I decided to delay my report on the Commission meeting of 9/22/05 in order to post a joint policy statement that was recently issued by Tennessee Tax Revolt and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. The policy statement concerns an issue that, in my opinion, is very important to Tennesseans-- ethics. This ethics statement has a direct relation to my focus on accountability, open meetings, open records, and eliminating conflicts of interest.
September 27, 2005
Tennessee Tax Revolt, the State’s largest taxpayer advocacy group, and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Tennessee’s free market public policy research institute, joined to co-author an open letter to Governor Bredesen and the Tennessee General Assembly encouraging simple ethics reforms to restore confidence in our State government.
Among the letter’s recommendations are:
1. Recording and posting all House and Senate floor, committee and subcommittee votes on final action for any bill on the General Assembly website within two hours of the vote.
2. Providing that every bill scheduled for a floor vote for final action be made available in fully amended form on the legislative website 72 hours before the vote.
3. Amending both the Open Records Act and Open Meetings Act so they apply to the proceedings of the General Assembly.
4. Offering video streaming and archiving of all Senate and House general sessions and committee sessions.
5. Requiring FULL disclosure on the legislative website of amounts spent by those that employ lobbyists or spend money to influence legislation and completely outlawing contingency lobbying fees.
6. Prohibiting lobbyists from serving on State boards and commissions
“While not every legislator is part of the problem, all legislators must be part of the solution,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research president Drew Johnson. “There is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that can only be resolved through common sense approaches that foster government transparency and encourage citizen involvement in the political process.”
According to Tennessee Tax Revolt spokesman Ben Cunningham, the recommendations promote leveling the playing field between lobbyists and interested citizens. "Easy and complete access to voting records is our birthright as citizens of Tennessee, it is not something reserved for highly paid lobbyists," said Cunningham.
My comment: "Well said."
I would add that conflicts of interest at the state and local level are a serious problem. Too many legislators at the state level as well as county commissioners and city councilmembers at the local level do not abstain from voting on legislation that has a particular economic effect, direct or indirect, on them or their immediate family.
I would also add that access to public records is absolutely vital in promoting accountability at the local and state level.
Knowledge is power. Government officials know that, and that is why some of them seek to keep all the power (documents & information) in their hands. These are the government officials that cause citizens and others to wonder why they are so secretive about the conduct of public business and why they are so difficult to deal with when citizens want public documents.
Thankfully, most elected officials are open and accessible and freely discuss and share information and documents. These are the ones we tend to trust.
The letter is available in its entirety at http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/files/pdf/2005TTR-TCPR%20Ethics%20Letter.pdf
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
September 22, 2005 Update on county vehicle reports
I received the vehicle report from the Work Release Director yesterday. Don Baird said he had tried to send it before, but there was a problem with the county e-mail system. He finally just sent it from his personal e-mail.
That leaves only two departments that haven't responded in writing or by e-mail to the Sept. 13 request for mileage/condition info. The departments that are left are the Maintenance Dept. and the Sheriff's Dept.
I'm hoping that these two departments will provide a written or e-mail list soon since they are the only two still hanging out there.
Tomorrow, I'll give a full report on today's County Commission meeting. It was long. But it was one of the best meetings that we have had. There was a lot of good, thoughtful discussion on important issues. Commissioners were willing to listen to one another, to send problem areas back to committee, and in general work together well.
We decided to send a contentious rezoning issue back to the Planning Commission.
We voted to approve a 3-year contract with the Comptroller's Office (County Audit) to continue performing the county's audit in 2006-2008.
If state law doesn't change the amount charged, we will continue saving $18,000/year by having county audit perform our audit. That was my central campaign plank and we've already saved $54,000 in the past 3 years (2003-2005) by having state auditors instead of local private auditors perform the county audit.
As important as the savings, I think all commissioners now realize that state auditors specialize in this work and that, as a result, we are getting a far better audit (along with the savings) by having the state auditors handle this. They do an outstanding job, and they have helped the county come into compliance with state law and adopt procedures that provide for better record-keeping and greater accountability.
I'll have more on audits later--they are very important but they have certain limitations as well. Audits are like a spot check. The auditors do not (and are not expected to) check every payment, every deposit, every grant, every insurance enrollment, every gasoline purchase, every bid and contract, every time sheet, every payroll check, or the accuracy of inventory reports.
That leaves only two departments that haven't responded in writing or by e-mail to the Sept. 13 request for mileage/condition info. The departments that are left are the Maintenance Dept. and the Sheriff's Dept.
I'm hoping that these two departments will provide a written or e-mail list soon since they are the only two still hanging out there.
Tomorrow, I'll give a full report on today's County Commission meeting. It was long. But it was one of the best meetings that we have had. There was a lot of good, thoughtful discussion on important issues. Commissioners were willing to listen to one another, to send problem areas back to committee, and in general work together well.
We decided to send a contentious rezoning issue back to the Planning Commission.
We voted to approve a 3-year contract with the Comptroller's Office (County Audit) to continue performing the county's audit in 2006-2008.
If state law doesn't change the amount charged, we will continue saving $18,000/year by having county audit perform our audit. That was my central campaign plank and we've already saved $54,000 in the past 3 years (2003-2005) by having state auditors instead of local private auditors perform the county audit.
As important as the savings, I think all commissioners now realize that state auditors specialize in this work and that, as a result, we are getting a far better audit (along with the savings) by having the state auditors handle this. They do an outstanding job, and they have helped the county come into compliance with state law and adopt procedures that provide for better record-keeping and greater accountability.
I'll have more on audits later--they are very important but they have certain limitations as well. Audits are like a spot check. The auditors do not (and are not expected to) check every payment, every deposit, every grant, every insurance enrollment, every gasoline purchase, every bid and contract, every time sheet, every payroll check, or the accuracy of inventory reports.
September 22, 2005 Same song, umpteenth verse, "more money"
Hamblen County School Board to Hamblen County Commission: We know the county budget is not balanced and the school budget is not balanced, but could we have $50,000 or $60,000 more, please?
The Hamblen County Commission passed all county and school budgets on August 4. The County General Government Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County General Debt Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County Road Department has a deficit 05-06 budget (with each of these departments planning to spend more than it expects to receive in revenues and hoping that revenues will somehow be higher than expected or expenses will be lower than expected.)
The Hamblen County School System also has a deficit 05-06 budget in spite of the fact that it received a total of $3.1 million in new money to spend in 05-06---$1.5 million of which came from a county (Hamblen County) that can't balance its own general government budget and $1.6 million of which came from new state BEP funding.
Now, seven weeks after all budgets were passed, the Hamblen County School System is coming hat in hand to the County Commission to ask for a "donation" of $50,000 or $60,000 for its International School. The International School was announced many months ago with grant funding from the Niswonger Foundation out of Greeneville.
The idea for this "school" is to take the growing ELL (English Language Learners) student population and bus these students from their home schools to a new "school" at Walters State for 1/2 day of instruction and then bus them back to their home schools.
Jefferson Federal Foundation has apparently offered to give the school system $50,000 or $60,000 toward the International School, but there are strings attached to this gift. They say they will only give the money to the school if the City of Morristown provides a matching amount and if the County provides a matching amount. Hence, today's request for a "donation."
I had one person ask why Jefferson Federal didn't challenge other area banks to match its contribution. I was talking to someone else who thought that Jefferson Federal should consider the $1.5 million in new local money that has already been provided to the schools as the county's "match."
What will happen when the time comes to vote on the donation? Who knows?
It was just a little over 3 years ago (May 2002) that voters were persuaded to vote for extending the temporary wheel tax in the infamous "pick your poison" referendum.
Since then, the wheel tax has been made permanent, there have been two recent property tax increases, subdivisions have been added to the county's tax rolls, debt has been refinanced, money has been switched from fund to fund, and a litigation tax has been added. End result of all this new and extended tax revenue and growth: the county still cannot balance its government budget, its road budget, or its general debt budget.
The School Board is doing no better. It can't balance its budget even though it has new state and local money totaling $3.1 million dollars for 05-06.
If you have more and more taxes and revenue and you still cannot balance your budget, that is a spending problem-- a spending problem that is marked by little, or no, fiscal discipline.
With government at all levels, if something sounds good, the vote is do it, buy it, spend, borrow--go in debt, whatever it takes.
It seems like the only people who have to live within their means are the taxpayers.
The Hamblen County Commission passed all county and school budgets on August 4. The County General Government Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County General Debt Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County Road Department has a deficit 05-06 budget (with each of these departments planning to spend more than it expects to receive in revenues and hoping that revenues will somehow be higher than expected or expenses will be lower than expected.)
The Hamblen County School System also has a deficit 05-06 budget in spite of the fact that it received a total of $3.1 million in new money to spend in 05-06---$1.5 million of which came from a county (Hamblen County) that can't balance its own general government budget and $1.6 million of which came from new state BEP funding.
Now, seven weeks after all budgets were passed, the Hamblen County School System is coming hat in hand to the County Commission to ask for a "donation" of $50,000 or $60,000 for its International School. The International School was announced many months ago with grant funding from the Niswonger Foundation out of Greeneville.
The idea for this "school" is to take the growing ELL (English Language Learners) student population and bus these students from their home schools to a new "school" at Walters State for 1/2 day of instruction and then bus them back to their home schools.
Jefferson Federal Foundation has apparently offered to give the school system $50,000 or $60,000 toward the International School, but there are strings attached to this gift. They say they will only give the money to the school if the City of Morristown provides a matching amount and if the County provides a matching amount. Hence, today's request for a "donation."
I had one person ask why Jefferson Federal didn't challenge other area banks to match its contribution. I was talking to someone else who thought that Jefferson Federal should consider the $1.5 million in new local money that has already been provided to the schools as the county's "match."
What will happen when the time comes to vote on the donation? Who knows?
It was just a little over 3 years ago (May 2002) that voters were persuaded to vote for extending the temporary wheel tax in the infamous "pick your poison" referendum.
Since then, the wheel tax has been made permanent, there have been two recent property tax increases, subdivisions have been added to the county's tax rolls, debt has been refinanced, money has been switched from fund to fund, and a litigation tax has been added. End result of all this new and extended tax revenue and growth: the county still cannot balance its government budget, its road budget, or its general debt budget.
The School Board is doing no better. It can't balance its budget even though it has new state and local money totaling $3.1 million dollars for 05-06.
If you have more and more taxes and revenue and you still cannot balance your budget, that is a spending problem-- a spending problem that is marked by little, or no, fiscal discipline.
With government at all levels, if something sounds good, the vote is do it, buy it, spend, borrow--go in debt, whatever it takes.
It seems like the only people who have to live within their means are the taxpayers.
Friday, September 16, 2005
September 16, 2005 Two more vehicle reports come in
Two more county vehicle mileage/condition reports have arrived.
Most county officials are very co-operative in providing information about county (taxpayer) cars, trucks, and equipment.
Barry Poole and his staff (Bob Gouge, Jeff Wisevarver, Rex Epps, and Melody Roxburgh) at the Highway Department and Garbage Department are among those who are always co-operative and helpful. They sent in mileage/condition reports on the trucks, tractors, and equipment for the Highway and Garbage Departments. I received the reports today.
After I sent out e-mails requesting this information on Tuesday afternoon (Sept. 13), the responses have come quickly.
In fact, I need to mention that Frank Parker, director at Cherokee Park, actually handed me the mileage/condition information for the Cherokee Park vehicles and equipment at the September 12 Finance Committee meeting--right after I asked. I didn't send Frank an e-mail request because he was at the Committee meeting and responded on the spot.
Right now, I think only two small departments--workhouse and county maintenance--and one large department--the Sheriff's Department-- haven't responded yet. It really shouldn't take long for the workhouse and county maintenance to work up mileage reports since they only have a small number of vehicles.
Sheriff Otto Purkey has a lot of vehicles in his inventory, so I'm guessing it may take one or two more days for him to list the mileage and condition of each. Strangely enough, County Mayor David Purkey's vehicle is run through his brother's (Sheriff Otto Purkey's) Department instead of being listed in the County Mayor's Office/Department.
Even more strange to those who tend to think that each department or official should include the cars that he or his employees drive in that department's budget and inventory, it appears that County Mayor David Purkey's vehicle, the one that is listed in Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory, was actually paid for and purchased with funds out of the Juvenile Court budget.
It may be that Mayor D. Purkey gave an old car to Juvenile Court and then let Juvenile Court pay for the Mayor's new car...and then Mayor Purkey's new car, the one that was paid for out of the Juvenile budget, was put into Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory, leaving Sheriff Purkey to pay for his brother's gas, maintenance, etc. out of the Sheriff's budget instead of out of the Mayor's budget. Are we confused yet?
Maybe all this shifting explains why last year:
(1) the Juvenile Court 2004 inventory report didn't show any vehicle at all (even though Juvenile Court did have a vehicle at the time); and
(2) Finance Director Nicole Epps in 2004 asked for and provided mileage information for all county vehicles except all those listed in the Sheriff's inventory.
As I mentioned in Tuesday's post (Sept. 13), the 2005 inventory is also interesting for the pieces of equipment and other items that have apparently been left off of certain department lists. I'll have more on what appears to have been left off the 2005 inventory sometime after Commission's September 22 meeting--after I check on a few things and try to talk with the County Mayor and Finance Director about the inventory.
It appears that the same thing (leaving items off) happened with the 2004 inventory as well. Lots of equipment, computers, and even the Juvenile Court vehicle--items that were purchased many years ago and that actually should have been included on the 2004 inventory report-- were left off the 2004 report.
We need to be very careful with our inventory. Several hundreds of thousands of county taxpayer dollars have been spent on computers, phones, vehicles, tractors, and other equipment. We need to know that everything is accounted for and is where it should be.
Have a good weekend!
Most county officials are very co-operative in providing information about county (taxpayer) cars, trucks, and equipment.
Barry Poole and his staff (Bob Gouge, Jeff Wisevarver, Rex Epps, and Melody Roxburgh) at the Highway Department and Garbage Department are among those who are always co-operative and helpful. They sent in mileage/condition reports on the trucks, tractors, and equipment for the Highway and Garbage Departments. I received the reports today.
After I sent out e-mails requesting this information on Tuesday afternoon (Sept. 13), the responses have come quickly.
In fact, I need to mention that Frank Parker, director at Cherokee Park, actually handed me the mileage/condition information for the Cherokee Park vehicles and equipment at the September 12 Finance Committee meeting--right after I asked. I didn't send Frank an e-mail request because he was at the Committee meeting and responded on the spot.
Right now, I think only two small departments--workhouse and county maintenance--and one large department--the Sheriff's Department-- haven't responded yet. It really shouldn't take long for the workhouse and county maintenance to work up mileage reports since they only have a small number of vehicles.
Sheriff Otto Purkey has a lot of vehicles in his inventory, so I'm guessing it may take one or two more days for him to list the mileage and condition of each. Strangely enough, County Mayor David Purkey's vehicle is run through his brother's (Sheriff Otto Purkey's) Department instead of being listed in the County Mayor's Office/Department.
Even more strange to those who tend to think that each department or official should include the cars that he or his employees drive in that department's budget and inventory, it appears that County Mayor David Purkey's vehicle, the one that is listed in Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory, was actually paid for and purchased with funds out of the Juvenile Court budget.
It may be that Mayor D. Purkey gave an old car to Juvenile Court and then let Juvenile Court pay for the Mayor's new car...and then Mayor Purkey's new car, the one that was paid for out of the Juvenile budget, was put into Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory, leaving Sheriff Purkey to pay for his brother's gas, maintenance, etc. out of the Sheriff's budget instead of out of the Mayor's budget. Are we confused yet?
Maybe all this shifting explains why last year:
(1) the Juvenile Court 2004 inventory report didn't show any vehicle at all (even though Juvenile Court did have a vehicle at the time); and
(2) Finance Director Nicole Epps in 2004 asked for and provided mileage information for all county vehicles except all those listed in the Sheriff's inventory.
As I mentioned in Tuesday's post (Sept. 13), the 2005 inventory is also interesting for the pieces of equipment and other items that have apparently been left off of certain department lists. I'll have more on what appears to have been left off the 2005 inventory sometime after Commission's September 22 meeting--after I check on a few things and try to talk with the County Mayor and Finance Director about the inventory.
It appears that the same thing (leaving items off) happened with the 2004 inventory as well. Lots of equipment, computers, and even the Juvenile Court vehicle--items that were purchased many years ago and that actually should have been included on the 2004 inventory report-- were left off the 2004 report.
We need to be very careful with our inventory. Several hundreds of thousands of county taxpayer dollars have been spent on computers, phones, vehicles, tractors, and other equipment. We need to know that everything is accounted for and is where it should be.
Have a good weekend!
Thursday, September 15, 2005
September 15, 2005 Several departments respond quickly to vehicle request
See my post of September 13: COUNTY INVENTORY.
After reviewing the 6/30/05 County Inventory, I asked Finance Director Nicole Epps at a September 12 Finance Committee meeting if she would get mileage and condition information for all county vehicles listed on the county inventory. [County Commission passed a resolution almost two years ago that it wanted to have this information on an annual basis.]
Nicole Epps' boss (County Mayor David Purkey) was also at the Finance meeting. After I asked her for the information, she told me that it was not required by the auditors and then her boss (County Mayor David Purkey) said that I would have to ask each elected official and department head directly for that information myself.
Well, I'm not shy about asking for information, so I went ahead on September 13 and began sending out e-mails at about 3:35 pm requesting this information from officials and department heads.
About 45 minutes after I sent out my first e-mail request, I received a copy of an e-mail from Finance Director Nicole Epps showing that she was suddenly starting to request the information for me.
I was surprised by her e-mail since I had specifically asked her on September 12 if she would get this information and her response then was that it wasn't "required" and her boss's response (Mayor Purkey) then was that I would have to request it myself from each department.
I e-mailed her back that I had already started to get the information myself like I'd been told to, and we didn't need to duplicate our efforts.
Let's be realistic. County Mayor David Purkey detests financial questions. Since I ask them and actually follow through to get the answers (from others if necessary), County Mayor David Purkey detests me. He has made that evident in three years of vicious personal attacks.
I think that most of the anger that causes him to blow up so often can be traced to my proposal after taking office to have the state auditors perform the county audit in 2003.
The state auditors came in and suddenly Hamblen County, which had only one audit finding or problem reported by the local auditors in the 2002 audit, had 29 findings of irregularities and violations of state law in the 2003 audit. That was more findings than any other county in the whole state.
Mayor Purkey's anger bubbles to the surface every time I ask a question or try to get information. He even got upset when the full commission asked him to do something really simple--like put a county decal on his county car. Now, why in the world did he blow up and refuse to put a Hamblen County decal on the car that the taxpayers provide for him (along with gas, insurance, and maintenance costs, too)? Go figure.
FORTUNATELY, MOST COUNTY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENTS HEADS ARE CO-OPERATIVE, CIVIL, AND POLITE WHEN QUESTIONS ARE ASKED...
In my September 13 post, I mentioned that most elected officials and department heads are responsive and willing to share information about county (taxpayer) property.
Well, I want you to know that one official responded more quickly than anyone could have imagined. Assessor of Property Keith Ely sent the mileage and condition information back on the same day I sent the request. Keith is one of the most open and accessible elected officials around, and he is always willing to discuss and provide information about his office.
I worked with Keith about two months ago when I called him to let him know that I had found what appeared to be a rather large error in the new state-certified property tax rate that the state had sent us and that our Trustee and Finance Department were using in calculating our county revenues and budgeted expenditures. After my call to Keith, he called the state and asked them to review and check our new property tax rate.
The state agreed that it had made an error and sent back a corrected figure that reduced the new property tax rate for Hamblen County taxpayers by 11 cents. That 11 cents meant a total savings to county taxpayers of nearly $1.2 million dollars, and it was all taken care of in one day.
There are several other officials who have already responded to the request for vehicle information: Eric Carpenter (EMA), Danny Young (Planning Commission), and Cyndi Trent (Juvenile Court).
It will probably take a few days for a response from the Sheriff and the Road Superintendent/Garbage Dept. because those are the two departments that have the largest number of vehicles.
There are just one or two other departments that haven't responded yet, but I'm sure they will because, as I have said before, most elected officials and department heads are very open and very willing to share information about county (taxpayer) property.
After reviewing the 6/30/05 County Inventory, I asked Finance Director Nicole Epps at a September 12 Finance Committee meeting if she would get mileage and condition information for all county vehicles listed on the county inventory. [County Commission passed a resolution almost two years ago that it wanted to have this information on an annual basis.]
Nicole Epps' boss (County Mayor David Purkey) was also at the Finance meeting. After I asked her for the information, she told me that it was not required by the auditors and then her boss (County Mayor David Purkey) said that I would have to ask each elected official and department head directly for that information myself.
Well, I'm not shy about asking for information, so I went ahead on September 13 and began sending out e-mails at about 3:35 pm requesting this information from officials and department heads.
About 45 minutes after I sent out my first e-mail request, I received a copy of an e-mail from Finance Director Nicole Epps showing that she was suddenly starting to request the information for me.
I was surprised by her e-mail since I had specifically asked her on September 12 if she would get this information and her response then was that it wasn't "required" and her boss's response (Mayor Purkey) then was that I would have to request it myself from each department.
I e-mailed her back that I had already started to get the information myself like I'd been told to, and we didn't need to duplicate our efforts.
Let's be realistic. County Mayor David Purkey detests financial questions. Since I ask them and actually follow through to get the answers (from others if necessary), County Mayor David Purkey detests me. He has made that evident in three years of vicious personal attacks.
I think that most of the anger that causes him to blow up so often can be traced to my proposal after taking office to have the state auditors perform the county audit in 2003.
The state auditors came in and suddenly Hamblen County, which had only one audit finding or problem reported by the local auditors in the 2002 audit, had 29 findings of irregularities and violations of state law in the 2003 audit. That was more findings than any other county in the whole state.
Mayor Purkey's anger bubbles to the surface every time I ask a question or try to get information. He even got upset when the full commission asked him to do something really simple--like put a county decal on his county car. Now, why in the world did he blow up and refuse to put a Hamblen County decal on the car that the taxpayers provide for him (along with gas, insurance, and maintenance costs, too)? Go figure.
FORTUNATELY, MOST COUNTY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENTS HEADS ARE CO-OPERATIVE, CIVIL, AND POLITE WHEN QUESTIONS ARE ASKED...
In my September 13 post, I mentioned that most elected officials and department heads are responsive and willing to share information about county (taxpayer) property.
Well, I want you to know that one official responded more quickly than anyone could have imagined. Assessor of Property Keith Ely sent the mileage and condition information back on the same day I sent the request. Keith is one of the most open and accessible elected officials around, and he is always willing to discuss and provide information about his office.
I worked with Keith about two months ago when I called him to let him know that I had found what appeared to be a rather large error in the new state-certified property tax rate that the state had sent us and that our Trustee and Finance Department were using in calculating our county revenues and budgeted expenditures. After my call to Keith, he called the state and asked them to review and check our new property tax rate.
The state agreed that it had made an error and sent back a corrected figure that reduced the new property tax rate for Hamblen County taxpayers by 11 cents. That 11 cents meant a total savings to county taxpayers of nearly $1.2 million dollars, and it was all taken care of in one day.
There are several other officials who have already responded to the request for vehicle information: Eric Carpenter (EMA), Danny Young (Planning Commission), and Cyndi Trent (Juvenile Court).
It will probably take a few days for a response from the Sheriff and the Road Superintendent/Garbage Dept. because those are the two departments that have the largest number of vehicles.
There are just one or two other departments that haven't responded yet, but I'm sure they will because, as I have said before, most elected officials and department heads are very open and very willing to share information about county (taxpayer) property.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
September 14, 2005 Healthcare: "Minute Clinics"
I just read an interesting article in the Tennessean about health clinics that are operating out of CVS pharmacies in the Nashville area. They are designed to provide fast healthcare service at a low price.
The clinics are called "Minute Clinics" with nurse practitioners available to treat and even prescribe medications for minor illnesses. Among the illnesses they can treat are strep, mono, ear infections, and bladder infections.
There is a maximum wait time of 15 minutes, and the clinics are open 8 am to 8 pm weekdays with reduced hours on Saturdays and Sundays.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield and United Heathcare Insurance is accepted and TennCare Insurance may be accepted in the near future.
It will be interesting to see how these clinics fare.
The clinics are called "Minute Clinics" with nurse practitioners available to treat and even prescribe medications for minor illnesses. Among the illnesses they can treat are strep, mono, ear infections, and bladder infections.
There is a maximum wait time of 15 minutes, and the clinics are open 8 am to 8 pm weekdays with reduced hours on Saturdays and Sundays.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield and United Heathcare Insurance is accepted and TennCare Insurance may be accepted in the near future.
It will be interesting to see how these clinics fare.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
September 13, 2005 More Spending
Check my September 2 post: "Waiting for the other (budget) shoe to drop"
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission is going to ask for a 14% budget increase.
The County Commission approved the Planning Commission budget on August 4--in the exact amount that the Planning Commission itself requested.
Yesterday, however, the other budget shoe began to drop as the Planning Commission passed a budget amendment to increase their budget by $32,000. It appears that this request for increased spending may come to the full Commission on September 22 or more likely October 20.
Unless something really unusual happens, the amendment will pass. Two of the members of the Planning Commission are county commissioners (Joe Spoone and Herbert Harville) and voted for the original Planning Commission budget and have already voted for the budget increase as members of the Planning Commission.
The Hamblen County Commission passed a deficit county budget on August 4--meaning we expect to spend $460,000 more than we expect to take in during fiscal year 2005-2006. See my post of August 5. This Planning Commission amendment increases spending by $32,000 but may be accompanied by a prediction of increased revenues due to higher charges that have been implemented for fees and permits.
COUNTY INVENTORY
I just received a copy of the county inventory as of June 30, 2005. I don't want to comment too much on it at this time--except I will tell you that there are huge differences in the inventory reported 6/30/05 and the inventory reported on 6/30/04. Some of the differences are expected and are the result of reporting new equipment, vehicles, and items that were purchased in the 2005 fiscal year. But a large part of the difference can be traced to inaccurate reporting on the 2004 inventory--lots and lots of county equipment that should have been on the 2004 inventory was somehow "left off" and is just now showing up on the 2005 inventory.
When I asked whether there would be any report on mileage and hourly meter readings for vehicles and equipment as requested by the full commission almost two years ago, the Finance Director stated that GASB (that's "governmental accounting standards board") doesn't include mileage and condition in inventory reports. Of course, GASB wasn't even part of the discussion. I simply wanted to know if the Finance Director would send out an e-mail or request to department heads to include the mileage and condition information with the inventory. She did that last year for every department except the Sheriff. The County Mayor, who was sitting in a chair on a back row, answered and said if mileage information was desired, I would have to ask each department for it. Again, "don't ask and I won't tell/ Do ask, and I still won't tell."
I remember, when commission was discussing buying new patrol vehicles a few years ago, Commissioner Joe Spoone said he'd like to know about the mileage on the old vehicles that we were replacing. There is obviously a difference in, say, a 1999 vehicle that has 50,000 miles and the same vehicle with 125,000 miles. You might consider trading in the high mileage vehicle but not the low mileage one regardless of the model year.
That's why finding out and keeping up with how many miles are being put on county vehicles is important.
I'll keep you posted on the response as I ask for the vehicle and equipment information today and tomorrow.
.
Thus far, I have found that most department heads and other elected officials are quite co-operative when a commissioner or citizen asks a question.
There are only a very few who get upset when questions are asked and who resort to personal attacks on those who ask questions about public money and public property.
Most officials know that citizens pay the bills, and citizens have a right to know how their money is being spent.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission is going to ask for a 14% budget increase.
The County Commission approved the Planning Commission budget on August 4--in the exact amount that the Planning Commission itself requested.
Yesterday, however, the other budget shoe began to drop as the Planning Commission passed a budget amendment to increase their budget by $32,000. It appears that this request for increased spending may come to the full Commission on September 22 or more likely October 20.
Unless something really unusual happens, the amendment will pass. Two of the members of the Planning Commission are county commissioners (Joe Spoone and Herbert Harville) and voted for the original Planning Commission budget and have already voted for the budget increase as members of the Planning Commission.
The Hamblen County Commission passed a deficit county budget on August 4--meaning we expect to spend $460,000 more than we expect to take in during fiscal year 2005-2006. See my post of August 5. This Planning Commission amendment increases spending by $32,000 but may be accompanied by a prediction of increased revenues due to higher charges that have been implemented for fees and permits.
COUNTY INVENTORY
I just received a copy of the county inventory as of June 30, 2005. I don't want to comment too much on it at this time--except I will tell you that there are huge differences in the inventory reported 6/30/05 and the inventory reported on 6/30/04. Some of the differences are expected and are the result of reporting new equipment, vehicles, and items that were purchased in the 2005 fiscal year. But a large part of the difference can be traced to inaccurate reporting on the 2004 inventory--lots and lots of county equipment that should have been on the 2004 inventory was somehow "left off" and is just now showing up on the 2005 inventory.
When I asked whether there would be any report on mileage and hourly meter readings for vehicles and equipment as requested by the full commission almost two years ago, the Finance Director stated that GASB (that's "governmental accounting standards board") doesn't include mileage and condition in inventory reports. Of course, GASB wasn't even part of the discussion. I simply wanted to know if the Finance Director would send out an e-mail or request to department heads to include the mileage and condition information with the inventory. She did that last year for every department except the Sheriff. The County Mayor, who was sitting in a chair on a back row, answered and said if mileage information was desired, I would have to ask each department for it. Again, "don't ask and I won't tell/ Do ask, and I still won't tell."
I remember, when commission was discussing buying new patrol vehicles a few years ago, Commissioner Joe Spoone said he'd like to know about the mileage on the old vehicles that we were replacing. There is obviously a difference in, say, a 1999 vehicle that has 50,000 miles and the same vehicle with 125,000 miles. You might consider trading in the high mileage vehicle but not the low mileage one regardless of the model year.
That's why finding out and keeping up with how many miles are being put on county vehicles is important.
I'll keep you posted on the response as I ask for the vehicle and equipment information today and tomorrow.
.
Thus far, I have found that most department heads and other elected officials are quite co-operative when a commissioner or citizen asks a question.
There are only a very few who get upset when questions are asked and who resort to personal attacks on those who ask questions about public money and public property.
Most officials know that citizens pay the bills, and citizens have a right to know how their money is being spent.
Monday, September 05, 2005
September 5, 2005 Labor Day
A happy and safe holiday to all. This holiday is usually a "catch-up" day for me where I try to get to chores that just haven't gotten done. This Labor Day, however, I just continued to ignore the many chores that I have already ignored for weeks. The fancy and politically correct word for that is procrastination.
I spent most of the day helping my son Will install a rail on his new deck and paint walls in his house. My own chores didn't get caught up, but maybe later...
Now, I am blogging and typing with paint spots all over my hands and on my clothes. No problem with the clothes--I have an official painting outfit. I just wear the same outfit for painting each time and add more and more paint spots. I even have painting shoes--they look like somebody dropped every color of the rainbow on them.
I admit it. I am a drippy painter. That's why I really like drop cloths. The more drop cloths, the better! Even though I'm kind of messy, I enjoy painting. It's amazing to see the difference that a fresh coat of paint makes. And it's fun to try new colors in different rooms.
Got to start cleaning up my mess now.....
I spent most of the day helping my son Will install a rail on his new deck and paint walls in his house. My own chores didn't get caught up, but maybe later...
Now, I am blogging and typing with paint spots all over my hands and on my clothes. No problem with the clothes--I have an official painting outfit. I just wear the same outfit for painting each time and add more and more paint spots. I even have painting shoes--they look like somebody dropped every color of the rainbow on them.
I admit it. I am a drippy painter. That's why I really like drop cloths. The more drop cloths, the better! Even though I'm kind of messy, I enjoy painting. It's amazing to see the difference that a fresh coat of paint makes. And it's fun to try new colors in different rooms.
Got to start cleaning up my mess now.....
Saturday, September 03, 2005
September 2, 2005 Waiting for the other shoe to drop
What's ahead on the accountability front?
Hamblen County's deficit budget that I spoke out against and voted against on August 4 is going to come back to haunt us sooner than we think.
The Planning Commission will probably come back at some point and ask for more money. (Commissioners Herbert Harville and Joe Spoone serve on the Planning Commission)
Gas prices: It may be time to look at the county's vehicle use policy and possibly eliminate take-home privileges for some vehicles. Departments hopefully are already eliminating anything other than absolutely necessary travel. Families are certainly being forced to cut back and eliminate unnecessary travel and trips. Let's make sure the government does the same.
County Inventory: The county's fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The Finance Director indicated that she would have the county inventory ready by September 1. This is a multi-page document that lists each department and then the county vehicles, tractors, computers, desks, chairs, and other county-owned equipment assigned to that department.
I asked some questions after reviewing the 2004 vehicle inventory. In 2004, the inventory did not show a vehicle assigned to the Juvenile Court Department even though the county budget in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 had appropriated money to the Juvenile Court for the lease-purchase of a vehicle. (The car purchase had been placed in the line-item for "office equipment" but that is another audit story for another day.) I checked with Juvenile Court and they do have a Ford Taurus for transport. Maybe the Juvenile vehicle is listed in another department's inventory like the County Mayor's car is or maybe it was left off the county's inventory entirely.
In another strange twist, the car that County Mayor David Purkey drives is apparently listed in Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory. Since there is nothing in Mayor Purkey's budget for gas, insurance, and maintenance of a vehicle, I guess the gas, insurance, and maintenance for the Mayor's vehicle also comes out of Sheriff Purkey's budget.
There may even be a car or cars (that are not undercover vehicles) that are not listed in any department's inventory.
The state auditors require that the county maintain an inventory as part of the audit process, but the state auditors don't go through our inventory and check that every vehicle, desk, and computer is listed. The accuracy of the list itself is the county's responsibility. This is another example where local officials have to be paying attention and asking questions in order to provide the accountability that the citizens deserve and that the officials, in our system of checks and balances, are elected to provide.
The inventory problem ties in with other recent questions about the 2004 audit. In the 2004 audit, the state auditors reported that the County Mayor switched money (over $360,000) from fund to fund without coming to county commission for approval and without even informing commission of his action. The explanation that County Mayor David Purkey provided to the auditors was that after consulting with Trustee Bill Brittain and Finance Director Nicole Epps, he (Mayor Purkey) ordered the shifting of money (over $360,000) to correct errors in past years and to "restore" those funds to their proper amounts.
The obvious questions that local officials should ask are exactly what errors happened in the past? Was revenue put in the wrong funds or were expenditures paid out of the wrong funds or both? Were these truly mistakes? If so, how did these errors happen-- by Mayor Purkey's own admission -- for years without detection? Were these employee errors or a problem with our accounting system or both? What has been done to make sure that this isn't still happening and that it won't happen again in the future?
Aren't those the questions that you would ask if it were $360,000 of your own money? What happened? How did it happen? If it happened for "years," exactly what has been done to keep this from happening again? It reminds one of the famous Watergate question posed by Sen. Howard Baker: "What did you know and when did you know it?"
Hamblen County's deficit budget that I spoke out against and voted against on August 4 is going to come back to haunt us sooner than we think.
The Planning Commission will probably come back at some point and ask for more money. (Commissioners Herbert Harville and Joe Spoone serve on the Planning Commission)
Gas prices: It may be time to look at the county's vehicle use policy and possibly eliminate take-home privileges for some vehicles. Departments hopefully are already eliminating anything other than absolutely necessary travel. Families are certainly being forced to cut back and eliminate unnecessary travel and trips. Let's make sure the government does the same.
County Inventory: The county's fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The Finance Director indicated that she would have the county inventory ready by September 1. This is a multi-page document that lists each department and then the county vehicles, tractors, computers, desks, chairs, and other county-owned equipment assigned to that department.
I asked some questions after reviewing the 2004 vehicle inventory. In 2004, the inventory did not show a vehicle assigned to the Juvenile Court Department even though the county budget in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 had appropriated money to the Juvenile Court for the lease-purchase of a vehicle. (The car purchase had been placed in the line-item for "office equipment" but that is another audit story for another day.) I checked with Juvenile Court and they do have a Ford Taurus for transport. Maybe the Juvenile vehicle is listed in another department's inventory like the County Mayor's car is or maybe it was left off the county's inventory entirely.
In another strange twist, the car that County Mayor David Purkey drives is apparently listed in Sheriff Otto Purkey's inventory. Since there is nothing in Mayor Purkey's budget for gas, insurance, and maintenance of a vehicle, I guess the gas, insurance, and maintenance for the Mayor's vehicle also comes out of Sheriff Purkey's budget.
There may even be a car or cars (that are not undercover vehicles) that are not listed in any department's inventory.
The state auditors require that the county maintain an inventory as part of the audit process, but the state auditors don't go through our inventory and check that every vehicle, desk, and computer is listed. The accuracy of the list itself is the county's responsibility. This is another example where local officials have to be paying attention and asking questions in order to provide the accountability that the citizens deserve and that the officials, in our system of checks and balances, are elected to provide.
The inventory problem ties in with other recent questions about the 2004 audit. In the 2004 audit, the state auditors reported that the County Mayor switched money (over $360,000) from fund to fund without coming to county commission for approval and without even informing commission of his action. The explanation that County Mayor David Purkey provided to the auditors was that after consulting with Trustee Bill Brittain and Finance Director Nicole Epps, he (Mayor Purkey) ordered the shifting of money (over $360,000) to correct errors in past years and to "restore" those funds to their proper amounts.
The obvious questions that local officials should ask are exactly what errors happened in the past? Was revenue put in the wrong funds or were expenditures paid out of the wrong funds or both? Were these truly mistakes? If so, how did these errors happen-- by Mayor Purkey's own admission -- for years without detection? Were these employee errors or a problem with our accounting system or both? What has been done to make sure that this isn't still happening and that it won't happen again in the future?
Aren't those the questions that you would ask if it were $360,000 of your own money? What happened? How did it happen? If it happened for "years," exactly what has been done to keep this from happening again? It reminds one of the famous Watergate question posed by Sen. Howard Baker: "What did you know and when did you know it?"
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005 County Mayor David Purkey "blows a gasket"
The biggest news is the news that hasn't been reported yet. Isn't that usually the case?
What local news has not been reported? The "answer" from County Mayor David Purkey as to why he and the Finance Director have not come to Hamblen County Commission Audit Committee meetings and have not at least sent written responses to questions that were submitted months ago about the 2004 audit.
It's hard to find any hint of co-operation and answers to financial questions anywhere in the letter. It is easy, however, to find explosive anger and pent-up hatred in his vitriolic and venomous response.
What, you might ask, has prompted yet another outburst from the County Mayor? Financial questions. Now just why would financial questions cause the county's "chief financial officer" to blow a gasket?
The Audit Committee submitted written follow-up questions to the state auditors months ago about findings in the 2004 audit. The state auditors answered most of the questions. For audit questions that they could not answer, they referred the committee to the County Mayor and Finance Director. When the questions were submitted to Mayor Purkey, the county's chief financial officer, he just ignored them. Finally, the Audit Committee voted to have Audit Chairman Osborne send a letter to Commissioner Herbert Harville, a member of the Audit Committee and Chair of the Finance Committee, asking him to communicate with Mayor Purkey and attempt to get some co-operation and answers.
Here is the Mayor's reply to Herbert Harville's request on behalf of the Audit Committee for co-operation and answers. The letter was dated August 9, 2005, and provided on August 26. Even though Mr. Purkey was present at the Aug. 26 meeting, it was Commissioner Harville who read the letter to the Committee and to the public. It's long, it's threatening, and it's full of personal attacks. Since there were no financial answers in the letter, I asked Herbert jokingly, "Does this mean we won't get answers to the shifting of money?" Herbert didn't answer. He didn't have to because the answer is very clear. It's obvious that County Mayor David Purkey has taken the position that so many others in office take as soon as questions are asked: "I don't have to answer anything." His response to 04 audit questions is apparently, "Don't ask, and I won't tell" / "Do ask, and I still won't tell."
===========================================================================
August 9, 2005
TO: Honorable Herbert Harville
Chair Finance Committee
FROM: David W. Purkey
Hamblen County Mayor
RE: Response to Edwin Osborne' s Letter of August 8, 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing Mr. Osborne's letter which was apparently passed out at an unscheduled Audit Committee meeting yesterday. As you know, Mr. Osborne failed to provide me with a copy which has become standard operating procedure for Linda Noe and her cronies.
Mr. Osborne has publicly stated on multiple occasions that he will be a candidate for Hamblen County Mayor in the 2006 election. On one particular occasion, he appeared before the County Board of Equalization in an attempt to have his property taxes reduced. As a sitting county commissioner, Mr. Osborne responded to the Board's chastisement of this action by threatening to run for County Mayor. I join with the voices of other county commissioners and elected officials who have recognized Mr. Osborne's weakness as the Audit Committee Chair in allowing the processes of his committee to be tainted by his political aspirations. I can provide the names of others with whom he has declared his candidacy.
At any rate, Mr. Osborne states in his letter that his committee is at an "impasse". I would agree. The impasse has resulted from the blatant attempts by Ms. Noe and her cronies to utilize the Audit Committee as a political tool outside the parameters of state law. The Audit Committee's statutory authority is to recommend the employment of an independent auditor to examine the county's books. The committee then receives the audit document after the independent auditors have completed their work. Mr. Osborne is looking for a full-time job and I am sensitive to that. Clearly, his fixation on running for County Mayor has severely damaged his ability to lead the committee. I fully appreciate that he does not know how to proceed in this context.
Mr. Osborne's statement that "State Auditors indicated that they did not know Hamblen County had an audit committee last year" is puzzling since the committee has existed for over 25 years. In fact, Mr. Osborne's late father was the long time distinguished chair of that committee.
Mr. Osborne infers that there has been a "failure to follow up on and correct previously identified internal control deficiencies". The County Mayor's Office, the Finance Department, and the Road Superintendent received five (5) findings (one involved implementing centralized purchasing which we did immediately and was no easy task with existing resources). As detailed in our audit responses, all deficiencies have been addressed. Again, Mr. Osborne is posturing politically as he attempts to blame my office with findings in other offices. He and Ms. Noe know very well that the County Mayor does not supervise the school system, trustee's office, county clerk and others, where another elected official is in charge by state law.
Mr. Osborne states that the County Mayor has refused "to address certain repeat findings in the FY 04 audit." All findings have been addressed as they pertain to my office. He sees a finding and immediately throws blame. I see a finding and seize the opportunity to improve. That is a major difference in us. I would suggest that he read the state audit document.
Mr. Osborne accuses me of "urging other departments and elected officials to avoid audit committee meetings or provide responses". This is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts and he knows it. We all attended the meeting that Mr. Osborne himself called to sit down with state auditors and discuss the findings and responses within the audit document. His comment is an insult to every county-wide public official who attended that meeting and who is individually elected to office by the people of this county. I do not tell the other elected officials what they can and cannot do. I am a coordinator, not a dictator, as he alleges.
Mr. Osborne refers to "[my] willful decision not to provide requested information [which] compromise[s] the effectiveness of the Audit Committee in its oversight role." This is another untrue statement by Mr. Osborne. The state auditors have verified and said publicly at the very meeting that Mr. Osborne has developed amnesia about, that my office has done so and has been a pleasure to work with. My responsibility is to provide information and answers to the independent state auditors, not to his political campaign committee.
Mr. Osborne concludes by threatening all elected officials with a statement referring to, "future activities of the audit committee [as it] considers even more serious matters". Once again, let me be clear about the law. My responsibility is to the independent state auditors, not to Mr. Osborne as just another Linda Noe crony. He and Ms. Noe have clearly directed the committee outside of state law in a very selfish manner.
These people and others in their group appear to be dedicated to destroying the good name of this county. They never offer any solutions with their threats and conspiracy theories.
Mr. Chairman, I would both challenge and caution them to be ready to back up their lies and misrepresentations with actual facts when the time comes.
I can assure them that this time is coming, maybe sooner than they think...
Thank you.
DWP/kr
Cc: All County Commissioners
All Elected Officials and Department Heads
County Attorney Rusty Cantwell
Councilman Claude Jinks
===========================================================================
That's the answer from the "chief financial officer" of the county to financial questions from the Audit Committee of the Hamblen County Commission.
What local news has not been reported? The "answer" from County Mayor David Purkey as to why he and the Finance Director have not come to Hamblen County Commission Audit Committee meetings and have not at least sent written responses to questions that were submitted months ago about the 2004 audit.
It's hard to find any hint of co-operation and answers to financial questions anywhere in the letter. It is easy, however, to find explosive anger and pent-up hatred in his vitriolic and venomous response.
What, you might ask, has prompted yet another outburst from the County Mayor? Financial questions. Now just why would financial questions cause the county's "chief financial officer" to blow a gasket?
The Audit Committee submitted written follow-up questions to the state auditors months ago about findings in the 2004 audit. The state auditors answered most of the questions. For audit questions that they could not answer, they referred the committee to the County Mayor and Finance Director. When the questions were submitted to Mayor Purkey, the county's chief financial officer, he just ignored them. Finally, the Audit Committee voted to have Audit Chairman Osborne send a letter to Commissioner Herbert Harville, a member of the Audit Committee and Chair of the Finance Committee, asking him to communicate with Mayor Purkey and attempt to get some co-operation and answers.
Here is the Mayor's reply to Herbert Harville's request on behalf of the Audit Committee for co-operation and answers. The letter was dated August 9, 2005, and provided on August 26. Even though Mr. Purkey was present at the Aug. 26 meeting, it was Commissioner Harville who read the letter to the Committee and to the public. It's long, it's threatening, and it's full of personal attacks. Since there were no financial answers in the letter, I asked Herbert jokingly, "Does this mean we won't get answers to the shifting of money?" Herbert didn't answer. He didn't have to because the answer is very clear. It's obvious that County Mayor David Purkey has taken the position that so many others in office take as soon as questions are asked: "I don't have to answer anything." His response to 04 audit questions is apparently, "Don't ask, and I won't tell" / "Do ask, and I still won't tell."
===========================================================================
August 9, 2005
TO: Honorable Herbert Harville
Chair Finance Committee
FROM: David W. Purkey
Hamblen County Mayor
RE: Response to Edwin Osborne' s Letter of August 8, 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing Mr. Osborne's letter which was apparently passed out at an unscheduled Audit Committee meeting yesterday. As you know, Mr. Osborne failed to provide me with a copy which has become standard operating procedure for Linda Noe and her cronies.
Mr. Osborne has publicly stated on multiple occasions that he will be a candidate for Hamblen County Mayor in the 2006 election. On one particular occasion, he appeared before the County Board of Equalization in an attempt to have his property taxes reduced. As a sitting county commissioner, Mr. Osborne responded to the Board's chastisement of this action by threatening to run for County Mayor. I join with the voices of other county commissioners and elected officials who have recognized Mr. Osborne's weakness as the Audit Committee Chair in allowing the processes of his committee to be tainted by his political aspirations. I can provide the names of others with whom he has declared his candidacy.
At any rate, Mr. Osborne states in his letter that his committee is at an "impasse". I would agree. The impasse has resulted from the blatant attempts by Ms. Noe and her cronies to utilize the Audit Committee as a political tool outside the parameters of state law. The Audit Committee's statutory authority is to recommend the employment of an independent auditor to examine the county's books. The committee then receives the audit document after the independent auditors have completed their work. Mr. Osborne is looking for a full-time job and I am sensitive to that. Clearly, his fixation on running for County Mayor has severely damaged his ability to lead the committee. I fully appreciate that he does not know how to proceed in this context.
Mr. Osborne's statement that "State Auditors indicated that they did not know Hamblen County had an audit committee last year" is puzzling since the committee has existed for over 25 years. In fact, Mr. Osborne's late father was the long time distinguished chair of that committee.
Mr. Osborne infers that there has been a "failure to follow up on and correct previously identified internal control deficiencies". The County Mayor's Office, the Finance Department, and the Road Superintendent received five (5) findings (one involved implementing centralized purchasing which we did immediately and was no easy task with existing resources). As detailed in our audit responses, all deficiencies have been addressed. Again, Mr. Osborne is posturing politically as he attempts to blame my office with findings in other offices. He and Ms. Noe know very well that the County Mayor does not supervise the school system, trustee's office, county clerk and others, where another elected official is in charge by state law.
Mr. Osborne states that the County Mayor has refused "to address certain repeat findings in the FY 04 audit." All findings have been addressed as they pertain to my office. He sees a finding and immediately throws blame. I see a finding and seize the opportunity to improve. That is a major difference in us. I would suggest that he read the state audit document.
Mr. Osborne accuses me of "urging other departments and elected officials to avoid audit committee meetings or provide responses". This is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts and he knows it. We all attended the meeting that Mr. Osborne himself called to sit down with state auditors and discuss the findings and responses within the audit document. His comment is an insult to every county-wide public official who attended that meeting and who is individually elected to office by the people of this county. I do not tell the other elected officials what they can and cannot do. I am a coordinator, not a dictator, as he alleges.
Mr. Osborne refers to "[my] willful decision not to provide requested information [which] compromise[s] the effectiveness of the Audit Committee in its oversight role." This is another untrue statement by Mr. Osborne. The state auditors have verified and said publicly at the very meeting that Mr. Osborne has developed amnesia about, that my office has done so and has been a pleasure to work with. My responsibility is to provide information and answers to the independent state auditors, not to his political campaign committee.
Mr. Osborne concludes by threatening all elected officials with a statement referring to, "future activities of the audit committee [as it] considers even more serious matters". Once again, let me be clear about the law. My responsibility is to the independent state auditors, not to Mr. Osborne as just another Linda Noe crony. He and Ms. Noe have clearly directed the committee outside of state law in a very selfish manner.
These people and others in their group appear to be dedicated to destroying the good name of this county. They never offer any solutions with their threats and conspiracy theories.
Mr. Chairman, I would both challenge and caution them to be ready to back up their lies and misrepresentations with actual facts when the time comes.
I can assure them that this time is coming, maybe sooner than they think...
Thank you.
DWP/kr
Cc: All County Commissioners
All Elected Officials and Department Heads
County Attorney Rusty Cantwell
Councilman Claude Jinks
===========================================================================
That's the answer from the "chief financial officer" of the county to financial questions from the Audit Committee of the Hamblen County Commission.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
August 16, 2005 Education
A reader recently made several good points regarding education in the blog comment section. She was concerned that students can not make change, speak correctly, or perform simple multiplication. I have heard this concern before, and it has been a real sore spot for me for a long time.
I have repeatedly stressed that teaching the basics and insisting on mastery of the basics--reading, writing, and arithmetic (OK, "math")-- is the essential foundation of education for all students.
I decided to post my reply to the reader as a regular blog entry--with a few revisions and additional comments...
It does take a lot of money to raise and to educate a child. Please let me share some information with you. By law, funding for education in Hamblen County can not go down--unless there is a substantial drop in enrollment or an economic crisis of some sort. Every year, funding for education from the state and from the local government has gone up. But has education really improved?
You point out that young people graduate from high school and cannot speak correctly, make change, and do basic multiplication. Will different textbooks correct these problems? No. Will new weight rooms correct these problems? No.
What can we do to address the problems about which you are concerned? Our primary focus should be on teaching the basics because the problems you have pointed out are examples of a failure to provide an educational foundation for basic success in life.
Unfortunately, it's not as easy as simply throwing more money into the "education" pot in order to get the better educational outcomes that we all seek--whether the outcome is as basic as being able to make change and speak correctly (as you have pointed out) or whether the outcome is as complex as being able to handle algebraic equations and analyze Shakespearean drama.
It will take a major revamping and overhaul of the educational system--both in Hamblen County and across the state--if we are to see real improvement and if we are to be assured that a foundation for success has been laid for every child. Does this require more money? Not necessarily. Does it require better management of existing funds? Absolutely.
Simply rearranging class schedules to provide significantly more instructional time for reading, writing, and arithmetic (aka "math") in grades 1-3 would bring about improvements in those basic skills that are the foundation for all advanced skills in later grades. Mastery of these skills is essential.
After school tutoring by teachers, volunteer tutors from Walters State and the community, and peer tutoring are all part of the solution--and some of this is being done now.
I believe that merit pay for teachers and a readjustment of pay scales with increased pay for those certified in areas of greater need (advanced math courses, physics, science) are also a part of the solution. (But this is one of those taboo areas that one doesn't talk about in polite company)
I believe that teacher tenure will soon be a relic of the past. I have mixed feelings about this. Tenure is good where it protects a good teacher from a politically-motivated firing; on the flip side, tenure is often perceived by the public as providing lifetime job security to marginal and even poor teachers.
I believe that we need to take another look at block scheduling that was adopted at our local high schools some 10 years ago. It may be an idea that sounded good in theory but that is not academically sound in practice. Some adjustments have already been made in math and other courses to provide year-round instead of semester instruction, but the entire block scheduling concept should be reviewed completely. I understand that a number of schools are starting to back away from the 90- minute classes that are the basis of block scheduling and are going back to the more traditional year-round 55-60 minute classes.
A number of different viewpoints and ideas for improving education should be considered--not just the same old "more money" requests that have failed in the past. It's time for new and creative ideas. And if something doesn't work, ditch it. Don't just keep throwing more money at it. By the same token, if a particular program does work, keep it and work even harder at it.
Many individuals, groups, and organizations in Hamblen County care about education. As for me, I have three children. As a parent, I was closely involved in my children's education every step of the way. All three graduated from the University of Tennessee.
As a teacher for 11 years, I was involved in the education of hundreds of young people. I enjoyed seeing the enthusiasm of my students, and I worked hard every day to help them both academically and socially.
As a supporter of athletics, I coached middle school basketball. I was a member and officer in several booster clubs at West High. I was president of the all-sports athletic booster club at West High. But let me add this...while sports programs are wonderful, there is nothing more important than academics.
I was an early and vocal supporter of improved educational facilities. Back in 1997--many years before you arrived in Morristown-- I was one of those who was actively involved in getting a comprehensive school building program off the ground.
I was teaching English at the old West View Middle School on Economy Road at that time. [It has since been remodeled and is now called Manley Elementary.] The old West View Middle was one of the last of the "open school" designs in Hamblen County. You can imagine how difficult it was to teach English to a class of 25-30 students while another English teacher tried to teach a classroom of 25-30 students right next to you. With NO walls to separate the two classrooms.
I wrote letters to parents about our need for walls between the classrooms and other improvements. I helped organize meetings at West View involving parents, teachers, and school board members. I attended joint school board-county commission meetings to encourage the adoption of a comprehensive school building program.
Many people, and I was one of them, were ecstatic when the building program was adopted and funded by county commission in 1998. Unfortunately, the school board then took the $32 million that was provided for school improvements across the county and drafted questionable contracts that resulted in conflicts of interest, numerous (22 or more) single bids being received and awarded, and cost overruns that resulted in the elimination of many of the planned improvements.
Waste of taxpayer money always concerns me. Over 1-1/2 years after the first contracts were signed, I realized what was going on in the school building program--that they were paying people to manage and supervise themselves while cost overruns mounted up and classrooms were eliminated. The waste was very disheartening for those of us who watched and saw what was happening.
I think it is important to try to correct situations instead of just wringing our hands. No one would do anything about this waste on the local level--except for lip service here and there.
Other concerned citizens and I spoke to the State Comptroller in Nashville in August 2001 about the supposed "competitive" bidding and the reality of the conflicts of interest that the school board denied all along. As a result of our efforts, state law was amended unanimously in 2002 to prohibit the local school board and others across the state from handling school construction management in the way that the Hamblen County School Board did from 1999-2002.
All this is to say that I value education as much and perhaps more than many people in Hamblen County. I have been involved in supporting better facilities, and I have supported athletics as well. The touchstone, however, is always academics.
I know that education is the key to personal success--of course, a little luck along the way can be very helpful, too. My parents stressed the importance of education to me, and I have stressed the importance of education to my own children.
I wish that money were somehow a "silver bullet" that would solve the problems within the educational bureaucracy. But it isn't. We have problems that money can't begin to address. We have problems that go deeper than financial shortages.
To solve the problems you have mentioned--time, time, and more time devoted to the basics is needed. And the same is true of the problem of not having a highly educated workforce. We have many excellent teachers, and we offer a varied and challenging curriculum for those who choose to avail themselves of it.
It is my opinion that an excellent education is offered to students in Hamblen County, but unfortunately some students and parents do not see the long-term value in education. Therefore, some parents do not push, encourage, and help their children, and it is also true that some students do not push themselves to get as much from the educational offerings that are laid before them, free for the taking.
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.
Once we are able to get support from all parents and once we are able to help students see the value of their K-12 education, then we will have a major part of the answer to our educational dilemma.
Thank you for your comments. You make many excellent points. We obviously agree on the importance of education, and I'm sure we both hope that more parents and students will come to realize the critical importance of education. Students should take advantage of the wonderful and challenging opportunities for learning that exist within our local school system.
I have repeatedly stressed that teaching the basics and insisting on mastery of the basics--reading, writing, and arithmetic (OK, "math")-- is the essential foundation of education for all students.
I decided to post my reply to the reader as a regular blog entry--with a few revisions and additional comments...
It does take a lot of money to raise and to educate a child. Please let me share some information with you. By law, funding for education in Hamblen County can not go down--unless there is a substantial drop in enrollment or an economic crisis of some sort. Every year, funding for education from the state and from the local government has gone up. But has education really improved?
You point out that young people graduate from high school and cannot speak correctly, make change, and do basic multiplication. Will different textbooks correct these problems? No. Will new weight rooms correct these problems? No.
What can we do to address the problems about which you are concerned? Our primary focus should be on teaching the basics because the problems you have pointed out are examples of a failure to provide an educational foundation for basic success in life.
Unfortunately, it's not as easy as simply throwing more money into the "education" pot in order to get the better educational outcomes that we all seek--whether the outcome is as basic as being able to make change and speak correctly (as you have pointed out) or whether the outcome is as complex as being able to handle algebraic equations and analyze Shakespearean drama.
It will take a major revamping and overhaul of the educational system--both in Hamblen County and across the state--if we are to see real improvement and if we are to be assured that a foundation for success has been laid for every child. Does this require more money? Not necessarily. Does it require better management of existing funds? Absolutely.
Simply rearranging class schedules to provide significantly more instructional time for reading, writing, and arithmetic (aka "math") in grades 1-3 would bring about improvements in those basic skills that are the foundation for all advanced skills in later grades. Mastery of these skills is essential.
After school tutoring by teachers, volunteer tutors from Walters State and the community, and peer tutoring are all part of the solution--and some of this is being done now.
I believe that merit pay for teachers and a readjustment of pay scales with increased pay for those certified in areas of greater need (advanced math courses, physics, science) are also a part of the solution. (But this is one of those taboo areas that one doesn't talk about in polite company)
I believe that teacher tenure will soon be a relic of the past. I have mixed feelings about this. Tenure is good where it protects a good teacher from a politically-motivated firing; on the flip side, tenure is often perceived by the public as providing lifetime job security to marginal and even poor teachers.
I believe that we need to take another look at block scheduling that was adopted at our local high schools some 10 years ago. It may be an idea that sounded good in theory but that is not academically sound in practice. Some adjustments have already been made in math and other courses to provide year-round instead of semester instruction, but the entire block scheduling concept should be reviewed completely. I understand that a number of schools are starting to back away from the 90- minute classes that are the basis of block scheduling and are going back to the more traditional year-round 55-60 minute classes.
A number of different viewpoints and ideas for improving education should be considered--not just the same old "more money" requests that have failed in the past. It's time for new and creative ideas. And if something doesn't work, ditch it. Don't just keep throwing more money at it. By the same token, if a particular program does work, keep it and work even harder at it.
Many individuals, groups, and organizations in Hamblen County care about education. As for me, I have three children. As a parent, I was closely involved in my children's education every step of the way. All three graduated from the University of Tennessee.
As a teacher for 11 years, I was involved in the education of hundreds of young people. I enjoyed seeing the enthusiasm of my students, and I worked hard every day to help them both academically and socially.
As a supporter of athletics, I coached middle school basketball. I was a member and officer in several booster clubs at West High. I was president of the all-sports athletic booster club at West High. But let me add this...while sports programs are wonderful, there is nothing more important than academics.
I was an early and vocal supporter of improved educational facilities. Back in 1997--many years before you arrived in Morristown-- I was one of those who was actively involved in getting a comprehensive school building program off the ground.
I was teaching English at the old West View Middle School on Economy Road at that time. [It has since been remodeled and is now called Manley Elementary.] The old West View Middle was one of the last of the "open school" designs in Hamblen County. You can imagine how difficult it was to teach English to a class of 25-30 students while another English teacher tried to teach a classroom of 25-30 students right next to you. With NO walls to separate the two classrooms.
I wrote letters to parents about our need for walls between the classrooms and other improvements. I helped organize meetings at West View involving parents, teachers, and school board members. I attended joint school board-county commission meetings to encourage the adoption of a comprehensive school building program.
Many people, and I was one of them, were ecstatic when the building program was adopted and funded by county commission in 1998. Unfortunately, the school board then took the $32 million that was provided for school improvements across the county and drafted questionable contracts that resulted in conflicts of interest, numerous (22 or more) single bids being received and awarded, and cost overruns that resulted in the elimination of many of the planned improvements.
Waste of taxpayer money always concerns me. Over 1-1/2 years after the first contracts were signed, I realized what was going on in the school building program--that they were paying people to manage and supervise themselves while cost overruns mounted up and classrooms were eliminated. The waste was very disheartening for those of us who watched and saw what was happening.
I think it is important to try to correct situations instead of just wringing our hands. No one would do anything about this waste on the local level--except for lip service here and there.
Other concerned citizens and I spoke to the State Comptroller in Nashville in August 2001 about the supposed "competitive" bidding and the reality of the conflicts of interest that the school board denied all along. As a result of our efforts, state law was amended unanimously in 2002 to prohibit the local school board and others across the state from handling school construction management in the way that the Hamblen County School Board did from 1999-2002.
All this is to say that I value education as much and perhaps more than many people in Hamblen County. I have been involved in supporting better facilities, and I have supported athletics as well. The touchstone, however, is always academics.
I know that education is the key to personal success--of course, a little luck along the way can be very helpful, too. My parents stressed the importance of education to me, and I have stressed the importance of education to my own children.
I wish that money were somehow a "silver bullet" that would solve the problems within the educational bureaucracy. But it isn't. We have problems that money can't begin to address. We have problems that go deeper than financial shortages.
To solve the problems you have mentioned--time, time, and more time devoted to the basics is needed. And the same is true of the problem of not having a highly educated workforce. We have many excellent teachers, and we offer a varied and challenging curriculum for those who choose to avail themselves of it.
It is my opinion that an excellent education is offered to students in Hamblen County, but unfortunately some students and parents do not see the long-term value in education. Therefore, some parents do not push, encourage, and help their children, and it is also true that some students do not push themselves to get as much from the educational offerings that are laid before them, free for the taking.
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.
Once we are able to get support from all parents and once we are able to help students see the value of their K-12 education, then we will have a major part of the answer to our educational dilemma.
Thank you for your comments. You make many excellent points. We obviously agree on the importance of education, and I'm sure we both hope that more parents and students will come to realize the critical importance of education. Students should take advantage of the wonderful and challenging opportunities for learning that exist within our local school system.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
August 14, 2005 The money merry-go-round
I took a few days off from posting...
But I'm back and ready to report on the Special Committee and its examination of the Russellville Sewer Grant and the Courthouse Addition on August 9, 2005.
As is almost always the case where financial information is involved, we were handed sheets with cost information after we arrived. Then we were expected to digest the information and ask questions on the spot.
I asked several questions, but I have several more that I will be sending to the Trustee and County Mayor.
( I think it would be very helpful, particularly where financial information is involved, to get a report 3-4 workdays ahead of the meeting, so you can check the figures , compare information, and get your questions together--but that's just the way I like to approach financial issues. )
HAMBLEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE ADDITION. Commissioners were given a document by the County Mayor/Finance Department in 2004 that said contracts for this project totalled $2.5 million and that the amount spent on this project was $2.5 million. I questioned that immediately. I know and everyone on commission knows that no building project comes out perfectly like that. It's either over or under. It's never perfect. I asked for the total cost figures for that project. I received no reply. Another individual asked for the breakdown of costs that the Mayor/Finance Director compiled and added to get the $2.5 million amount shown as “spent” on the courthouse addition. She received no reply. When she and I went to the Mayor's Office and asked for the report or spreadsheet that had been used to come up with the $2.5 million "spent," we were told that it had been done by hand and there was no report or spreadsheet to back up the total reported to commission.
"Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!" as Goober would say. The committee was handed a document months later entitled Hamblen County Courthouse Addition Construction Project. It showed that actually $2,671,825 was spent on the addition. It showed that the amount spent on the addition came from bond proceeds ($2,500,000), Capital Improvement Fund/Health Department ($94,324), General Fund/Other Charges/Data Processing ($50,000), EMA/E911 ($16,339), and Interest Earned ($11,162). This document was dated March 2, 2001---meaning it's been available for the past 7-8 months that people have been requesting information on the true courthouse addition costs. Why wasn't it provided?
I had someone ask me how the health department could donate or give back $94,324 to the county for construction on the county courthouse. That's an excellent question that I wondered about as well. It will require some follow-up.
It was also interesting to find that $48,154 of Courthouse Addition "construction" money was spent on digitized mapping.
You just sit and actually marvel at the way money is moved and spent and labeled as one thing but spent on another. The two sets of accounting numbers that the County Mayor/Finance Director insist on keeping come to mind every time I see money being shifted around.
The 2004 audit (p. 194) with its report of $360,000 being shifted from fund to fund without approval of county commission also comes to mind. Months ago, the Audit Committee requested that Mayor David Purkey and Finance Director Nicole Epps inform us as to why the money was shifted and what previous errors were being "corrected" by these shifts. No answer.
You have to marvel at that, too. County Mayor David Purkey, the county's chief financial officer, and Finance Director Nicole Epps won't tell the Audit Committee what they were "correcting" in 2004 when they shifted $360,000 around! Who had paid that much money out of the wrong funds to begin with? Who authorized the payments out of the wrong funds?
I asked the Tribune to report my comment on the Courthouse Addition since I asked the initial questions. They did not use my quote, so I include it here:
"There is a serious lack of accountability and responsiveness on the part of the Finance Department of Hamblen County. This is evidenced by the fact that a Special Committee of the Hamblen County Commission had to meet yesterday in order to obtain from the Finance Department documentation of what is said to be the true and accurate costs for the multi-million dollar Hamblen County Courthouse Addition and for the Russellville Sewer project that was completed in 2004.
On the Courthouse Addition, the committee found that when it was told in 2004 that $2,500,000 exactly had been the "contracts" amount and that $2,500,000 exactly had been "spent" on this project, the reality was that over $171,000 more than that was spent and that a large portion of that overrun was covered by funds that had originally been appropriated to the local health department. All this was shown on a document bearing a date of 3/2/01. Why was this not provided to commissioners or members of the public who asked for the total costs of that project months ago?
I sincerely hope that securing financial information about the spending of taxpayer dollars will not require appointment of special committees in the future."
RUSSELLVILLE SEWER GRANT. Questions about the sewer grant procedures, costs, who got free taps, and approval of the county match of $120,000 have been asked by me and a few others for months (at least since December 2004 when the county was told that the total sewer costs were $601,426.15). At that time, I asked for documentation of when the county approved the $120,000 match that was required in the grant application.
I was never opposed to the sewer grant. It was a much needed project for residents of that area (off Old Russellville Pike). I did, however, want to know about the grant process, the actual final costs, the list of residents who got free taps and those who paid for taps, and, specifically, when the county approved the $120,000 match that the grant required at the outset. I had seen in the commission minutes where the prior commission approved $100,000 in matching money in Feb. 2001, but I had never seen approval of the other $20,000 that the CDBG apparently requires to be on record before they will approve the grant.
Although government procedures are sometimes "unusual," I would be very surprised to find that the state approved the grant without having the county provide copies of resolutions passed by commission appropriating the entire county match of $120,000. At the meeting, Sharee Long, with the Mayor's office, couldn't provide any information about the remaining $20,000 county match--other than assuring us that she'd try to find out more about the match if there was still a question.
As for the costs, we were given a sheet that had about three different "costs" and you could take your pick. There was a CDBG line item budget total cost of $601,426.15. This is what Mayor Purkey had said the total costs were in December 2004. Then there was "approved contract amounts" of $602,626.15. Then there was a "Total Expenditures to date" of $603,305.09. There was also $2,700 that was added to the contract with Public Systems sometime after the grant application was made.
This was what I asked the Tribune to report as my comment on the sewer project report:
"The Russellville sewer project report showed a small discrepancy between what was reported as the total costs to commission in December 2004 and what was reported yesterday. Some of the questions about Russellville relate to if, when, and how the county approved the $120,000 funding match that was required before the grant could be approved. And just yesterday, the county found out that a contract with Public Services System of Alabama was increased by $2,700 at some time although this increase was not shown in the revised line item budget for this project as late as August 2004."
The Tribune did not report my comment.
And I would add...if county commissioners are not willing to stand up for accountability, to require accurate financial reports, and to insist on a response when $360,000 is shifted around as occurred in 2004, then as Pogo said long ago: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
But I'm back and ready to report on the Special Committee and its examination of the Russellville Sewer Grant and the Courthouse Addition on August 9, 2005.
As is almost always the case where financial information is involved, we were handed sheets with cost information after we arrived. Then we were expected to digest the information and ask questions on the spot.
I asked several questions, but I have several more that I will be sending to the Trustee and County Mayor.
( I think it would be very helpful, particularly where financial information is involved, to get a report 3-4 workdays ahead of the meeting, so you can check the figures , compare information, and get your questions together--but that's just the way I like to approach financial issues. )
HAMBLEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE ADDITION. Commissioners were given a document by the County Mayor/Finance Department in 2004 that said contracts for this project totalled $2.5 million and that the amount spent on this project was $2.5 million. I questioned that immediately. I know and everyone on commission knows that no building project comes out perfectly like that. It's either over or under. It's never perfect. I asked for the total cost figures for that project. I received no reply. Another individual asked for the breakdown of costs that the Mayor/Finance Director compiled and added to get the $2.5 million amount shown as “spent” on the courthouse addition. She received no reply. When she and I went to the Mayor's Office and asked for the report or spreadsheet that had been used to come up with the $2.5 million "spent," we were told that it had been done by hand and there was no report or spreadsheet to back up the total reported to commission.
"Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!" as Goober would say. The committee was handed a document months later entitled Hamblen County Courthouse Addition Construction Project. It showed that actually $2,671,825 was spent on the addition. It showed that the amount spent on the addition came from bond proceeds ($2,500,000), Capital Improvement Fund/Health Department ($94,324), General Fund/Other Charges/Data Processing ($50,000), EMA/E911 ($16,339), and Interest Earned ($11,162). This document was dated March 2, 2001---meaning it's been available for the past 7-8 months that people have been requesting information on the true courthouse addition costs. Why wasn't it provided?
I had someone ask me how the health department could donate or give back $94,324 to the county for construction on the county courthouse. That's an excellent question that I wondered about as well. It will require some follow-up.
It was also interesting to find that $48,154 of Courthouse Addition "construction" money was spent on digitized mapping.
You just sit and actually marvel at the way money is moved and spent and labeled as one thing but spent on another. The two sets of accounting numbers that the County Mayor/Finance Director insist on keeping come to mind every time I see money being shifted around.
The 2004 audit (p. 194) with its report of $360,000 being shifted from fund to fund without approval of county commission also comes to mind. Months ago, the Audit Committee requested that Mayor David Purkey and Finance Director Nicole Epps inform us as to why the money was shifted and what previous errors were being "corrected" by these shifts. No answer.
You have to marvel at that, too. County Mayor David Purkey, the county's chief financial officer, and Finance Director Nicole Epps won't tell the Audit Committee what they were "correcting" in 2004 when they shifted $360,000 around! Who had paid that much money out of the wrong funds to begin with? Who authorized the payments out of the wrong funds?
I asked the Tribune to report my comment on the Courthouse Addition since I asked the initial questions. They did not use my quote, so I include it here:
"There is a serious lack of accountability and responsiveness on the part of the Finance Department of Hamblen County. This is evidenced by the fact that a Special Committee of the Hamblen County Commission had to meet yesterday in order to obtain from the Finance Department documentation of what is said to be the true and accurate costs for the multi-million dollar Hamblen County Courthouse Addition and for the Russellville Sewer project that was completed in 2004.
On the Courthouse Addition, the committee found that when it was told in 2004 that $2,500,000 exactly had been the "contracts" amount and that $2,500,000 exactly had been "spent" on this project, the reality was that over $171,000 more than that was spent and that a large portion of that overrun was covered by funds that had originally been appropriated to the local health department. All this was shown on a document bearing a date of 3/2/01. Why was this not provided to commissioners or members of the public who asked for the total costs of that project months ago?
I sincerely hope that securing financial information about the spending of taxpayer dollars will not require appointment of special committees in the future."
RUSSELLVILLE SEWER GRANT. Questions about the sewer grant procedures, costs, who got free taps, and approval of the county match of $120,000 have been asked by me and a few others for months (at least since December 2004 when the county was told that the total sewer costs were $601,426.15). At that time, I asked for documentation of when the county approved the $120,000 match that was required in the grant application.
I was never opposed to the sewer grant. It was a much needed project for residents of that area (off Old Russellville Pike). I did, however, want to know about the grant process, the actual final costs, the list of residents who got free taps and those who paid for taps, and, specifically, when the county approved the $120,000 match that the grant required at the outset. I had seen in the commission minutes where the prior commission approved $100,000 in matching money in Feb. 2001, but I had never seen approval of the other $20,000 that the CDBG apparently requires to be on record before they will approve the grant.
Although government procedures are sometimes "unusual," I would be very surprised to find that the state approved the grant without having the county provide copies of resolutions passed by commission appropriating the entire county match of $120,000. At the meeting, Sharee Long, with the Mayor's office, couldn't provide any information about the remaining $20,000 county match--other than assuring us that she'd try to find out more about the match if there was still a question.
As for the costs, we were given a sheet that had about three different "costs" and you could take your pick. There was a CDBG line item budget total cost of $601,426.15. This is what Mayor Purkey had said the total costs were in December 2004. Then there was "approved contract amounts" of $602,626.15. Then there was a "Total Expenditures to date" of $603,305.09. There was also $2,700 that was added to the contract with Public Systems sometime after the grant application was made.
This was what I asked the Tribune to report as my comment on the sewer project report:
"The Russellville sewer project report showed a small discrepancy between what was reported as the total costs to commission in December 2004 and what was reported yesterday. Some of the questions about Russellville relate to if, when, and how the county approved the $120,000 funding match that was required before the grant could be approved. And just yesterday, the county found out that a contract with Public Services System of Alabama was increased by $2,700 at some time although this increase was not shown in the revised line item budget for this project as late as August 2004."
The Tribune did not report my comment.
And I would add...if county commissioners are not willing to stand up for accountability, to require accurate financial reports, and to insist on a response when $360,000 is shifted around as occurred in 2004, then as Pogo said long ago: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Monday, August 08, 2005
August 8, 2005 If you can't stand the heat...
We had commission committee meetings today. These are the pre-meeting meetings (like a work session) where we discuss items that will come up at the regular Commission meeting on August 18. Nothing big came up although there was a lot of good debate and exchange of ideas.
We will ask Charter Cable Company to dedicate a channel to the county for use in televising county commission meetings. Currently, we deliver tapes to Walters State Community College and lately there have been problems with the airing of those tapes. Sometimes, no tape was shown at all. Sometimes, the meeting was not shown in its entirety. (Once , this was because the entire meeting was not filmed. Other times, however, part of the tape would be shown on one day and the other part on another day instead of the full meeting being aired in one sitting).
If you can't stand the heat...
The last meeting of the day was the Audit Committee. Edwin Osborne is chairman. Members present were Maudie Briggs, Herbert Harville, Linda Noe, and Joe Spoone. (Ricky Bruce was present for an earlier meeting, but he left before the Audit Committee meeting began).
The main agenda item was a letter that had been prepared by Chairman Osborne and that was addressed to Finance Chairman Herbert Harville. The letter remarked on the difficulty (impossibility?) in getting answers to 2004 audit questions from the County Mayor or Finance Director. It said that the Audit Committee is at an impasse and noted that County Mayor David Purkey had "willfully" encouraged other elected officials and departments heads not to respond in writing to the Audit Committee and not to attend Audit Committee meetings.
The Mayor's statement urging officials and departments heads to boycott Audit Committee meetings a couple of months ago was very effective. No one attended the Audit Committee then, and no one attended the Audit Committee today. Today, as the Audit Committee prepared to meet, the Mayor told county employee Jeff Atkins and local news person Paul Meador, "let's go," and they did. They skeedaddled out of there, so you probably won't hear anything about what happened at the Audit Committee on tomorrow's radio news.
The boycott game appears to be part of a power play. Commissioner Osborne is in for a rough time as he starts to ask questions. It'll be even rougher if he actually insists on answers.
Of course, Harville stated that this was "political." Apparently, asking for financial information about the county is "political," but withholding financial information is not. The vote was 4-1 to send the letter that asks Harville, who is chairman of the Finance Committee, to try and get some response out of County Mayor David Purkey and the Finance Department in connection with audit questions that have been asked but never answered.
Harville was the lone dissenting vote.
Since he voted against sending the letter in the first place, I asked Commissioner Harville if he would have any conflict or difficulty in trying to resolve the audit situation and getting some answers from the County Mayor. Harville said "no." I didn't want to see Harville placed in an uncomfortable situation doing something that he really didn't want to do.
Harville then asked Commissioner Osborne if Osborne really thought that he (Harville) could get answers to audit questions when Osborne and the committee had been unable to do so in numerous prior attempts. That was a very good question. I guess only time will tell whether Herbert Harville can succeed in getting Mayor Purkey to provide financial answers where others have been unable to do so.
If Harville can get answers to the 2004 audit questions that have been ignored for months by the County Mayor and Finance Director, we'll have to make him the official liaison between the Hamblen County Commission and the Hamblen County Mayor/Finance Department.
Stay tuned...
We will ask Charter Cable Company to dedicate a channel to the county for use in televising county commission meetings. Currently, we deliver tapes to Walters State Community College and lately there have been problems with the airing of those tapes. Sometimes, no tape was shown at all. Sometimes, the meeting was not shown in its entirety. (Once , this was because the entire meeting was not filmed. Other times, however, part of the tape would be shown on one day and the other part on another day instead of the full meeting being aired in one sitting).
If you can't stand the heat...
The last meeting of the day was the Audit Committee. Edwin Osborne is chairman. Members present were Maudie Briggs, Herbert Harville, Linda Noe, and Joe Spoone. (Ricky Bruce was present for an earlier meeting, but he left before the Audit Committee meeting began).
The main agenda item was a letter that had been prepared by Chairman Osborne and that was addressed to Finance Chairman Herbert Harville. The letter remarked on the difficulty (impossibility?) in getting answers to 2004 audit questions from the County Mayor or Finance Director. It said that the Audit Committee is at an impasse and noted that County Mayor David Purkey had "willfully" encouraged other elected officials and departments heads not to respond in writing to the Audit Committee and not to attend Audit Committee meetings.
The Mayor's statement urging officials and departments heads to boycott Audit Committee meetings a couple of months ago was very effective. No one attended the Audit Committee then, and no one attended the Audit Committee today. Today, as the Audit Committee prepared to meet, the Mayor told county employee Jeff Atkins and local news person Paul Meador, "let's go," and they did. They skeedaddled out of there, so you probably won't hear anything about what happened at the Audit Committee on tomorrow's radio news.
The boycott game appears to be part of a power play. Commissioner Osborne is in for a rough time as he starts to ask questions. It'll be even rougher if he actually insists on answers.
Of course, Harville stated that this was "political." Apparently, asking for financial information about the county is "political," but withholding financial information is not. The vote was 4-1 to send the letter that asks Harville, who is chairman of the Finance Committee, to try and get some response out of County Mayor David Purkey and the Finance Department in connection with audit questions that have been asked but never answered.
Harville was the lone dissenting vote.
Since he voted against sending the letter in the first place, I asked Commissioner Harville if he would have any conflict or difficulty in trying to resolve the audit situation and getting some answers from the County Mayor. Harville said "no." I didn't want to see Harville placed in an uncomfortable situation doing something that he really didn't want to do.
Harville then asked Commissioner Osborne if Osborne really thought that he (Harville) could get answers to audit questions when Osborne and the committee had been unable to do so in numerous prior attempts. That was a very good question. I guess only time will tell whether Herbert Harville can succeed in getting Mayor Purkey to provide financial answers where others have been unable to do so.
If Harville can get answers to the 2004 audit questions that have been ignored for months by the County Mayor and Finance Director, we'll have to make him the official liaison between the Hamblen County Commission and the Hamblen County Mayor/Finance Department.
Stay tuned...
Friday, August 05, 2005
August 5, 2005 The deficit budget passes
To no one's real surprise the Hamblen County Commission voted for a general government (General Fund) budget that is about $460,000 in the red yesterday. This is a deficit budget-- where the county starts the year expecting to spend about $460,000 more than it takes in. Spending more than you take in is not a good idea for a family budget. It's not a good idea for a government budget either.
This will be played as a "no new taxes" vote. Your property tax bill in October, however, may show that you owe more taxes than you did last year. Why? Because your property's assessed value likely went up. When the property tax rate goes up or when the assessed value of the property goes up, the property tax dollars you pay to the county go up. So when you hear "no tax increase" in the press, don't assume that you will be paying the same amount of taxes as last year.
The real significance of yesterday's vote? It is an admission that most commissioners can't or won't balance the county budget. Most commissioners are willing to use one-time money (pulling down the county's rainy day fund balance once again) to pay for recurring county expenses--an economic practice that eventually leads to bankruptcy.
Did we have a way to avoid a deficit budget in 2006 without raising the tax rate? Yes, we did.
At yesterday's meeting, I put forth the only balanced budget proposal for the General Fund that was made during the entire budget process. It was not rocket science. It was just a matter of returning the wheel tax revenues more in line with the split that was used in 1999 when the wheel tax was first enacted "to build up the general fund." In 1999, the $27 wheel tax was split into $23 for the General Fund and $4 for the School Fund. Over time the split changed with less and less going to the General Fund. With each change in the split, the General Fund got in worse shape and eventually reached an all-time low in 2003.
My proposal was simple. We could balance the General Fund budget by changing the $27 wheel tax split so that $21 would go to the General Fund and $6 would go to the schools. With this proposal, the General Fund was balanced (no pulling from fund balance, no using one-time money for recurring expenses, no simply postponing a tax hike), and the schools would receive $2.4 million in new additional funding for the 2005-2006 school year.
Tom Lowe, a staunch opponent of deficit spending, seconded my motion. It went to a vote and was defeated 12-2. Tom and I were the only supporters of the balanced budget proposal.
Although Commissioners Bruce and Osborne and a few others said they didn't like the deficit budget that was before them, they offered no alternative. If you grew up in the 60s, it reminded you of the line from Hee-Haw, "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." Only this time it would be, "If it weren't for a bad budget, we'd have no budget at all."
Other commissioners sat virtually silent during the whole process--no idea, no comment, no proposal.
Apparently after spending many hours over many months on a deficit budget, no one was willing to propose spending cuts, no one was willing to propose a tax rate increase, and no one had a proposal for a balanced budget--except for my balanced budget proposal mentioned above.
The silence and the lack of alternatives reminded me of a quote from Albert Einstein, "Don't expect the people who got you into a mess to get you out of it."
FYI: In my August 3, 2005 post, I spoke of the proposed General Fund deficit of $760,000. Things got changed around yesterday as the actual budget vote was taken. Yesterday, the General Fund ended up with a $460,000 deficit and the $300,000 that was originally going to be part of the General Fund deficit was instead taken out of the debt fund.
This will be played as a "no new taxes" vote. Your property tax bill in October, however, may show that you owe more taxes than you did last year. Why? Because your property's assessed value likely went up. When the property tax rate goes up or when the assessed value of the property goes up, the property tax dollars you pay to the county go up. So when you hear "no tax increase" in the press, don't assume that you will be paying the same amount of taxes as last year.
The real significance of yesterday's vote? It is an admission that most commissioners can't or won't balance the county budget. Most commissioners are willing to use one-time money (pulling down the county's rainy day fund balance once again) to pay for recurring county expenses--an economic practice that eventually leads to bankruptcy.
Did we have a way to avoid a deficit budget in 2006 without raising the tax rate? Yes, we did.
At yesterday's meeting, I put forth the only balanced budget proposal for the General Fund that was made during the entire budget process. It was not rocket science. It was just a matter of returning the wheel tax revenues more in line with the split that was used in 1999 when the wheel tax was first enacted "to build up the general fund." In 1999, the $27 wheel tax was split into $23 for the General Fund and $4 for the School Fund. Over time the split changed with less and less going to the General Fund. With each change in the split, the General Fund got in worse shape and eventually reached an all-time low in 2003.
My proposal was simple. We could balance the General Fund budget by changing the $27 wheel tax split so that $21 would go to the General Fund and $6 would go to the schools. With this proposal, the General Fund was balanced (no pulling from fund balance, no using one-time money for recurring expenses, no simply postponing a tax hike), and the schools would receive $2.4 million in new additional funding for the 2005-2006 school year.
Tom Lowe, a staunch opponent of deficit spending, seconded my motion. It went to a vote and was defeated 12-2. Tom and I were the only supporters of the balanced budget proposal.
Although Commissioners Bruce and Osborne and a few others said they didn't like the deficit budget that was before them, they offered no alternative. If you grew up in the 60s, it reminded you of the line from Hee-Haw, "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." Only this time it would be, "If it weren't for a bad budget, we'd have no budget at all."
Other commissioners sat virtually silent during the whole process--no idea, no comment, no proposal.
Apparently after spending many hours over many months on a deficit budget, no one was willing to propose spending cuts, no one was willing to propose a tax rate increase, and no one had a proposal for a balanced budget--except for my balanced budget proposal mentioned above.
The silence and the lack of alternatives reminded me of a quote from Albert Einstein, "Don't expect the people who got you into a mess to get you out of it."
FYI: In my August 3, 2005 post, I spoke of the proposed General Fund deficit of $760,000. Things got changed around yesterday as the actual budget vote was taken. Yesterday, the General Fund ended up with a $460,000 deficit and the $300,000 that was originally going to be part of the General Fund deficit was instead taken out of the debt fund.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
August 3, 2005 A deficit budget in the making
The Hamblen County Commission meets tomorrow at 4:00 pm. The 7/1/05-6/30/06 budgets for Hamblen County General Government (General Fund), School Fund, Highway Fund, Garbage Fund, Debt Fund, and a few minor funds are on the agenda.
Most of the budgets have no serious problem. The only budget that is in the red, with a deficit of $760,000 is the county's general fund.
The current proposal is to give $3.1 million new dollars to the school system and to leave the county with a $760,000 deficit.
(The general fund deficit may end up being even higher because it appears that the Planning Commission plans to wait until after the budget is passed and then present commission with a request for an unspecified amount of additional money for an additional employee and perhaps other costs. Overcrowding in the jail is still "out there." What else could there be? I certainly hope that there isn't another hospital bail out or transportation emergency or super-fund site clean-up that we haven't been told about and that will be presented as an "emergency" with immediate action required.)
It appears that Commissioner Harville's plan to give the schools $300,000 of county trustee fees has hit a snag. Harville, whose son Stan is principal at Witt Elementary, decided on July 19th that $2.8 million new dollars was not enough of an increase for the schools, so he proposed giving the schools $300,000 more out of the county trustee's fees. On July 22nd, County Mayor David Purkey revised the county budget and showed the $300,000 as a "transfer payment" from the general fund to the school fund.
I tried to call Mayor Purkey yesterday and today, but he was either busy or gone. I wanted to share with him a letter that he provided to commission during the 2002 budget process--a letter from County Technical Assistance Services that seems to express the opinion that you can't do what the Mayor has shown-- transfer money from fund to fund.
I sent this letter to the county attorney for his review, and to Finance Director Epps today. With the letter, I noted that if the county wants to give another $300,000 to the schools while putting the general fund $300,000 deeper in debt, there are other ways to do this. For example, we can lower the general fund tax levy and increase the school tax levy or we can lower the general fund wheel tax revenue and add to the schools wheel tax revenue. Of course, we can just raise the school tax rate as well.
There will be a large number of school employees at the meeting tomorrow. They have been told to come and to protest the fact that county commission is only giving the school system $3.1 million new dollars instead of the full $4.1 million new dollars as requested. Some of these employees (cafeteria workers, bus drivers, custodians) have been told by the Board and by Director Lynch that they will not get a raise unless county commission provides more money.
Apparently, the school board is not spreading the millions of new dollars around to all employees and is blaming the county commission for the choices that the board has made in terms of who gets what and how much. As I've mentioned in previous blogs, the school board alone determines how the millions of new dollars will be spent. It can spread the millions out to all employees, or it can leave some employees out-- as it apparently has chosen to do.
Tomorrow, public address announcements will be made at the schools to rally the troops, memos will probably go out to school employees, and there will be a packed courthouse. During the hoop-la as the employed fight over more money and better benefits, will anyone think of the person who has no job or who works for minimum wage? Will anyone think of the people they know on a fixed income of $600/month? Will anyone think of the people they know who have no insurance? Will anyone think of the person who has no, or a meager, retirement? Will anyone think of the neighbor down the street who already faces a property tax increase due to the 2005 property reappraisal?
Will anyone think of the entire community and consider that maybe we should be thankful for what we have? Will anyone think of the general fund and how a $760,000+ draw down/deficit will affect it this year and the next? The big picture includes all citizens. Maybe it's time for moderation and even-handedness, instead of the "I want it all" attitude that we see too often at this time of year.
Yes, I taught school for 11 years. Yes, I loved to see a raise. Who doesn't? Maudie Briggs has said that our factories are gone and they're not coming back. Our trustee has pointed out that our revenues have flat-lined for now. It's a time of economic adjustment, and a lot of people are being hit hard. In the big picture, would it be so awful if some people took a smaller raise this year to ensure that their fellow employees are also able to receive a share of the pie? Would it be so awful if we balanced the general fund, gave the schools $2.5 million, and avoided the disaster that is being set up for next year?
We are rushing headlong toward a disaster during the next budget cycle if we go ahead and in our frustration pass what just about everyone knows is a bad budget. It's amazing to watch those who have preached long-range planning and those who have touted financial expertise express a willingness to wash their hands of it all at this point and just pass something, anything--even if it is bad for Hamblen County and a potential disaster for taxpayers next year.
Where's the concern about long-range, strategic planning in this budget? Where's the willingness to work for the taxpayers instead of throwing one's hands up in frustration? Instead of just mindlessly voting for a bad budget, who is going to put forth an alternative?
Most of the budgets have no serious problem. The only budget that is in the red, with a deficit of $760,000 is the county's general fund.
The current proposal is to give $3.1 million new dollars to the school system and to leave the county with a $760,000 deficit.
(The general fund deficit may end up being even higher because it appears that the Planning Commission plans to wait until after the budget is passed and then present commission with a request for an unspecified amount of additional money for an additional employee and perhaps other costs. Overcrowding in the jail is still "out there." What else could there be? I certainly hope that there isn't another hospital bail out or transportation emergency or super-fund site clean-up that we haven't been told about and that will be presented as an "emergency" with immediate action required.)
It appears that Commissioner Harville's plan to give the schools $300,000 of county trustee fees has hit a snag. Harville, whose son Stan is principal at Witt Elementary, decided on July 19th that $2.8 million new dollars was not enough of an increase for the schools, so he proposed giving the schools $300,000 more out of the county trustee's fees. On July 22nd, County Mayor David Purkey revised the county budget and showed the $300,000 as a "transfer payment" from the general fund to the school fund.
I tried to call Mayor Purkey yesterday and today, but he was either busy or gone. I wanted to share with him a letter that he provided to commission during the 2002 budget process--a letter from County Technical Assistance Services that seems to express the opinion that you can't do what the Mayor has shown-- transfer money from fund to fund.
I sent this letter to the county attorney for his review, and to Finance Director Epps today. With the letter, I noted that if the county wants to give another $300,000 to the schools while putting the general fund $300,000 deeper in debt, there are other ways to do this. For example, we can lower the general fund tax levy and increase the school tax levy or we can lower the general fund wheel tax revenue and add to the schools wheel tax revenue. Of course, we can just raise the school tax rate as well.
There will be a large number of school employees at the meeting tomorrow. They have been told to come and to protest the fact that county commission is only giving the school system $3.1 million new dollars instead of the full $4.1 million new dollars as requested. Some of these employees (cafeteria workers, bus drivers, custodians) have been told by the Board and by Director Lynch that they will not get a raise unless county commission provides more money.
Apparently, the school board is not spreading the millions of new dollars around to all employees and is blaming the county commission for the choices that the board has made in terms of who gets what and how much. As I've mentioned in previous blogs, the school board alone determines how the millions of new dollars will be spent. It can spread the millions out to all employees, or it can leave some employees out-- as it apparently has chosen to do.
Tomorrow, public address announcements will be made at the schools to rally the troops, memos will probably go out to school employees, and there will be a packed courthouse. During the hoop-la as the employed fight over more money and better benefits, will anyone think of the person who has no job or who works for minimum wage? Will anyone think of the people they know on a fixed income of $600/month? Will anyone think of the people they know who have no insurance? Will anyone think of the person who has no, or a meager, retirement? Will anyone think of the neighbor down the street who already faces a property tax increase due to the 2005 property reappraisal?
Will anyone think of the entire community and consider that maybe we should be thankful for what we have? Will anyone think of the general fund and how a $760,000+ draw down/deficit will affect it this year and the next? The big picture includes all citizens. Maybe it's time for moderation and even-handedness, instead of the "I want it all" attitude that we see too often at this time of year.
Yes, I taught school for 11 years. Yes, I loved to see a raise. Who doesn't? Maudie Briggs has said that our factories are gone and they're not coming back. Our trustee has pointed out that our revenues have flat-lined for now. It's a time of economic adjustment, and a lot of people are being hit hard. In the big picture, would it be so awful if some people took a smaller raise this year to ensure that their fellow employees are also able to receive a share of the pie? Would it be so awful if we balanced the general fund, gave the schools $2.5 million, and avoided the disaster that is being set up for next year?
We are rushing headlong toward a disaster during the next budget cycle if we go ahead and in our frustration pass what just about everyone knows is a bad budget. It's amazing to watch those who have preached long-range planning and those who have touted financial expertise express a willingness to wash their hands of it all at this point and just pass something, anything--even if it is bad for Hamblen County and a potential disaster for taxpayers next year.
Where's the concern about long-range, strategic planning in this budget? Where's the willingness to work for the taxpayers instead of throwing one's hands up in frustration? Instead of just mindlessly voting for a bad budget, who is going to put forth an alternative?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
July 28, 2005 When is a "cut," not a cut?
A recent July 26th story in a local newspaper was headlined "Director: No budget, no school." The story went on to say that the school budget had been "cut" about $1 million dollars.
So when is a "cut" not really a cut?
When you ask for $4 million dollars of new funding and you get $3 million of new funding instead---and that is what the proposed 05-06 school budget provides ($3 million in new state and local funding).
I would love to have a "cut" like that any day of the week. You probably would, too. Suppose you go to your boss and ask for a $4/hour raise and you get a $3/hour raise instead...are you going to go to your fellow employees and complain and tell them that you got a pay cut? Probably not, because in fact you got a pay RAISE of $3/hour.
Another item in the story reported that the school system was only able to add 1.5 teachers last year due to last year's "shortage of funding." Well, the state BEP school funding formula last year showed that funding calculations were based on 14 new teachers. Obviously, 14 new teachers were not hired. So where did that money go?
A lot of people, including the public, teachers, and some school administrators as well, are just now beginning to understand that BEP state funding is just a formula for calculating how much money the schools will get--it does not mandate where the additional money will be spent.
In fact, once the money is in the hands of the Hamblen County School Board (whether it's state BEP money or local taxpayer money), the Director of Schools, with the approval of the Hamblen County School Board, makes the determination of where the additional money goes-- whether it's $1 million or $3 million more. The Director and Board decide whether to use the new money to hire one or 14 new teachers, to offer AP courses, or to buy textbooks.
The extra money can go to hire new teachers or it can go to pay experienced teachers to retire--that's a decision that the school board makes.
The extra money can go to improve technology or it can go to provide more administrative personnel and pay--that's a decision that the school board makes.
The extra money can go to provide pay raises for all personnel or for teachers only--that's a decision that the school board makes.
Back to the original question: When is a "cut," not really a cut? When you get $3 million dollars in additional money to spend! That's only a cut if you live in the land of school board politics where you pull out the word "cut" when you are telling custodians and bus drivers that they don't get a piece (pay raise) of the $3 million dollar pie because the school budget was "cut."
It may have happened at some time, but I have never heard of the local school board getting, or expecting to get, all the money it requests. Besides, part of the political game that is played is that we don't really talk about education, we just talk about money. And our decisions are based on the assumption that money= education.
As part of the never-ending political game, the school board always asks county commission for about twice what it needs or expects to get. Then the county commission says "sorry" we can only give you this much. There is some haggling and negotiating behind the scenes. Then the school board meets and tells custodians or bus drivers or cafeteria personnel or teacher assistants that they won't get a pay raise because of that mean old county commission--the school board never says to the custodians or bus drivers or cafeteria personnel or teacher assistants that they will not get a pay raise because the school board has chosen not to spend the 05-06 new funding on raises for non-certified personnel.
The School Board is now in phase II of the money game. In this phase, the Board, assisted by the media, says that the school system is faced with budget "cuts" when actually the school board is faced with deciding where to spend $3 million more dollars.
(By the way, in the game that is played, the school board never expected to get the $4 million more that they requested anyway. They likely hoped to get $2.2-$2.6 million. Even though they are ahead of real expectations, the rules of the money game say they have to berate county commission and hard-working taxpayers and shout "cut," "cut, "cut" wherever they go).
Now we'll see a series of newspaper articles and editorials with posturing and commentary by the Board, the Director of Schools, and the local newspaper saying that education and children have been short-changed. Again the premise is money=education.
During the 10-year period that covers school years 1993-2002, student enrollment held steady. 1993: 8710 students. 2002: 8932 students. About 222 students TOTAL were added in the 10-year period from 1993-2002. That means we were adding on average about 22 students each year. In the last 2-3 years, however, there has been a growth of about 250+ students each year. Most of the increase in student numbers for 2004 and 2005 is found in Hispanic enrollment figures. That's not a racist statement. That's a simple fact that has been presented in newspaper articles using data provided by the Director of Schools and the school board.
The proposed 2006 school budget provides millions in new school funding. But (as always) county commission and local taxpayers will have to endure attacks that they don't love the children because they didn't provide the full $4 million dollars that the schools requested. And for some reason, everybody is trying to ignore the county budget that shows a deficit of $760,000. Where does the money come from next year to cover recurring county expenses? Where are the long-range strategic plans?
Is there a solution? Is there a way to get rid of the county's current projected deficit of $760,000 for 05-06 and still provide nearly $2.4-$2.5 million new funding for the schools? Yes. See my post of July 21, 2005. But don't hold your breath for that to happen.
The game has to be played out. It has to happen every year, like clockwork. The special government game that everybody knows. But, of course, no one is supposed to look at the real facts and figures or think outside the game box.
So when is a "cut" not really a cut?
When you ask for $4 million dollars of new funding and you get $3 million of new funding instead---and that is what the proposed 05-06 school budget provides ($3 million in new state and local funding).
I would love to have a "cut" like that any day of the week. You probably would, too. Suppose you go to your boss and ask for a $4/hour raise and you get a $3/hour raise instead...are you going to go to your fellow employees and complain and tell them that you got a pay cut? Probably not, because in fact you got a pay RAISE of $3/hour.
Another item in the story reported that the school system was only able to add 1.5 teachers last year due to last year's "shortage of funding." Well, the state BEP school funding formula last year showed that funding calculations were based on 14 new teachers. Obviously, 14 new teachers were not hired. So where did that money go?
A lot of people, including the public, teachers, and some school administrators as well, are just now beginning to understand that BEP state funding is just a formula for calculating how much money the schools will get--it does not mandate where the additional money will be spent.
In fact, once the money is in the hands of the Hamblen County School Board (whether it's state BEP money or local taxpayer money), the Director of Schools, with the approval of the Hamblen County School Board, makes the determination of where the additional money goes-- whether it's $1 million or $3 million more. The Director and Board decide whether to use the new money to hire one or 14 new teachers, to offer AP courses, or to buy textbooks.
The extra money can go to hire new teachers or it can go to pay experienced teachers to retire--that's a decision that the school board makes.
The extra money can go to improve technology or it can go to provide more administrative personnel and pay--that's a decision that the school board makes.
The extra money can go to provide pay raises for all personnel or for teachers only--that's a decision that the school board makes.
Back to the original question: When is a "cut," not really a cut? When you get $3 million dollars in additional money to spend! That's only a cut if you live in the land of school board politics where you pull out the word "cut" when you are telling custodians and bus drivers that they don't get a piece (pay raise) of the $3 million dollar pie because the school budget was "cut."
It may have happened at some time, but I have never heard of the local school board getting, or expecting to get, all the money it requests. Besides, part of the political game that is played is that we don't really talk about education, we just talk about money. And our decisions are based on the assumption that money= education.
As part of the never-ending political game, the school board always asks county commission for about twice what it needs or expects to get. Then the county commission says "sorry" we can only give you this much. There is some haggling and negotiating behind the scenes. Then the school board meets and tells custodians or bus drivers or cafeteria personnel or teacher assistants that they won't get a pay raise because of that mean old county commission--the school board never says to the custodians or bus drivers or cafeteria personnel or teacher assistants that they will not get a pay raise because the school board has chosen not to spend the 05-06 new funding on raises for non-certified personnel.
The School Board is now in phase II of the money game. In this phase, the Board, assisted by the media, says that the school system is faced with budget "cuts" when actually the school board is faced with deciding where to spend $3 million more dollars.
(By the way, in the game that is played, the school board never expected to get the $4 million more that they requested anyway. They likely hoped to get $2.2-$2.6 million. Even though they are ahead of real expectations, the rules of the money game say they have to berate county commission and hard-working taxpayers and shout "cut," "cut, "cut" wherever they go).
Now we'll see a series of newspaper articles and editorials with posturing and commentary by the Board, the Director of Schools, and the local newspaper saying that education and children have been short-changed. Again the premise is money=education.
During the 10-year period that covers school years 1993-2002, student enrollment held steady. 1993: 8710 students. 2002: 8932 students. About 222 students TOTAL were added in the 10-year period from 1993-2002. That means we were adding on average about 22 students each year. In the last 2-3 years, however, there has been a growth of about 250+ students each year. Most of the increase in student numbers for 2004 and 2005 is found in Hispanic enrollment figures. That's not a racist statement. That's a simple fact that has been presented in newspaper articles using data provided by the Director of Schools and the school board.
The proposed 2006 school budget provides millions in new school funding. But (as always) county commission and local taxpayers will have to endure attacks that they don't love the children because they didn't provide the full $4 million dollars that the schools requested. And for some reason, everybody is trying to ignore the county budget that shows a deficit of $760,000. Where does the money come from next year to cover recurring county expenses? Where are the long-range strategic plans?
Is there a solution? Is there a way to get rid of the county's current projected deficit of $760,000 for 05-06 and still provide nearly $2.4-$2.5 million new funding for the schools? Yes. See my post of July 21, 2005. But don't hold your breath for that to happen.
The game has to be played out. It has to happen every year, like clockwork. The special government game that everybody knows. But, of course, no one is supposed to look at the real facts and figures or think outside the game box.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
July 23, 2005 "Oops"
Remember your mom telling you, "haste makes waste"?
At the Commission meeting on July 21, the Finance Director and County Mayor David Purkey got kind of hot when I expressed my frustration at being handed financial figures and budget info during the meeting and not having an adequate opportunity to review them before a vote was taken.
My point was that we need time to review figures to see if they match what was voted on previously in committee. The whole thing reminded me of what happened just two weeks ago when we received the certified tax rate and the Trustee took those figures and calculated new revenue totals and Mayor Purkey and Ms. Epps took those figures and gave us new budget summaries and then ...
OOPS, I took a look at the calculations and found out the new tax rate had been miscalculated--it was 11 cents too high. That meant that the revenue projections were $1.2 million too high, and the budget summaries were no good. Haste makes waste!
The word I used to describe my feelings at the meeting on Thursday, being handed figures and then told to vote, was "stunned." Yes, I am stunned that we sit there while papers and numbers are thrown at us on the day we are to vote. In this instance, some of the papers and data were handed to us in the middle of the meeting while other business was being handled.
When I got home Thursday evening, I had time to review the data and found that the general government fund was showing "only" about a $460,000 deficit where it was about a $760,000 deficit when we left the July 19 meeting.
On Friday afternoon, July 22, I planned to e-mail Mayor David Purkey and Finance Director Nicole Epps to see if the $300,000 difference was related to the extra $300,000 that Herbert Harville and 8 other commissioners had voted to take out of the county government fund and give to the school system on top of the $2.8 million in new funds that the schools were already getting.
I went to work and didn't get home until 5:30. There was no use in sending an e-mail then--everyone at the Courthouse would be gone. My question about the $300,000 that was left off would have to wait until Monday.
Oops!!
On Saturday, July 23, guess what arrived in the mail?
An "Oops!" letter from County Mayor David Purkey and his Finance Director Nicole Epps. There was indeed a $300,000 mistake in the General Fund. The $300,000 that Commissioner Harville had voted to give to the schools from Trustee's fees had been left off of General Fund expenditures. Long and short of it: the figures we voted on so hastily and without reviewing them were wrong.
"Haste makes waste?" Yes, it certainly does.
At the Commission meeting on July 21, the Finance Director and County Mayor David Purkey got kind of hot when I expressed my frustration at being handed financial figures and budget info during the meeting and not having an adequate opportunity to review them before a vote was taken.
My point was that we need time to review figures to see if they match what was voted on previously in committee. The whole thing reminded me of what happened just two weeks ago when we received the certified tax rate and the Trustee took those figures and calculated new revenue totals and Mayor Purkey and Ms. Epps took those figures and gave us new budget summaries and then ...
OOPS, I took a look at the calculations and found out the new tax rate had been miscalculated--it was 11 cents too high. That meant that the revenue projections were $1.2 million too high, and the budget summaries were no good. Haste makes waste!
The word I used to describe my feelings at the meeting on Thursday, being handed figures and then told to vote, was "stunned." Yes, I am stunned that we sit there while papers and numbers are thrown at us on the day we are to vote. In this instance, some of the papers and data were handed to us in the middle of the meeting while other business was being handled.
When I got home Thursday evening, I had time to review the data and found that the general government fund was showing "only" about a $460,000 deficit where it was about a $760,000 deficit when we left the July 19 meeting.
On Friday afternoon, July 22, I planned to e-mail Mayor David Purkey and Finance Director Nicole Epps to see if the $300,000 difference was related to the extra $300,000 that Herbert Harville and 8 other commissioners had voted to take out of the county government fund and give to the school system on top of the $2.8 million in new funds that the schools were already getting.
I went to work and didn't get home until 5:30. There was no use in sending an e-mail then--everyone at the Courthouse would be gone. My question about the $300,000 that was left off would have to wait until Monday.
Oops!!
On Saturday, July 23, guess what arrived in the mail?
An "Oops!" letter from County Mayor David Purkey and his Finance Director Nicole Epps. There was indeed a $300,000 mistake in the General Fund. The $300,000 that Commissioner Harville had voted to give to the schools from Trustee's fees had been left off of General Fund expenditures. Long and short of it: the figures we voted on so hastily and without reviewing them were wrong.
"Haste makes waste?" Yes, it certainly does.
Friday, July 22, 2005
July 21, 2005 Deficit Budget passes
To no one's surprise, the County Commission approved a deficit general fund budget yesterday. The General Fund is about $500,000 in the hole.
How can you cover that deficit? The same way a family would-- you pull out of your savings (fund balance).
Why would you pass a deficit budget without looking for ways to cut expenditures? I can't answer that. I was fully prepared to take the time to meet with department heads to review each budget and make cuts. Commissioner Joe Spoone had outlined some pretty hefty cuts in a brief conversation with me and some other individuals just two days before. I don't know why those cuts weren't put forward for discussion on July 21.
With some effort, we might have found additional cuts that would have given us a balanced budget in 05-06. One thing is certain. Since we didn't look, we'll never know. Another certainty: we will never get a balanced budget if we do not control spending.
We have growth in the county. We could have a balanced budget if we had the courage to make sure that our spending did not exceed our additional revenue growth. The schools could have had $2.4 million in new money and the county could have had a balanced budget if we had taken new steps to structure the revenue.
Lately, it has been interesting to watch the changes as various commissioners have morphed away from their 2002 campaign promises of accountability and have become big spenders who don't even look for ways to cut expenses.
Several commissioners have apparently now decided that we have a revenue problem (you aren't taxed enough) instead of a spending problem. If you don't think there is a spending problem, then you quit looking for ways to cut spending as happened with the 05-06 budget.
Then you shift money around. The shell game. Example: First you budget insurance in one big line item. Then you don't. Then you budget insurance in some departments and the rest of it in a single line item. Then you don't. Then you budget insurance in every department. Keep the money moving.
The budget will be published in the Citizen-Tribune and then the Commission plans to vote on it on August4.
If our spending continues to outpace our growth in revenues, we are heading toward a train wreck (huge tax increases) in the general fund. Will anyone apply the brakes?
How can you cover that deficit? The same way a family would-- you pull out of your savings (fund balance).
Why would you pass a deficit budget without looking for ways to cut expenditures? I can't answer that. I was fully prepared to take the time to meet with department heads to review each budget and make cuts. Commissioner Joe Spoone had outlined some pretty hefty cuts in a brief conversation with me and some other individuals just two days before. I don't know why those cuts weren't put forward for discussion on July 21.
With some effort, we might have found additional cuts that would have given us a balanced budget in 05-06. One thing is certain. Since we didn't look, we'll never know. Another certainty: we will never get a balanced budget if we do not control spending.
We have growth in the county. We could have a balanced budget if we had the courage to make sure that our spending did not exceed our additional revenue growth. The schools could have had $2.4 million in new money and the county could have had a balanced budget if we had taken new steps to structure the revenue.
Lately, it has been interesting to watch the changes as various commissioners have morphed away from their 2002 campaign promises of accountability and have become big spenders who don't even look for ways to cut expenses.
Several commissioners have apparently now decided that we have a revenue problem (you aren't taxed enough) instead of a spending problem. If you don't think there is a spending problem, then you quit looking for ways to cut spending as happened with the 05-06 budget.
Then you shift money around. The shell game. Example: First you budget insurance in one big line item. Then you don't. Then you budget insurance in some departments and the rest of it in a single line item. Then you don't. Then you budget insurance in every department. Keep the money moving.
The budget will be published in the Citizen-Tribune and then the Commission plans to vote on it on August4.
If our spending continues to outpace our growth in revenues, we are heading toward a train wreck (huge tax increases) in the general fund. Will anyone apply the brakes?
Thursday, July 21, 2005
July 21, 2005 Budget will be main topic at commission meeting
The July Commission Meeting is today at 5:00 p.m. in the large courtroom in the old section of the Courthouse.
The Budget Committee, "committee" is a misnomer of sorts since this "committee" is made up of the entire commission, will recommend general fund and school budgets today to the whole commission.
The proposal will be to budget $3.1 million new dollars for the schools (see my post of July 20).
The proposal for the general government budget for law enforcement, courts, planning, assessor, county court clerk, and all other offices is to approve a deficit spending plan and to draw down the county's "savings," or fund balance, to cover the shortfall of $760,000.
NOTE: The original shortfall for the county was $460,000 until 9 commissioners, taking a cue from Commissioner Herbert Harville, agreed to take $300,000 out of the county budget and give that to the schools on top of the growth money.
I keep hearing that a number of commissioners are still contemplating throwing a wheel tax increase into the mix--and they'll say it's a fairer tax because it hits "everyone." Well, as Commissioner Reinhardt said, a wheel tax doesn't hit everyone. It doesn't tax McDonald's. It taxes the lady or gentleman, young or old, working the counter at McDonald's for minimum wage. It taxes the '95 Chevy with 150,000 miles on it the same as the brand new 2005 Lexus.
Right now, we have some commissioners who are so excited about being in the "in-group" and getting called to the Courthouse for special one-on-one meetings that they have forgotten that there are people out there on a fixed income, people who have no jobs, people who have no insurance, people working for minimum wage, people who sometimes must choose between buying medicine or food, people who don't live in the "average" $100,000 house that Commissioner Briggs talks about, people who don't have the "average" Hamblen County income of $24,000 per year, people who rarely say anything because they learned long ago that people in government don't really listen.
By the way, when you hear that there is no tax increase in the proposed budgets, remember that the property tax dollars that you pay to the county come from multiplying TWO figures: "your assessment" x "tax rate." Check your new property tax assessment and you may find that you are already going to be paying more property tax dollars to the county next year (even without a rate increase) simply because your assessment has gone up so much.
It is a sad situation when you have a commissioner state in an open meeting that our records and accounting are so bad that it really doesn't matter what kind of budget we pass. Just pass something and be done with it.
It is unfortunate that commissioners who took all budgets "under advisement," now are not willing to look for savings.
I used to hear several commissioners say that the county budget, like a family budget, should depend on our revenue. We shouldn't spend more than we take in. Those commissioners are now waffling and saying revenues don't really matter after all. We have this much spending we want to do, and we'll do that spending even if we don't have enough revenue. We'll just pull from our fund balance (savings).
Flip-flop?
What happens next year when you need this money again to cover your expenses? We've been told that our growth has flat-lined. With only so much space in Hamblen County, growth eventually has to stabilize. That's common sense. Is it time to stabilize and review our spending as well? Is it time to collect all revenues that are due the county--with regular delinquent tax sales, with communication between the planning commission and the business tax office so that business licenses are purchased and taxes are collected on new construction, with service of warrants, etc.
There are solutions. Instead of adding more taxes, revenues can be increased by collecting what is due. Treat all employees the same. Spread the cuts around to all departments. And remember that these so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all. If we "cut" a county department or a school budget or the garbage budget, all that means is that they don't get all the funding they have requested on their wish-list.
Yes, keep spending within revenues. And if some commissioners are worried about building up a fund balance, don't lose any sleep over that. Commissioner Tom Lowe offered the perfect solution to that "problem," use any surplus to pay down the county's roughly $40M debt. Paying down debt is not a glamorous idea, but a common sense idea is rarely a showy thing.
The county has a pile of debt, and some people don't want to even think of trying to reduce it. It seems insurmountable. But you start even the longest journey with a single step. Paying down our debt is the ultimate win-win proposition. When the county pays down its debt, it's like you paying off your car. You still have your same income but now you don't have to spend money on the car payment, now you can spend it on house improvements or a vacation or education expenses.
The same thing would happen if the county paid down its debt. Revenue would still come in. But by cutting debt expenses, more money would be available for schools, law enforcement, public health and safety. Common sense.
We could even set aside and build a reserve fund for future capital expenses. Like a family might start saving now to be able to pay cash for a car 3 years from now. The government could save and try to handle big ticket items on a "pay-as-you-go" plan instead of suddenly raising taxes to pay for a bond issue.
Do I expect this to happen? Not now. Right now we don't even have the courage as a commission to insist on answers to audit questions about where last year's dollars went. Right now, some of the six new commissioners have forgotten how they were handed an unbalanced budget right after taking office--now some of these commissioners are going down that same path. Right now, some commissioners have forgotten that in 2002 $923,000 was pulled out of fund balance and that the next year (2003) the county general fund was "broke"--the only thing that kept us from being declared bankrupt was that several miscellaneous funds were dumped into the general fund.
Right now, too many commissioners have forgotten our recent financial history and have forgotten about accountability.
My only hope is that we don't wait until we have broken the general fund again before we wake up and smell the coffee.
The Budget Committee, "committee" is a misnomer of sorts since this "committee" is made up of the entire commission, will recommend general fund and school budgets today to the whole commission.
The proposal will be to budget $3.1 million new dollars for the schools (see my post of July 20).
The proposal for the general government budget for law enforcement, courts, planning, assessor, county court clerk, and all other offices is to approve a deficit spending plan and to draw down the county's "savings," or fund balance, to cover the shortfall of $760,000.
NOTE: The original shortfall for the county was $460,000 until 9 commissioners, taking a cue from Commissioner Herbert Harville, agreed to take $300,000 out of the county budget and give that to the schools on top of the growth money.
I keep hearing that a number of commissioners are still contemplating throwing a wheel tax increase into the mix--and they'll say it's a fairer tax because it hits "everyone." Well, as Commissioner Reinhardt said, a wheel tax doesn't hit everyone. It doesn't tax McDonald's. It taxes the lady or gentleman, young or old, working the counter at McDonald's for minimum wage. It taxes the '95 Chevy with 150,000 miles on it the same as the brand new 2005 Lexus.
Right now, we have some commissioners who are so excited about being in the "in-group" and getting called to the Courthouse for special one-on-one meetings that they have forgotten that there are people out there on a fixed income, people who have no jobs, people who have no insurance, people working for minimum wage, people who sometimes must choose between buying medicine or food, people who don't live in the "average" $100,000 house that Commissioner Briggs talks about, people who don't have the "average" Hamblen County income of $24,000 per year, people who rarely say anything because they learned long ago that people in government don't really listen.
By the way, when you hear that there is no tax increase in the proposed budgets, remember that the property tax dollars that you pay to the county come from multiplying TWO figures: "your assessment" x "tax rate." Check your new property tax assessment and you may find that you are already going to be paying more property tax dollars to the county next year (even without a rate increase) simply because your assessment has gone up so much.
It is a sad situation when you have a commissioner state in an open meeting that our records and accounting are so bad that it really doesn't matter what kind of budget we pass. Just pass something and be done with it.
It is unfortunate that commissioners who took all budgets "under advisement," now are not willing to look for savings.
I used to hear several commissioners say that the county budget, like a family budget, should depend on our revenue. We shouldn't spend more than we take in. Those commissioners are now waffling and saying revenues don't really matter after all. We have this much spending we want to do, and we'll do that spending even if we don't have enough revenue. We'll just pull from our fund balance (savings).
Flip-flop?
What happens next year when you need this money again to cover your expenses? We've been told that our growth has flat-lined. With only so much space in Hamblen County, growth eventually has to stabilize. That's common sense. Is it time to stabilize and review our spending as well? Is it time to collect all revenues that are due the county--with regular delinquent tax sales, with communication between the planning commission and the business tax office so that business licenses are purchased and taxes are collected on new construction, with service of warrants, etc.
There are solutions. Instead of adding more taxes, revenues can be increased by collecting what is due. Treat all employees the same. Spread the cuts around to all departments. And remember that these so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all. If we "cut" a county department or a school budget or the garbage budget, all that means is that they don't get all the funding they have requested on their wish-list.
Yes, keep spending within revenues. And if some commissioners are worried about building up a fund balance, don't lose any sleep over that. Commissioner Tom Lowe offered the perfect solution to that "problem," use any surplus to pay down the county's roughly $40M debt. Paying down debt is not a glamorous idea, but a common sense idea is rarely a showy thing.
The county has a pile of debt, and some people don't want to even think of trying to reduce it. It seems insurmountable. But you start even the longest journey with a single step. Paying down our debt is the ultimate win-win proposition. When the county pays down its debt, it's like you paying off your car. You still have your same income but now you don't have to spend money on the car payment, now you can spend it on house improvements or a vacation or education expenses.
The same thing would happen if the county paid down its debt. Revenue would still come in. But by cutting debt expenses, more money would be available for schools, law enforcement, public health and safety. Common sense.
We could even set aside and build a reserve fund for future capital expenses. Like a family might start saving now to be able to pay cash for a car 3 years from now. The government could save and try to handle big ticket items on a "pay-as-you-go" plan instead of suddenly raising taxes to pay for a bond issue.
Do I expect this to happen? Not now. Right now we don't even have the courage as a commission to insist on answers to audit questions about where last year's dollars went. Right now, some of the six new commissioners have forgotten how they were handed an unbalanced budget right after taking office--now some of these commissioners are going down that same path. Right now, some commissioners have forgotten that in 2002 $923,000 was pulled out of fund balance and that the next year (2003) the county general fund was "broke"--the only thing that kept us from being declared bankrupt was that several miscellaneous funds were dumped into the general fund.
Right now, too many commissioners have forgotten our recent financial history and have forgotten about accountability.
My only hope is that we don't wait until we have broken the general fund again before we wake up and smell the coffee.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
July 19, 2005 Tiptoe around the Taxes
Good news: Two of the tax whammies (see post of July 16) may have been avoided.
Bad news: The county passed a budget for its general government fund that is $760,000 in the red.
Hamblen County Commission's Budget Committee met. Commissioner Phillips proposed a plan to give the schools local property tax growth of about $500,000 and to "predict" and budget local sales tax growth of about $700,000. Net result is about a $1.2 million increase in local school spending on top of the $1.6 million increase in state BEP funding. This passed in committee 7-6. Commissioner Ricky Bruce was absent. This still must go to full Commission on July 21 for approval.
Then Herbert Harville, copying an idea from a Knox County School Board member, proposed to pull $300,000 out of the county's general government revenue and put this part of the county's revenue into school revenue. Harville's surprise maneuver, taking county government revenue and placing it into school revenue, passed with only a handful of "no" votes.
The county's general government fund was $460,000 in the red when we walked in to start our meeting. After Harville's proposal passed to take an additional $300,000 away from the county's general government fund (that is for law enforcement, county court clerk, veterans service officer, court, planning commission, etc.), the county's general fund budget was suddenly $760,000 in the red.
Harville is an ex-superintendent of schools and his son Stan is the principal at Witt Elementary. Harville is good with numbers, so he knew full well that his plan would put the government's general fund even deeper in the red. That apparently didn't matter to him. He supported a deficit budget spending plan for the county--a plan that is $760,000 in the red. It passed. I voted "no."
The previous Commission tricked voters into voting the 'temporary' wheel tax permanent via Briggs' "pick your poison" statement in April 2002. The previous Commission, eight of whom still serve on the currenet Commission, then went back on their "pick" statement and gave the voters a second dose of poison, voting in August 2002 to go ahead and enact a $0.15 property tax increase on top of the wheel tax extension. In 03-04, the new Commission enacted a $0.21 property tax increase on the outside garbage rate to rescue a garbage fund that was "broke." Then there was a litigation tax increase. And during this time (02-04) the Commission twice took money out of the debt fund, transferred about $700,000 to the general fund, and spent it.
Question: How can you make the wheel tax permanent (about $1.4 million in revenue), enact a $0.15 countywide property tax increase (about $1.5 million in revenue), enact a $0.21 garbage property tax increase (about $700,000 in revenue), raise litigation taxes, and then move about $700,000 into the general fund from the debt fund and still find yourself with a $760,000 deficit budget? More and more tax money has been raised, but we still find ourselves saying it isn't enough.
Maybe revenues will be better than expected. Maybe expenditures will end up less than expected. Maybe we'll be OK.
No one wanted to look for cuts. Commissioner Phillips said she had called county offices, and no one could cut anything other than a little here and there. Commissioner Osborne said our processes and accounting are so poor that it would be useless to look for any savings anywhere. I agree that our processes and accounting are poor--we know this from our audits and from the deafening silence from our "chief financial officer," County Mayor David Purkey, who insists on keeping two sets of financial numbers but who won't tell our audit committee why he moved $360,000 around from fund to fund in 2004 without authorization from county commission. I do not agree with Osborne or Phillips that it would be useless to look for every saving there is--big or small.
I noted again Commissioner Spoone's remarks that in all his 20+ years on Commission, he had never seen Commission accept all budgets without a cut. I suggested that a committee of up to 3 commissioners be appointed to examine the budget closely, talk to department heads, and report back with any savings. That didn't go to a vote.
Harville and several commissioners won't even talk about or look for cuts. Instead, they voted to put the general fund deeper into debt than it was when we walked into the meeting.
Lots more to come about how we got here...
Bad news: The county passed a budget for its general government fund that is $760,000 in the red.
Hamblen County Commission's Budget Committee met. Commissioner Phillips proposed a plan to give the schools local property tax growth of about $500,000 and to "predict" and budget local sales tax growth of about $700,000. Net result is about a $1.2 million increase in local school spending on top of the $1.6 million increase in state BEP funding. This passed in committee 7-6. Commissioner Ricky Bruce was absent. This still must go to full Commission on July 21 for approval.
Then Herbert Harville, copying an idea from a Knox County School Board member, proposed to pull $300,000 out of the county's general government revenue and put this part of the county's revenue into school revenue. Harville's surprise maneuver, taking county government revenue and placing it into school revenue, passed with only a handful of "no" votes.
The county's general government fund was $460,000 in the red when we walked in to start our meeting. After Harville's proposal passed to take an additional $300,000 away from the county's general government fund (that is for law enforcement, county court clerk, veterans service officer, court, planning commission, etc.), the county's general fund budget was suddenly $760,000 in the red.
Harville is an ex-superintendent of schools and his son Stan is the principal at Witt Elementary. Harville is good with numbers, so he knew full well that his plan would put the government's general fund even deeper in the red. That apparently didn't matter to him. He supported a deficit budget spending plan for the county--a plan that is $760,000 in the red. It passed. I voted "no."
The previous Commission tricked voters into voting the 'temporary' wheel tax permanent via Briggs' "pick your poison" statement in April 2002. The previous Commission, eight of whom still serve on the currenet Commission, then went back on their "pick" statement and gave the voters a second dose of poison, voting in August 2002 to go ahead and enact a $0.15 property tax increase on top of the wheel tax extension. In 03-04, the new Commission enacted a $0.21 property tax increase on the outside garbage rate to rescue a garbage fund that was "broke." Then there was a litigation tax increase. And during this time (02-04) the Commission twice took money out of the debt fund, transferred about $700,000 to the general fund, and spent it.
Question: How can you make the wheel tax permanent (about $1.4 million in revenue), enact a $0.15 countywide property tax increase (about $1.5 million in revenue), enact a $0.21 garbage property tax increase (about $700,000 in revenue), raise litigation taxes, and then move about $700,000 into the general fund from the debt fund and still find yourself with a $760,000 deficit budget? More and more tax money has been raised, but we still find ourselves saying it isn't enough.
Maybe revenues will be better than expected. Maybe expenditures will end up less than expected. Maybe we'll be OK.
No one wanted to look for cuts. Commissioner Phillips said she had called county offices, and no one could cut anything other than a little here and there. Commissioner Osborne said our processes and accounting are so poor that it would be useless to look for any savings anywhere. I agree that our processes and accounting are poor--we know this from our audits and from the deafening silence from our "chief financial officer," County Mayor David Purkey, who insists on keeping two sets of financial numbers but who won't tell our audit committee why he moved $360,000 around from fund to fund in 2004 without authorization from county commission. I do not agree with Osborne or Phillips that it would be useless to look for every saving there is--big or small.
I noted again Commissioner Spoone's remarks that in all his 20+ years on Commission, he had never seen Commission accept all budgets without a cut. I suggested that a committee of up to 3 commissioners be appointed to examine the budget closely, talk to department heads, and report back with any savings. That didn't go to a vote.
Harville and several commissioners won't even talk about or look for cuts. Instead, they voted to put the general fund deeper into debt than it was when we walked into the meeting.
Lots more to come about how we got here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)