July 29, 2009 Crumley Leaves with $145,000+; Mayor Barile Claims It's a "Railroad" Job But Doesn't Have the Guts to Vote "No"

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly. Macbeth.

At yesterday's city council meeting, the removal/retirement of Jim Crumley was "done quickly" and with little of the bloodletting that marks Shakespeare's Macbeth. The vote was 6-1 to approve the agreed severance package that provides $145,000 to Crumley plus certain other benefits in return for his exit-stage left.

Voting in favor of the removal were Gene Brooks, Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Kay Senter, Doc Rooney, and Mayor Sami Barile.

Voting against removal was Frank McGuffin.

Prior to casting her vote to join with five others in removing Crumley, Mayor Barile had some choice words for those in favor of getting rid of the City Administrator. She said that this was a "railroad" job. Then she promptly voted for the railroad job to remove so the city can "move forward." If she thought this was a railroad job and if she really felt it would be best for Crumley to stay, she should have voted her convictions.

I have heard several well-founded rumors that Mayor Barile contacted other councilpersons prior to yesterday's meeting to try to convince them in one-on-one meetings to let her favorite City Administrator stay.

It didn't work. Crumley is packing and will be gone by Friday.

In line with the Macbeth theme of stabbing/backstabbing, Mayor Barile showed her anger toward and resentment of councilwoman Kay Senter later in the meeting. Shortly after Crumley was removed, Barile seized the opportunity to remove Senter as chairman of the Finance Committee and appointed Frank McGuffin (the lone vote in support of Crumley) in her stead. Barile also appointed Doc Rooney and Claude Jinks to the Finance Committee.

Kay graciously said she had enjoyed working with the Finance Committee under former Mayor Gary Johnson and current Mayor Barile.

It will be interesting to see to what extent Barile controls McGuffin going forward. The first indication of how open the Barile/McGuffin duo will be will be found in the scheduling of future Finance Committee meetings.

If meetings are scheduled when the public can attend, that will show a degree of openness and a willingness to encourage and permit public participation. If meeting times are 10:00 am or 12:00 pm or 2:00 pm, that will be a sign that discussion of public business is essentially closed to the working public/taxpayer.

[This blog post was delayed by a 1-2 hour power outage that was followed by an 8+ hour internet outage]

July 24, 2009 City Council To Move Forward With Termination of Crumley While Negotiations over Price of an "Agreed Retirement" Continue

After budget discussions concluded yesterday afternoon in the tiny Conference Room at City Center, frank discussion of City Administrator Jim Crumley's exodus began.

The City initally offered Crumley approximately $110,000 to leave. Crumley recently countered with a proposal to "retire" at a cost to the city of a $129,000 severance payment, $43,000 more for accumulated sick leave and vacation pay, plus continuation of health insurance on the same terms as other city "retirees."

Yesterday, Councilmembers Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Gene Brooks, and Claude Jinks decided to expedite Crumley's exodus one way or the other. A little after 11:00 yesterday morning, just beating the 12:00 deadline, Kay added the matter to council's agenda for next Tuesday's 4:00 PM meeting.

Mayor Barile, who has been totally dependent on Crumley ever since taking office in 2007, doesn't want to see Crumley go. Doc Rooney, who has been in office almost continuously since who knows when, doesn't want to see Crumley go. [Frank McGuffin was not present yesterday.]

The council appears to be taking a two-pronged approach at this time: proceeding with forced termination for stated reasons on one track and discussing the terms of a negotiated exit on the other track.

City attorney Dick Jessee will prepare the official removal document and then send it to the mayor and councilmembers who can state their reasons for removal, if any, in time for Tuesday's meeting.

Fireworks--or a series of little bombs and sparklers-- erupted over Reporter Bob Moore's article stating that Crumley "has a tape that appears to suggest that at least one councilmember had a 'hit list' that targeted one or more city employees' jobs." In his July 22 article, Moore added that "The city administrator has declined to publicly discuss the details of the tape or which councilmember is on the tape."

Councilmember Claude Jinks was ticked off, to say the least, at the reporting that hinted at a hit list and the rumors that swirled about saying that Claude Jinks was the councilmember who was "taped" and who had the employee "hit list." Jinks wanted this straightened out.

Yesterday, Jim Crumley provided additional information about the "tape" and the "hit list" mentioned in Bob Moore's Wednesday article. Crumley said that the tape, contrary to the newspaper article, was not of any councilmember. Crumley said that the tape was of Clifford Jinks, a relative of councilmember Claude Jinks.

From what was said yesterday, it appears that Clifford Jinks left a message or voicemail for Claude Jinks and Crumley had somehow gotten hold of it. Clifford Jinks' message apparently voiced support for getting rid of Crumley and expressed support for getting rid of assistant City Administrator Buddy Fielder as well.

Claude Jinks said he wanted it known that he did not have an employee "hit list." He added that the newspaper report that implied that a councilmember had been taped talking about a "hit list" made it sound criminal and stirred rumors that it was councilmember Claude Jinks on the tape when it was actually his relative Clifford Jinks who had left a message for Claude that was somehow obtained by City Administrator Jim Crumley.

Bob Moore, who was present at yesterday's meeting, did not comment.

The question that was not asked nor answered is, How did Crumley get a tape of a voice message that had been left for Claude Jinks?

July 22, 2009 Crumley: Where's The Tape? Senter: It's My Tape, But I'll Play It For You and the Mayor

The City Council meeting was over quickly, and then the work session began. Work session agenda topics: Chief Overholt's proposal that city council set a fixed price that tow trucks can charge when they are called to a wreck by a police officer on a rotating basis and a wellness proposal for city employees.

Although it was not on the agenda, the work session ended with City Administrator Jim Crumley hurriedly passing out his proposed severance package/contract. Crumley didn't discuss the terms of the proposal that he passed out, and neither did any councilmember.

Councilmember Senter said that Crumley's contract needed to be reviewed by city attorney Dick Jessee, Crumley said he had provided the contract to Jessee when Jessee left the work session earlier...and then the fireworks started.

Crumley told Senter that he wanted a copy of the audio tape that she made at Thursday's Finance Committee meeting. [Crumley missed the Finance Committee meeting while on a sand/surf/turf vacation but listened in via telephone. Mayor Barile, Crumley's most vocal supporter, was out-of-town and did not attend.].

During the Finance Committee meeting at which Senter made her tape, discussion took place regarding moving forward with removal of Crumley---with Senter throwing out four possibilities. (1) Approve the council's removal agreement that provides for a severance package of $110,000. (2) Continue to negotiate a removal amount with Crumley. (3) Fire Crumley "for cause" with stated reasons for the firing. (4) Let Crumley remain as City Administrator.

Now back to the tape: Senter said it was her personal tape. Crumley said he wanted a copy and added that they could do it the hard way or the easy way. Senter said she would meet with Crumley and play it for him. Crumley said that Mayor Barile had also asked for a copy and had been refused. Senter said she would meet with the Mayor, Crumley, and Crumley's attorney and play the tape for all of them. She added that she would be e-mailing the minutes of that meeting to everyone.

There was no public discussion about the price of Crumley's "retirement." Among the major items in Crumley's proposal are that he will leave/retire if the council agrees to give him around $129,000 in severance pay and around $43,000 for sick leave plus Crumley wants the city to pay for his health insurance for several months after his semi-voluntary "retirement."

Citizen-Tribune reporter Bob Moore left the work session before Crumley passed out his proposed contract and price for retirement. Like he did for Jessee, Crumley had probably given Moore a copy of his severance proposal even before it was given to Mayor Barile and councilmembers. Because he left early, Reporter Moore missed the exchange between Crumley and Senter.

July 14, 2009 It All Depends on What the Meaning of "Repairs" Is...

County Commissioners and the School Board met on July 7 regarding East High repairs.

Weeks ago, the Commission offered the Board $5.3 Million to spend on repairs at East High.

According to news reports, the Board's proposed "repairs" (dubbed Phase I) included buying more property around East High, adding eight new classrooms, and putting a new roof on the existing building (with the exception of the new library and the old 1923 section. )

[The Board plans to continue patching the roof on the 1923 section and then come back and tear the 1923 section down altogether in Phase II of its 3-phase plan. ]

Tuesday night the commissioners said "whoa" and told the Board that buying property and building new classrooms and patching part of the roof doesn't match the commission's definition of repairs. Commissioners are saying that they're not handing over money intended for "repairs" to be used for other purposes.

Apparently, some commissioners learned something from the school board's gross mismanagement of the last big ($35 Million) building program (1998-2003).

The last building program was a total fiasco. The school board thumbed its collective nose at the commission (and taxpayers) and awarded around 35 one-bid construction contracts totalling millions. The Board also paid out more than a million dollars to its two construction managers whose biggest job was managing themselves. The Board hated the phrase, but it was clear that they were "paying people to manage themselves."

On top of the one-bid contracts, self-management payments, and waste, the Board was so inept that it couldn't calculate a management fee properly and ended up paying "fees"' and "fees on fees" to its builders/construction managers.

Yes, the Board of "Education" designed or got duped into a construction management contract that paid contractors fees to manage themselves AND also provided for payment of fees on fees. Sort of like having to pay sales tax on an item and then having the store charge you sales tax on the sales tax. This "fee on a fee" deal resulted in around $100,000 tax dollars being wasted because the Board didn't have a clue what it was doing and then didn't want to admit and correct the error when it was pointed out.

Math is pretty straight-forward. When I exposed this little School Board mathematical gem to county commissioners during 2000 and 2001, even Maudie Briggs, Commission Chairman at the time, couldn't ignore it. Maudie didn't DO anything about the fees on fees, but she did write the funniest line ever in a letter to Roger Greene (who was School Board chairman and STILL serves on the Board) about the school board's mathematical prowess.

Maudie told Roger that the Board's calculation of fees on fees was "mathematically impossible correctly (sic)," and she then encouraged the Board to avoid this. Sadly, her scolding didn't deter the school board at all from continuing to shovel out boatloads of taxpayer dollars to pay those "mathematically impossible" fees.

The whole deal was pathetic from start to finish. But then, as now, the School Board had lots of cover in the many family relationships and conflicts of interest among school board members and county commissioners. Commissioners Herbert Harville and Joe Spoone are numbers people. Herbert has headed up the Finance Committee in prior years and Joe is chair of Finance now. During 2000 and 2001 and 2002, neither of them would say anything about the fees on fees. Why? Herbert had, and still has, a son working for the school system. Joe had, and still has, a wife and brother working for school system and a sister who was, and still is, on the school board.

The last school building program was known for millions of tax dollars wasted on one-bid contracts, huge payments for self-supervision, and payment of fees on fees. Its crowning glory, however, was the fact that state law was changed as a result of the outrageous actions of the little old Hamblen County School Board.

While the locals hid and protected one another, I packed up all the information and went to Nashville to see the State Comptroller. I laid everything out. Two construction management contracts. Every no-bid contract. Every conflict of interest. Every self-management fee.

I answered every question, and within a few short months a revised state law was introduced.

The 2002 clarification of state law passed UNANIMOUSLY in the state house and state senate and made it crystal clear---to even the Hamblen County Board of Education---that school construction managers are supposed to manage and supervise only and they don't need to be paid to manage and supervise themselves.

At the time, the school board's attitude was "give me the money and get out of my way." Because of their bumbling of the last building program, the current commissioners realize that you better not hand over the money until there is a satisfactory plan in place.

Of course, the commission's insistence on seeing the plan first also means that commissioners will hear mighty screams and loud complaints emanating from the HCBOE's offices at 201 E. Morris Boulevard.

Speaking of HCBOE's renovated offices, a lot of East High parents and others have begun to notice that while the Board has let East High go to pot, they have spared no expense in upgrading Director Lynch and Company's digs in the old Junior High Building near East High at 201 E. Morris Boulevard.

If Dr. Lynch and staff really wanted to do something "for the children," they could move the Board of Education offices into a portion of the old section of East High and let the uber-nice HC Board of Education building be used for East High classrooms.

After all, the Board's current offices were originally classrooms (Junior High School) and this would be a perfect location for East High classrooms or the freshman academy. WARNING: Do not hold your breath waiting for Dr. Lynch to move out of his office suite for the children.

July 8, 2009 City Council Avoids Discussion about Its "Policy" of Automatically Doubling Sewer Rates for Outside Customers

City Council met yesterday at 4:00. It was a short agenda that was dispensed with quickly.

During the public comments portion, I asked the council about the double rates charged to outside sewer customers. I asked if they have any cost study or any report by anyone showing that it costs twice as much to provide sewer service to customers who live outside the city limits. They do not.

[The sewer consultant who came up with the new increased sewer rates lumped ALL sewer customers (inside and outside) together to come up with a single new rate structure. Then the council, pursuant to "policy," automatically doubled the consultant's new rate structure for outside customers.] See my previous post.

With no cost study for outside customers, the next question was why do you arbitrarily and capriciously charge outside customers twice as much? City attorney Dick Jessee advised the Mayor and council not to respond to that question, so I rephrased it "why do you charge outside customers twice as much?" Jessee did not object to that question, but there was still no answer from the Mayor or council.

In the end, it really didn't matter how the question was phrased, the Mayor and council will not engage in open discussion about the double outside sewer rates and for good reason. They don't have any justification for charging outside customers twice as much. Someone just decided to slap on a punitive double charge years ago, no one ever questioned it, and now they don't want to listen to any questions about the double charge policy.

The Mayor and council don't like the question in any form, but let's get real about this and look at state law and case law. When you just hit someone with a double sewer charge as a matter of policy without a cost basis, that is just about as "arbitrary and capricious" as you can get. Policies can be erroneous, without basis, and illegal. [Remember Jim Crumley's ill-fated "moratorium" on garbage service to new city businesses that was later determined to be indefensible by attorney Dick Jessee?]

One of the newest members of the current council, Bob Garrett, has already told the council and city staff in an open meeting that the policy of charging double sewer rates is "illegal." Bob knows the law in this area. He worked for the water system for decades and knows that rates have to be lined up with costs---not just set up to punish one set of customers and favor another set. Bob spoke the truth, and I would imagine that there were several conversations afterward about such openness and honesty in a public meeting.

The Mayor and council can sit quietly and ignore the "arbitrary and capricious" double sewer rates, but the issue isn't going away. There can be different rates---but only if there is a cost basis for the different rates. A "policy" of charging twice as much--pulled out of thin air--is not a cost basis. There is no justification for the city continuing to treat some of its sewer customers unfairly.

It may be painful, but it's time for the city to stop avoiding the situation and take care of this matter. It's a matter of fairness because that is what the law requires. Rates must be fair and equitable. Bob Garrett knows that and has told the council as much. I have repeatedly asked the city to charge the same rate to inside and outside customers until and unless the city performs an outside study and finds that its costs for service to outside customers justify a higher rate and the amount, if any, of that higher rate.

The city's recent rate study by Lamar Dunn lumped the costs for all customers (inside and outside) together and came up with a single fair rate for all customers (inside and outside) based on those costs.

Lamar Dunn's report did not say that it costs twice as much to serve outside customers. The city simply took Dunn's single rate structure (inside and outside) and then applied its "policy" of automatically doubling Dunn's cost study rate and charging outside customers twice as much. Arbitrary and capricious? In my opinion, yes. Unfair? Yes. Needs to stop? Yes.

A rezoning ordinance for a Weigel's Store (2750 N. Davy Crockett Parkway and a portion of Cherokee Park) passed 5-0-1. Kay Senter abstained without comment and Gene Brooks was absent.

A change order for the airport renovation was approved.

Several fire department promotions were approved.

The council then convened as the Beer Board and approved four beer permits:

Maria Isabel Flores, Don Pancho Mexican Restaurant, 1134 South Cumberland.
Misael Martinez, Locanda Italian Restaurant & Pizza, 1590B Buffalo Trail.
Jaymin, Inc., Shell Gas Station, 2564 Buffalo Trail.
Kenneth E. McMullen, Weigel Stores, Inc, 2750 N. Davy Crockett Parkway.

The work session that followed was lengthy. Two companies gave health/wellness presentations, seeking city business to set up a local clinic for city employees. The presentations ran so long that three councilmen and the local "news"paper reporter left during the presentations.

When Councilman Frank McGuffin left, reporter Bob Moore followed him and called for Frank by name. Bob was gone for quite a while and missed a lot of the first presentation.

Bob finally came back. Councilmen Claude Jinks and Doc Rooney left separately. Then Bob Moore left again (permanently) and missed a lot of the second presentation as well.

At the end of the second presentation, there were a few city employees still around, a few members of the public, and only these elected officials: Mayor Barile, Kay Senter, and Bob Garrett.

July 6, 2009 City and County: Briefs and Upcoming Posts

A lot has happened locally over the past several weeks.

Democrat State Rep. John Litz announced that he would not run for re-election and said that he was not ready to comment on his future plans.

Democrat Larry Mullins jumped into the vacuum and announced that he is a candidate for state representative. In Mullins' announcement, it was mentioned that his wife Kathy Trent Mullins will not run for re-election as Circuit Court Clerk for Hamblen County.

John Litz later announced that his future plans include a race for County Mayor against Republican candidate Bill Brittain. [I don't think that John will have any opposition in the Democrat primary. There is a very slim possibility that Bill might have some opposition from an elected official who was miffed when current County Mayor David Purkey apparently got a group together and pretty much selected the current Republican candidate line-up without considering or consulting with that individual. The current Purkey line-up for the two major offices is Brittain for Mayor and Purkey's Finance Director Nicole Buchanan for Trustee.]

The School Board is meeting with the Hamblen County Education Committee on June 7 to discuss the Board's plans to spend $5.3 million on environmental and maintenance issues (roof, etc.) at East High. If you can get off work at 1:00 pm on that day, you might want to attend.

City Administrator Jim Crumley has been asked by at least four councilmembers to resign or retire or somehow get the heck out of City Hall. City Mayor Sami Barile hates the possibility of Jim leaving. With Jim gone, Barile loses her right-hand man and the source of her knowledge of city government.

With the prospect of Crumley's exit, Mayor Sami Barile is now telling government officials to act with civility at city council meetings. The local "news"paper has also editorialized for civility. Civility is important, but the Mayor needs to realize that disagreements and discussions are not automatically indicative of a lack of civility. And, hopefully, she will even come to recognize that questions are not micro-managing. If she had been paying attention and asking questions before and after taking office, maybe she would have known of the financial disaster that awaited her after she was sworn in in May 2007. In any event, Mayor Barile needs to worry less about what she considers a lack of civility and start worrying more about learning firsthand what's really going on in city government and in the City of Morristown.

Barile and council need to start addressing the jobs situation, skyrocketing unemployment in the City, the red light cameras, spending problems, the city's huge debt, sewer issues, and the lack of accountability. If and when Crumley is no longer spoon feeding Barile/council with his misleading analyses of the state of the city, Barile and company should set up procedures that will provide for checks and balances on the incoming administrator.

The Mayor and council need to be kept in the loop about city government (pay raises, car allowances, cell phones, contracts, sewer, spending). The Mayor and council need to eliminate the free-rein that Crumley had to spend and shift money around (in bunches of up to $10,000) without explaining the reason in advance and without getting council's permission in advance. Any contracts negotiated by the City Administrator or others need to come before the council for final approval and the contracts should be in final form and available to councilmembers for review at least a week before the contract is placed on the agenda for a vote.

In other news, former Hamblen County Deputy Dexter Morris was convicted in federal court of violating the civil rights of females stopped and detained by him and of lying to federal agents when confronted about the incidents.

There was testimony that a number of complaints were filed against Morris during the tenure of former Sheriff Otto Purkey and that Purkey ignored or dismissed the complaints, eventually promoting Morris to patrol officer. Other testimony indicated that Deputy Ernie Burzell handled a complaint filed by a 16-year old girl who was stopped by Morris without cause. Morris allegedly fondled the girl and apparently admitted to Burzell that he had no reason to stop the teenager and that he had asked the girl "What does a 16-year old do to get those boobs?" Burzell took no action on the complaint and entered nothing in Morris' file about the incident.

I will discuss these items in more detail in future individual posts

A lot more local governmental happenings and revelations are on the horizon.

July 4, 2009 The Fourth of July

IT IS THE SOLDIER

It is the Soldier, not the minister, who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

The above tribute to American soldiers has been attributed to various individuals and has been worded in a number of different ways.

Freedom isn't free.

June 27, 2009 Jeff Gardner Appointed Election Administrator

The (well-founded) rumor that I reported on Thursday turned out to be on-the-money.

Jeff Gardner was indeed named Hamblen County Administrator of Elections at a public meeting on Friday of the Hamblen County Election Commission. The job pays $62,000/year plus all kinds of benefits.

The Trib posted an online report of the meeting here. [Usual Trib caution: The link only works for a short time. The Trib disables its links quickly so that people can only access online stories for a short period. Such a shame. The Knoxville News-Sentinel leaves its links up for weeks, months, and longer.].


The Trib reported that Gardner had resigned as head of the Hamblen County GOP at some time prior to the meeting. The Trib didn't report that Gardner had also turned in his resignation from his regular job at Allied EMS before his appointment yesterday. That seems like a newsworthy piece of information that was totally ignored by the Trib.


Gardner was obviously confident about what would happen during deliberations and discussion at the public meeting to go on and resign from his bread-and-butter job before being officially appointed. Actually, if the Trib report is correct, there were no deliberations or discussions about the appointment at the meeting. Nominate Gardner, wait a decent interval, close the nominations, and it's a done-deal.


Last week, the Trib reported that there were only 4 applicants and provided the names. Yesterday's article stated that there were 9 applicants but the names of the additional five applicants were not mentioned. There was also no mention as to whether there were any interviews of the applicants.


To help Mr. Gardner out, the Election Commission evidently approved paying Neal--at her current daily rate of about $250/day--to assist Mr. Gardner on occasion.

June 25, 2009 Has the New Administrator of Elections Already Been Determined Before Tomorrow's Public Meeting?

Tomorrow at 3:30 the Hamblen County Election Commission will select a new Administrator of Elections to replace Wanda Neal.

Last week, the paper said that there were four applicants for the $62,000/year post.

It is rumored that one of the four applicants already has the votes and knows that he is going to be appointed tomorrow. See my post listing the four applicants here.

I have also heard that this individual has apparently already resigned his former job in anticipation of his appointment as Administrator of Elections---all this before public deliberation and public discussion by election commissioners and before a single vote has been cast.

Imagine the suspense tomorrow as the paper waits to report the (foregone) results.

Since he has already resigned his other job, this man will be ready to take over right away and start drawing that $5,100+ per month government salary plus health insurance, retirement, etc. as he administers elections in Morristown and Hamblen County.

June 25, 2009 Crumley, Facing Majority Opposition on City Council, Is on the Way Out

A majority of city councilmembers are now apparently on board to remove City Administrator Jim Crumley.

A similar effort to remove Crumley last year was never able to get majority support.

New councilmembers Bob Garrett and Gene Brooks make no bones about their disdain for and distrust of Crumley. Since their election in May, Crumley has been scrambling to try to hold on to his position.

Through the budget process this year, longtime councilmembers Claude Jinks and Kay Senter have increasingly been open about their frustration with Crumley and Crumley's failure to be honest about city car allowances, shifting of money without informing council, initiation of projects without requesting council approval, and other issues. Click here for more.

Frank McGuffin generally says little about Crumley publicly but does express strong opinions about the city's handling of commercial garbage whenever that topic comes up.

Mayor Sami Barile and Doc Rooney have been and appear still to be solidly in Crumley's corner, depending on Crumley for financial information and advice. Click here for Barile's defense of Crumley and request that council keep its nose out of city business.

Mayor Barile was elected in a 3-way race in 2007. She was sworn in in May 2007 and promptly got a lesson in Crumley-economics as Crumley belatedly revealed to the new Mayor and Council that the city was in dreadful condition.

In 2007, Crumley told the new mayor and council that a 40-cent property tax increase (a 41% increase from $0.97 to $1.37) was needed just to keep the city going. This "revelation" came JUST ONE YEAR after Crumley's 2006 pronouncement that the city was in wonderful shape and that he anticipated no tax increase in the foreseeable future! Click here for my post and read Crumley's comments in the local "news"paper.

What the Mayor and Council should be doing is finding out exactly what happened between May 2006 and May 2007. If Crumley was telling the truth about the city's wonderful financial condition in 2006, then where did all the money go? Without a major recession or dramatic downturn at the time, how can you go from economic bliss to economic disaster in 12 months?

The Council "almost" did the right thing last year. I believe Crumley will resign or retire and leave this year--most likely by agreement and without forcing a vote on it. [If the city has to fund a Crumley buy-out or severance package, the money can come from the one-time excess sales tax revenues that are set aside for one-time spending. A Crumley buy-out, if necessary, would be a wise investment.]

The question then becomes what will the Council do to become more involved and informed about city business after a new administrator is hired? How will the city council prevent being kept in the dark when a new administrator comes on board?

No matter who is hired, the city council needs to limit the new administrator's freedom to spend and shift money wherever he wants to. CHECKS AND BALANCES. The city council needs to set new guidelines and require regular and detailed financial reporting from the new administrator and city finance director. ACCOUNTABILITY. The city council needs to ask questions about the city's debt. COMMON SENSE. The city council needs to hold all meetings at hours when the majority of the public can attend if they want to. OPENNESS. The city council needs to tape its meetings and show them on the government access channel. TRANSPARENCY.

In order to find out what is really in the current budget, the city council needs to look at each line item of the city budget and then ask for a specific print-out of the checks written and charged to that line item. The coming year should be spent in learning what Crumley is/was really doing with city taxpayer dollars. Then procedures should be established to make sure that the council is never again left in the dark about the city's financial situation, contracts, debt, sewer, etc.

The Mayor and Council can not and should not blame Crumley alone for the current mess. Crumley could NOT have remained in his position and could NOT have exercised the power that he has without the permission (stated or tacit) of the Mayor and City Council.

The real problem is as much with the council and its policies as it is with Jim Crumley. And the same situation will repeat itself with a new administrator until and unless clear financial guidelines are set up and until and unless the Mayor and Council start insisting on financial reporting and actually examine those reports.

June 24, 2009 City Council Changes 3-year Sewer Increase To 8%, 8%, and another 8%

At yesterday's 11:00 am city council meeting, it was apparently decided to change the original proposal for an approximate 14%, 6%, and 2% rate increase over the next three years to an 8%, 8%, and then another 8% increase. See the original proposal by clicking here.

The city council met at 12:30 pm today for finalization of various budget ordinances and other business.

Just as an aside: Scheduling "public" meetings at 11:00 am, 12:30 pm, or other traditional work hours shows contempt for the public and is apparently designed to restrict public attendance and public comments. That is an issue to which the new council should give serious consideration. The question is, for whose convenience are meetings scheduled?

June 24, 2009 Wanda Neal, Administrator of Elections, Retires Effective June 30

At the county commission meeting on June 18 and in the June 19th edition of the local "news"paper, Wanda Neal's retirement from the position of Administrator of Elections in Hamblen County was finally announced.

I mentioned her retirement in several previous posts, here, here, and here.

The paper added the "news" that there are already four applicants for the $62,000/year position, that the position will be filled in a meeting of the Hamblen County Election Commission on June 26, and that others can still apply. The four current applicants are apparently Manny Bedwell, Nina Fullington, Jeff Gardner, and Stewart Leonard.

The paper did not state when the application process was first opened or if the position had ever previously been advertised to the public. The paper did not state how long these four applications had been turned in.

The article did state that others can still apply, but there was no deadline given for additional applications.

June 4, 2009 The "news"paper, the City, and Sewer Rates

I have held off on this blog post for nearly six months. Now that belated testing of the city sewer and multimillion dollars repairs are again before the Mayor and City Council, it is time to review the city's arbitrary policy of charging double sewer rates to outside customers.

When sewer rates were discussed by City Council on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Bob Moore of the Citizen Tribune was present.  The next day, Moore wrote a front-page article on council's delay in making a sewer rate decision.  [Bob missed several budget meetings during the weeks leading up to the June 16 meeting. He did not attend the previous meeting on June 9 when sewer rates were discussed.]

Bob's June 17th report had some truth in it and several half-truths.

Bob's truths: 1) There was significant discontent from many individuals regarding sewer rate increases. 2) Outside customers pay twice as much for sewer service as inside customers.

Crumley's half-truth as reported by Bob: State law provides that municipalities can charge up to double the rate to sewer customers who live outside the city limits in situations where no rate study has been conducted.

TRUTH: State law provides that a municipality must submit its cost study to the state when it charges more than twice as much to outside customers.  The new law is solely about providing the city's cost study to the state when the proposed rate is more than double the inside rate.  The new law does not say that no rate study has to be performed if the city is charging is double or less. Whether a city provides its cost study to the state or not, a municipality can not just pull an outside rate "out of the air" even when that rate is double or less. 

Crumley's comment, quoted without any fact-checking by Moore, was a half-truth that implied that state law says the city does not have to have a cost study or cost justification if it wants to charge double rates to outside customers. Crumley's comment conveniently ignored case law and CTAS/MTAS opinions that say a cost study is a "practical necessity" in order to provide a cost justification for charging more to different classes of customers (e.g. inside v. outside customers).

CTAS/MTAS opinions on the "practical necessity" of a cost study apply in all situations.  MTAS is Municipal Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to cities across the state. CTAS is County Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to counties across the state.

Bob's truth: Moore notes that Lamar Dunn performed a rate/cost study for the City. Yes, he did and his rate study was an average of all customers--both inside and outside. What Moore left out: Dunn did not do a separate study for setting inside costs/rates and one for setting outside costs/rates. State law says you have to relate your water or sewer rates to your costs.   That means that if you are going to charge higher rates to one set of customers (outside customers), then you have to be able to justify those higher rates through a cost study. That's where the City conveniently drops the ball and just arbitrarily charges outside customers twice as much (by "policy") instead of doing a cost study to see if the cost of providing sewer service to outside customers is really twice the cost of providing sewer service to inside customers.

While one might expect that costs of outside sewer service would be higher than inside, that is not necessarily the case. The costs of outside sewer service are not "automatically" twice that of inside sewer service.  Why? According to documents I received from the city, there are approximately 140+ or - outside sewer customers. 1) There was no cost to the city for extending sewer lines to 50 or so of these "outside" customers because the sewer extension to these customers was paid for by the county with county money and CDBG grant money ("Russellville Sewer Project"). 2) Other outside customers were allowed to tap onto existing city lines with no additional cost to the city for new lines. 3) There are numerous "inside" sewer customers who are much farther from the treatment plant than many "outside" customers, so distance from the treatment plant is not a factor for all outside customers.

It's time for an honest, independent cost study--not one that is designed to come up with a pre-determined result to justify the existing double rates.  An independent cost study would determine if there are any additional costs to the city in providing sewer service to outside customers as a group (additional costs would be unusual or extraordinary costs beyond those standard costs that all customers must bear); if there are additional costs, the amount of those costs; and, finally, determine the proper and fair rate for outside customers.

Bob's half-truth: "Linda Noe...renewed her call for city government to charge a uniform rate to sewer customers living inside and outside the city limits."  Moore conveniently left off the last part of my request. The TRUTH: I asked the city to charge the same rate for inside and outside customers until and unless they conduct a cost study showing what, if any, additional costs are incurred to provide sewer service to outside customers.  When there is an independent cost study, then one can examine it and see if higher sewer rates for outside customers are justified and, if so, what the outside rates should be.

According to CTAS attorneys (see above) a cost study such as the one that I asked the city to perform is a "practical necessity to properly and fairly determine and support the rate structure."  All I have ever asked is that the city "properly and fairly" determine the outside sewer rate without resorting to an arbitrary policy of automatically charging outside customers twice what is charged to the inside customer. That is not only  reasonable and logical, but, according to MTAS/CTAS, Councilman Garrett, and my own research, it is the proper way to set a fair and equitable rate for outside customers. The CTAS attorney's letter was given to Bob Moore and I cited it in my comments to council, but Moore apparently forgot to mention this part of the CTAS opinion in his article.

The City by its own admission and by its consultant's admission has no cost study "to properly and fairly determine and support the outside rate structure." [Moore wasn't at the meeting with the consultant but IF he wants the information, I have it. I also have the city's admission that it has no cost study relative to any additional costs for providing outside sewer service IF Bob wants that.

Bob's truth: Noe characterized the city's two-tier rate structure as "arbitrary." Why? Because it is. Because there is NO cost-basis or justification for charging twice as much to outside customers. That's about as arbitrary as you can get. You live outside...you get charged twice as much. If you ask "why?" the response from the City is "no particular reason but we have this special 'policy' that says we are going to charge you twice as much." That's arbitrary!

Bob's slightly irrelevant half-truth: Noe provided information to council indicating that the burden is on the property owner challenging the (sewer) rate. MTAS says that this burden is a "difficult" burden because courts start with the presumption that the rate is valid. It is true that a sewer customer who challenges the fairness and setting of sewer rates in court bears the burden of proof in the matter, and I presented the various court cases to the Council---along with all the information that says you have to have some kind of cost justification for setting a double rate (or any rate). Bob again ignored the fact that the court cases and CTAS/MTAS opinions say you have to have a cost justification for setting a double rate (or any rate).  Bob jumped the gun in talking about the burden of proof in court. This should never end up in court. There should be a cost-study. The City should be fair to ALL its ratepayers. The Mayor and City Council should not say to outside customers "sue me" over the city's arbitrary sewer rates.  But, sadly, that is the typical political reaction when facts are put before the council.

Bob missed the meeting with the sewer consultant, but he knows that the City commissioned and paid for a sewer rate study. If Bob had been at the meeting with the consultant, he would have known that the consultant was specifically asked if he separated costs into inside and outside costs to set inside and outside rates. The consultant said that there was no separation of costs. He just lumped all residential customers together and came up with an average.

Why no separation of costs so rates could be fairly and properly set? My guess is that the City either does not have or chose NOT to provide the consultant with inside and outside costs so he could determine inside and outside rates. Bob also forgot to add that the sewer lines for a large number of outside customers were donated to the city by the county as a result of the Russellville sewer grant. Other outside customers tapped onto an existing line with little or no additional cost to the city.

It's easy to "report" what you are spoon-fed. It's much harder to think about the situation and ask the "why?" and follow-up questions. But that is what a reporter is supposed to do.

Sewer rates--both inside and outside--affect a huge number of people. I would love to see Bob do a probing "series" of articles on sewer rates. Compare the detail of the last (1998?) cost study to the current cost study. Detail the $40M of improvements that Bryan Fowler says is planned. Look in-depth into the legality of rate-setting. Don't just take everything you are spoon-fed as gospel.

The series doesn't need to serve as a press release for quoting half-truths from elected and appointed officials and the editing of comments by others. Bob is savvy when he wants to be. He could (if allowed to) search for and report the truth himself or at least discuss the situation more fully with those who have expressed concerns about the legality of the situation. It wouldn't kill Bob to talk to me. I'll tell him what I know and he is more than welcome to verify it. He can talk to Crumley and then he needs to verify that as well.

I have been concerned about the City's arbitrary sewer rates since I first became aware of them during the time I served on county commission. During the Russellville low-income sewer grant process, several individuals came to county commission and informed us that outside sewer customers were charged twice as much as inside sewer customers. That meant that the Russellville sewer grant recipients would get a "free" sewer hook-up but they would then be stuck with "arbitrary" DOUBLE monthly sewer rates from the City of Morristown. Sort of like being given a free Hummer and then being told that you have to provide the gas every month. But at least with the Hummer, you could sell it.

And there are other outside customers--though not all that many--scattered throughout the county. The extra that these outside customers pay in DOUBLE charges to the city is a drop in the bucket in relation to the millions spent through the sewer fund. But sewer increases and DOUBLE charges have a huge impact on each individual or family budget.

June 18, 2009 And the New Hamblen County Administrator of Elections Is....

Rumor is that the meeting of the local 5-person election commission will be held soon to appoint a local Administrator of Elections. Wanda Neal is the current Administrator. Click here for the names of the Election Commissioners and other background information.

Joe Swann serves as chairman of the Commission. Click here for the post on Joe's April resignation from the Hamblen County Commission in order to achieve his "lifelong dream" of serving on the Hamblen County Election Commission.

With the recent switch in all 95 counties to a Republican-majority local Election Commission, many counties already have a new Administrator of Elections or are in the process of appointing a new local Administrator.

In Knox County, the new Republican-majority election commission opened up the process and allowed interested individuals to apply for Knox County Administrator of Elections. Forty-five people submitted applications. The list will be narrowed down by the election commissioners and then actual interviews of the finalists will take place in about two weeks prior to taking a vote and making an appointment. Click here for the Knoxville News-Sentinel article.

I must have missed the article in the local "news"paper where interested individuals were asked to submit applications for the local $62,000/year position of Hamblen County Administrator of Elections.

Or maybe, after the next meeting of the Hamblen County Election Commission, there will be an announcement that the position is open and then applications will be requested and interviews conducted.

Or maybe the discussions have already taken place, someone has been selected, and there is no need to waste time taking applications and interviewing people.

June 17, 2009 City Council: 2010 Budget, Sewer Rate Increases, Amendment to 2008 Budget, 2008 Audit

If City Council planned a routine meeting yesterday, it turned out to be anything but routine.

No one spoke during the public hearing on the 09-10 city budget. The budget was adopted on first reading 7-0.

A budget amendment to amend the Fiscal Year 2008 budget passed with four "aye" votes (Mayor Barile, Frank McGuffin, Doc Rooney, and Kay Senter) and three abstentions (Gene Brooks, Bob Garrett, and Claude Jinks). And no, "2008" is not a typo. The council in June 2009 was actually still "amending" its budget for the year that had ENDED on June 30, 2008. Nobody discussed the amendment. With all the computers and staff around, no one flashed the amendment on the screen so that you could see what it was.

A vote on an Ordinance to increase sewer rates was postponed. During the public comments portion of the meeting, I spoke on this issue and asked that the City discontinue its current policy of charging "outside" customers TWICE as much as is charged to "inside" customers until and unless the City conducts a cost study to show that there is a reason to charge outside customers TWICE as much. Currently, the city has no cost study showing that there is any extra cost whatsoever for serving its outside customers more than its inside customers.

I provided the Mayor, Council, City Administrator, and City Attorney Dick Jessee with a letter, legal opinions from CTAS (County Technical Advisory Services) and MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Services), and court cases on this subject. In a nutshell, MTAS and CTAS attorneys say that rates for sewer customers must be fair and equitable. You can charge different rates but only where the costs or expenses of providing water and/or sewer justify differential rates.

The City has NO cost analysis showing that there are costs or expenses to justify higher sewer rates for outside customers. In fact, sewer lines for many of the city's outside customers were paid for by the county through a grant for the Russellville area. By agreement, the lines were then given to the city. There are other outside customers who simply hooked onto existing city lines.

The CTAS attorney noted that the law requiring that rates and revenues must be related to costs makes a cost analysis to justify differential rates "a practical necessity." However, the City has no cost analysis to justify different rates for inside vs. outside customers. What the City does have is a "policy" that says it will automatically (without a cost basis) charge outside customers TWICE as much.

In concluding my remarks, I asked the city to end the policy of arbitrarily setting the rates for outside customers at twice the rate of inside customers until a cost study is completed showing what, if any, additional costs are incurred in providing sewer service to outside customers as a group.

After several other individuals spoke on others topics, Patricia Stephens, an outside sewer customer who has being paying DOUBLE sewer rates for 10 years now, asked the council to consider the impact of sewer rate increases with the current policy of DOUBLE rates for outside customers.

No one is saying that the City can not charge higher sewer rates to different groups where there are different and additional costs involved in providing service. But all the case law says that those rates must be "fair and equitable." How can an automatic DOUBLE rate be "fair and equitable" when the City can not show through a cost study why it is charging TWICE as much to the outside customer?

It is my hope that everyone on the current council will review the situation and recognize that you don't just pull a number out of the air when it is time to set outside sewer rates. The Mayor and Council requested a cost study to set inside rates. If outside rates are to be different, then a cost study needs to be performed to set a fair and equitable outside rate. Why? Because the city is required to be fair to all customers. Because the city is required to show a relation between rates and costs. The requirements of the law supersede any local policy.

[I first presented this info to former City Mayor Gary Johnson in 2005. Nothing was done. I also discussed this in front of the entire council years ago after completion of the Russellville sewer grant by the county. Nothing was done. I discussed the double rates again in front of the entire council in early 2009 and gave the CTAS/MTAS packet to Mayor Barile. Nothing was done. Months later, Mayor Barile said the packet was still "on her desk." I gave the packet to the city attorney. Nothing was done.]

Now is the time to do something. A policy to automatically charge one class of customers DOUBLE rates--without a cost basis--is, in my opinion, unfair and arbitrary rate-setting. The law clearly states that rates must be related to the costs of providing service. The City has not shown that the costs of providing service to outside customers is double that of providing service to inside customers. The City does not need to draw a line in the sand and say "sue me" over the double rate policy, resulting in additional costs to taxpayers and/or ratepayers for legal fees. It would be refreshing to see the City voluntarily do what's fair and legal in setting newer rates simply because it is the right step to take.

IN OTHER ACTION:

Eddie Fuller was awarded an architectural services contract for renovations of the new public works facility at the former Roy Widener Truck Lines location on Liberty Hill Road. The architectural fee is 8%.

The council approved executing and paying half of a $55,000 contract with Buxton for a retail sales study to see what companies would be a good fit for Morristown. Only four properties will be evaluated with the four landowners paying the other 1/2 of the $55,000 cost. As the discussion began, City Administrator Jim Crumley said five landowners wanted to share in the study and have their land evaluated, but when Paul Lebel (who worked out the contract) spoke, he said four landowners had signed on.

[Later in the meeting, Dwight Frazier spoke and said that he had been contacted by phone by Lebel and asked to participate but that he had been told a different and higher cost figure. Frazier also said that he wasn't given enough information in the brief phone call with which to make a decision. Frazier said this should have been advertised so that other commercial landowners could have had the opportunity to participate. Council seemed somewhat surprised by Frazier's remarks about the process. Some councilmembers asked whether others could still be added as contract participants. Crumley said he thought there was a portion of the contract that would allow for additional participants. I haven't seen the contract and I don't know if Council was given a copy before the meeting. Unless the evaluation process is very easy, it would seem surprising to find that Buxton could come in and evaluate 20 properties for the same cost that they could evaluate 4-5. The real problem presented to council is the failure of the process to open up the opportunity to all landowners who might have wanted to participate in the city's cost-sharing contract.]

The current city auditor Tom Jones (Craine, Thompson, and Jones) was present but apparently no one on council had yet received a copy of his recently completed FY 2008 audit. Discussion and/or review of the audit was postponed. And, yes, the audit that Jones is belatedly presenting to the Mayor and Council is for the year that ended JUNE 30, 2008! See my previous posts on the city audit situation here (toward the end of the post) and here.

Finally, City Attorney Dick Jessee presented his opinion on Jim Crumley's proposed moratorium on commercial garbage service to new businesses. Jessee stated that you can have different classes of customers as long as there is a rational basis for the classifications. He added that you must treat the members of each class fairly. Bottom line: you can't keep giving commercial garbage service to existing businesses and refuse to give commercial garbage service to similarly-situated new businesses. Scroll toward the end of my previous post on the meeting where this legal issue was first raised.

June 15, 2009 Knox County Takes Applications (45) for Election Administrator Position

As a follow-up to Friday's post about the likely change in the local Administrator of Elections post, I see that Knox County recently took formal applications for the Knox County Election Administrator position. Forty-five individuals applied.


Click here for the News-Sentinel article and there's even a link (top left of story) to the complete list of applicants for the Knox County Administator of Elections post. Knox County's current Administrator of Elections Greg Mackay has applied for re-appointment to the position.


In Hamblen County, the rumor is that Wanda Neal, current Administrator of Elections, will resign rather than seek re-appointment from the new Republican-majority local election commission.

Click here for my previous post on the $62,000/year Hamblen County Administrator of Elections post.


Lots of rumors have been going around since January about individuals with various political connections who want the local Administrator of Elections job, but I haven't seen any advertisement or request for applications for the local position.


When the position does open up, will applications be taken? Would a current employee of the Election Commission with experience in day-to-day operations of the office be given a fair shake if he or she applied? Or will this just be a plum position that is handed out as a reward to a "deserving" politico?

June 14, 2009 Flag Day

June 14. Flag Day.

www.ace-clipart.com

June 12, 2009 New Hamblen County Election Administrator?

There is a rather persistent rumor that Wanda Neal, current Hamblen County Administrator of Elections, will resign soon and open the way for the new Republican majority on the Hamblen County Election Commission to appoint a new administrator to the post.

The local position of Administrator of Elections is a plum appointed position with pay of around $62,000 plus health insurance, benefits, retirement, etc.

After her initial appointment and throughout the years that the Democrats continued to have a majority in the state legislature and thus a majority on the local election commission, Wanda was reappointed by the Democrat majority Hamblen County Election Commission.

With the new Republican majority in the state legislature and thus on the local election commission, it appears that Wanda's re-appointment will not take place and so she is going to resign/retire.

If she retires, there will not be a court fight as is occurring in a few counties where longtime Democrat-appointed administrators don't want to give up their position despite the change in election commissions across the state.

At various times, I heard that one of the current Republican election commissioners (Judy Blackburn) wanted Wanda's job and that at least two other individuals wanted the post.

With the recent appointment of Hamblen Election Commissioner Judy Blackburn to the state election commission, it's up in the air as to whether she still wants the Administrator's post or whether either of the two other Republican election commissioners (Lyle Doty and Joe Swann) might decide to seek the Administrator's job.

Of course, things can change rapidly. Nobody knows for sure at this point. It's possible that Wanda might keep the job or that a well-connected "outsider" might emerge as a dark-horse appointment.

Members of the Election Commission are Gayle Bruce (D), Dwaine Evans (D), Judy Blackburn (R), Lyle Doty (R), and Joe Swann (R).

June 11, 2009 City Attorney Dick Jessee Will Give Opinion on Crumley's Commercial Garbage Moratorium

Tuesday's City Council meeting included a third major item that was not mentioned in Wednesday's "news"paper.

[The "news"paper ignored two other items of importance that were discussed at Tuesday's meeting. One of those items was City Administrator Jim Crumley's admission that he gave car allowances to four employees by "mistake" for three years or so, costing the city around $19,000 during each of those years. Click here for my post on the car allowances. The other item that the paper has ignored is the statement made by Councilman Bob Garrett during sewer rate discussions that charging some sewer customers twice as much as others without a cost study is "illegal." Click here for my post on sewer rates.]

The third news item that the "news"paper did not mention is that another Crumley action or policy is apparently going to be shot down at next week's council meeting.

In a previous post, I mentioned that Crumley announced in May a new city "policy" that no garbage cans or city garbage pickup would be provided to commercial businesses that request a can or cans in the future. Crumley added that all commercial entities that already have a can or cans could keep theirs and continue to have city garbage pickup.

In that same post, I stated and explained how such a policy could in fact be seen as discriminatory, resulting in unfair treatment of a new business (no garbage cans and no city garbage pickup) as opposed to very different and more favorable treatment of an old business (garbage cans and city garbage pickup).

Even if you could somehow ignore or get around the legality issue, it is simply not good policy to even consider treating similar businesses differently in regard to provision of city services.

Tuesday, Councilman Frank McGuffin indicated that city attorney Dick Jessee would soon be giving an opinion on Crumley's "policy" of refusing to provide city garbage service to new businesses while continuing city garbage service to old businesses.

Crumley has apparently talked to Jessee as well and is aware of the coming opinion. On Tuesday, Crumley stopped talking about his commercial garbage moratorium, explaining that Dick Jessee just "might" say that such a policy is discriminatory and can not be defended.

Yep. Overall, the City has to serve all similarly situated businesses equally and fairly. The City can cease all garbage services to all businesses or provide a certain uniform level of garbage service to all businesses, but Crumley's previously announced policy of giving garbage services to one business and denying those same services to a similar business is discriminatory and unfair and would be very difficult to defend if challenged.

June 10, 2009 City Car Allowances and Crumley's "Mistake"

At the end of yesterday's city council meeting on sewer rates, Councilmember Claude Jinks brought up car allowances and the 33% cut in car allowances that City Administrator Jim Crumley had earlier proposed in the current budget.

It appears that Crumley's 33% cut only applied to employees who are still getting a car allowance, but that Crumley completely wiped out the car allowances of four parks and rec employees although this fact was never mentioned during the budget discussions.

From what I could gather, Crumley added $400/month car allowances for four parks and rec employees (Derwin Helton, Jerri Crockett, Paul Barger, and Jennifer Gentry) around 2006.

Yesterday, Crumley stated that giving these employees a car allowance was a "mistake." He added that he had run across his mistake during preparation of this year's budget and had corrected the "mistake" by taking away 100% of the car allowances that these employees had been getting.

A lengthy discussion about honesty followed with Crumley saying that these car allowances were included in his (Crumley's) contract negotiations with (deceased) former Mayor Gary Johnson and that at least some of the current councilmembers knew about all this. At that point, he said it had been a mistake on his part in giving these employees a car allowance years ago.

With the information that these four employees had been getting a car allowance, Kay Senter suggested that while these car allowances may have been given by "mistake" by Crumley, nevertheless, they should not be suddenly and completely eliminated. Senter's position, which was backed up by Bob Garrett and Claude Jinks, was that this was a matter of fairness and that the car allowances of these four employees should be reduced by 33%--as was done with all other car allowances--instead of being eliminated.

NOTE: It seems like a lot of agreements--such as increases in car allowances--were made in "negotiations" between Crumley and former Mayor Gary Johnson years ago. Now, no one is quite sure who knew about these negotiations, what exactly was agreed to, and who was told about these agreements.

All this brings up the need for more accountability in city government. If there are contract negotiations, the council needs to know what is going on and the council needs to approve the final contract instead of giving someone else such authority.

No one should have free rein to spend city tax dollars without first going before the Mayor and Council. The Mayor and City Council---not the City Administrator---set the tax rate and approve the city budget. The Mayor AND City Council need to know what's been put in the budget and they need to approve all contracts that involve the spending and budgeting of city money!

Again, it comes back to the basics of checks and balances and accountability. Elected officials have to pay attention and ask questions in order to provide for checks and balances and accountability. You can't just sit there and be a rubberstamp for someone else.