Carlson made a motion that the C.U. natural gas rate hike be tabled and sent back to the utility for consideration, Wiley seconded the motion.
Interesting.
Only Burlison voted against the measure.
Showing posts with label C.U. audit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C.U. audit. Show all posts
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Recommended Reading 1, 2008
Mike O'Brien wrote a scorching article responding to a previous article in the News-Leader this morning. Here's an excerpt:
The ending is priceless and I didn't want to give it away. If you haven't read it, this is my first recommended reading for 2008.
"So it seems odd to many that the CU general manager's compensation is almost double the city manager's. And that a half-dozen top CU assistants make more than the city manager. And that 80 of CU's 1,000 employees were paid more than $100,000 in 2006, compared to 17 among City Hall's workforce of 1,600. And that CU spends five times as much per person on its "company picnic" as City Hall does for its workers. Etc."
The ending is priceless and I didn't want to give it away. If you haven't read it, this is my first recommended reading for 2008.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Talk is cheap - Thoughts on C.U. General Manager John Twitty's comments on the Vincent David Jericho Program, December 21, 2007
Okay, I've gotta say this about this:
What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.
Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?
The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.
Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:
As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.
The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.
Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.
This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.
Twitty said:
My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.
Talk is cheap.
*emphasis mine.
December 21_6:50am_What does CU have to say about things in the Audit
Friday, December 21, 2007 - 42 - Guest John Twitty, General Manager of C.U.
What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.
Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?
The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.
Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:
"It's again, Vince, I think, an area that's ripe for some really good DISCUSSION and we intend to address that one in particular because it is such a policy based or philosophical CONVERSATION and those questions that you ask are certainly fair.
I would say that we would never, ever, at City Utilities, do anything, KNOWINGLY, to violate either the constitution or any statute, whether federal or state or the city charter, so if there are things that we need to do differently on a going forward basis in this area we certainly want to do them in a way that is acceptable and supported by the community."*
As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.
The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.
Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.
This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.
Twitty said:
"If there are some of these kind of things that give people heartburn or heartache then I want to engage in the dialog with them to give them the information to at least from their own opinion."*
My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.
Talk is cheap.
*emphasis mine.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Vincent David Jericho interviewed and hosted question and answers with Susan Montee about C.U. Audit December 19, 2007
"I was highly offended by the suggestion that we just wouldn't understand because they're way too special." --- State Auditor Susan Montee regarding C.U.'s questioning about whether the State Auditor's office was qualified to audit a large utility company
Listen to more of what Susan Montee had to say on the Vincent David Jericho Program this morning:
December 19_7:50am_Could we be paying less for our utilitiesWednesday, December 19, 2007 - 22
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:00am_Should the be a profit on city owned utilitiesWednesday, December 19, 2007 - 19
*A Must Listen!
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:30am_What questions came out of the audit on CU Pt 1Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 9
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:50am_ What questions came out of the audit on CU Pt 2Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 8
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Thoughts on Jason's interview with the Mayor and the City Audit Report
I started this posting a few days ago and was just too dang busy to go back and finish it. It's kind of a mixed up mess but I'm going to try to make some sense out of it and post it because I'm taking a break for a bit.
The Peanut Gallery
I've been meaning to comment on this:
From The Life of Jason Interview: Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson, when Jason said:
Mayor Carlson responded, in part:
Well, yeah, sorta. Here's the timeline of Richard Baier of BC Development's statements. There was a bit of inconsistency there:
The Audit Report Fall-out
I don't necessarily disagree with Doug Burlison that it would be counter productive to go on a witch hunt after hearing the audit report and reading what has been written after the report in the News-Leader and on certain blogs but I'm thinking that Councilman Burlison arrived at that position after being privy to the results of the audit for some time (like at least a YEAR). Burlison has had time to process the information from that audit and his end conclusion is that it is better to look ahead and fix the problems rather than look backward and try to place the blame. Burlison might be correct in his decision but, citizens of this city should be allowed that same span of time to process the information contained in the audit report and come to that conclusion after grappling with the facts of the audit report for a while. Citizens of Springfield deserve the same amount of time to fuss, complain and discuss the details of the audit report as, rest assured, the City Council has had and in more than one closed meeting prior to the hearing of the report December 6.
I suspect that these warnings against "witch hunts" and this promise to do better in the future is meant in some small way to placate the citizens, to calm the "Peanut Gallery," if you will. I don't resent the public's anger and frustration over the results of the audit on the City of Springfield. Just as the City and Council have had a good amount of time to come to grips with the state of this City, the citizens of this city deserve at least the same amount of time to process it. AND we deserve to be allowed to process it without being smeared and condemned for it or treated as though we are some second class, low-life "Peanut Gallerians" in the process.
Nationally, there has been an outcry from the American public for government accountability that will extend to local government and no amount of city officials patting citizens on the head will make it all go away.
So, to those citizens who take an interest in their local city government and criticize the way it has been run in past years, there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let anyone suggest you are being counter productive when you need the same amount of time to mentally process the results of the audit report that the city has had in dealing with and responding to the report. It is a natural process and will run it's natural course and citizens deserve to be allowed that process without being told they are "going on a witch hunt" or being counter productive. Don't believe it when you want to have your say in your local government and hold them accountable, it's your job.
The next shoe is going to drop on December 18 when the State Auditor releases and reports on the City Utilities audit. Poor timing for the City, they'll likely still be hearing from the public about the results of the City audit when they are faced with the new report on City Utilities and I suspect it's going to be a really big shoe.
The Peanut Gallery
I've been meaning to comment on this:
From The Life of Jason Interview: Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson, when Jason said:
"During the announcement of Mr. Hammons landing the deal for the arena site, you made the statement “I’ll bet any day of the week, I’ll bet on people that have got real money at risk, time, money and effort to spend as opposed to the people from the peanut gallery.” Several of your critics have taken this statement and said this proves you are not betting on the average Springfield resident but only those with money. I wanted to give you the chance to explain that statement and to explain what you meant by the term “peanut gallery.”
Mayor Carlson responded, in part:
"What I was responding to was this: there were people who had real money at risk who had entered into the competitive process to see who would get to build on that land. There were other people who were critics of the city government who said the process was rigged. What I was trying to say was this: Those people who were saying the process was rigged were not trying to acquire the land. The people that had their money at risk and had to decide whether to spend their money here and their resources really do drill down and figure out whether they think the rules are fair. Those people said it was fair..."
Well, yeah, sorta. Here's the timeline of Richard Baier of BC Development's statements. There was a bit of inconsistency there:
October 3 letter to Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith
“There does not seem to be a desire by the TIF Commission or the City to enter into open and fair competition for the development of these projects.”
October 5 interview with Vincent David Jericho on KSGF radio
Baier: “My only reluctance to do business in Springfield would be, if there’s a public bid type process. Maybe I don’t understand all the politics in that type of thing, and I would push away from doing that. But as far as private development, where I go down and look for a site to build a medical project or retail or whatever the case might be or another hotel, I’m all for that because I like Springfield.”
Vince: “So, private development, love to do; dealing with the City of Springfield, you’d have to think twice?”
Baier: “Yeah, I’d have to think a couple of times, there.”
October 22 City Council meeting
“We don’t feel that we’ve been mistreated in any way, shape or fashion on this process. We’re definitely interested in working with the city.”
The Audit Report Fall-out
I don't necessarily disagree with Doug Burlison that it would be counter productive to go on a witch hunt after hearing the audit report and reading what has been written after the report in the News-Leader and on certain blogs but I'm thinking that Councilman Burlison arrived at that position after being privy to the results of the audit for some time (like at least a YEAR). Burlison has had time to process the information from that audit and his end conclusion is that it is better to look ahead and fix the problems rather than look backward and try to place the blame. Burlison might be correct in his decision but, citizens of this city should be allowed that same span of time to process the information contained in the audit report and come to that conclusion after grappling with the facts of the audit report for a while. Citizens of Springfield deserve the same amount of time to fuss, complain and discuss the details of the audit report as, rest assured, the City Council has had and in more than one closed meeting prior to the hearing of the report December 6.
I suspect that these warnings against "witch hunts" and this promise to do better in the future is meant in some small way to placate the citizens, to calm the "Peanut Gallery," if you will. I don't resent the public's anger and frustration over the results of the audit on the City of Springfield. Just as the City and Council have had a good amount of time to come to grips with the state of this City, the citizens of this city deserve at least the same amount of time to process it. AND we deserve to be allowed to process it without being smeared and condemned for it or treated as though we are some second class, low-life "Peanut Gallerians" in the process.
Nationally, there has been an outcry from the American public for government accountability that will extend to local government and no amount of city officials patting citizens on the head will make it all go away.
So, to those citizens who take an interest in their local city government and criticize the way it has been run in past years, there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let anyone suggest you are being counter productive when you need the same amount of time to mentally process the results of the audit report that the city has had in dealing with and responding to the report. It is a natural process and will run it's natural course and citizens deserve to be allowed that process without being told they are "going on a witch hunt" or being counter productive. Don't believe it when you want to have your say in your local government and hold them accountable, it's your job.
The next shoe is going to drop on December 18 when the State Auditor releases and reports on the City Utilities audit. Poor timing for the City, they'll likely still be hearing from the public about the results of the City audit when they are faced with the new report on City Utilities and I suspect it's going to be a really big shoe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
