Perhaps someday I will be able to comprehend the weird thought machinations that occur in the human brain.
I had thought that as a matter of principle that the Mayor's veto of 2010-22 which require Administration to submit all bills monthly before payment would probably be over ridden by a 5:2 vote since it was originally passed by a 6:1 vote. I did not expect Robimson-Briggs campaign manager to vote against her wishes and was sure that one other Councilwoman would uphold the veto.
There was a great deal of intra-Council discussion prior to the vote and strong emphasis by Council President McWilliams that this Ordinance was necessary for the Council to accomplish its fiduciary responsibility to the residents. Councilor Burney remarked that he was in agreement with the concept of the resolution but he did not feel that it was strong enough; That instead of just reviewing bills before payment he thought the Council should review "all contracts and purchasing orders" before payment was authorized
Councilor Mapp repeated his position that too many payments had been made from line items not related to the service rendered and gave several recent examples. This made a mockery of the budget and some might be potentially illegal.
Although, Council President McWilliams agreed to put Councilor's Burney's oversight proposal on next months agenda and noted that it would in effect be an added level of Council Fiscal accountability to the Ordinance under consideration. Councilman Burney joined Councilors Rivers and Reid to vote against overriding the veto. Once again a minority vote of 3:4 determined the Course of Council action. That is acceptable because the Charter requires a vote of 5 -a super majority of the entire Council not a quorum to override a veto.
The second resolution which in effect lowered the ceiling to $17,500. as the cut off level beyond which bids must be sought before awarding a contract. The new State level is $26,000.00. This was defeated as anticipated by another 4:3 vote which the dissidents were; Reid,Rivers, and Carter.
Resolution 339-10; reducing the amount of an Ordinance for capital funds for construction of the never built Senior Citizen Center. By some technicality those authorized funds had been applied to the Monarch facility. Councilman Mapp pointed out that many items already charged to those funds such as "janitorial supplies" were operational items not capital. In addition the $287,000.00(?) bill from Dornoch is included in sums owed . This despite the Council had not received any information about who had authorized the spending of those funds. Until that information is made available the Resolution and accompanying Ordinance was tabled.
The next post will take up the issue of the ShotSpoter program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't Burney a riot...he won't support a resolution calling for more fiscal oversight because it's not "STRONG" enough..so he plays patsy to Jerry and Sharon again ( something coming down the pike Rashid???? Final pay day from Jerry??? )because he wants to wait until there is something strong enough to support.
ReplyDeleteWould that be like,. "I don't support fixing the leak in the dam because I don't believe your measure will solve the problem. I support waiting until we find something strong enough for me to support." Burney you are a waste...at least the others - Reid, Carter and Rivers don't pretend that they aren't Jerry's Kids. I give them more credit because at least they lay it on the line that they are all lap dogs to Jerry and Sharon.
Last night's Council meeting was a sham and I wrote the Council members responsible for not being fiscally responsible about my disappointment. I encourage others to do so and remind them that they will lose your vote if they don't work towards fiscal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happended to the state requiring the City to have a CFO? Did the state wuss out? If so, then the Council needs to step up to the plate and protect us from the Green/Briggs tornado that is tearing us apart.
Rob, in all due deference to Linda Carter, she voted to override the Mayor's veto.Even though that was after Burney the first voter had cast his vote so that the question was now mute she went on record. Her no vote on the "bid limit" I have no problem. If the Council were in-toto interested in rejection the "Open and Qualified Vendor" crap IE: pay for play instead of competitive bidding they would have reject R348 for $110,000.00,349 for $196,500 and R352 for $320,000.00 awarded to "State Approved Vendors" inlieu of bids.
ReplyDeleteDoc.. I can appreciate your point. But honestly...this is unfortunately a case of NOT ALLOWING someone who has stood up and proclaimed she has an issue with ANY oversight of her activities with TAXPAYER MONEY. That alone screams and begs for EVERY TIGHT RESTRAINT POSSIBLE.
ReplyDelete- 2 kids standing in a room. A $10 bill that was on the table in missing. You go in and ask the kids to empty their pockets. Who puts up the biggest stink about emptying their pockets ?? The kid who didn't take it or the kid who did?
The obstructionist on the City Council have done their job. Whether is was done privately before the meeting or not...they as a group successfully stone walled FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY. This is not a case of randomly going after some fiscally responsible and responsive administration. This is a case of some power hungry mad-hatter ( playing off my continuous reference of Sharon being the Cheshire Cat - all smile, no substance )doing as she pleases with no one stopping her. These 4 have done what Jerry and Sharon wanted them to do...
Rob you really need to be careful calling people DOG'S. Why are you name calling this is so unfair and for DOC to post that comment is a disgrace. To the council member's whom he have called names hold your head up high. I bet DOC will not post this comment with me calling you trailer park trash. CRACKER
ReplyDelete1:47, The only comment that I should not have posted is yours because you are bringing race as an issue and do not have the "mench" (courage) to identify yourself. You did not goad me to post I did so to illustrate the type comment that I will no longer consider.
ReplyDeleteYou have twisted Robs remarks using the term lapdogs as a derogatory epitaph "DOGS" shame on you.
Thank you Doc...This cracker, honky, whitey or ghost concurs with your comment. My skin is more than thick enough to not let an "anonymous" person's comments even phase me. And I need not be careful about calling the 4 obstructionist lapdogs. The only people who I should worry about are Mapp, Storch and McWilliams as they are the only ones who can accomplish anything...the rest can only act when Sharon and Jerry tell them to.
ReplyDeleteEverything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see. -
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther King, Jr.
bigdog
I fully agree with anon 1:47, calling them dogs has insulted the poor creatures . . . the Dogs definately deserve an apology . . . dogs would never act as badly as people!
ReplyDeleteto quote a great man,
"Man is man because he is free to operate within the framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to
choose between alternatives. He is distinguished from animals by his freedom to do evil or to do good and to walk the high road
of beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy."
Martin Luther King, Jr., The Measures of Man, 1959.
Blackdog...thank you for showing me the light...I never thought how our most devoted trustworthy upstanding and caring companions might have misconstrued even being remotely associated with the SRB/JG Gang of 4. To all canines in the world who accidentally misinterpreted the phrase of lapdog..my apologies. I knew Martin Luther King was definitely on a slightly higher plane than most including RACIST 1:47, but you have shown me how much higher of a level he was than even I thought.
ReplyDeleteRob, Blackdog: This ain't the ledger or courier on line forum. Enough is enough. Now that you have had your fun,nor more will be posted in this blog.
ReplyDelete