There was some especially good news at yesterday's meeting of the Morristown City Council. Meetings in the future will take place at 5:00 PM instead of 4:00 PM.
The later starting time is a plus for citizens who are still at work at 4:00 PM. The vote to change the time was 5-2 with Gene Brooks, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, Paul LeBel, and Kay Senter voting YES and Claude Jinks and Mayor Danny Thomas voting NO. [Mayor Thomas voted YES on this measure two weeks ago, but voted NO today on second reading.]
The 5:00 starting time was proposed by Gene Brooks in 2009 but failed when only Brooks and Kay Senter voted YES. With three new members on the council after the May 2011 election, the vote was very different this time.
Oddity: Bob Garrett voted NO on changing the meeting time back in 2009, but voted YES in 2011. Click here.
Showing posts with label council meeting times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label council meeting times. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
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?
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
November 4, 2009 City Council Sticks with 4:00 Meeting Time
Despite pleas from at least three individuals, the Morristown City Council in a 5-2 vote refused to move its meeting time from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
Gene Brooks made the motion to move the time to 5:00 to make it more convenient for citizens and taxpayers and the public to attend these "public" meetings. Kay Senter seconded the motion. Both Gene and Kay commented on the proposal before the vote was taken, and both Gene and Kay voted "yes."
The other five members of the council did not comment or explain their opposition to a later, more citizen and taxpayer-friendly meeting time. Voting "no" were Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Frank McGuffin, Doc Rooney, and Mayor Barile.
The City is in a financial mess and doesn't want a lot of info coming out. The city's mess may partly explain the vote to stick with an early meeting time in order to exclude or make it as difficult as possible for the average working person to attend. Many of the financial problems that have been discussed by council were generated and orchestrated by former City Administrator Jim Crumley with a big assist from a "no-questions asked" Mayor and Council.
It's time for everything to be brought out, acknowledged, and then cleaned up, but that's a very hard thing to get any elected body to do. The refrain from the Mayor and Council will be "forget the past." They will also use the old stand-by "we just need to move on"---without holding anyone accountable, of course!
Well, if you just "forget the past" and "move on" without changing your procedures to provide for more oversight and accountability NOW, then you will be doomed to repeat the multiple financial mistakes, money shifting, interest-only debt payments, and finagling of the last years--albeit with new names and faces.
More during the next few days.
Gene Brooks made the motion to move the time to 5:00 to make it more convenient for citizens and taxpayers and the public to attend these "public" meetings. Kay Senter seconded the motion. Both Gene and Kay commented on the proposal before the vote was taken, and both Gene and Kay voted "yes."
The other five members of the council did not comment or explain their opposition to a later, more citizen and taxpayer-friendly meeting time. Voting "no" were Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Frank McGuffin, Doc Rooney, and Mayor Barile.
The City is in a financial mess and doesn't want a lot of info coming out. The city's mess may partly explain the vote to stick with an early meeting time in order to exclude or make it as difficult as possible for the average working person to attend. Many of the financial problems that have been discussed by council were generated and orchestrated by former City Administrator Jim Crumley with a big assist from a "no-questions asked" Mayor and Council.
It's time for everything to be brought out, acknowledged, and then cleaned up, but that's a very hard thing to get any elected body to do. The refrain from the Mayor and Council will be "forget the past." They will also use the old stand-by "we just need to move on"---without holding anyone accountable, of course!
Well, if you just "forget the past" and "move on" without changing your procedures to provide for more oversight and accountability NOW, then you will be doomed to repeat the multiple financial mistakes, money shifting, interest-only debt payments, and finagling of the last years--albeit with new names and faces.
More during the next few days.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
October 6, 2009 City Agenda for Today Posted Yesterday: Work Session Includes Discussion of Meeting Times
I contacted the City yesterday morning when I saw that the agenda for today's meeting and work session had not been posted on the city website as is customary.
I received a reply e-mail yesterday afternoon that said that the agenda was usually posted on the Friday before the council meeting (Monday morning at the latest), that it was not posted last Friday due to an employee being out, and that it had just been posted. You can see the agenda that was posted yesterday here.
The work session agenda includes "Discussion of Council Meeting time." Charles Cook brought this up at a council meeting several weeks ago asking that meetings be held later than 4:00 PM so that more people can attend if they want to. Click here for Mr. Cook's request.
Hopefully, the council will decide to have regular council meetings and also Finance Committee meetings at a later time when more people can attend if they want to.
The Finance Committee meetings, which are currently held at 3:30 PM on certain Thursdays, are where real discussion and information sharing takes place, so it would be particularly important to have those at a time when the working city taxpayer/sewer fee payer can attend.
Finance Committee agendas need to be provided in advance of the meetings so people can decide whether an item of interest to them is on the agenda.
The discussion of later council meeting times will take place in "work session." Council meets in work session after adjournment of the regular council meeting, so you have to stick around if you are interested in work session discussion.
Click here, here, here, here, and here for last Thursday's Finance Committee items to see why Finance Committee meetings are especially important!
I received a reply e-mail yesterday afternoon that said that the agenda was usually posted on the Friday before the council meeting (Monday morning at the latest), that it was not posted last Friday due to an employee being out, and that it had just been posted. You can see the agenda that was posted yesterday here.
The work session agenda includes "Discussion of Council Meeting time." Charles Cook brought this up at a council meeting several weeks ago asking that meetings be held later than 4:00 PM so that more people can attend if they want to. Click here for Mr. Cook's request.
Hopefully, the council will decide to have regular council meetings and also Finance Committee meetings at a later time when more people can attend if they want to.
The Finance Committee meetings, which are currently held at 3:30 PM on certain Thursdays, are where real discussion and information sharing takes place, so it would be particularly important to have those at a time when the working city taxpayer/sewer fee payer can attend.
Finance Committee agendas need to be provided in advance of the meetings so people can decide whether an item of interest to them is on the agenda.
The discussion of later council meeting times will take place in "work session." Council meets in work session after adjournment of the regular council meeting, so you have to stick around if you are interested in work session discussion.
Click here, here, here, here, and here for last Thursday's Finance Committee items to see why Finance Committee meetings are especially important!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)