts, and to make it to June 30, 2010, the end of the fiscal year. Click here.
Then on February 25, 2010, Cox and Janish say that the City needs to borrow $2-$4 MILLION for the General Fund AND Sewer Fund--most of which will be used between April and June 2010 and the balance of which will be a line-of-credit "just in case."
How bad could the city's budgeting be if the City can not make it to the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2010) without a $2-$4 MILLION dollar loan?
How can the City add huge amounts of additional taxes (property and sales) and additional fees (sewer) to its budget over the past 2-3 years PLUS make large budget cuts in the summer of 2009 and then more budget cuts in November 2009 but still can't make it to June 30, 2010, without a $2-$4 MILLION loan and line of credit?
Someone from way outside the tight-knit group needs to come in and see what's going on now and what went on in the past.
The budget that the Mayor and Council passed in June 2009 was nothing but a joke on the citizens and taxpayers. Who has to pay for this and the prior budget jokes? The taxpayers, of course.
Look for additional property taxes, new garbage fees, and/or increased stormwater fees---all under the name of "revenue enhancements." And there will be a few cuts, too, so the City will have "cover" to announce that we have looked at everything and made all the cuts we can.
Mayor and Council to taxpayers: Sorry for the mismanagement, but we still have a Wish List and a Master Plan. We have walking trails to build, brick pavers to lay, lots of chrome to buy, and a beautiful cage right in front on the City Center for bad signs! Now pay up.
The $2 MILLION "loan" that new City Administator Tony Cox has said that the City must have in order to meet its everyday operating expenses came up. Tony Cox turned the explanation over to Brian Janish, City Budget Director. Click here for Cox's February 11 financial presentation to council and his proposal to get a $2 Million loan to make payroll and pay debt and other expenses through June 30, 2010.
On February 25, Janish said that the city needs to borrow between $2-$4 MILLION to meet its budgeted expenses (payroll, debt, etc) for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Janish added that the city needs to be able to access at least $2 MILLION of these borrowed funds by April 1 with the extra $2 MILLION as a line of credit that is available as, or if, needed.
Since all previous discussion was about a $2 MILLION short-term loan, Kay Senter asked about the extra $2 MILLION that Cox and Janish want as a line of credit.
Janish replied that the extra $2 MILLION is being requested so it can be in place if there is a need without the city having to go back and start another loan process.
Also, for the first time in public, Janish mentioned that the loan/line of credit would include the Sewer Fund in addition to the General Fund. That is an interesting development, but no councilmember asked why the Sewer Fund is being mentioned now in connection with the loan/line of credit.
[In the past three years the Sewer Fund has had excess cash that has been used by the General Fund to meet General Fund operating expenses. What has happened to the Sewer Fund?]
Jinks asked how repayment would be made in six months. Janish said that "after WE borrow the money," it will be up to YOU seven councilmembers to decide how to pay it back.
Janish and Cox then said it will require, drum roll please, "Revenue Enhancements!"
"Revenue Enhancements" is polite political code for "we messed up, now taxes and fees have to go up again."
How were things messed up? Let's look back.
Historic 40-cent property tax increase in the City in 2007. Click here.
Desperate push for sales tax increase in 2008 with a 15-cent rollback in the 40-cent property tax increase. Click here (Feb 2008 countywide sales tax increase defeated) and here (City came back with a city only sales tax referendum that passed).
Big sewer fee increases one after the other. Click here and here.
Council passes 2010 budget in summer of 2009 after City Administrator Jim Crumley recommends cuts of $1.7 Million. Click here.
Crumley canned despite Frank McGuffin's vote against the firing and Mayor Barile's protest that Crumley was being "railroaded." Click here.
Interim Administrator Lynn Wampler comes in and tells Council that they are on the road to bankruptcy (my word) and that the budget that they passed a few months before is a disaster.
Wampler and Council make additional cuts of $900,000 to stave off or at least postpone a deficit situation. Click here.
Mayor Barile admits that the City had no money in reserves (no rainy-day funds) in 2007 and that she and the Council were just becoming aware of this and a lot of other stuff. Click here.
Tony Cox comes in as City Administrator, looks at the finances, and says on February 12 that the City needs to "borrow" at least $2 Million for the General Fund to be able to meet its operational expenses, to pay its debts, and to make it to June 30, 2010, the end of the fiscal year. Click here.
Then on February 25, 2010, Cox and Janish say that the City needs to borrow $2-$4 MILLION for the General Fund AND Sewer Fund--most of which will be used between April and June 2010 and the balance of which will be a line-of-credit "just in case."
How bad could the city's budgeting be if the City can not make it to the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2010) without a $2-$4 MILLION dollar loan?
How can the City add huge amounts of additional taxes (property and sales) and additional fees (sewer) to its budget over the past 2-3 years PLUS make large budget cuts in the summer of 2009 and then more budget cuts in November 2009 but still can't make it to June 30, 2010, without a $2-$4 MILLION loan and line of credit?
Someone from way outside the tight-knit group needs to come in and see what's going on now and what went on in the past.
The budget that the Mayor and Council passed in June 2009 was nothing but a joke on the citizens and taxpayers. Who has to pay for this and the prior budget jokes? The taxpayers, of course.
Look for additional property taxes, new garbage fees, and/or increased stormwater fees---all under the name of "revenue enhancements." And there will be a few cuts, too, so the City will have "cover" to announce that we have looked at everything and made all the cuts we can.
Mayor and Council to taxpayers: Sorry for the mismanagement, but we still have a Wish List and a Master Plan. We have walking trails to build, brick pavers to lay, lots of chrome to buy, and a beautiful cage right in front on the City Center for bad signs! Now pay up.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
February 27, 2010 City Charter and Ordinance: Sewer Funds Must Be Kept in Separate Bank Account
At this past Thursday's City Finance Committee meeting, Councilmember Gene Brooks noted that city sewer funds are required by the City Charter and Ordinance to be kept in a bank account separate from general fund and other monies.
I first mentioned this charter provision to City Attorney Dick Jessee a couple of weeks ago. Jessee replied that he could not respond to my question about this charter requirement unless an official asked him to answer. Jessee did copy my e-mail question with its citation to the Charter provisions on the sewer fund to City Administrator Tony Cox and Mayor Barile.
A few days later, I called one of those officials--new City Administrator Tony Cox--to discuss these Charter provisions.
Cox asked that I send him the charter provisions--even though he already had received them in my e-mail that Jessee had copied to Cox and Barile. Instead of e-mailing to Cox the Charter provisions that he already had, I contacted Councilmember Brooks--an outspoken opponent of waste of taxpayer dollars--and asked if he would arrange a meeting with Mr. Cox to discuss this. At a meeting among Cox, Brooks, and myself a few days before the Finance meeting, I showed Mr. Cox the Charter sections and a City Ordinance, both of which say that sewer funds are to be kept in a separate bank account from other city funds and are not to be commingled with any other city funds.
[The Charter section and Ordinance that I provided to Jessee and Cox are on the city's website www.mymorristown.com but, of course, there is always a concern that an online posting might be inaccurate or out-of-date, which is why I also asked Mr. Jessee and Mr. Cox to verify the accuracy of the online Charter and online Ordinance that I had noted.]
Mr. Cox was cordial and stated that he was researching the history of the Charter provision and that he had never seen the Ordinance before. He then added that he can't set up a separate sewer bank account right away and that it would take some time to make accounting adjustments to go along with fixing this long-standing Charter violation.
I can appreciate that it might take a couple of weeks to open a new sewer fund bank account and to make other necessary changes to come into compliance with the City Charter. However, in view of the serious nature of a Charter or Ordinance violation and in view of the repeated violations in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 that resulted in violation of state law, putting the sewer funds in a separate bank account should be a high priority, top-of-the-list item. Click here for the background on the city's violations of state law.
If the City has an up-to-date ledger record of sewer revenue and sewer-related costs, the City can come into compliance by depositing the current sewer funds and future sewer revenues in a new, separate bank account for sewer funds and then paying sewer costs and expeditures out of the new sewer fund bank account rather than making pencil-and-paper ledger entries throughout the year and then trying to straighten it all out periodically or at the end of the fiscal year.
And as I have said before, even if the City were not required to keep sewer funds separate from other city funds by Charter or Ordinance, keeping sewer funds and general funds separate is the commonsense best practice in order to keep sewer funds from "accidentally" being used to pay general fund expenses and vice versa.
On the humorous side, perhaps someone needs to bring one of the city's red light cameras into the council chambers, take a picture of the Mayor and Council, and then give them each a ticket and a $50 fine for violation of the City Charter or City Ordinance. They can pay the fine--and build up the city's finances! Or they can contest the ticket by appearing in City Court to cross-examine the picture. Or they can claim that someone else was driving the City's financial car and that they didn't have a clue and then throw themselves on the mercy of the court.
I first mentioned this charter provision to City Attorney Dick Jessee a couple of weeks ago. Jessee replied that he could not respond to my question about this charter requirement unless an official asked him to answer. Jessee did copy my e-mail question with its citation to the Charter provisions on the sewer fund to City Administrator Tony Cox and Mayor Barile.
A few days later, I called one of those officials--new City Administrator Tony Cox--to discuss these Charter provisions.
Cox asked that I send him the charter provisions--even though he already had received them in my e-mail that Jessee had copied to Cox and Barile. Instead of e-mailing to Cox the Charter provisions that he already had, I contacted Councilmember Brooks--an outspoken opponent of waste of taxpayer dollars--and asked if he would arrange a meeting with Mr. Cox to discuss this. At a meeting among Cox, Brooks, and myself a few days before the Finance meeting, I showed Mr. Cox the Charter sections and a City Ordinance, both of which say that sewer funds are to be kept in a separate bank account from other city funds and are not to be commingled with any other city funds.
[The Charter section and Ordinance that I provided to Jessee and Cox are on the city's website www.mymorristown.com but, of course, there is always a concern that an online posting might be inaccurate or out-of-date, which is why I also asked Mr. Jessee and Mr. Cox to verify the accuracy of the online Charter and online Ordinance that I had noted.]
Mr. Cox was cordial and stated that he was researching the history of the Charter provision and that he had never seen the Ordinance before. He then added that he can't set up a separate sewer bank account right away and that it would take some time to make accounting adjustments to go along with fixing this long-standing Charter violation.
I can appreciate that it might take a couple of weeks to open a new sewer fund bank account and to make other necessary changes to come into compliance with the City Charter. However, in view of the serious nature of a Charter or Ordinance violation and in view of the repeated violations in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 that resulted in violation of state law, putting the sewer funds in a separate bank account should be a high priority, top-of-the-list item. Click here for the background on the city's violations of state law.
If the City has an up-to-date ledger record of sewer revenue and sewer-related costs, the City can come into compliance by depositing the current sewer funds and future sewer revenues in a new, separate bank account for sewer funds and then paying sewer costs and expeditures out of the new sewer fund bank account rather than making pencil-and-paper ledger entries throughout the year and then trying to straighten it all out periodically or at the end of the fiscal year.
And as I have said before, even if the City were not required to keep sewer funds separate from other city funds by Charter or Ordinance, keeping sewer funds and general funds separate is the commonsense best practice in order to keep sewer funds from "accidentally" being used to pay general fund expenses and vice versa.
On the humorous side, perhaps someone needs to bring one of the city's red light cameras into the council chambers, take a picture of the Mayor and Council, and then give them each a ticket and a $50 fine for violation of the City Charter or City Ordinance. They can pay the fine--and build up the city's finances! Or they can contest the ticket by appearing in City Court to cross-examine the picture. Or they can claim that someone else was driving the City's financial car and that they didn't have a clue and then throw themselves on the mercy of the court.
Friday, February 12, 2010
February 12, 2010 Administrator Cox: City Cash Runs Out in May 2010. $2 Million Bank Loan Needed To Pay City Bills
The Mayor and City Council got a picture of just how well Jim Crumley managed the city's finances yesterday. They took it all to heart. The Mayor and Council also found out why they need to ask questions and act as a "check and balance" in the handling of city finances to protect the voters and taxpayers. Time will tell if they got that part of the message.
New City Administrator Tony Cox presented the sad tale in a power-point presentation in the Mayor's little conference room. [The Mayor and Council and Administrator and the local "news"paper reporter sit around a conference table and city staff and citizens and a representative from McGill and Associates stand around the wall or in the hallway and try to see and hear what's going on.]
Nutshell: The City had negative cash balances at the end of FY 07, 08, and 09. Jim Crumley--and perhaps others--covered it up by creating unauthorized "loans" or "payables" and "receivables" to hide his use of sewer fund monies to pay general fund payroll, debt, and other basic expenses in each of those years.
Today, the City is again going to be out of cash before the end of the budget year. There will be a negative cash balance in May 2010 ---and that's with the cuts that were made during the summer 2009 budget process and with the additional cuts that were made a few months ago.
To take care of its lack of cash and lack of a fund balance or rainy-day fund to get the city through to the end of the budget year, Cox recommends that the City get a short-term bank loan of about $2 Million Dollars to pay debt, payroll, and other operating costs in May and June 2010.
The City is not going the illegal route that was taken in 2007, 2008, and 2009 when Crumley, et al, hid the cash problems/lack of rainy day funds and instead used took sewer rate-payer monies to pay general government expenses without getting council or state approval as required by state law.
Cox said that the long-time city auditors (Craine, Thompson, & Jones) did not point out or alert the council to the negative cash flow in past years. Cox added that the information about the negative cash situation was "in" the past audits IF you looked for it.
If you are a CEO (Mayor and Council), wouldn't you expect your auditor--to whom you have paid big bucks-- to let you know that you have a serious cash flow problem? Wouldn't you expect your auditor to inform you that your Administrator has been illegally using sewer fund money to pay general fund expenses without informing council of this action and without getting inter-fund loan approval from council and from the state as is required by state law? If you reviewed the audit or even if you didn't, wouldn't you at least ask a few simple general questions, like How are we doing? How does our rainy-day fund balance look? How much of our fund balance is available for an emergency?
Instead of an honest audit presentation or questions being asked, it looks like the auditors provided the audit (late), cashed their check (quickly), and then pretty much told the Mayor and Council to go and figure out for yourself if you are in good shape or bad shape. Don't ask and we won't tell.
There are several groups or individuals who are responsible for the mess the city is in.
1. The Mayor and Councilmembers for failing to ask even basic questions of the auditors and of the former City Administrator Jim Crumley and for failing to monitor and provide some kind of check on the city's finances.
2. The auditors for failing to point out to the Mayor and Council basic and important post-audit financial information --such as, you have a serious cash-flow problem! The auditors for failing year after year to note that unauthorized switching of money from the sewer fund to the general fund was taking place to cover up the cash-flow problem.
3. Jim Crumley and all his confidantes who knew what was going, who helped him cover up the unauthorized money switching, and who failed to inform council of the financial problems.
To help "fix" what has been created by a total financial failure at the city, Cox gave council a number of choices for next year's budget. Raise revenue by increasing property taxes. Raise revenue by charging a garbage fee. Cut expenses. Who pays for years and years of mismanagement? Taxpayers and Ratepayers.
[During the meeting, Cox only briefly mentioned the upcoming 2010 sewer rate study (another cost of $18,000 or so) to tell the City how much more needs to be added to sewer rates---over and above the increases that were tacked on last year after the summer 2009 sewer rate study. How many sewer rate studies can the city afford? When is the city going to "study" the different costs for sewer customers who live outside the city v. inside sewer customers?]
Just for old times sake, take a brief stroll down memory lane to see who sat by praising Jim Crumley and fiddling while the city finances burned.
Click Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Those who didn't have a clue and thought Jim Crumley was "railroaded." Those who didn't have a clue and didn't look at audits for years and years. Those who didn't have a clue and who fiddled and spent and are still spending today because it sounds like such a "nice" project.
New City Administrator Tony Cox presented the sad tale in a power-point presentation in the Mayor's little conference room. [The Mayor and Council and Administrator and the local "news"paper reporter sit around a conference table and city staff and citizens and a representative from McGill and Associates stand around the wall or in the hallway and try to see and hear what's going on.]
Nutshell: The City had negative cash balances at the end of FY 07, 08, and 09. Jim Crumley--and perhaps others--covered it up by creating unauthorized "loans" or "payables" and "receivables" to hide his use of sewer fund monies to pay general fund payroll, debt, and other basic expenses in each of those years.
Today, the City is again going to be out of cash before the end of the budget year. There will be a negative cash balance in May 2010 ---and that's with the cuts that were made during the summer 2009 budget process and with the additional cuts that were made a few months ago.
To take care of its lack of cash and lack of a fund balance or rainy-day fund to get the city through to the end of the budget year, Cox recommends that the City get a short-term bank loan of about $2 Million Dollars to pay debt, payroll, and other operating costs in May and June 2010.
The City is not going the illegal route that was taken in 2007, 2008, and 2009 when Crumley, et al, hid the cash problems/lack of rainy day funds and instead used took sewer rate-payer monies to pay general government expenses without getting council or state approval as required by state law.
Cox said that the long-time city auditors (Craine, Thompson, & Jones) did not point out or alert the council to the negative cash flow in past years. Cox added that the information about the negative cash situation was "in" the past audits IF you looked for it.
If you are a CEO (Mayor and Council), wouldn't you expect your auditor--to whom you have paid big bucks-- to let you know that you have a serious cash flow problem? Wouldn't you expect your auditor to inform you that your Administrator has been illegally using sewer fund money to pay general fund expenses without informing council of this action and without getting inter-fund loan approval from council and from the state as is required by state law? If you reviewed the audit or even if you didn't, wouldn't you at least ask a few simple general questions, like How are we doing? How does our rainy-day fund balance look? How much of our fund balance is available for an emergency?
Instead of an honest audit presentation or questions being asked, it looks like the auditors provided the audit (late), cashed their check (quickly), and then pretty much told the Mayor and Council to go and figure out for yourself if you are in good shape or bad shape. Don't ask and we won't tell.
There are several groups or individuals who are responsible for the mess the city is in.
1. The Mayor and Councilmembers for failing to ask even basic questions of the auditors and of the former City Administrator Jim Crumley and for failing to monitor and provide some kind of check on the city's finances.
2. The auditors for failing to point out to the Mayor and Council basic and important post-audit financial information --such as, you have a serious cash-flow problem! The auditors for failing year after year to note that unauthorized switching of money from the sewer fund to the general fund was taking place to cover up the cash-flow problem.
3. Jim Crumley and all his confidantes who knew what was going, who helped him cover up the unauthorized money switching, and who failed to inform council of the financial problems.
To help "fix" what has been created by a total financial failure at the city, Cox gave council a number of choices for next year's budget. Raise revenue by increasing property taxes. Raise revenue by charging a garbage fee. Cut expenses. Who pays for years and years of mismanagement? Taxpayers and Ratepayers.
[During the meeting, Cox only briefly mentioned the upcoming 2010 sewer rate study (another cost of $18,000 or so) to tell the City how much more needs to be added to sewer rates---over and above the increases that were tacked on last year after the summer 2009 sewer rate study. How many sewer rate studies can the city afford? When is the city going to "study" the different costs for sewer customers who live outside the city v. inside sewer customers?]
Just for old times sake, take a brief stroll down memory lane to see who sat by praising Jim Crumley and fiddling while the city finances burned.
Click Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Those who didn't have a clue and thought Jim Crumley was "railroaded." Those who didn't have a clue and didn't look at audits for years and years. Those who didn't have a clue and who fiddled and spent and are still spending today because it sounds like such a "nice" project.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
February 3, 2010 City Administrator Anthony Cox: 2009 Audit Is Still Not Ready
During the City Administrator's report yesterday, Anthony Cox told the Mayor and Councilmembers that the 2009 final audit is still not ready.
At the January 19th meeting, a preliminary/draft audit was given to council. The final audit was supposed to be ready no later than yesterday. Cox gave no explanation for the delay, and neither the Mayor nor any councilmember asked for an explanation.
The current auditors (Craine, Thompson & Jones) have been late with the audit for many years. The 2008 audit (for the period 7/1/07-6/30/08) was due by December 31, 2008. It was provided some five months later, prompting ex-City Administrator Jim Crumley to recommend in May 2009 that the city solicit bids for new auditors. Click here. Jim Crumley and I disagreed on many things, but that was one time when he was right.
After Jim made that proposal, the auditors blamed the lateness of the 2008 audit on being unable to get timely reports from MUS. Craine, Thompson & Jones then promised that the 2009 audit (for the period 7/1/08-6/30/09) would be provided in a timely manner, assuring the council that the 2009 audit would be ready no later than December 31, 2009.
That self-imposed December 31, 2009, deadline wasn't met. January 2010 has passed by. And now we're into February 2010 and no final audit.
While a timely audit AND a new set of auditing eyes are still needed, my guess is that there will again be someone else to blame, all will be forgiven, and the Mayor and Council will carry on as before.
At the January 19th meeting, a preliminary/draft audit was given to council. The final audit was supposed to be ready no later than yesterday. Cox gave no explanation for the delay, and neither the Mayor nor any councilmember asked for an explanation.
The current auditors (Craine, Thompson & Jones) have been late with the audit for many years. The 2008 audit (for the period 7/1/07-6/30/08) was due by December 31, 2008. It was provided some five months later, prompting ex-City Administrator Jim Crumley to recommend in May 2009 that the city solicit bids for new auditors. Click here. Jim Crumley and I disagreed on many things, but that was one time when he was right.
After Jim made that proposal, the auditors blamed the lateness of the 2008 audit on being unable to get timely reports from MUS. Craine, Thompson & Jones then promised that the 2009 audit (for the period 7/1/08-6/30/09) would be provided in a timely manner, assuring the council that the 2009 audit would be ready no later than December 31, 2009.
That self-imposed December 31, 2009, deadline wasn't met. January 2010 has passed by. And now we're into February 2010 and no final audit.
While a timely audit AND a new set of auditing eyes are still needed, my guess is that there will again be someone else to blame, all will be forgiven, and the Mayor and Council will carry on as before.
Friday, January 22, 2010
January 22, 2010 How Morristown Can Start To Get Its Financial Affairs in Order
A prior noe4accountability post notes Morristown Mayor Sami Barile's admission on Tuesday, January 19, that the City had no reserves and nothing in its rainy day fund as of 6/30/07 and that the City has just recently discovered this fact. There are many other financial facts that the Mayor and Council do not know about --in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The major reason for this financial debacle was and is a total lack of checks and balances and a lack of accountability on the part of the Mayor and City Council. The Mayor once stated that the Mayor and Council shouldn't micromanage the affairs of the City. Well, how about just some kind of management? How about paying attention? How can you be accountable if you don't even know what's going on and don't try to find out?
After the Mayor's January 19th statement, I presented some commonsense suggestions to the City about how it might begin the process of gaining budgetary control and establishing some accountability for taxpayer funds.
1) Establish separate bank accounts for the city's main funds (general fund and sewer fund) as well as for minor funds (especially grant funds). Presently, the city has one big bank account and all checks are written off that account. The City should abolish the one big bank account system that has contributed to the current situation with repeated violations of state law as the City simply keeps writing checks and dipping into or borrowing sewer funds without local and state authorization when the general fund runs out of money or needs to be shored up. Here is another suggestion that I did not mention in my comments to council: the City also needs to review its Charter and determine if the commingling of sewer monies and general fund monies in one big bank account is prohibited by the Charter. The Charter is on the city website, but one never knows if the online form is an updated and accurate version.
2) Have timely presentation of budget amendments by the Budget and Finance Directors and department heads. You shouldn't be making one big budget amendment in late 2009 or early 2010 to figure out what happened on 6/30/09 which is the end of FY 2009.
3) Enact an ordinance that provides clear whistleblower protection to those employees or others who are willing to come forward with information about fraud, waste, abuse, suspected illegal money transfers, misuse of grant funds, etc.
4) Do a complete and detailed audit for 2009. The current audit is a typical governmental audit that is just a cursory sampling of a small number of revenue and expenditure items that are provided to the auditor. If the small number of samples looks OK, the auditors give an opinion that the financial statements fairly represent the financial situation of the city. While a cursory sampling is all that is required by the state for a regular annual audit, at this time Morristown desperately needs a full and detailed outside audit of virtually all transactions and financial procedures and internal controls. A new administrator, Anthony Cox, has arrived just in time to hear the revelations of past (2007 and 2008) and current (2009) financial switcheroos and violations of state law. The Mayor, councilmembers, and Mr. Cox should insist on a full and detailed audit and get this financial ship righted and then keep it right!
The City's situation reminds me of the county's situation right before I was elected to county commission in 2002. As a citizen I had been watching and gathering information as my concerns about rising taxes and new taxes (remember the "temporary" wheel tax) and school board construction program bid-rigging (multi-millions of dollar in one-bid contracts) grew. I knew there were violations of state law and financial shenanigans. I went to the Comptroller's Office in August 2001 and in mid-2002 state law was changed to stop the school board's version of construction management with its one-bid contracts.
Then I ran for county commission on a platform of open government, change, and accountability. Once elected, I made the motion to have auditors from the State Comptroller's Office perform the county's audit. The first audit by the Comptroller's personnel saved the county $18,000 AND resulted in a huge number of findings of violations of state law and financial irrregularities. In fact, Hamblen County had more findings that any other county in the state. While the initial audit by the state auditors reflected badly on Hamblen County financial operations, the end result was better controls and fewer violations in future years. Click here for a short post on the first audit by the State Comptroller's auditors.
Morristown needs to take its medicine and get a new set of auditing eyes NOW and for the future. Getting a new set of auditing eyes is not a direct reflection on the current city auditors [who, incidentally, were the county's auditors in 2002 before the Comptroller's personnel came in]. Auditors need to be changed routinely every 3-5 years. It is hard for a local auditor to be truly independent when he or she lives in the same community and goes to church with and belongs to the same clubs as the elected officials and governmental employees being audited. That's human nature, but it can be eliminated by getting outside auditors and rotating auditors periodically.
What I did from 2000-2002 in prompting a change in state law to address the local school board's bid-rigging scheme and its construction management system of paying people to manage themselves made me no friends on the school board.
What I did in county government from 2002-2006 in exposing waste and abuse and demanding accountability for county taxpayer dollars made me no friends in high places.
And those enemies among the politically, socially, and financially high and mighty continue to attack and attack.
Well, so be it. I'm not going away. There are large numbers of Americans across this beautiful country who are just now waking up to the waste, corruption, lies, and conflicts of interest in government at every level. I had my awakening years ago.
The major reason for this financial debacle was and is a total lack of checks and balances and a lack of accountability on the part of the Mayor and City Council. The Mayor once stated that the Mayor and Council shouldn't micromanage the affairs of the City. Well, how about just some kind of management? How about paying attention? How can you be accountable if you don't even know what's going on and don't try to find out?
After the Mayor's January 19th statement, I presented some commonsense suggestions to the City about how it might begin the process of gaining budgetary control and establishing some accountability for taxpayer funds.
1) Establish separate bank accounts for the city's main funds (general fund and sewer fund) as well as for minor funds (especially grant funds). Presently, the city has one big bank account and all checks are written off that account. The City should abolish the one big bank account system that has contributed to the current situation with repeated violations of state law as the City simply keeps writing checks and dipping into or borrowing sewer funds without local and state authorization when the general fund runs out of money or needs to be shored up. Here is another suggestion that I did not mention in my comments to council: the City also needs to review its Charter and determine if the commingling of sewer monies and general fund monies in one big bank account is prohibited by the Charter. The Charter is on the city website, but one never knows if the online form is an updated and accurate version.
2) Have timely presentation of budget amendments by the Budget and Finance Directors and department heads. You shouldn't be making one big budget amendment in late 2009 or early 2010 to figure out what happened on 6/30/09 which is the end of FY 2009.
3) Enact an ordinance that provides clear whistleblower protection to those employees or others who are willing to come forward with information about fraud, waste, abuse, suspected illegal money transfers, misuse of grant funds, etc.
4) Do a complete and detailed audit for 2009. The current audit is a typical governmental audit that is just a cursory sampling of a small number of revenue and expenditure items that are provided to the auditor. If the small number of samples looks OK, the auditors give an opinion that the financial statements fairly represent the financial situation of the city. While a cursory sampling is all that is required by the state for a regular annual audit, at this time Morristown desperately needs a full and detailed outside audit of virtually all transactions and financial procedures and internal controls. A new administrator, Anthony Cox, has arrived just in time to hear the revelations of past (2007 and 2008) and current (2009) financial switcheroos and violations of state law. The Mayor, councilmembers, and Mr. Cox should insist on a full and detailed audit and get this financial ship righted and then keep it right!
The City's situation reminds me of the county's situation right before I was elected to county commission in 2002. As a citizen I had been watching and gathering information as my concerns about rising taxes and new taxes (remember the "temporary" wheel tax) and school board construction program bid-rigging (multi-millions of dollar in one-bid contracts) grew. I knew there were violations of state law and financial shenanigans. I went to the Comptroller's Office in August 2001 and in mid-2002 state law was changed to stop the school board's version of construction management with its one-bid contracts.
Then I ran for county commission on a platform of open government, change, and accountability. Once elected, I made the motion to have auditors from the State Comptroller's Office perform the county's audit. The first audit by the Comptroller's personnel saved the county $18,000 AND resulted in a huge number of findings of violations of state law and financial irrregularities. In fact, Hamblen County had more findings that any other county in the state. While the initial audit by the state auditors reflected badly on Hamblen County financial operations, the end result was better controls and fewer violations in future years. Click here for a short post on the first audit by the State Comptroller's auditors.
Morristown needs to take its medicine and get a new set of auditing eyes NOW and for the future. Getting a new set of auditing eyes is not a direct reflection on the current city auditors [who, incidentally, were the county's auditors in 2002 before the Comptroller's personnel came in]. Auditors need to be changed routinely every 3-5 years. It is hard for a local auditor to be truly independent when he or she lives in the same community and goes to church with and belongs to the same clubs as the elected officials and governmental employees being audited. That's human nature, but it can be eliminated by getting outside auditors and rotating auditors periodically.
What I did from 2000-2002 in prompting a change in state law to address the local school board's bid-rigging scheme and its construction management system of paying people to manage themselves made me no friends on the school board.
What I did in county government from 2002-2006 in exposing waste and abuse and demanding accountability for county taxpayer dollars made me no friends in high places.
And those enemies among the politically, socially, and financially high and mighty continue to attack and attack.
Well, so be it. I'm not going away. There are large numbers of Americans across this beautiful country who are just now waking up to the waste, corruption, lies, and conflicts of interest in government at every level. I had my awakening years ago.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
January 20, 2010 Mayor Barile: The City Was Broke in 2007 But We Just Became Aware of This in Recent Weeks
At yesterday's City Council meeting, Mayor Barile was asked to answer a question that she had been asked some time ago: What reserves (fund balance) did the City of Morristown have at the end of FY 2007 (6/30/07)
Mayor Barile: The city had NO reserves in 2007 but we just became aware of this in recent weeks.
Mayor Barile and councilmembers, that information was in the 2007 audit that you were given in 2008! If you just became aware of this "in recent weeks," it must be because YOU didn't look at the 2007 audit, YOUR auditor failed to discuss this audit factoid with you, and YOUR esteemed former City Administrator Jim Crumley didn't tell you that he had driven the city to bankruptcy and was covering it up by illegally switching money around.
Hint to Mayor Barile and council: Now you need to look at and READ the 2008 audit. Check on available fund balance as of 6/30/08. You might "become aware" of more disturbing news. Click here for more on Bankruptcygate.
And if you pay attention and ask questions and end the feel-good spending, you might be able to stop the bleeding that has been going on right under your nose.
.
Mayor Barile: The city had NO reserves in 2007 but we just became aware of this in recent weeks.
Mayor Barile and councilmembers, that information was in the 2007 audit that you were given in 2008! If you just became aware of this "in recent weeks," it must be because YOU didn't look at the 2007 audit, YOUR auditor failed to discuss this audit factoid with you, and YOUR esteemed former City Administrator Jim Crumley didn't tell you that he had driven the city to bankruptcy and was covering it up by illegally switching money around.
Hint to Mayor Barile and council: Now you need to look at and READ the 2008 audit. Check on available fund balance as of 6/30/08. You might "become aware" of more disturbing news. Click here for more on Bankruptcygate.
And if you pay attention and ask questions and end the feel-good spending, you might be able to stop the bleeding that has been going on right under your nose.
.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
December 16, 2009 City Council Votes 5-2 To Proceed with ETPC Land Acquisition
In a tense meeting yesterday where there was at least some actual "public" discussion by councilmembers of an issue before the city council, the council voted 5-2 to proceed with appraisals and acquisition of land in the East Tennessee Progress Center (ETPC).
The head of the Industrial Board, R. Jack Fishman, was not present at this meeting. Previously, he had spoken twice to council about this land acquisition--once in a work session and once in a Finance Committee meeting held in a small conference room near the Mayor's office. Fishman did not choose to appear at yesterday's regular city council meeting to present the Industrial Board's case or to field questions about the proposal.
In light of the city's pathetic financial condition and the recent cutting of hours of city employees, Councilmember Gene Brooks asked where the money would come from for the appraisals and land acquisition. [The city was broke as of 6/30/08 and only recently paid back a $2.5 Million loan from its sewer fund that had helped cover up its dire financial status].
Mayor Barile mentioned that the city had recently sold some of its property to MUS (Morristown Utility Systems). She said that money could be used to help pay for the land acquisition. The property she was referring to was some acreage on Sulphur Springs Road that the city had acquired years ago to erect a public works facility. Because of the city's financial condition, the Mayor negotiated a deal for MUS to purchase that property from the city for just over $300,000.
Despite offering her assurances that the $300,000 could be used, the Mayor did not state where the additional $1 Million+ would come from for appraisal costs, land acquisition costs, and possible court battles if the city decides to invoke eminent domain on property owners who do not want to sell at all or who do not want to sell for the price that the City/Industrial Board/Jack Fishman offer.
More will follow in coming posts.
The head of the Industrial Board, R. Jack Fishman, was not present at this meeting. Previously, he had spoken twice to council about this land acquisition--once in a work session and once in a Finance Committee meeting held in a small conference room near the Mayor's office. Fishman did not choose to appear at yesterday's regular city council meeting to present the Industrial Board's case or to field questions about the proposal.
In light of the city's pathetic financial condition and the recent cutting of hours of city employees, Councilmember Gene Brooks asked where the money would come from for the appraisals and land acquisition. [The city was broke as of 6/30/08 and only recently paid back a $2.5 Million loan from its sewer fund that had helped cover up its dire financial status].
Mayor Barile mentioned that the city had recently sold some of its property to MUS (Morristown Utility Systems). She said that money could be used to help pay for the land acquisition. The property she was referring to was some acreage on Sulphur Springs Road that the city had acquired years ago to erect a public works facility. Because of the city's financial condition, the Mayor negotiated a deal for MUS to purchase that property from the city for just over $300,000.
Despite offering her assurances that the $300,000 could be used, the Mayor did not state where the additional $1 Million+ would come from for appraisal costs, land acquisition costs, and possible court battles if the city decides to invoke eminent domain on property owners who do not want to sell at all or who do not want to sell for the price that the City/Industrial Board/Jack Fishman offer.
More will follow in coming posts.
Friday, December 11, 2009
December 11, 2009 City Finance Committee Puts ETPC Land Acquisition by Purchase or by Eminent Domain on December 15 Agenda
The Finance Committee of the City of Morristown met at 3:30 PM yesterday in the little conference room near the City Administrator's office. The room---which can only hold about 10-12 people comfortably--was full. The Mayor and councilmembers were seated around the table with Jack Fishman, Bobby Moore (Tribune reporter and employee of Jack Fishman), and a few department heads. Frank McGuffin, chair of the Finance Committee, was late in arriving. Councilmember Kay Senter was not present.
A few people managed to find a seat inside the room, others stood inside the room, and still others, including some city department heads and sewer consultant Lamar Dunn, stood in the two doorways or in the hallway.
[Despite the larger council chambers right next door and a large community room upstairs in the multimillion dollar City Center, the Finance Committee meets in a cramped conference room that is probably not larger and is likely smaller than the City Administrator's office. This conference room is also a secluded meeting place for unannounced meetings of the Mayor and Councilmembers to discuss and deliberate on public business privately prior to walking into the council chambers to vote, but that is a separate issue that I will address more fully in the coming weeks.]
Jack Fishman, who is the longtime head of the Industrial Development Board and President of the company that owns the local newspaper (the Citizen Tribune), wants the City to go ahead and approve acquisition of privately held land in the East Tennessee Progress Center (ETPC).
Click here to see the previous post about the private land that Fishman wants the city to purchase from willing owners or take by force through eminent domain from any who don't want to sell their land.
Fishman said that he recently obtained local employment figures for 2002 and 2009 from the state employment office. He said that these figures show a "startling" loss of 5,000 local manufacturing jobs during that time, explaining that there were about 13,000 manufacturing jobs in the area in 2002 and in 2009 there are just over 8,000. Most people are not startled by that figure. Most people have known about and have been concerned about the exodus of local manufacturing plants to Mexico and China for a long time. Many of these same people have lost their jobs because of the "sucking sound" of jobs leaving this country for cheap labor, less regulation, and lower taxes.
Fishman said, "Our situation is not good." He added that the Industrial Board had been through a 2-year "hiatus" of no prospects. Apparently, there are now two new industrial prospects (1 foreign company and 1 domestic company) along with a possible plant expansion of an existing industry. Fishman used code words for the two new prospects that have completed preliminary surveys. He said that they each would require about a 90-acre site if they eventually decide to locate here. He added that Thom Robinson, director of the Chamber, was not present at the Finance meeting because he was working with a prospect and "I sent him to 'bow'."
[Fishman added that most companies start by selecting about five states and then checking out four locations in each of those 5 states. The company then does a preliminary evaluation of those 20 sites, conducts additional research, narrows the choices down, and, of course, makes site visits before making a selection.]
A map of the Master Plan for the ETPC was flashed on the screen. Randy Corlew, engineer for the Industrial Board, discussed the Master Plan. Fishman said that he doesn't want to invite industry to our community if "I don't have a place to put them."
Claude Jinks said that he can't believe what has happened in the past two years.
Mayor Barile said we can see the problems in the increase of people at the Daily Bread.
Bob Garrett said, "Put it on the agenda." Then he said (jokingly), "I want to thank Mr. Fishman for coming and bowing to us."
Fishman said the Industrial Board could probably have an appraiser by February. The appraiser will determine Fair Market Value for the property, an offer will be made, and then the purchase/sale will "close." Neither the Mayor nor any councilmember asked what happens if a private property owner does not want to sell. Of course, they already know that Fishman's answer to that question would be--- "Take it" through eminent domain. They also already know that Fishman has prepared an ordinance for them to pass that provides for just that-- "taking" the property of anyone who does not want to sell through eminent domain proceedings.
If eminent domain is used, this could end up being a negative for industrial prospects. Often new industry is hesitant to come and locate on land that has been taken from its owners agains their will. If there are several industrial locations available, most companies would prefer to locate on land that has been developed without the ill-will created by the use of eminent domain.
In light of recent city cutbacks of employee hours and other financial concerns, Gene Brooks asked Fishman how the city could pay for the private land that is currently appraised at about $1.3 Million.
Fishman first said that he is not the Finance Director for the city. Then he added that he would recommend borrowing the money through the issuance of bond anticipation notes over the 3-year phased acquisition period.
Perhaps Fishman should have stayed to hear more about the city's situation, but he left before the city's sewer meltdown was discussed.
A few people managed to find a seat inside the room, others stood inside the room, and still others, including some city department heads and sewer consultant Lamar Dunn, stood in the two doorways or in the hallway.
[Despite the larger council chambers right next door and a large community room upstairs in the multimillion dollar City Center, the Finance Committee meets in a cramped conference room that is probably not larger and is likely smaller than the City Administrator's office. This conference room is also a secluded meeting place for unannounced meetings of the Mayor and Councilmembers to discuss and deliberate on public business privately prior to walking into the council chambers to vote, but that is a separate issue that I will address more fully in the coming weeks.]
Jack Fishman, who is the longtime head of the Industrial Development Board and President of the company that owns the local newspaper (the Citizen Tribune), wants the City to go ahead and approve acquisition of privately held land in the East Tennessee Progress Center (ETPC).
Click here to see the previous post about the private land that Fishman wants the city to purchase from willing owners or take by force through eminent domain from any who don't want to sell their land.
Fishman said that he recently obtained local employment figures for 2002 and 2009 from the state employment office. He said that these figures show a "startling" loss of 5,000 local manufacturing jobs during that time, explaining that there were about 13,000 manufacturing jobs in the area in 2002 and in 2009 there are just over 8,000. Most people are not startled by that figure. Most people have known about and have been concerned about the exodus of local manufacturing plants to Mexico and China for a long time. Many of these same people have lost their jobs because of the "sucking sound" of jobs leaving this country for cheap labor, less regulation, and lower taxes.
Fishman said, "Our situation is not good." He added that the Industrial Board had been through a 2-year "hiatus" of no prospects. Apparently, there are now two new industrial prospects (1 foreign company and 1 domestic company) along with a possible plant expansion of an existing industry. Fishman used code words for the two new prospects that have completed preliminary surveys. He said that they each would require about a 90-acre site if they eventually decide to locate here. He added that Thom Robinson, director of the Chamber, was not present at the Finance meeting because he was working with a prospect and "I sent him to 'bow'."
[Fishman added that most companies start by selecting about five states and then checking out four locations in each of those 5 states. The company then does a preliminary evaluation of those 20 sites, conducts additional research, narrows the choices down, and, of course, makes site visits before making a selection.]
A map of the Master Plan for the ETPC was flashed on the screen. Randy Corlew, engineer for the Industrial Board, discussed the Master Plan. Fishman said that he doesn't want to invite industry to our community if "I don't have a place to put them."
Claude Jinks said that he can't believe what has happened in the past two years.
Mayor Barile said we can see the problems in the increase of people at the Daily Bread.
Bob Garrett said, "Put it on the agenda." Then he said (jokingly), "I want to thank Mr. Fishman for coming and bowing to us."
Fishman said the Industrial Board could probably have an appraiser by February. The appraiser will determine Fair Market Value for the property, an offer will be made, and then the purchase/sale will "close." Neither the Mayor nor any councilmember asked what happens if a private property owner does not want to sell. Of course, they already know that Fishman's answer to that question would be--- "Take it" through eminent domain. They also already know that Fishman has prepared an ordinance for them to pass that provides for just that-- "taking" the property of anyone who does not want to sell through eminent domain proceedings.
If eminent domain is used, this could end up being a negative for industrial prospects. Often new industry is hesitant to come and locate on land that has been taken from its owners agains their will. If there are several industrial locations available, most companies would prefer to locate on land that has been developed without the ill-will created by the use of eminent domain.
In light of recent city cutbacks of employee hours and other financial concerns, Gene Brooks asked Fishman how the city could pay for the private land that is currently appraised at about $1.3 Million.
Fishman first said that he is not the Finance Director for the city. Then he added that he would recommend borrowing the money through the issuance of bond anticipation notes over the 3-year phased acquisition period.
Perhaps Fishman should have stayed to hear more about the city's situation, but he left before the city's sewer meltdown was discussed.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
December 3, 2009 City Council Meeting: Sewergate To Cover-up Bankruptcygate?
In a previous post (click here), I mentioned the City of Morristown's illegal transfer/loan of $2.5 MILLION dollars from the city's sewer fund to the city's general fund in the fiscal year ending 6/30/08. Former City Administrator Jim Crumley apparently authorized the transfer to cover up the "poor" cash situation of the general fund.
The city's auditor is Craine, Thompson & Jones. Terry Winstead of CTJ (click on e-mail below) states that Tom Jones of CTJ was present in a meeting when Crumley authorized the transfer but that CTJ's auditing "independence" and objectivity were not lost because while Jones knew about the entry, he (Jones) didn't physically make the entry himself. So Jones was in the meeting where the entry was authorized. Jones then completed his audit of the city's books and recorded the $2.5 MILLION switcheroo as an inter-fund loan. BUT Jones did not report that this $2.5 Million "inter-fund loan" had not been approved by council (as is required). AND Jones did not report that this $2.5 Million "loan" had not been approved by the State Comptroller's Director of Local Finance (as is required).
At left is Winstead's e-mail to Wampler describing how the $2.5 Million "entry" for fiscal year 2008 came about and then disavowing any direct involvement by auditor Tom Jones-- Jones just happened to be there when the entry was authorized. On the November 2009 e-mail, there is also a written notation by Wampler stating that Dynise (Robertson), the city's finance director, informed Wampler that the $2.5 Million 2008 sewer to general fund transfer was "transferred back last week." No mention of who authorized the transfer-back or why the transfer-back, like the initial transfer, did not go through council.
The scariest part of the note is Wampler's second statement: "We will have to transfer most of that money back to the General Fund before the end of the fisical (sic) year." Why? To cover up a poor financial situation again? After the whopping property tax increase of 2007, after the sales tax increase of 2008, and after red light cameras were installed for even more revenue, is Wampler's comment a warning that the city may still not have enough funds for general government operations at the end of FY 2010 (6/30/10) and will somehow need another sewer loan as a cushion?
At city council yesterday, Charles Cook asked Mayor Barile if she knew about this $2.5 Million sewer fund to general fund transfer in 2008. She said she didn't recall being told at the time.
Cook then passed out an e-mail that I had received from the Director of Municipal Audit (Dennis Dycus) in the State Comptroller's office in response to questions about (1) whether a temporary transfer of money from the sewer fund to the general fund could be made (no) and (2) how an inter-fund loan from sewer to general fund should be handled (carefully). [Cook had blacked out my name on the e-mail so the city officials could concentrate on the contents of the e-mail itself. By now, the Mayor and/or some members of the council or others have probably called up the state to find out who was asking questions when in reality it is the Mayor and the councilmembers who should have been asking this and many more questions all along.]
Mr. Dycus, Director of Municipal Audit, simply confirmed the obvious. There has to be local approval of an inter-fund loan by the city council. Then the loan is sent to the Division of Local Finance in the State Comptroller's Office for approval. Dycus twice notes that any loan of this type has to be an arms-length business transaction and that the going rate of interest has to be paid by the fund that is borrowing the money. In the city's case, the general fund (largely funded by taxes) borrowed the money and should have paid interest to the sewer fund (largely paid by ratepayers) that made the $2.5 Million loan. Click on the e-mail below to enlarge.
Because of the illegalities of the handling of the funds transfer/loan and because the whole thing was cleverly orchestrated to cover-up the dire (essentially bankrupt) financial situation of the city's general government fund, Cook referred to this matter as "sewergate." Maybe it was "sewergate" to cover up Morristown's "bankruptcygate."
Now click again and read Wampler's last statement in his hand-written note on Winstead's e-mail. "I will develop a fund transfer policy as soon as I can." Transfers are not allowed. No need for a transfer policy.
An inter-fund loan from sewer to general fund can be made, BUT it must be an arms-length transaction that is first passed by the council and then approved by the state. The Dycus e-mail pretty much outlines the procedures for such an inter-fund loan. Maybe the city should consider following state law as its inter-fund loan policy!
Of course, maybe the city would not have to borrow money from its sewer fund at all if the Mayor and councilmembers managed the taxpayers' money responsibly and didn't pass every nice-sounding spending proposal that comes around plus borrow and spend every penny that they can get their hands on.
Mr. Cook pointed out to the Mayor and Council that they could and should have known about the $2.5 million switcheroo (my word) if they had ever actually looked at the 2008 audit. He also pointed out that they could and should have known that the city's 2008 general fund balance of $3,431.536.00 was all smoke and mirrors (my words) if they had actually looked at the audit.
The $3,431,536.00 fund balance was largely a charade, but you had to ask questions or you had to be paying attention to see the charade. Every penny of the 2008 "fund balance/rainy day fund" of $3,431,536.00 was reserved or set aside (1) to pay back the sewer loan ($2,500,000.00), (2) to pay existing contracts ($995,419.00), and (3) to pay other bills owed by the city ($135,617.00).
Real available general fund balance/rainy day fund as of 6/30/08. Zero!
Now how many times do you reach the end of the year (December 31) and your debts and bills are EXACTLY, down to the penny, what is in your checking account (fund balance) at that point in time?
Yet, that's what the city's 2008 audit would have the taxpayers believe. The audit suggests that the city's checking account (fund balance) had EXACTLY $3,431,536.00 in it as of 6/30/08 and that the city's current debts and bills just happened to total EXACTLY $3,431,536.00 as of 6/30/08. An unbelievable coincidence? Smoke and mirrors? Or plain old local hoodoo economics?
The city's auditor is Craine, Thompson & Jones. Terry Winstead of CTJ (click on e-mail below) states that Tom Jones of CTJ was present in a meeting when Crumley authorized the transfer but that CTJ's auditing "independence" and objectivity were not lost because while Jones knew about the entry, he (Jones) didn't physically make the entry himself. So Jones was in the meeting where the entry was authorized. Jones then completed his audit of the city's books and recorded the $2.5 MILLION switcheroo as an inter-fund loan. BUT Jones did not report that this $2.5 Million "inter-fund loan" had not been approved by council (as is required). AND Jones did not report that this $2.5 Million "loan" had not been approved by the State Comptroller's Director of Local Finance (as is required).
At left is Winstead's e-mail to Wampler describing how the $2.5 Million "entry" for fiscal year 2008 came about and then disavowing any direct involvement by auditor Tom Jones-- Jones just happened to be there when the entry was authorized. On the November 2009 e-mail, there is also a written notation by Wampler stating that Dynise (Robertson), the city's finance director, informed Wampler that the $2.5 Million 2008 sewer to general fund transfer was "transferred back last week." No mention of who authorized the transfer-back or why the transfer-back, like the initial transfer, did not go through council.
The scariest part of the note is Wampler's second statement: "We will have to transfer most of that money back to the General Fund before the end of the fisical (sic) year." Why? To cover up a poor financial situation again? After the whopping property tax increase of 2007, after the sales tax increase of 2008, and after red light cameras were installed for even more revenue, is Wampler's comment a warning that the city may still not have enough funds for general government operations at the end of FY 2010 (6/30/10) and will somehow need another sewer loan as a cushion?
At city council yesterday, Charles Cook asked Mayor Barile if she knew about this $2.5 Million sewer fund to general fund transfer in 2008. She said she didn't recall being told at the time.
Cook then passed out an e-mail that I had received from the Director of Municipal Audit (Dennis Dycus) in the State Comptroller's office in response to questions about (1) whether a temporary transfer of money from the sewer fund to the general fund could be made (no) and (2) how an inter-fund loan from sewer to general fund should be handled (carefully). [Cook had blacked out my name on the e-mail so the city officials could concentrate on the contents of the e-mail itself. By now, the Mayor and/or some members of the council or others have probably called up the state to find out who was asking questions when in reality it is the Mayor and the councilmembers who should have been asking this and many more questions all along.]
Mr. Dycus, Director of Municipal Audit, simply confirmed the obvious. There has to be local approval of an inter-fund loan by the city council. Then the loan is sent to the Division of Local Finance in the State Comptroller's Office for approval. Dycus twice notes that any loan of this type has to be an arms-length business transaction and that the going rate of interest has to be paid by the fund that is borrowing the money. In the city's case, the general fund (largely funded by taxes) borrowed the money and should have paid interest to the sewer fund (largely paid by ratepayers) that made the $2.5 Million loan. Click on the e-mail below to enlarge.
Now click again and read Wampler's last statement in his hand-written note on Winstead's e-mail. "I will develop a fund transfer policy as soon as I can." Transfers are not allowed. No need for a transfer policy.
An inter-fund loan from sewer to general fund can be made, BUT it must be an arms-length transaction that is first passed by the council and then approved by the state. The Dycus e-mail pretty much outlines the procedures for such an inter-fund loan. Maybe the city should consider following state law as its inter-fund loan policy!
Of course, maybe the city would not have to borrow money from its sewer fund at all if the Mayor and councilmembers managed the taxpayers' money responsibly and didn't pass every nice-sounding spending proposal that comes around plus borrow and spend every penny that they can get their hands on.
Mr. Cook pointed out to the Mayor and Council that they could and should have known about the $2.5 million switcheroo (my word) if they had ever actually looked at the 2008 audit. He also pointed out that they could and should have known that the city's 2008 general fund balance of $3,431.536.00 was all smoke and mirrors (my words) if they had actually looked at the audit.
The $3,431,536.00 fund balance was largely a charade, but you had to ask questions or you had to be paying attention to see the charade. Every penny of the 2008 "fund balance/rainy day fund" of $3,431,536.00 was reserved or set aside (1) to pay back the sewer loan ($2,500,000.00), (2) to pay existing contracts ($995,419.00), and (3) to pay other bills owed by the city ($135,617.00).
Real available general fund balance/rainy day fund as of 6/30/08. Zero!
Now how many times do you reach the end of the year (December 31) and your debts and bills are EXACTLY, down to the penny, what is in your checking account (fund balance) at that point in time?
Yet, that's what the city's 2008 audit would have the taxpayers believe. The audit suggests that the city's checking account (fund balance) had EXACTLY $3,431,536.00 in it as of 6/30/08 and that the city's current debts and bills just happened to total EXACTLY $3,431,536.00 as of 6/30/08. An unbelievable coincidence? Smoke and mirrors? Or plain old local hoodoo economics?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
December 2, 2009 Council Approves New Administrator's Contract But Never Mentions a Salary Amount or Benefits during the "Public" Discussion of "Public" Business at a "Public" Meeting
At yesterday's public meeting, the Mayor and City Council passed an employment contract to forward to Anthony Cox, the city-administrator select, for his consideration.
During the "public" discussion and deliberation of the contract, Mayor Barile and council seemed nervous.
It seemed like they were talking in some kind of special, private code.
In most contract discussions, the contract amount is mentioned. Not so during yesterday's "public" discussion of the new administrator's contract.
In most contract discussions, there is discussion of other payments (like benefits, perks, car allowances, pre-negotiated severance terms). Not so during yesterday's "public" discussion of the new administrator's contract.
"Public" discussion of "public" business at a "public" meeting" has not exactly been a hallmark of city government lately. Yesterday's "public" discussion of "public" business was unusual and that is putting it mildly.
During the "public" discussion and deliberation of the contract, Mayor Barile and council seemed nervous.
It seemed like they were talking in some kind of special, private code.
In most contract discussions, the contract amount is mentioned. Not so during yesterday's "public" discussion of the new administrator's contract.
In most contract discussions, there is discussion of other payments (like benefits, perks, car allowances, pre-negotiated severance terms). Not so during yesterday's "public" discussion of the new administrator's contract.
"Public" discussion of "public" business at a "public" meeting" has not exactly been a hallmark of city government lately. Yesterday's "public" discussion of "public" business was unusual and that is putting it mildly.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
November 29, 2009 Mayor Barile and Councilman Frank McGuffin "Fast-Track" Contract with New City Administrator
The City Council Agenda is here. It lists the contract with the new city administrator as one of the items [IX (1)] for consideration at the council's 4:00 PM meeting at the City Center on Tuesday, December 1.
IX (1). Approval of an employment contract with Anthony Cox to serve as city administrator.
Mr. Cox was selected on November 24, 2009, at a special called meeting of the council at 11:30 AM. Mayor Barile was set to negotiate the contract with Cox. When a councilmember suggested that a councilperson be put on the negotiating team, Barile appointed Frank McGuffin to help her.
Let's see. Public "meet-and-greet" of administrator candidates and council interviews on Thursday (11/19) and Friday (11/20). Selection made on Tuesday (11/24), Thanksgiving on Thursday (11/26), and the employment contract is already on the council's agenda on the city website by Friday (11/27).
Barile and McGuffin put this contract on the fast-track. Of course, Pat Hardy of MTAS, who thinks that Jim Crumley is an excellent administrator, has already given the council some money guidelines and other contract suggestions.
Hopefully, Barile and Frank McGuffin and City Attorney Dick Jessee (who is Frank's uncle) have crafted a contract that adequately protects the city from a repeat of the situation which arose with Crumley.
Hopefully, this contract will provide that in the event that it is discovered--shortly AFTER termination for cause or shortly AFTER voluntary resignation or retirement--that the city administrator violated state law, the city charter, or local ordinances in the conduct of his office, then he/she must pay back to the city all monies and the monetary value of all benefits paid to or for him/her as part of a contractual or negotiated severance package.
The council thought Crumley was absolutely wonderful when he was selected about eight years ago, and Crumley may have performed satisfactorily for a time. Some of the councilmembers who selected Crumley are still on the council today. If a provision as noted above had been included in Crumley's contract or in the negotiated severance package, it might have allowed the city to get back some or all of the $145,000+ severance package that Crumley was given. Click here.
Cox is the council's pack for city administrator. He appears to have the financial qualifications for the position, and he very well may be the excellent administrator that the city really needs at this point.
After the Crumley fiasco, however, the employment contract with the city administrator (no matter who it is) should provide protection to the city as well as to the administrator in the event that something goes wrong down the road--and in the event that illegal conduct in office is discovered shortly after termination/ resignation.
With Crumley, it came out shortly AFTER he left office that he apparently violated the law in the conduct of his office. The severance money, however, had apparently already been paid by then, and neither the original employment contract nor the negotiated severance contract provided a way to get such payments back or terminate benefits in the event that illegal actions were discovered shortly AFTER any termination or resignation/retirement.
The Mayor and McGuffin---and the entire council---are charged with looking out for the city in a business-like manner in drawing city contracts. Once burned, twice shy. This is a contract that should be carefully prepared, read by all councilmembers, and thoughtfully questioned and considered before a vote is cast.
IX (1). Approval of an employment contract with Anthony Cox to serve as city administrator.
Mr. Cox was selected on November 24, 2009, at a special called meeting of the council at 11:30 AM. Mayor Barile was set to negotiate the contract with Cox. When a councilmember suggested that a councilperson be put on the negotiating team, Barile appointed Frank McGuffin to help her.
Let's see. Public "meet-and-greet" of administrator candidates and council interviews on Thursday (11/19) and Friday (11/20). Selection made on Tuesday (11/24), Thanksgiving on Thursday (11/26), and the employment contract is already on the council's agenda on the city website by Friday (11/27).
Barile and McGuffin put this contract on the fast-track. Of course, Pat Hardy of MTAS, who thinks that Jim Crumley is an excellent administrator, has already given the council some money guidelines and other contract suggestions.
Hopefully, Barile and Frank McGuffin and City Attorney Dick Jessee (who is Frank's uncle) have crafted a contract that adequately protects the city from a repeat of the situation which arose with Crumley.
Hopefully, this contract will provide that in the event that it is discovered--shortly AFTER termination for cause or shortly AFTER voluntary resignation or retirement--that the city administrator violated state law, the city charter, or local ordinances in the conduct of his office, then he/she must pay back to the city all monies and the monetary value of all benefits paid to or for him/her as part of a contractual or negotiated severance package.
The council thought Crumley was absolutely wonderful when he was selected about eight years ago, and Crumley may have performed satisfactorily for a time. Some of the councilmembers who selected Crumley are still on the council today. If a provision as noted above had been included in Crumley's contract or in the negotiated severance package, it might have allowed the city to get back some or all of the $145,000+ severance package that Crumley was given. Click here.
Cox is the council's pack for city administrator. He appears to have the financial qualifications for the position, and he very well may be the excellent administrator that the city really needs at this point.
After the Crumley fiasco, however, the employment contract with the city administrator (no matter who it is) should provide protection to the city as well as to the administrator in the event that something goes wrong down the road--and in the event that illegal conduct in office is discovered shortly after termination/ resignation.
With Crumley, it came out shortly AFTER he left office that he apparently violated the law in the conduct of his office. The severance money, however, had apparently already been paid by then, and neither the original employment contract nor the negotiated severance contract provided a way to get such payments back or terminate benefits in the event that illegal actions were discovered shortly AFTER any termination or resignation/retirement.
The Mayor and McGuffin---and the entire council---are charged with looking out for the city in a business-like manner in drawing city contracts. Once burned, twice shy. This is a contract that should be carefully prepared, read by all councilmembers, and thoughtfully questioned and considered before a vote is cast.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
November 25, 2009 Anthony Cox Selected as New City Administrator
Not surprisingly, Anthony Cox of Radford, Virginia was named the new Morristown "city administrator-select" at yesterday's 11:30 AM special called meeting of council. Wonder how many working taxpayers were able to leave work and make it to that meeting?
Pat Hardy of MTAS and Interim City Administrator Lynn Wampler had presented the council with a slate of four finalists from which to select a new city administrator to replace the "retired" Jim Crumley.
Two of the four finalists (Angie Carrier of White House, TN and Jody Baltz of Tullahoma, TN) were placed among the final four at the last-minute because of their "close acquaintance" with MTAS' Pat Hardy and Interim City Administrator Lynn Wampler. Although Baltz met the advertised qualifications for the job, selection of Carrier or Baltz would have raised eyebrows since apparently both got an automatic pass to the final four--with no telephone interview--based on MTAS connections.
Of the two who went through the entire process and who actually interviewed with Wampler prior to their inclusion as finalists (Anthony Cox and James Payne), Cox emerged the winner.
Cox has many tasks before him--chief of which is cleaning up the financial mess left by Crumley and company. Hopefully, the Mayor and Councilmembers are now ready to pay attention and be active participants in the operation of city government instead of being a rubberstamp.
Regardless of who is City Administrator, the buck always starts and stops with the Mayor and City Council.
The Mayor and Council appoint an administrator, but they can't just walk away at that point and give free rein to that person, no matter who it is. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The absolute power given to Crumley led to the current financial debacle at the City Center with a huge assist by a Mayor and Council who fiddled while Morristown burned.
Government at all levels should be a system of checks-and-balances. The Administrator is "selected" to be the day-to-day point man at the City Center, but the "elected" Mayor and Council are the people's representatives in setting policy and acting as a check-and-balance on the power given to the administrator.
Morristown needs an honest administrator who will operate city government like an open book and in a financially responsible manner. Morristown needs honest budgeting without the inflated revenue projections, bloated spending, and excessive borrowing/debt of the past.
Anthony Cox has a huge task before him.
He can't go wrong by relying on the two most basic tried-and-true financial principles: Don't spend more than you take in and realize that excessive debt will cripple and enslave you.
At an ever-increasing pace over the past few years, City officials spent more than they took in, created wish lists, and then spent and borrowed more.
Of course, when you get to spend OPM (other people's money), it is easy to come up with $100 million dollar wish lists and all kinds of nifty spending ideas (e.g., brick-paving machines). It's also easy to go deeper and deeper into debt when you get to use OPM to pay that debt back. It's easy to set up perks for friends and associates when OPM pays it all. It's easy to sign no-bid contracts and work out sweetheart deals when OPM picks up the tab. It's easy to buy the latest, fanciest, and chromiest vehicles when OPM pays for them and the gas, too. Two-million dollar cost overrun (Veterans Parkway)? Not a problem when OPM pays it.
.
The citizens are watching their government and their government officials more closely than ever before--not just in Morristown and Hamblen County but in cities and counties all across the nation.
OPM belongs to the citizens and taxpayers. It is not free money. It is not for frivolous, pet projects. It is not to be wasted. It is not for excessive spending or excessive borrowing.
Pat Hardy of MTAS and Interim City Administrator Lynn Wampler had presented the council with a slate of four finalists from which to select a new city administrator to replace the "retired" Jim Crumley.
Two of the four finalists (Angie Carrier of White House, TN and Jody Baltz of Tullahoma, TN) were placed among the final four at the last-minute because of their "close acquaintance" with MTAS' Pat Hardy and Interim City Administrator Lynn Wampler. Although Baltz met the advertised qualifications for the job, selection of Carrier or Baltz would have raised eyebrows since apparently both got an automatic pass to the final four--with no telephone interview--based on MTAS connections.
Of the two who went through the entire process and who actually interviewed with Wampler prior to their inclusion as finalists (Anthony Cox and James Payne), Cox emerged the winner.
Cox has many tasks before him--chief of which is cleaning up the financial mess left by Crumley and company. Hopefully, the Mayor and Councilmembers are now ready to pay attention and be active participants in the operation of city government instead of being a rubberstamp.
Regardless of who is City Administrator, the buck always starts and stops with the Mayor and City Council.
The Mayor and Council appoint an administrator, but they can't just walk away at that point and give free rein to that person, no matter who it is. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The absolute power given to Crumley led to the current financial debacle at the City Center with a huge assist by a Mayor and Council who fiddled while Morristown burned.
Government at all levels should be a system of checks-and-balances. The Administrator is "selected" to be the day-to-day point man at the City Center, but the "elected" Mayor and Council are the people's representatives in setting policy and acting as a check-and-balance on the power given to the administrator.
Morristown needs an honest administrator who will operate city government like an open book and in a financially responsible manner. Morristown needs honest budgeting without the inflated revenue projections, bloated spending, and excessive borrowing/debt of the past.
Anthony Cox has a huge task before him.
He can't go wrong by relying on the two most basic tried-and-true financial principles: Don't spend more than you take in and realize that excessive debt will cripple and enslave you.
At an ever-increasing pace over the past few years, City officials spent more than they took in, created wish lists, and then spent and borrowed more.
Of course, when you get to spend OPM (other people's money), it is easy to come up with $100 million dollar wish lists and all kinds of nifty spending ideas (e.g., brick-paving machines). It's also easy to go deeper and deeper into debt when you get to use OPM to pay that debt back. It's easy to set up perks for friends and associates when OPM pays it all. It's easy to sign no-bid contracts and work out sweetheart deals when OPM picks up the tab. It's easy to buy the latest, fanciest, and chromiest vehicles when OPM pays for them and the gas, too. Two-million dollar cost overrun (Veterans Parkway)? Not a problem when OPM pays it.
.
The citizens are watching their government and their government officials more closely than ever before--not just in Morristown and Hamblen County but in cities and counties all across the nation.
OPM belongs to the citizens and taxpayers. It is not free money. It is not for frivolous, pet projects. It is not to be wasted. It is not for excessive spending or excessive borrowing.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
November 22, 2009 City Council Special Meeting on November 24 at 11:30 AM (For the Convenience of all Citizens? Not!)
The City Council is having a special meeting on November 24, 2009, at 11:30 AM at the City Center to:
1) Name a new city administrator; and
2) Consider a bond anticipation note in the amount of $950,000 for the purchase of the Roy Widener property on N. Liberty Hill Road.
A very important decision--selecting a new city administrator--is on the agenda. Setting this meeting for 11:30 AM shows that the Mayor and many councilmembers are happy to exclude the working and taxpaying public from being able to participate or observe the handling of public business.
[Of course, the Mayor and most councilmembers have already shown that they are not interested in having any meetings at a time that is convenient for the public. See a prior post on council meeting times here.]
One reason for the inconvenient 11:30 AM meeting time could be questions that have arisen surrounding how the last two finalists (Angie Carrier and Jody Baltz) for the city administrator position were selected.
The newpaper hinted at these questions in the last two paragraphs of a November 19 article when Bob Moore reported: "Interim Morristown City Administrator Lynn Wampler and Pat Hardy, a Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) consultant, narrowed the (city administrator) field from more than 80 applicants to the final four. Baltz and Carrier, acquaintances of Wampler and Hardy, were added as last-minute entries into the city administrator selection process."
The normal process of application followed by interview of potential finalists was apparently circumvented with the addition of Baltz and Carrier as finalists despite not being interviewed by phone as were other finalists.
Carrier's situation is particularly troubling. It must be very important to be "an acquaintance" of certain people when you can waltz into the final four with submission of a last-minute resume, no phone interview, and an admission that you are not directly involved in formulating budgets and that you have no experience in industrial recruitment because your city (White House, TN) is primarily a bedroom community for people who work in Nashville. [Bob Moore's November 20 article in the Tribune.]
Strangely, I didn't see any quote in Bob Moore's article from Mayor Barile, other councilmembers, Wampler, or Hardy about the passes given to Baltz and Carrier. Surely, Bob asked for comment about failure to follow procedures in connection with Carrier and Baltz. Carrier, as I understand, is a very personable individual. Baltz has the financial expertise required for the job, but he, unfortunately, appears to have received an automatic pass to the final four just on the basis of being an "acquaintance" of Wampler and Hardy.
Contrast the automatic selection of Carrier and Baltz as finalists with the Mayor's comments a few weeks ago rejecting any further consideration of city department head Jay Moore's application and refusing to give Moore an interview because he did not meet the advertised budgeting and financial "requirements" for the job.
If Mr. Moore had just been an "acquaintance" of Wampler and Hardy, perhaps he, too, could have waltzed into the final four without meeting the financial requirements and without having an interview.
On the other hand, one has to wonder about the Mayor's definition of financial requirements. She seemed to think that the departed Jim Crumley was the financial bomb and that the city would be lost without his presence.
Now that Crumley's behind-the-scenes maneuvers are coming out, what does she think of Crumley's illegal transfer of $2.5 Million from the sewer fund to the general fund?
What does she think of the contract Crumley signed to lease the Roy Widener property on N. Liberty Hill Road--a contract that Mr. Wampler looked at and saw for what it was--a bad lease for the city. Now the City is having to issue $950,000 in bonds--more debt--to purchase the property and get out of additional lease payments with the minimum of financial damage. Did she see and approve that contract?
What do she and councilmembers think of Crumley and Janish's 09-10 budget--a budget that the Mayor voted for about 4 or 5 months ago and that is now falling apart around her and around the city employees. Department heads were required to make cuts. Did the Mayor and council take a 4% cut? Probably not, but it is possible and even likely that these officials have protection from any increase or decrease in their pay during their time in office.
What do she and councilmembers think of the huge city debt? What do she and councilmembers think of the astronomical sewer increases--past and future?
Have she and councilmembers ever really looked at and examined the 2008 audit and current financial information to try and figure out what has gone on and what is going on? Have she and councilmembers looked at how much more money the city has taken in over the past five years? Have she and councilmembers ever asked where the money went?
Are she and other councilmembers ready to ask financial questions now without fear of, gasp, micromanaging? Or is the Mayor's real concern still light pollution and those pretty brick-paving machines?
1) Name a new city administrator; and
2) Consider a bond anticipation note in the amount of $950,000 for the purchase of the Roy Widener property on N. Liberty Hill Road.
A very important decision--selecting a new city administrator--is on the agenda. Setting this meeting for 11:30 AM shows that the Mayor and many councilmembers are happy to exclude the working and taxpaying public from being able to participate or observe the handling of public business.
[Of course, the Mayor and most councilmembers have already shown that they are not interested in having any meetings at a time that is convenient for the public. See a prior post on council meeting times here.]
One reason for the inconvenient 11:30 AM meeting time could be questions that have arisen surrounding how the last two finalists (Angie Carrier and Jody Baltz) for the city administrator position were selected.
The newpaper hinted at these questions in the last two paragraphs of a November 19 article when Bob Moore reported: "Interim Morristown City Administrator Lynn Wampler and Pat Hardy, a Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) consultant, narrowed the (city administrator) field from more than 80 applicants to the final four. Baltz and Carrier, acquaintances of Wampler and Hardy, were added as last-minute entries into the city administrator selection process."
The normal process of application followed by interview of potential finalists was apparently circumvented with the addition of Baltz and Carrier as finalists despite not being interviewed by phone as were other finalists.
Carrier's situation is particularly troubling. It must be very important to be "an acquaintance" of certain people when you can waltz into the final four with submission of a last-minute resume, no phone interview, and an admission that you are not directly involved in formulating budgets and that you have no experience in industrial recruitment because your city (White House, TN) is primarily a bedroom community for people who work in Nashville. [Bob Moore's November 20 article in the Tribune.]
Strangely, I didn't see any quote in Bob Moore's article from Mayor Barile, other councilmembers, Wampler, or Hardy about the passes given to Baltz and Carrier. Surely, Bob asked for comment about failure to follow procedures in connection with Carrier and Baltz. Carrier, as I understand, is a very personable individual. Baltz has the financial expertise required for the job, but he, unfortunately, appears to have received an automatic pass to the final four just on the basis of being an "acquaintance" of Wampler and Hardy.
Contrast the automatic selection of Carrier and Baltz as finalists with the Mayor's comments a few weeks ago rejecting any further consideration of city department head Jay Moore's application and refusing to give Moore an interview because he did not meet the advertised budgeting and financial "requirements" for the job.
If Mr. Moore had just been an "acquaintance" of Wampler and Hardy, perhaps he, too, could have waltzed into the final four without meeting the financial requirements and without having an interview.
On the other hand, one has to wonder about the Mayor's definition of financial requirements. She seemed to think that the departed Jim Crumley was the financial bomb and that the city would be lost without his presence.
Now that Crumley's behind-the-scenes maneuvers are coming out, what does she think of Crumley's illegal transfer of $2.5 Million from the sewer fund to the general fund?
What does she think of the contract Crumley signed to lease the Roy Widener property on N. Liberty Hill Road--a contract that Mr. Wampler looked at and saw for what it was--a bad lease for the city. Now the City is having to issue $950,000 in bonds--more debt--to purchase the property and get out of additional lease payments with the minimum of financial damage. Did she see and approve that contract?
What do she and councilmembers think of Crumley and Janish's 09-10 budget--a budget that the Mayor voted for about 4 or 5 months ago and that is now falling apart around her and around the city employees. Department heads were required to make cuts. Did the Mayor and council take a 4% cut? Probably not, but it is possible and even likely that these officials have protection from any increase or decrease in their pay during their time in office.
What do she and councilmembers think of the huge city debt? What do she and councilmembers think of the astronomical sewer increases--past and future?
Have she and councilmembers ever really looked at and examined the 2008 audit and current financial information to try and figure out what has gone on and what is going on? Have she and councilmembers looked at how much more money the city has taken in over the past five years? Have she and councilmembers ever asked where the money went?
Are she and other councilmembers ready to ask financial questions now without fear of, gasp, micromanaging? Or is the Mayor's real concern still light pollution and those pretty brick-paving machines?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
November 14, 2009 City Finance Committee Meeting and the Farmers Market Site
The Farmers Market site on West Morris Boulevard was a topic of lengthy discussion at the 11/12/09 City Finance Committee meeting.
While the discussion was always civil, there are obvious differences of opinion.
Gene Brooks, who was appointed chair of the Farmers Market Task Force, expressed concern about the current lack of enforcement of codes and regulations. Brooks said that the regulations say "no permanent structures" and that set-up is to be daily on a first-come, first-served basis and then the vendors are to clean and leave in the evening. [Gene added that he had been appointed chairman of the Farmers Market Task Force, but he was not allowed to appoint members of the Task Force.]
Claude Jinks mentioned health concerns.
Mayor Barile agreed that the area needs to be "cleaned up." Some people who were mentioned as being involved in the Task Force discussions are the Mayor, Alan Hartman, Todd Morgan, Stacy Hayes, and Darrell Williams of the DMA (Downtown Merchants Association).
Brooks pointed out that one individual has set up on seven places and that many are not farmers at all.
Mentioned several times was possible interest by CVS for a pharmacy at that location. [We all know that wherever there is a Walgreens, a CVS will try to locate nearby. And wherever there is a CVS, a Walgreens will try to locate nearby.]
Someone mentioned that Darrell Williams (DMA) had said there would never be a CVS there. Mayor Barile said that the DMA is afraid of losing parking to a CVS if one were built there. Claude Jinks took exception to Mr. Williams' alleged remark and said that the council will decide what happens to the property.
At this time, the city is apparently only considering the proposal of developer Shawn Wilmeth (sp?). McGuffin has talked to Wilmeth and explained that Wilmeth wants a one-year free-look at the property, with no earnest money put down.
Kay Senter suggested perhaps giving Wilmeth a one-year right of first refusal but not tying up this city property for a full year without any compensation.
McGuffin then asked if the council would consider "squaring up" the property and selling it to Wilmeth and having Wilmeth put up an entrance sign where the fountain currently is. There was also discussion about whether a new, updated appraisal is needed.
McGuffin said he thought it was a phenomenal piece or property until he found out about all the utility easements that lie underneath and cross the property. Because of the utility easements, Bob Garrett said that's "dead property" there.
Buddy Fielder said that the city might be able to relocate the utilities to make it possible to build on the property.
Claude Jinks said maybe it should be left as a parking lot since there is so little parking available for businesses downtown.
This is not the first time that the Farmer's Market property has been discussed for lease, sale, parking, etc. If city councilmembers are considering and discussing a ground lease or outright sale of this property, why are they not again advertising and requesting proposals from ALL who might be interested in the property? See my previous post.
The current discussion by at least some members of the council gives the appearance that this is a closed process for consideration of just one proposal.
While the discussion was always civil, there are obvious differences of opinion.
Gene Brooks, who was appointed chair of the Farmers Market Task Force, expressed concern about the current lack of enforcement of codes and regulations. Brooks said that the regulations say "no permanent structures" and that set-up is to be daily on a first-come, first-served basis and then the vendors are to clean and leave in the evening. [Gene added that he had been appointed chairman of the Farmers Market Task Force, but he was not allowed to appoint members of the Task Force.]
Claude Jinks mentioned health concerns.
Mayor Barile agreed that the area needs to be "cleaned up." Some people who were mentioned as being involved in the Task Force discussions are the Mayor, Alan Hartman, Todd Morgan, Stacy Hayes, and Darrell Williams of the DMA (Downtown Merchants Association).
Brooks pointed out that one individual has set up on seven places and that many are not farmers at all.
Mentioned several times was possible interest by CVS for a pharmacy at that location. [We all know that wherever there is a Walgreens, a CVS will try to locate nearby. And wherever there is a CVS, a Walgreens will try to locate nearby.]
Someone mentioned that Darrell Williams (DMA) had said there would never be a CVS there. Mayor Barile said that the DMA is afraid of losing parking to a CVS if one were built there. Claude Jinks took exception to Mr. Williams' alleged remark and said that the council will decide what happens to the property.
At this time, the city is apparently only considering the proposal of developer Shawn Wilmeth (sp?). McGuffin has talked to Wilmeth and explained that Wilmeth wants a one-year free-look at the property, with no earnest money put down.
Kay Senter suggested perhaps giving Wilmeth a one-year right of first refusal but not tying up this city property for a full year without any compensation.
McGuffin then asked if the council would consider "squaring up" the property and selling it to Wilmeth and having Wilmeth put up an entrance sign where the fountain currently is. There was also discussion about whether a new, updated appraisal is needed.
McGuffin said he thought it was a phenomenal piece or property until he found out about all the utility easements that lie underneath and cross the property. Because of the utility easements, Bob Garrett said that's "dead property" there.
Buddy Fielder said that the city might be able to relocate the utilities to make it possible to build on the property.
Claude Jinks said maybe it should be left as a parking lot since there is so little parking available for businesses downtown.
This is not the first time that the Farmer's Market property has been discussed for lease, sale, parking, etc. If city councilmembers are considering and discussing a ground lease or outright sale of this property, why are they not again advertising and requesting proposals from ALL who might be interested in the property? See my previous post.
The current discussion by at least some members of the council gives the appearance that this is a closed process for consideration of just one proposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)