COMMENTARY
In the past 29 months the City of Alexander has had two mayors, two
city councils and two opinions as to who runs the city and how. Or, to put it
another way, does the city council make the major decisions and the mayor runs
the city based on those decisions, or is the mayor God Almighty and does
whatever he/she wants despite what the council says.
According to State law the city council is required to make certain
decisions (set the budget, pass ordinances, etc.) and the mayor runs the city
based on those decisions. However, in Alexander, the answer seems to be
determined based on whose mayor.
If you're former Mayor Shirley Johnson or current Mayor Michelle Hobbs,
there are those of the opinion city council members should just sit down, shut
up and vote yes to whatever the mayor wants. But, if you're Paul Mitchell the
council is in charge and the mayor should sit down and shut up.
This latter opinion didn't develop over time. Mitchell and the new
council members were sworn-in on Saturday, January 1, 2011. In less than seven
days one of the re-elected aldermen was already at city hall complaining to
Mitchell about how the city was being run.
And, from there, it only got worse. Some of the aldermen wanted to be
kept informed on more than a monthly bases, even though they were getting more
information than previous councils had received. The way some talked, weekly
reports wouldn't have been enough.
Mayor Mitchell had no problem with aldermen making those decisions they
were legally required to make, and then run the city accordingly. But, some
acted as though he needed to poll the council before he could use the men's
room.
Of course, then came his health issues which started around February,
and eventually subsided later in 2011. Then there were the legal issues with
his wife and father-in-law. All of which emboldened those who wanted to run the
city without being mayor. And, there were many.
At some point, most of the aldermen decided they would begin vetoing
decisions made by the mayor when legally possible. Before the end of this year
some may regret those veto votes.
Eventually, the re-call petition was circulated and the question was
put on the ballot. He lost the re-call and it was up to the sitting council to
appoint a replacement.
At least two of the aldermen who were sworn-in on January 1, 2011 had
resigned. The vacancies had been filled and it was this council that appointed
Michelle Hobbs as mayor.
I'm not going to defend some of the decisions Mitchell made when he
first took office. But, he did understand that the council was responsible for writing and setting the
budget, setting policy and making other decisions on how to run the city.
The council can't get together to talk about the budget because Juanita Wilson and Dan Church will not show up. If there was a date set for 3 weeks from now when that day came they would walk in with guns blazing or they wouldn't show up. Juanita was on the previous budget committee but any time she was asked something she always would say i have to go back and check. If you wrote the budget wouldn't you know it up and down
ReplyDeleteHere you go with the blame game again. You obviously have never done a complex budget. For pete's sake even the annointed one with at least 6 years as city treasurer/recorder couldn't come up with one.
ReplyDeleteAlexander has 5, and there is a lot of data in there. I have seen it and read it. No one knows it "up and down." But anyone who is an administrator of a department will certainly check it before beginning the basics of a plan. When you complain of one person saying "I have to go back and check." You are actually qualifying them for the duty, not condemning. Sitting and staring at each other, ridiculing those doing the job and having no clue what's going on is actually disqualifying.
You can look forward to getting a job done, or you can dwell or wallow on past events and whine.
peter burns Louella,
ReplyDeleteLooks like peter hit the budget conflict on the head.
I have worked on multi million dollar budgets and know how it is done. Just picking out dollar amounts like picking leaves off a tree will not get an acceptable/workable budget. Why would a City with anticapated revenue of $1 million create a budget around a $2.5 million anticipated revenue? This is what Juanita/JoAn tried to do. They put expenses in that each Dept. were not going to be able to cover. When they spent they said it was in the BUDGET so it was OK. WHERE WAS THE REVENUE FOR THESE EXPENSES COMMING FROM????!!!.
It is easy to set up a workable budget when each Dept. Head has to set
his or her expenses. The Budget Committee can work with these projected expenses against real anticipated Revenue from all sources. Some of the Revenue is dedicated by Law to certain Depts. (FIRE DEPT., STREETS, PARKS DEPT. Special sales Taxes) Each Dept needs a RESERVE then the Council can authorize spending that is not regular day to day operating expenses. All Council Members should be trained to create a yearly budget and work on it with each Dept. Head to weed out excessive expenses. A budget shouldn't be approved that puts the anticipated revenue so high and then let the Dept. Heads spend because "IT IS IN THE BUDGET!!. A working Council should do their job. Not just PUT FIGURES down on paper. This is what Juanita did without consulting the Committee. I hope she does not do her household budget this way. Maybe she has a MONEY TREE in her back yard.
All I have seen is her BUDGET don't know what you are talking about with 5. There is no way a City can Have 5 Budgets. I got mine through FOI. Louella, you reference "getting the job done". Maybe you could advise the 4-5 Mitchell Deciples(as I have Heard them so adequately CALLED) to sit down and develop a workable budget for the City.
As to the CONDEMNING of Ms. Wilson, if she came up with an amount she ought to be able to look at her notes and figure out where the amounts came from unless she just came up with them. I hope Dan Church runs his WATER MELLON sales better than his input on the City Budget Committee.
Bill
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTO: Bill. (this has to be in two parts due to size)
DeleteThis is from JoAn the X- that budget was put together from the previous year's data. I had been there a few weeks; there is no way the data could be verified in that amount of time. That little fact is always conveniently and intentionally ignored. Never the less, I was the only access they had to data needed. At that point none of us knew enough about the system to understand the intricacies of what we could and could not “read.” It could/should have been updated through the year, and in a perfect scenario, would have been. However there were on-going battles all year, as you know – AND that desk is a very busy desk. Some like to call it part-time. There is no way it is part time. When Michelle was working as Treasurer the city was much smaller plus the bookkeeping duties and the Treasurer’s are completely different. Treasurer – in the simplest sense is part-time. Bookkeeper is not by any means. This town actually requires and needs a full time bookkeeper and a Treasurer, two knowledgeable people to get the entire job done.
But back to the budget; For one thing - you begin with last years stated income and build from there. You NEVER base a budget on proposed income. That is the outcome, the end result, not the beginning basis.
Juanita was chairperson of the committee. It was the responsibility of ALL 5 members to complete the job. The chairperson’s responsibility is to chair the meeting. Not singlehandedly come up with a budget, she/he sees that the meetings flow efficiently, timely and within rules of order, lastly that they are recorded and reported properly.
IF you EVER worked on a budget, and you used pie-in-the-sky projections instead of last years facts – that tells us a whole lot about what to expect to see in the future.
As for the 5 budgets that required consideration - GENERAL Fund Budget, smallest technically, but largest in numbers because almost all funds were funneled through there; It is also the ‘reporting’ budget, the one that gets published, with the Street Dept. broken out.
Then there was the POLICE Budget, smallest of all because you couldn't get it through thick skulls, that they needed more funding. Mayor Mitchell didn’t want the Police funded only by tickets, and for good reason. There is a law requiring a limit of City income from citations. There is not enough funding for the Police Department through the court. However none seemed to understand when I repeated over and over – “they need funding, and that it is irresponsible not to get something on the upcoming ballot” to support the Police Department. They preferred to think it was misappropriation. (That immature blame someone, and “make me look better than you” game that the writer, Louella talks about.) But folks do the math, if the Department is budgeted for 5 officers (as it was in 2012) and they have even one (1) more that (at $10.00/hour) is $20,800.00 over budget for the year. Chief said in January claimed he had 8 that is over $62,000.00 over budget. The General Fund subsidized the lack, as it is supposed to do, but it isn’t supposed to be permanent, nor can it be. You saw the repercussion; both the Police Dept. and General fund were so strapped they couldn’t continue on a timely basis. A good council will review the facts and take action where needed. They not only refused and ignored the Department; they used it to try to build a case against me.
PART 2:
DeleteI, along with a committee of several citizens (5 to be exact) met with Jerome Hutchinson with several of the problems that needed addressed in Alexander, among them was the issue I have just related. I asked for help in solving the issue, he promised to ask Jimmy Garrett for an audit. I understand that is in progress. I have offered any and all assistance.
Then there was FIRE department - with restricted funds, and reserve.
Then there was STREET Department with strictly restricted funds.
Then there was PARKS and Recreation. That amounts to 5, I know, I just took my shoe off and counted! Chair’s responsibility is to chair the MEETING. We (the committee) voted her Chair in the meeting.
Frankly, our source as advisor to the committee of 2012 was a retired auditor for the state of Arkansas. Based on what we had to go on, we, as well as Mayor Mitchell and all eight (8) aldermen conceded it was only a starting place. We knew it would be this year before we had a good solid basis to begin with.
Now it is obviously ‘start from scratch’ again. I actually had a budget almost completed by the first of the year, based on cold hard facts. When the mud slinging got to ‘siren pitch’ the budget might have gotten deleted.
Each department head was responsible for verifying, consulting and updating their budget for the following year. They never received financial statements historically. I copied them every time I was the one to send packets went out to Council, some used it for waste basket liners. Paul said don’t give them, Michelle said the same, “never did it before, don’t now.” I did – they had a right to know the status of their department. I believe (I hoped) they had an interest in the status of their department. They are hired to administrate their department, and shouldn’t need anyone else to do it for them.
But that is not nearly as important as mud-slinging, now is it!
If you know so much about it, why weren’t you on the committee? If you know so much, why aren’t you doing the books, and the reports?
To Louella, I get angry also, at the level of ignorance in this place – it just isn’t necessary, these people aren’t stupid, but they can’t seem to get over this mud-slinging, hate-filled, gossipy, circle they move in. Many just absolutely insist on it and then blame everyone else when it doesn’t work out for them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLouella,
DeleteSorry I missed your comment. Guess you decided not to respond.
In College I was an award winning Debate Participant. In my many years of debating I could figure out a person's beliefs after asking a few questions related to the debates. It went along the lines of my Psycology Degree. I have come to the conclusion in my opinion that not only you are a "TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE" but you
probably have a "WHITE SHEET & HOOD wraped in a DIXIE FLAG" hidden back in your closet.
One comment that you made on here was something about not wanting to discuss certain things about Mayor Hobbs on this site.
Bill
That's probably the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. All the way from "sorry - to - "site"!
DeleteIt didn't say 'mayor hobbs' it said current administration - fully staffed, that includes 10 people.
DeleteBill what is a "Psycology" Degree? maybe u got a "puscology" degree, because u have an "infection" on ur pea brain, your debating skills seem to be centered around how great Hobbs is!! Look around U need a brain implant. So long Great Debator!
ReplyDeleteYes, Get-It-Dun, surely if Bill had a degree, he could spell it!
DeleteLouella,
DeleteApparently you think every thing I write or ask on here is too ignorant to debate on or answer. This also goes to what you say are "TOO RIDICLOUS" TO "COMMENT ON".
Who or what Office are the 10 that you say make up the Administration of the City? To me it is 11 (Mayor, Treasurer, Recorder and 8 Council Members).
Louella & Get-It-Dumb,
Thanks for catching that I left out the "h" above. It is hard for me to get these old fingers and my mind together on these small keys. Sometimes I think too far ahead and do not proof read for mistakes. At least I know you-all are "Intelligent"
enough to correct me. I need to learn to use "spell check on this thing". As long as I don't argue with it.
Seems to me that all the both of you want to do is "BE-LITTLE" anyone who has an "OPINION" and is willing to debate it here.
You do not want to use this site for an open forum!!!!
Seems like you 2 or three just want to represent the "BRING BACK EX-MAYOR" few.
A positive thing for you'all to discuss would be to ask the "City Administration" to sit down in a workshop and come to some kind of "COMPROMISE" on running the City of Alexander.
If you have any influence on "YOUR" Council Members please try to do this. Even if all that happens is you'all "AGREE TO DISAGREE" at least you'all will be communicating openly in an orderly manner. This would show the Citizens and press that the Administration is trying to work together for the benefit of it's Citizens and the City of Alexander.
I know that you 2 or 3 will "MISS THE SMELL" (as you have responded before) and the ability to "BE-LITTLE ME" in the future but this is my LAST POST!!!!
GOOD BY!!! & I hope you'all are able to bring your agendas to
"FRUITION"..
Bill
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe debate or "open forums" were listed and scheduled for the whole year in the Organization of City council that YOU wouldn't pass. The one time it was tried, mayor didn't alert the press or post, - of course all meetings have to be posted and alerts out. But they were already scheduled. For the simple reason two council persons can't meet to discuss anything, so these WORKSHOPS were put into the document for that purpose, and were flatly rejected.
DeleteBill, I apologize for insulting you. I honestly didn't think I could, but if I hurt your feelings, I truly am sorry. There is no excuse for that.
Please understand - belittling and bias is a two way street. Read your own blogs, they are worse than mine!
The administration is 8 council people, mayor and recorder. You no longer have a Treasurer - she felt she didn't want to spend the rest of her life arguing for something that is not likely to happen with people who can't see or understand the facts.
So, we'll miss you anyway.
(By the way, I get so angry on here, I have to wait sometimes days to cool down before I can post. I swear I will never be back. But here I am, understanding the depth of frustration and passion that WE ALL FEEL FOR THIS PLACE that is your home. All of us need to grab our boot-straps and hang in there.
And remember, prayer changes things.
(had to re-do) too many typos ;-)
Bill as for the bring back the old mayor comment: you seem to have very hateful attitude toward Mayor Mitchell when he was mayor/ so did he murder someone in your house? The kind off hate rhetoric that I am reading from your posts would seem to indicate something of that nature . The Former Mayor Mitchell always called people back, and discussed things was what my people who live in the area have told me/ so what did U say to him that he would not converse with U? If it was something like I have read on here maybe he had a valid reason for not ttalking to U. Think about it/ do U call back someone who is hatefilled spiteful etc., to U?
Delete