COMMENTARY by Concerned Citizens of Alexander
At the request of Mayor Michelle Hobbs the Alexander City Council approved merging six bank accounts into the General Fund account. While this may sound like a good idea, less accounts to track, the facts indicate something different.
One glaring result is the fire department accounts. The fire department's main and reserve
accounts no longer exist. A department
that was well managed is floundering, and has no financial stability to support
its needs and projects.
This isn't the first time they have been raped
like this. It has happened before
according to previous fire department personnel. Additionally, the money is now going to projects
that have commonly been acknowledged the city cannot afford. But if enough smoke screen is emitted, you
cannot know what the facts are.
The
decisions to take on another loan and
merge six bank accounts into the general fund were made without seeing a
financial report for four months and with no idea of the true financial condition
of the city. The decision to merge the
bank accounts may also be illegal.
In 2003 and 2005 the City of Alexander,
when the population was 600, passed two one-cent sales tax referendums. One earmarked one-cent for the fire
department and the other earmarked an additional 1/8-cent to the fire
department, 5/8-cent to the police department and 2/8-cent to parks and
recreation.
After Woodland Hills was
annexed into the city the new aldermen were told the bank accounts for fire,
police and parks were required because the two referendums stated how the sales
tax would be spent. Because of that
state law required separate bank accounts. Apparently our former city recorder has forgotten everything she knew
when becoming mayor.
Camouflage is a red flag at step one. The bank merging is a smoke screen to keep you from knowing what is really going on.
Frankly all the second tax should have been reserved for the police Department. The 8th's were not necessary, Fire Department didn't need more, Parks didn't, but Police was in dire need. How council didn't, or refused to see that is a mystery.
ReplyDeleteHad it gone to the Police Department, none of the following fiasco would have happened. (Hopefully.)
Louella,
DeleteNot all the blame goes to the Council at the time the second tax was voted on. The Mayor (at that time) Johnson and the small Council was sold a bill of goods by the then Fire Chief Patrick DuVall. Woodland Hills was not annexed at that time and the Fire Chief did not want to share any of the resources that Woodland Hills had to offer. He wanted to build a seperate Station and buy new trucks and equipment. He did and put the City in BIG DEBT. He told the 45 or so voting residents that the fire coverage property assesment would go away if the Sales Tax was passed. He wanted the whole 1 cent for himself to use. In order to get it passed he settled for 1/2. The tax passed by about 35 votes out of about 40 cast. A few years later Woodland Hills area was annexed and then their Fire Dept. along with a big hunk of cash was given to the City of Alexander. It was all paid for so the first thing that was done was HOCK it to pay off the other BIG DEBT.
You are right that the sales tax should have not been designated. Every City Sales tax that is passed should at least go to the General Fund for certain Depts. that need it. (Like used for PUBLIC SAFETY and PARKS)
Every sales tax passed should have a sunset clause on it. This clause can be extended by the voters if necessary.
Mr. DuVall was just another in a series of "CROOKS" that has worked for the City in my opinion. More later. See you at the Council Meeting tonight. I wonder if Juanita will bless us with her presence???
Bill
My, My not our regular "Bill" this time.
DeleteJuanita is waiting for legal advise, she will do as instructed. I'm sure.
I see the quality of administration hasn't changed much.
The current smoke screen covering the covert actions of general fund are just that.
As for the fire dept. we just don't have one anymore. Just because someone is driving a big red truck doesn't mean much.
Louella,
DeleteI am the "REGULAR BILL". If Juanita would do what she was elected to do she would not need to "CONSULT" or get "LEGAL ADVICE" She would do what she swore
with her hand raised before God to do!!!!
As for the "Covert actions" with the General Fund.
Some of the Council Members are trying to get something done about all City Funds and a correct Financial report.
The newly appointed Council Members and some that were elected to do a job are trying. Should be brought up at tonight's meeting AGAIN!!!. Even though the FINANCIAL REPORT was left OFF!! the agenda. Way to do your job Faye, Brad, Ceola and Joseph. It is a shame you'all call them "COOKIE CUTTER" Council Members.
See you at the meeting tonight. Hope you have some public comment.
Hope you don't ever need our fire dept. If they know who you are they might take their time. Seems funny that you say we don't have one but I see them making calls (rescue & fire) 24 hours a day.
Bill
That sounds like a threat.
DeleteFires are a dangerous thing around here, is that how you repay political opposition?
Who is Joseph?
As far as the regular "Bill" - sorry but that poster is a numbskull.
Juanita is the ONLY Alderman, the ONLY city official who is doing what they swore to do. she is representing her constituents. As far as I know the only people in her ward that disagree with her are the guy with the horses, Andy and maybe that woman who used to be an alderman. Which means she is representing the majority.
And as for the "cookie-cutter-council" I call em as I see em, and it is y'all. It's me!
Juanita's legal advise isn't what you think or what it sounds like. Lord willing it will be revealed shortly. Big guns move slowly.
Let's go over the sales tax division and timeline again. Unless someone's memory is failing, or they don't know how to tell a story, this is what's been said in the past. The 2003 sales tax referendum was for one-cent to the fire department. In 2005 a second one-cent referendum gave another 1/8-cent to the fire department, 5/8 to police and 2/8 to parks. So, I don't see where the fire department accepted half of something.
DeleteAlso, the police department was much smaller then and so was the city. They had maybe two police cars. The annexation didn't occur until 2006.
As for not putting it all in the general fund; Mayor Shirley Johnson admitted during a conversation that she was told the referendums would fail if both sales taxes weren't designated for a specific use. Apparently even voters back then didn't trust her not to spend it all on air freshener.
One goal Mayor Paul Mitchell never got around to during his voter-interrupted time in office was to have a referendum to redistribute the second one-cent. His proposal would have been to at least transfer 1/8-cent from parks to police, lowering parks from 2/8 to 1/8 and raising police from 5/8 to 6/8. Another consideration was to reduce the fire department from 1 1/8-cent to 1-cent and transfer that 1/8-cent to either police or the general fund. But he never got that far.
Alex: Perfect!
ReplyDeletehey guys I heard from my friends that August meeting was so long that the flies on the wall went to sleep and most people gave up and left from "tired rear"" and there was just a lot of crazy yakking from one nutty woman who ram rodded the whole "show" Is this true?
ReplyDeleteYes it's true!!!!! Juanita came in there MAD and was raising her voice a lot!!! SAD isn't it, you figured she would be more well behaved!!!
DeleteYou just proved you either weren't at the meeting or weren't paying attention. Didn't you notice Faye's mouth wasn't closed along enough to let the spit dry?
DeleteShe was very well behaved, she was going to share your e:mail proposition but restrained herself.
DeleteAlex N. Der you weren't there yourself. Faye ask questions that are important. Your guy gripes about everything. Share what ever you have, you have nothing on me, Daisy Hills son-in-law!!!!
DeleteAre you saying you're Daisy Hill's son-in-law? Just want to clarify.
DeleteI didn't think Daisy had a son-in-law,
DeleteMaybe I'm suppose to be Daisy Hill's son-in-law. Eeeooo!
DeleteAt the risk of sounding offensive to some, I attended the meeting. It was VERY long. Some points need to be made.
ReplyDelete1. The plan of the council “fining themselves” for absenteeism, was provided for in the ORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL that was pitched in January, all the council had to do was set the fine, an ordinance is not necessary NOT TO MENTION THREATENING THEM WITH JAIL. These elected officials are being addressed as children, I would question whether the mayor or city attorney are not just experiencing a little happy-power-juice. Actually when the previous administration put into motion the update for ORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL, it was because the recorder was rarely there, although she drew $500.00 a month, Regina Watson took the minutes, Michelle took the money. (She didn’t have to wait 4 months to get it either.)
2. Council, Mayor, Attorney should be perfectly clear, there is a difference in ABSENTEEISM and PEACEFUL PROTEST.
3. Some of the points Faye was trying to make were very good points. Revisiting the car debt; making policy PRIOR to the vote; a workshop meeting for financials; debating/investigating issues; overdrawn banks. These were great points, and totally necessary.
4. The “salary” these Aldermen receive is a stipend to off-set gas and car expense, it amounts to $100.00 a month, $93. and change take home. Compared to $1.500.00 a month to warm an office chair, and $135.00 an hour to sit in on a 4 plus hour meeting (at the very least) sets whopping fines for people who are actually doing their job for practically nothing. That they had no issues, and were willing to swallow what ever the administration presented doesn’t make them THE GOOD GUYS. Every council person SHOULD have an opinion, and should voice it. Try to remember in the vey first meeting of the year, any opposition was warned they would have no voice in council and anything they tried to do would be vetoed.
Does that sound American?
The workshop meetings were also provided for in the ORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL that was pitched in January. They need to be held. ALL debate should be done there so that things ‘on the floor’ at council operates smoothly. NOTHING should be sprung on them at the last minutes. If they haven’t completed the debate, or the investigation, at council they can vote to extend it, or table it.
A) Policy is a wise and acceptable procedure.
B) Debate is a wise and acceptable process.
C) Peaceful Protest is a wise and VERY acceptable exercise; when it is successful it keeps you from having to go to a higher court.
AND when it isn't successful, you wait for the other shoe to drop.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJ, sorry I didn't make it Monday for the marathon meeting (I guess I'm sorry) I know we were supposed to meet for supper, but something came up I had to attend to. Let me know next time you go
ReplyDelete(too many typos on the first effort.)
Thats ok, Louella, I didn't make it either. So much for the party ;-)
DeleteYeah, it was much too late to eat or visit
DeleteLooks like the newest Joint legislative audit is published.
ReplyDeleteKind of re-inforces what Councilman Faye McKeon has been trying to
get done with the Special Accounts the City has. So far her attemps
have fallen on deaf ears when it comes to spending. Hope she gets some answers at next Monday's Council meeting. Looks like the General Fund is way overdrawn.
Hope JoAn has to pay back the aprox $2000 that she illegially paid herself before she quit.
Should be an intereting meeting next week.
Bill
Maybe you can enlighten us as to what Councilman Faye McKeon is trying to accomplish with the Special Accounts. She voted to merge them at one meeting then at the next meeting complained about not being able to track the money.
DeleteTaking your comment about JoAn Churchill's payment at face value, maybe you can explain how she was able to get a check, or checks, signed by two people (one of them shouldn't have been her) for payment of wages without having to show a corresponding time sheet or time card. And if she had forged the time sheet/time card, why didn't she leave it in the records for Leg Audit to find to back-up the payments?
I think Bill just blew his cover. Since the 2011-2012 audits aren't posted on the Leg Audit website he must have a paper copy. How did you acquire a paper copy Bill?
ReplyDeleteEveryone mentioned or investigated in the audit gets a copy if they request it. The person questioned or commented on can question the findings before they are published as record. As stated in the audit: "pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 10-04-417, all reports presented to the Legislative Auditing Committee are matters of public record and distribution is not limited". All that has to be done to get one is request
Deleteit from the Committee. Any person can obtain a copy. The law does not say that reports are only public when posted on Leg. Audit website!!!!. I keep in contact with the Legislative Audit Office while the audit is in progress and request a copy when it is complete. I got mine in E-Mail.
Bill