In a previous entry, I mentioned, City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an email to "JackeHammer" that Director of Building Development Services (BDS) Nick Heatherly, indicated BDS has "posted" Veterans Coming Home for a code violation (See Springfield Municipal Code Sections 74-391 and 74-392), and was awaiting his reply about when it was posted and the nature of the violation.
I'd also noted City Attorney Dan Wichmer had stated in an email, "In Feb of this year, BDS sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
When I did hear back from Cirtin regarding the violation BDS had posted, she wrote, "According to Nick, the property was posted on May 5, 2008, with a “Do Not Occupy” as they did not have a C of O (Certificate of Occupancy) to occupy the structure." Later, when asked if they had acquired a C of O after being posted, the City Clerk referred my questions to Nick Heatherly to answer. Heatherly responded, "August 11, 2008 a C of O was issued for a “Business Office” use." When asked if Veterans Coming Home was attempting to "occupy" the facility before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Heatherly wrote, "They were in the process of setting up their office prior to the issuance of the C of O." So, my thought on all of that is this: It's up to the reader to decide whether "setting up" an office prior to use qualifies as "occupancy" or not and warrants an official posting of violation.
Regarding Wichmer's mention of a February letter, I was never provided a copy of a February letter and I did not ask for a copy of it...follow up for another day. Wichmer did not note what the "purported improper uses" were but, the fact they were "purported" rather than proven is a clue that the February letter was not an official "posting" by the City of ordinance violations.
Regarding Wichmer's other remark about Health and Human Services "stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses(?)" Well, Rice acquired the building from the Federal government, not the City, and I think it's fairly plain that had it been up to the City, Rice would never have been awarded the building in the first place. Further, I'm not sure of the process for complaint a City government is required to follow if an organization is not complying with stated uses when acquiring surplus property through the Federal government but, I'd assume a local City government would have to go through Federal channels to file a complaint. Action taken in that regard, it seems to me, would more likely have to come from the Federal government. Now, that is not to say the City cannot mandate Veterans Coming Home abide by City ordinance pertaining to the facility's zoning but, the City needs to prove there are violations of City ordinance before making a statement that, it appears, many perceived as a veiled threat that the City was preparing to shut the facility down for a year for non-compliance.
The whole thing seems to have been another "scratching-your- head- in-bewilderment-moment," compliments of the Springfield City Attorney's office, and then sensationalized by the Reverend Larry Rice through the pages of our local news paper. However, that said, I still feel it was important that the "Springfield News-Leader" reported on the issue for the very reason I stated in my original entry on the subject:
"...it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)"
Regarding the call I placed to Rice. If he has tried to return the call, I missed it. I've had to be out of the house for appointments the last two days after placing the call and my answering machine is not currently functional.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label City Attorney Dan Wichmer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Attorney Dan Wichmer. Show all posts
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Nuisance, Nuisance, Everywhere
"Though Police Chief Lynn Rowe said City Council had come up with the (nuisance) ordinance in order to deal with specific nuisance properties, Council was also reluctant to deprive people of their property without due process." - Community Free Press, DEC. 17, 2008 - JAN. 13, 2009 issue
In light of today's "Springfield News-Leader" article regarding City Attorney Dan Wichmer's letter and Reverend Rice's response concerning neighbors' allegations of misuse of the property at 806 N. Jefferson, or Veterans Coming Home, I felt the article I wrote for the "Community Free Press" regarding similar allegations might shed a bit of light on what the City is able to do or not do in the case of allegations of nuisance properties. Readers will find that CFP article below this entry. (And I have to wonder if neighbors of Veterans Coming Home are being made aware of how little the City can actually do to enforce the nuisance ordinance)
In the letter City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote to Reverend Larry Rice, Wichmer referenced Springfield City Code sections 74-391 and 74-392. Wichmer noted, "Under these code sections, any property harboring a nuisance could be subject to closure for up to 1 year."
Wichmer then "strongly encourage(d)" Reverend Rice to stop activities not permitted and take action to eliminate activities which were a nuisance to businesses in the area. Wichmer wrote, "Failure to take corrective action will force the City to take action to abate the nuisance."
In the article attached readers will note, "According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance."
The nuisance ordinance is very specific in describing the process by which the City of Springfield may close a property. One of the City's other options (under City Code) is to shut off utilities to that property for up to 1 year. The City really can't just go around closing properties based on neighbors' complaints, there is much more to it than that. For instance, before closing a property can even be considered notice has to be given and it must be given in very specific manner.
"JackeHammer" asked City Attorney Wichmer if there had been any notice of:
"...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances" on the premises, and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances," (City code 74-391) where the initial arrest of a convict originated from the address 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri
OR for:
"...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city," and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city" involving an initial arrest of the convict from 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri (City code 74-392)
BY: "The chief of police or his designee," (City code 74-391) OR "The chief of police or director of health or other head of a department charged with ordinance or code enforcement or their respective designees?" (City code 74-392)
"No." City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote in an email response. "My letter merely referenced the fact that if we found and proved violations that originated from 806 N. Jefferson, we would treat (it) as any other nuisance property and use all tools available. We are not, to my knowledge, anywhere near sending any sort of nuisance notice."
Later in the day, when questioned about why he sent the letter at this time, Wichmer wrote, "In Feb of this year, BDS (Building Development Services) sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an email to JackeHammer that Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly, indicated BDS has "posted" Veterans Coming Home for a code violation. She is awaiting his reply about when it was posted and the nature of the violation, "I asked him when and what the violation was, but haven’t heard back yet," she wrote.
Wichmer said the reason he sent the letter is because Rice's local representatives had stated Rice wanted to know if there were any issues, "When he opened the center, Rev. Rice, through his local reps, stated he wanted to be a good neighbor (especially in light of the incidents he had at the Free Store, his facility near Jeff City and the stabbing in St. Louis) so if we had issues, please let him know," Wichmer wrote.
According to Wichmer, the letter was sent out 2 weeks ago. Indeed, it is dated November 23, 2009. Wichmer indicated Ron Moore, New Life Evangelical Center's on site manager and Dan Boyle, Rice's attorney, were very cordial in their responses, with Boyle stating, "he would make sure there was follow up on their (Veterans Coming Home) end." Wichmer indicated that because he had received such a cordial response from them, he thought the issue was behind him and being handled.
"He (Boyle) told me in the future to just call him or NLEC’s business manager if we received further complaints. I thought that ended the matter. That is why I stated that Rice was merely grandstanding yesterday," Wichmer wrote.
At any rate, it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)
JackeHammer has placed a call to the Reverend Larry Rice for comment and is awaiting his response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the DEC. 17, 2008 - JAN. 13, 2009 issue of the "Community Free Press:"
"West Central WOES
Area developers’ cries for help reach a high level of frustration."
By Jackie Melton
CFP Contributor
At a recent meeting at the Busch Municipal Building,tempers and accusations sometimes flared over vandalism, theft, drug use, and whether the city’s nuisance ordinance can be used to remedy recurring problems in Springfield’s West Central neighborhood. One thing was made clear by the attending city officials: there are not going to be any quick fixes to neighborhood crime in West Central or any other neighborhood in Springfield.
Carol Nachbar, a real estate investor and redeveloper who owns property in the area was frustrated over what she perceived as non-enforcement of the city’s nuisance ordinance.
Though Police Chief Lynn Rowe said City Council had come up with the ordinance in order to deal with specific nuisance properties, Council was also reluctant to deprive people of their property without due process.
“We can’t take a whole complex with just one violating apartment unit,” Rowe said. “If they’re [owners/managers] dealing with the issue, then that precludes using the nuisance ordinance to take that property.”
Due process is what has Nachbar and other West Central investors and homeowners asking questions. Nachbar balked when told that, without convictions of crime, the nuisance ordinance could not be enforced.
“These people are out there causing all this havoc and this chaos,” Nachbar said. “The police put them in their cars and they handcuff them and then, 15 minutes later, they let them back out of the police car. That’s the problem, they are not arrested in the first place.”
The Windermere Apartments, 1055 W. Walnut St., is at the center of the debate among West Central residents and property owners. Nachbar claims problems originating at the property are interfering with her ability to lease a neighboring property she owns.
According to the city Web site, the business license for 1055 W.Walnut is issued to Shorty’s Holding, LLC. The address for the owner is also the same address issued to Cars 4 U, a car lot on Compton Street owned by Kendall Hancock. Hancock could not be reached for comment, but a woman at Cars 4 U, who identified herself as only Angela, said she was the manager of Shorty’s Holding, LLC.
“I’m the manager and we don’t have a comment,” she said.
According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance.
“I can assure you that I take you seriously, but you sitting there, indicating that I’m not doing anything, isn’t going to make me a whole lot happier dealing with you,” Wichmer said to Nachbar at the meeting. “I’ve pulled your properties, you’ve had disturbances, and you’ve had complaints. Do I shut your properties down?”
Rowe explained his department is following procedure and doing what they can under the law.
“Sometimes there’s enough [evidence] to pursue it and if there is, they go to jail every time, even though it is a revolving door and they go right back out,” Rowe said.
Another local developer and investor, David Rhodes, said, in the past, when there was more police presence crime had disappeared.
“If this issue serves one purpose, I hope it is that it will get more police on the street,” Rhodes said.
Jack Pugh, Rhodes partner in “B’s” Renaissance Renovations, LLC, identified himself and Nachbar as two of the top investors in the West Central area. Pugh lives in a home on Walnut Street that he and his wife remodeled with the intention of retiring there. His wife has since moved out, and they have purchased a new retirement home in Greenfield.
“After the two attempted murders at the rental operations next door, and our neighbor who was stabbed and left to die on our front steps by two thugs who felt they had a right to own his bicycle, she just gave up,” Pugh said. “It was just too close. She didn’t work all her life to have to live in fear.”
Pugh talked about several contractors and residents who have been victims of theft. Later, as he steered his car down Pershing Street, where he has redeveloped and assisted others in redevelopment of several properties, he pointed to his “crown jewel.”
“A young family bought that a year ago and now they’re moving out. They’ve been broken into four times,” Pugh said. “They’ve just given up.”
Suggestions offered by city officials for dealing with the nuisance properties didn’t offer any overnight solutions. Beyond continuing to file police reports, working with their Police Area Representative officer, or taking the personal initiative to sue a nuisance property owner in civil court, one of the few other suggestions was that residents become more involved in their neighborhood associations. It was suggested they start a “Neighborhood Team”program.
“Neighborhood Teams can set priorities and then we all work together,” Rowe said.
Jack Pugh had little faith that forming a Neighborhood Team was the answer.
“It’s attacking the problem at the wrong end.” Pugh said. “If we had a Neighborhood Team in place reporting on the Windermere Apartments, would anything have been done differently at this point? Would it have helped to have had 120 calls this year instead of 100? The answer is no. It’s the policies that the Neighborhood Team has to work under that are the problem.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is a Public Nuisance?
“Any place that is used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations,or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any of the inhabitants of the city after notice is given and the place continues to be used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city is a public nuisance.”
Source: Section 74-392.A, General Ordinance Number 5465 (Springfield’s nuisance ordinance)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of today's "Springfield News-Leader" article regarding City Attorney Dan Wichmer's letter and Reverend Rice's response concerning neighbors' allegations of misuse of the property at 806 N. Jefferson, or Veterans Coming Home, I felt the article I wrote for the "Community Free Press" regarding similar allegations might shed a bit of light on what the City is able to do or not do in the case of allegations of nuisance properties. Readers will find that CFP article below this entry. (And I have to wonder if neighbors of Veterans Coming Home are being made aware of how little the City can actually do to enforce the nuisance ordinance)
In the letter City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote to Reverend Larry Rice, Wichmer referenced Springfield City Code sections 74-391 and 74-392. Wichmer noted, "Under these code sections, any property harboring a nuisance could be subject to closure for up to 1 year."
Wichmer then "strongly encourage(d)" Reverend Rice to stop activities not permitted and take action to eliminate activities which were a nuisance to businesses in the area. Wichmer wrote, "Failure to take corrective action will force the City to take action to abate the nuisance."
In the article attached readers will note, "According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance."
The nuisance ordinance is very specific in describing the process by which the City of Springfield may close a property. One of the City's other options (under City Code) is to shut off utilities to that property for up to 1 year. The City really can't just go around closing properties based on neighbors' complaints, there is much more to it than that. For instance, before closing a property can even be considered notice has to be given and it must be given in very specific manner.
"JackeHammer" asked City Attorney Wichmer if there had been any notice of:
"...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances" on the premises, and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances," (City code 74-391) where the initial arrest of a convict originated from the address 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri
OR for:
"...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city," and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city" involving an initial arrest of the convict from 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri (City code 74-392)
BY: "The chief of police or his designee," (City code 74-391) OR "The chief of police or director of health or other head of a department charged with ordinance or code enforcement or their respective designees?" (City code 74-392)
"No." City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote in an email response. "My letter merely referenced the fact that if we found and proved violations that originated from 806 N. Jefferson, we would treat (it) as any other nuisance property and use all tools available. We are not, to my knowledge, anywhere near sending any sort of nuisance notice."
Later in the day, when questioned about why he sent the letter at this time, Wichmer wrote, "In Feb of this year, BDS (Building Development Services) sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an email to JackeHammer that Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly, indicated BDS has "posted" Veterans Coming Home for a code violation. She is awaiting his reply about when it was posted and the nature of the violation, "I asked him when and what the violation was, but haven’t heard back yet," she wrote.
Wichmer said the reason he sent the letter is because Rice's local representatives had stated Rice wanted to know if there were any issues, "When he opened the center, Rev. Rice, through his local reps, stated he wanted to be a good neighbor (especially in light of the incidents he had at the Free Store, his facility near Jeff City and the stabbing in St. Louis) so if we had issues, please let him know," Wichmer wrote.
According to Wichmer, the letter was sent out 2 weeks ago. Indeed, it is dated November 23, 2009. Wichmer indicated Ron Moore, New Life Evangelical Center's on site manager and Dan Boyle, Rice's attorney, were very cordial in their responses, with Boyle stating, "he would make sure there was follow up on their (Veterans Coming Home) end." Wichmer indicated that because he had received such a cordial response from them, he thought the issue was behind him and being handled.
"He (Boyle) told me in the future to just call him or NLEC’s business manager if we received further complaints. I thought that ended the matter. That is why I stated that Rice was merely grandstanding yesterday," Wichmer wrote.
At any rate, it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)
JackeHammer has placed a call to the Reverend Larry Rice for comment and is awaiting his response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the DEC. 17, 2008 - JAN. 13, 2009 issue of the "Community Free Press:"
"West Central WOES
Area developers’ cries for help reach a high level of frustration."
By Jackie Melton
CFP Contributor
At a recent meeting at the Busch Municipal Building,tempers and accusations sometimes flared over vandalism, theft, drug use, and whether the city’s nuisance ordinance can be used to remedy recurring problems in Springfield’s West Central neighborhood. One thing was made clear by the attending city officials: there are not going to be any quick fixes to neighborhood crime in West Central or any other neighborhood in Springfield.
Carol Nachbar, a real estate investor and redeveloper who owns property in the area was frustrated over what she perceived as non-enforcement of the city’s nuisance ordinance.
Though Police Chief Lynn Rowe said City Council had come up with the ordinance in order to deal with specific nuisance properties, Council was also reluctant to deprive people of their property without due process.
“We can’t take a whole complex with just one violating apartment unit,” Rowe said. “If they’re [owners/managers] dealing with the issue, then that precludes using the nuisance ordinance to take that property.”
Due process is what has Nachbar and other West Central investors and homeowners asking questions. Nachbar balked when told that, without convictions of crime, the nuisance ordinance could not be enforced.
“These people are out there causing all this havoc and this chaos,” Nachbar said. “The police put them in their cars and they handcuff them and then, 15 minutes later, they let them back out of the police car. That’s the problem, they are not arrested in the first place.”
The Windermere Apartments, 1055 W. Walnut St., is at the center of the debate among West Central residents and property owners. Nachbar claims problems originating at the property are interfering with her ability to lease a neighboring property she owns.
According to the city Web site, the business license for 1055 W.Walnut is issued to Shorty’s Holding, LLC. The address for the owner is also the same address issued to Cars 4 U, a car lot on Compton Street owned by Kendall Hancock. Hancock could not be reached for comment, but a woman at Cars 4 U, who identified herself as only Angela, said she was the manager of Shorty’s Holding, LLC.
“I’m the manager and we don’t have a comment,” she said.
According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance.
“I can assure you that I take you seriously, but you sitting there, indicating that I’m not doing anything, isn’t going to make me a whole lot happier dealing with you,” Wichmer said to Nachbar at the meeting. “I’ve pulled your properties, you’ve had disturbances, and you’ve had complaints. Do I shut your properties down?”
Rowe explained his department is following procedure and doing what they can under the law.
“Sometimes there’s enough [evidence] to pursue it and if there is, they go to jail every time, even though it is a revolving door and they go right back out,” Rowe said.
Another local developer and investor, David Rhodes, said, in the past, when there was more police presence crime had disappeared.
“If this issue serves one purpose, I hope it is that it will get more police on the street,” Rhodes said.
Jack Pugh, Rhodes partner in “B’s” Renaissance Renovations, LLC, identified himself and Nachbar as two of the top investors in the West Central area. Pugh lives in a home on Walnut Street that he and his wife remodeled with the intention of retiring there. His wife has since moved out, and they have purchased a new retirement home in Greenfield.
“After the two attempted murders at the rental operations next door, and our neighbor who was stabbed and left to die on our front steps by two thugs who felt they had a right to own his bicycle, she just gave up,” Pugh said. “It was just too close. She didn’t work all her life to have to live in fear.”
Pugh talked about several contractors and residents who have been victims of theft. Later, as he steered his car down Pershing Street, where he has redeveloped and assisted others in redevelopment of several properties, he pointed to his “crown jewel.”
“A young family bought that a year ago and now they’re moving out. They’ve been broken into four times,” Pugh said. “They’ve just given up.”
Suggestions offered by city officials for dealing with the nuisance properties didn’t offer any overnight solutions. Beyond continuing to file police reports, working with their Police Area Representative officer, or taking the personal initiative to sue a nuisance property owner in civil court, one of the few other suggestions was that residents become more involved in their neighborhood associations. It was suggested they start a “Neighborhood Team”program.
“Neighborhood Teams can set priorities and then we all work together,” Rowe said.
Jack Pugh had little faith that forming a Neighborhood Team was the answer.
“It’s attacking the problem at the wrong end.” Pugh said. “If we had a Neighborhood Team in place reporting on the Windermere Apartments, would anything have been done differently at this point? Would it have helped to have had 120 calls this year instead of 100? The answer is no. It’s the policies that the Neighborhood Team has to work under that are the problem.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is a Public Nuisance?
“Any place that is used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations,or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any of the inhabitants of the city after notice is given and the place continues to be used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city is a public nuisance.”
Source: Section 74-392.A, General Ordinance Number 5465 (Springfield’s nuisance ordinance)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
ICMA Director of Ethics Clarifies Conversation with SOS Caller Darin Chappell; SOS Caller Returns the Favor
"JackeHammer" < < < met with SOS (Save Our Springfield) spokesman Darin Chappell this evening after reading the clarification delivered by the International City Manager Association (ICMA) Director of Ethics, Martha Perego, to the City of Springfield.
Perego issued her reply to Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley. It was released to the public today, along with City attorney Dan Wichmer's written report of his findings on the legality of the forwarding of an email by City Manager Greg Burris. If you are not familiar with this story already, you'll find plenty of past entries on the subject at this blog.
The excerpt of Perego's letter which "CityConnect" (the City of Springfield's informational blog) posted at their Web site states:
While Mr. Chappell had plenty to say this evening, (and we'll get to some of that later) I believe this statement cuts to the heart of the issue, it was one of the last things Mr. Chappell said to me tonight (Tuesday, April 14), "What has happened," Chappell said, "whether it's done on purpose or accident, and I'm perfectly willing to say that it was an accident, okay? I'm not ascribing any motivations to anyone but, whether by purpose or by accident, the words have been pulled away from their context and twisted just a little bit, to where Ms. Perego has no choice but to say, I never said that, but, I never said she did say that, and that's basically where the confusion has arisen."
Now, what has been implied Chappell has claimed Ms. Perego said, and what Ms. Perego actually said to him are two different things, according to Darin Chappell.
When Darin Chappell presented the SOS powerpoint presentation on April 9, this statement was among the many included in that presentation:
Keeping in mind that Mr. Chappell and I discussed these issues in a windy and chilly parking lot outside the Knights of Columbus building on Grand Street, where a "Young Conservatives" meeting was being held, and did not have the documents' exact wording in front of us, Chappell responded to my question, "What is your take on why she (Ms. Perego) would seem to be suggesting, now, that she never said the things you have reported her as saying?"
"If you look at the media release that the City put out and you read it very carefully," Chappell said, "it says something to the effect that Ms. Perego did not say that she was shocked that any city manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done. She did not say that last line, she said she was shocked that any city manager would insert himself into a political campaign, the 'such as Mr. Burris has done' was me speaking. She couldn't have made a judgement, she didn't know Mr. Burris' name, she didn't know the City of Springfield, she didn't even know my position. I just gave her my name, and just told her I was concerned about something that was happening in my city, some place where I work, you know, I don't live in the City but, I work here and I participate in the city as a taxpayer, and I'm concerned about these things. So, of course she would say [she] never said anything about Mr. Burris acting unethically, she couldn't, there's no way she could have said that."
Chappell continued, "Let me just be very clear. I was careful not to (indicate where the event took place or the parties involved) because the reason I was calling her was to double check my understanding of the code of ethics, specifically tenet 7, and if I was wrong about that, I wanted her to tell me I was wrong so that I didn't look like an absolute fool when I had this media release but, more importantly, I didn't want to besmirch anybody that didn't have something done in their actions that needed to be pointed out. So, I called her, specifically not mentioning any names or characteristics that would identify the city or the city manager or the union president, and I did so just to give her a hypothetical thumbnail sketch of what happened so that I could get her take on it so I would know how to proceed."
"She did not say that it was wrong for a city manager to ever have any contact with the firefighters union, as is cited in the City's media release but, I never suggested that she did say that, I never suggested that at all," Chappell said. "She also did not say that this event was going to have a swift and certain investigation. She can't say that until a formal complaint is filed, and as far as I'm aware, there is no formal complaint...."
Chappell didn't see that the distinction the email had been forwarded to other city administrators had any bearing but thought he had mentioned it to Ms. Perego, "I didn't record the event, you know, we just had a phone conversation," Chappell said.
I don't know folks, I don't want to believe that anyone would intentionally misrepresent what Chappell said Ms. Perego of the ICMA had told him, I'd prefer to think this is all a big misunderstanding. I'll even take some of the blame for the misunderstanding, as I had previously written:
But, I was quoting Chappell and while Chappell was making an effort to characterize the discussion he had with Ms. Perego, he was adding his own thoughts and completing lines of thinking as he spoke. Chappell said Ms. Perego did not say anything about censure or loss of membership in the ICMA as a result of an ethical breach, he found that information, himself, at the ICMA Web site. "I looked up the ICMA Web site, she did not say anything about censure, she did not say anything about removal of benefits or affiliation but the ICMA Web site says those things, that if someone's found to have broken a code of ethics, those are possible repercussions. I said that, not her."
It goes to show how careful one must be when, both giving second hand information in discussion, and quoting someone regarding second hand information. Because Chappell had made it clear that he did not identify the city he was calling about or the name of the city manager, and I had noted it in my previous reporting on this issue, I assumed people could understand there wouldn't be any way she would have actually made a comment about Burris, specifically. Likewise, the powerpoint presentation stated very clearly that Chappell had not identified the city he was calling about or it's city manager but, apparently it wasn't clear enough for all parties reading it to understand that distinction.
I also need to make clear that I'm not defending Chappell out of any interest other than the want for the issue to be clear and not misrepresented, taken out of context, or misunderstood.
I don't, personally, pretend to know whether Springfield's City Manager Greg Burris has broken tenet 7 of the ICMA code of ethics. Darin Chappell believes he has, "Ms. Perego said that unless there was an active negotiation going on between the City she saw no reason for a city manager, again, this is all hypothetical, for a city manager to be forwarding the position of Council candidates, who are actively seeking office, to the firefighters union," Chappell said. "I believe it's an unethical breach. I believe it's a breach in the ethics because of, and I didn't explain to her MoLiCo (Missouri Liberty Coalition) or anything but, because of MoLiCo, because of the word "blindsided," I have a problem with that as an ethical consideration."
This reporter/blogger feels if any segment of the public has a question about the ethical standing of Mr. Burris' actions, it's better to deal with those questions than let them fester.
City attorney Dan Wichmer has, in his "E-Mail Investigation Report," stated:
The allegation of a violation of the City Charter was not a part of the power point presentation, however, SOS co-spokesman Mark Wright did allege Burris might have violated the City Charter during the course of that press conference.
It also concerns me that simply reporting on contentious issues such as this may have the effect of causing some people in the community to think that I have a personal vendetta against Mr. Burris or am looking for reasons to *attack* the City government.
I live in Springfield just a many City employees live in Springfield, and have a vested interest in this City. I like this City and happen to think it is a beautiful City, that said, I also believe the public has a right to see serious issues treated seriously and reported fairly. Because I feel this is a very serious issue, I have done my best to treat it in a serious fashion, not because I have any animosity, whatsoever, toward Mr. Burris but because some members of the public have expressed a concern over the matter, and they deserve to be heard as much as City officials deserve to be heard.
The clarification of Ms. Perego makes it appear that Mr. Chappell has been less than honest. I don't, personally, believe that to be the case, and just like Mr. Chappell, I'm not ascribing any motivations to anyone but, I do not believe everything pertaining to this issue has been fairly represented, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and I felt Mr. Chappell deserved the same right to clarify his position as Ms. Perego.
I'm sure we can all do a better job of accurately reporting and accurately characterizing both private citizens and public officials.
I hope to see, some day, this community be able to pull together and work together toward common goals, not as adversaries. I would wager that is what most, if not all, the citizens in this community would like to see but, when there are serious issues such as this raised they should be dealt with in honesty and with fairness. Sometimes it seems to me, and this is just me writing my personal thoughts here, sometimes it seems to me that instead of addressing serious issues as they come up, there is a knee-jerk defensive posture taken, and certainly, it could not have been pleasant for Mr. Burris to be asked to resign his position but, there has been an ethical question raised in this case. It needs to be addressed. It has not yet been addressed.
My understanding is that it will be up to the City Council to decide whether the issue needs to be looked into further. They are representatives of the citizens who elected, and very recently, elected some of them. I don't know how they will represent the citizens. Will they represent all of them or some of them? How will they select which citizens they will represent and which citizens they will deem not worthy of addressing?
The City attorney addressed the legal aspect. Will the ethical aspect be addressed on behalf of the citizens who have a concern about the ethical aspect of the issue? Does the ethical aspect of the issue matter?
I guess we'll see what the Council thinks, eventually. To be honest, I'm saddened by the whole thing.
Now, even though this post is very long and I am very tired (it's nearly 3 a.m.), there is one more issue that should be clarified by Mr. Chappell. Since I have defined most of what Chappell stated Ms. Perego did not say I should allow him to clarify for himself what Ms. Perego did say. Some of this may seem repetitious but, I believe it is important to report it.
"Her response was, basically, three-fold," Chappell said. "She said that she was shocked that a city manager would insert himself into a situation like this because of the political implications. Her words were, most city managers wouldn't touch this at all, they just wouldn't deal with it because of what could happen. She did not understand why a sitting city manager would have any reason to contact a firefighter union official about actively, seeking candidates for the City Council, (about) their positions, (by) forwarding an email, especially with a negative characterization but, she didn't understand why he would do that even if there was no characterization
"She also said, and this was her idea, I didn't come up with this, her idea was that unless the city manager, unless the city, is in active negotiations with the firefighters' union contract, that there's no reason for the city manager to be forwarding City Council candidates' positions to the unions, president or not.
"And then, thirdly, if there was a formal complaint, then ICMA would take that seriously and they would investigate thoroughly.
"Those are the three basic things, now, are those direct quotations of her? No, but those reflect the character and the content of everything she said."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perego issued her reply to Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley. It was released to the public today, along with City attorney Dan Wichmer's written report of his findings on the legality of the forwarding of an email by City Manager Greg Burris. If you are not familiar with this story already, you'll find plenty of past entries on the subject at this blog.
The excerpt of Perego's letter which "CityConnect" (the City of Springfield's informational blog) posted at their Web site states:
"Please be assured that I did not draw a conclusion about the appropriateness of the city manager's conduct based on the limited information presented by the caller. I did pose questions to the caller and reviewed the intent of Tenet 7 which advises members to refrain from engaging in any activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for elected office. Statements that I "was astounded (or shocked) that any Manager would insert himself into an election as overtly and unethically as Mr. Burris has done," [or] thought the matter was worthy of immediate investigation and/or that the city manager had no legitimate reason for communicating with the union leadership are entirely inaccurate."
While Mr. Chappell had plenty to say this evening, (and we'll get to some of that later) I believe this statement cuts to the heart of the issue, it was one of the last things Mr. Chappell said to me tonight (Tuesday, April 14), "What has happened," Chappell said, "whether it's done on purpose or accident, and I'm perfectly willing to say that it was an accident, okay? I'm not ascribing any motivations to anyone but, whether by purpose or by accident, the words have been pulled away from their context and twisted just a little bit, to where Ms. Perego has no choice but to say, I never said that, but, I never said she did say that, and that's basically where the confusion has arisen."
Now, what has been implied Chappell has claimed Ms. Perego said, and what Ms. Perego actually said to him are two different things, according to Darin Chappell.
When Darin Chappell presented the SOS powerpoint presentation on April 9, this statement was among the many included in that presentation:
I personally spoke with Martha Perego, ICMA Director of Ethics, and, without giving any identifying characteristics of either Mr. Burris, the City, or anyone else involved, Ms. Perego was astounded that any Manager would insert himself into an election as overtly and unethically as Mr. Burris has done.
Ms. Perego went on to say that if a member of that body were to be reported to ICMA for such behavior, an ethics investigation would be immediately undertaken, and that such egregious infractions are taken very seriously by all professional City Managers.
Keeping in mind that Mr. Chappell and I discussed these issues in a windy and chilly parking lot outside the Knights of Columbus building on Grand Street, where a "Young Conservatives" meeting was being held, and did not have the documents' exact wording in front of us, Chappell responded to my question, "What is your take on why she (Ms. Perego) would seem to be suggesting, now, that she never said the things you have reported her as saying?"
"If you look at the media release that the City put out and you read it very carefully," Chappell said, "it says something to the effect that Ms. Perego did not say that she was shocked that any city manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done. She did not say that last line, she said she was shocked that any city manager would insert himself into a political campaign, the 'such as Mr. Burris has done' was me speaking. She couldn't have made a judgement, she didn't know Mr. Burris' name, she didn't know the City of Springfield, she didn't even know my position. I just gave her my name, and just told her I was concerned about something that was happening in my city, some place where I work, you know, I don't live in the City but, I work here and I participate in the city as a taxpayer, and I'm concerned about these things. So, of course she would say [she] never said anything about Mr. Burris acting unethically, she couldn't, there's no way she could have said that."
Chappell continued, "Let me just be very clear. I was careful not to (indicate where the event took place or the parties involved) because the reason I was calling her was to double check my understanding of the code of ethics, specifically tenet 7, and if I was wrong about that, I wanted her to tell me I was wrong so that I didn't look like an absolute fool when I had this media release but, more importantly, I didn't want to besmirch anybody that didn't have something done in their actions that needed to be pointed out. So, I called her, specifically not mentioning any names or characteristics that would identify the city or the city manager or the union president, and I did so just to give her a hypothetical thumbnail sketch of what happened so that I could get her take on it so I would know how to proceed."
"She did not say that it was wrong for a city manager to ever have any contact with the firefighters union, as is cited in the City's media release but, I never suggested that she did say that, I never suggested that at all," Chappell said. "She also did not say that this event was going to have a swift and certain investigation. She can't say that until a formal complaint is filed, and as far as I'm aware, there is no formal complaint...."
Chappell didn't see that the distinction the email had been forwarded to other city administrators had any bearing but thought he had mentioned it to Ms. Perego, "I didn't record the event, you know, we just had a phone conversation," Chappell said.
I don't know folks, I don't want to believe that anyone would intentionally misrepresent what Chappell said Ms. Perego of the ICMA had told him, I'd prefer to think this is all a big misunderstanding. I'll even take some of the blame for the misunderstanding, as I had previously written:
"Chappell said he spoke to Martha Perego, ICMA's director of ethics. "She was shocked that any City Manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done," Chappell said. According to Chappell, Perego said such behavior would cause an ethics investigation to be considered immediately, which might result in censure or even loss of membership in the ICMA."
But, I was quoting Chappell and while Chappell was making an effort to characterize the discussion he had with Ms. Perego, he was adding his own thoughts and completing lines of thinking as he spoke. Chappell said Ms. Perego did not say anything about censure or loss of membership in the ICMA as a result of an ethical breach, he found that information, himself, at the ICMA Web site. "I looked up the ICMA Web site, she did not say anything about censure, she did not say anything about removal of benefits or affiliation but the ICMA Web site says those things, that if someone's found to have broken a code of ethics, those are possible repercussions. I said that, not her."
It goes to show how careful one must be when, both giving second hand information in discussion, and quoting someone regarding second hand information. Because Chappell had made it clear that he did not identify the city he was calling about or the name of the city manager, and I had noted it in my previous reporting on this issue, I assumed people could understand there wouldn't be any way she would have actually made a comment about Burris, specifically. Likewise, the powerpoint presentation stated very clearly that Chappell had not identified the city he was calling about or it's city manager but, apparently it wasn't clear enough for all parties reading it to understand that distinction.
I also need to make clear that I'm not defending Chappell out of any interest other than the want for the issue to be clear and not misrepresented, taken out of context, or misunderstood.
I don't, personally, pretend to know whether Springfield's City Manager Greg Burris has broken tenet 7 of the ICMA code of ethics. Darin Chappell believes he has, "Ms. Perego said that unless there was an active negotiation going on between the City she saw no reason for a city manager, again, this is all hypothetical, for a city manager to be forwarding the position of Council candidates, who are actively seeking office, to the firefighters union," Chappell said. "I believe it's an unethical breach. I believe it's a breach in the ethics because of, and I didn't explain to her MoLiCo (Missouri Liberty Coalition) or anything but, because of MoLiCo, because of the word "blindsided," I have a problem with that as an ethical consideration."
This reporter/blogger feels if any segment of the public has a question about the ethical standing of Mr. Burris' actions, it's better to deal with those questions than let them fester.
City attorney Dan Wichmer has, in his "E-Mail Investigation Report," stated:
"SOS has alleged that Greg breached ICMA ethics guidelines and that he may have violated the City Charter. I have reviewed the matter and find no basis for the claim of a violation of City Code or City Charter. Since ICMA guidelines have no legal effect, I have not included that allegation in this memo since it has no bearing on my conclusion."
The allegation of a violation of the City Charter was not a part of the power point presentation, however, SOS co-spokesman Mark Wright did allege Burris might have violated the City Charter during the course of that press conference.
It also concerns me that simply reporting on contentious issues such as this may have the effect of causing some people in the community to think that I have a personal vendetta against Mr. Burris or am looking for reasons to *attack* the City government.
I live in Springfield just a many City employees live in Springfield, and have a vested interest in this City. I like this City and happen to think it is a beautiful City, that said, I also believe the public has a right to see serious issues treated seriously and reported fairly. Because I feel this is a very serious issue, I have done my best to treat it in a serious fashion, not because I have any animosity, whatsoever, toward Mr. Burris but because some members of the public have expressed a concern over the matter, and they deserve to be heard as much as City officials deserve to be heard.
The clarification of Ms. Perego makes it appear that Mr. Chappell has been less than honest. I don't, personally, believe that to be the case, and just like Mr. Chappell, I'm not ascribing any motivations to anyone but, I do not believe everything pertaining to this issue has been fairly represented, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and I felt Mr. Chappell deserved the same right to clarify his position as Ms. Perego.
I'm sure we can all do a better job of accurately reporting and accurately characterizing both private citizens and public officials.
I hope to see, some day, this community be able to pull together and work together toward common goals, not as adversaries. I would wager that is what most, if not all, the citizens in this community would like to see but, when there are serious issues such as this raised they should be dealt with in honesty and with fairness. Sometimes it seems to me, and this is just me writing my personal thoughts here, sometimes it seems to me that instead of addressing serious issues as they come up, there is a knee-jerk defensive posture taken, and certainly, it could not have been pleasant for Mr. Burris to be asked to resign his position but, there has been an ethical question raised in this case. It needs to be addressed. It has not yet been addressed.
My understanding is that it will be up to the City Council to decide whether the issue needs to be looked into further. They are representatives of the citizens who elected, and very recently, elected some of them. I don't know how they will represent the citizens. Will they represent all of them or some of them? How will they select which citizens they will represent and which citizens they will deem not worthy of addressing?
The City attorney addressed the legal aspect. Will the ethical aspect be addressed on behalf of the citizens who have a concern about the ethical aspect of the issue? Does the ethical aspect of the issue matter?
I guess we'll see what the Council thinks, eventually. To be honest, I'm saddened by the whole thing.
Now, even though this post is very long and I am very tired (it's nearly 3 a.m.), there is one more issue that should be clarified by Mr. Chappell. Since I have defined most of what Chappell stated Ms. Perego did not say I should allow him to clarify for himself what Ms. Perego did say. Some of this may seem repetitious but, I believe it is important to report it.
"Her response was, basically, three-fold," Chappell said. "She said that she was shocked that a city manager would insert himself into a situation like this because of the political implications. Her words were, most city managers wouldn't touch this at all, they just wouldn't deal with it because of what could happen. She did not understand why a sitting city manager would have any reason to contact a firefighter union official about actively, seeking candidates for the City Council, (about) their positions, (by) forwarding an email, especially with a negative characterization but, she didn't understand why he would do that even if there was no characterization
"She also said, and this was her idea, I didn't come up with this, her idea was that unless the city manager, unless the city, is in active negotiations with the firefighters' union contract, that there's no reason for the city manager to be forwarding City Council candidates' positions to the unions, president or not.
"And then, thirdly, if there was a formal complaint, then ICMA would take that seriously and they would investigate thoroughly.
"Those are the three basic things, now, are those direct quotations of her? No, but those reflect the character and the content of everything she said."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, April 13, 2009
Public Information Director: "[City Attorney] Dan [Wichmer] did not prepare a written report."
As previously reported, Springfield's City Attorney Dan Wichmer recently told Amos Bridges of the "Springfield News-Leader":
The statement was made in regards to whether the forwarding of an email by City Manager Greg Burris to the president of a local firefighter union, was "illegal." [SOS (Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition) had determined the action was "unethical" and had called for either Burris' resignation or further City Council action.]
The email contained an ongoing discussion between two Springfield City Council candidates, on the subject of possible modifications to the police and firefighters' return of contribution benefit.
The union's later decision not to endorse the two candidates involved in the emailed discussion was impacted by information contained in the email which Burris had forwarded to the union president. Some people feel that decision, in turn, might have made the difference in the outcome of what turned out to be very close election. They believe because Burris did not ask for or receive permission to forward the email to the union president, and it had affected the union's decision not to endorse the Council candidates involved, he had, essentially, inserted himself into a municipal election. Such an action, SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright said, is against Tenet 7 of the ethical code of the International City Manager Association. That code of ethics, said spokesman for SOS Darin Chappell, is the nationally accepted code of ethical conduct for city managers.
Being the curious sort of reporter/blogger I am, before I retired last evening, I sent an email request to Public Information Director Louise Whall asking to receive the report Mr. Wichmer indicated was available upon request. What I found out was there is no written report for Mr. Wichmer to pass along.
According to Ms. Whall, Wichmer's point was "that he would make the same report, verbally or otherwise, if the Council requests it." She assured me that, "Dan [Wichmer] had confirmed that [her] response to [me] accurately represents his position."
Wichmer has indicated, he reviewed the materials and there was no justification for the allegations, Whall wrote in her email response.
An additional inquiry regarding whether the City Council should be advised by the city attorney regarding ethical questions involving the city manager, since the city attorney answers directly to the city manager and is employed by the city manager, were not addressed by Ms. Whall and neither has there been a response, as yet, to an email sent to Mr. Wichmer regarding that question.
Further, some people have raised the question of whether it is ethical for the city attorney, as an employee answering directly to the city manager, to investigate his employer regarding potential ethical indiscretions of his own employer.
"Dan [Wichmer] works for [City Manager] Greg [Burris]. Greg asked him to review the allegations on the day of the SOS news conference to see if he felt there was any cause for concern," Whall wrote. "Dan did that and said that he doesn't believe they have merit. As I said in the last two responses - if the Council requests any further action on this issue, Dan will comply. I have copied Dan on these e-mails and he can certainly respond further if he would like to add anything else."
Story developing.
"I [Wichmer] have looked into it and I have found nothing that warranted any further investigation by council. But I'll pass my report along (if it's requested)."
The statement was made in regards to whether the forwarding of an email by City Manager Greg Burris to the president of a local firefighter union, was "illegal." [SOS (Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition) had determined the action was "unethical" and had called for either Burris' resignation or further City Council action.]
The email contained an ongoing discussion between two Springfield City Council candidates, on the subject of possible modifications to the police and firefighters' return of contribution benefit.
The union's later decision not to endorse the two candidates involved in the emailed discussion was impacted by information contained in the email which Burris had forwarded to the union president. Some people feel that decision, in turn, might have made the difference in the outcome of what turned out to be very close election. They believe because Burris did not ask for or receive permission to forward the email to the union president, and it had affected the union's decision not to endorse the Council candidates involved, he had, essentially, inserted himself into a municipal election. Such an action, SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright said, is against Tenet 7 of the ethical code of the International City Manager Association. That code of ethics, said spokesman for SOS Darin Chappell, is the nationally accepted code of ethical conduct for city managers.
Being the curious sort of reporter/blogger I am, before I retired last evening, I sent an email request to Public Information Director Louise Whall asking to receive the report Mr. Wichmer indicated was available upon request. What I found out was there is no written report for Mr. Wichmer to pass along.
According to Ms. Whall, Wichmer's point was "that he would make the same report, verbally or otherwise, if the Council requests it." She assured me that, "Dan [Wichmer] had confirmed that [her] response to [me] accurately represents his position."
Wichmer has indicated, he reviewed the materials and there was no justification for the allegations, Whall wrote in her email response.
An additional inquiry regarding whether the City Council should be advised by the city attorney regarding ethical questions involving the city manager, since the city attorney answers directly to the city manager and is employed by the city manager, were not addressed by Ms. Whall and neither has there been a response, as yet, to an email sent to Mr. Wichmer regarding that question.
Further, some people have raised the question of whether it is ethical for the city attorney, as an employee answering directly to the city manager, to investigate his employer regarding potential ethical indiscretions of his own employer.
"Dan [Wichmer] works for [City Manager] Greg [Burris]. Greg asked him to review the allegations on the day of the SOS news conference to see if he felt there was any cause for concern," Whall wrote. "Dan did that and said that he doesn't believe they have merit. As I said in the last two responses - if the Council requests any further action on this issue, Dan will comply. I have copied Dan on these e-mails and he can certainly respond further if he would like to add anything else."
Story developing.
Related:
O'Neal leaves Burris probe up to council News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader (Mayor Elect Asks City Attorney to Put Report in Writing)
"JackeHammer: Springfield City Attorney: City Manager Burris did Nothing Illegal, Actions Warrant no Further Investigation"
"JackeHammer: Save Our Springfield (SOS) Citizen's Coalition Calls for City Manager Burris' Resignation"
"April 10_Hour 2_Who is Vince calling out and why" (KSGF podcast)
"April 10_Hour 3_Free For All" (KSGF podcast)
"Save Our Springfield group calls for resignation News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader"
"busplunge: Group Calls For Springfield City Manager Called To Resign: Allege Ethical Breach"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, March 16, 2009
Nuisance Property Issue (Part 3)
A friend of mine recommended a new blog to me the other day.
"Ozarks Law & Economy" is written by Harry Styron, an attorney with the Branson, Missouri firm Styron & Shilling.
Styron's post, "Court reminds city that its powers are limited," was interesting in light of recent discussions at Council luncheons pertaining to the City's nuisance ordinance and the process by which it is enforced.
In part one of a series regarding the Council's ongoing discussions, I noted that Councilman John Wylie raised a question about the possibility of some sort of City mandated, tenant registration for utility services in rental properties. At issue was the possible benefit such tracking of services could be for landlord screening of tenants.
Part two of the series noted that, over the years, Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly said his department has noted some areas the ordinance (ORD5465 and see Chapter 26, Article III and Chapter 36, Article X of the City's Municipal Code) could be "tweaked" to improve their ability to take action. Enforcement of the nuisance ordinance is made more difficult by the City's inability to track problematic renters who float from one rental property to another, seeming to wreak havoc wherever they go.
While I don't think the word "license" might have been used specifically, in the course of the City Council discussions, and I didn't note the singular word, "license" in those previous two postings, I wonder if it might be difficult to require landlords to register their tenants without the City having the ability to track rental property owners, themselves, through some sort of licensing system? I can't fathom landlords voluntarily offering those lists of registered utility customers without being mandated to do so by the City, how would the City be able to mandate such registration without first licensing landlords for regulation?
In part one of the nuisance property series, local rental property owner Sherry Byrne said anything the City could do to help track problematic tenants who shift from one rental to the next would be welcome, "I'd be all in favor of that," Byrne said, though she expressed concern about the creation of more "red tape" for landlords.
I'm not sure how the City would be able to enforce such a tenant registration mandate without more red tape.
At the last luncheon I attended, I inquired of City Attorney Dan Wichmer whether the Council would be continuing their discussions on the nuisance property issue and he indicated the discussion would be ongoing. It is not, however, on the agenda for tomorrow's luncheon meeting. I'll try to keep you updated as more information becomes available.
But it is interesting to note, according to Mr. Styron, in the case of Cliff Hindman Real Estate, Inc. v. City of Jennings, the Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri, "struck down an ordinance requiring landlords to buy licenses from the City, because the state of Missouri didn't give the City the power to require such a license."
To read previous JackeHammer entries on the Nuisance Ordinance discussions, follow these links:
Springfield City Council/City Officials Continue to Discuss Nuisance Property Issues (Part 1)
Nuisance Property Discussion Continued Today (Part 2)
Update: I received a personal note from Mr. Styron. Styron pointed out that because Springfield is a charter city, it has more extensive powers than third-class and fourth-class cities. "Springfield also is the beneficiary of many statutory powers not shared by other cities," Styron wrote.
Jackie's Note: Springfield does not currently require landlords to be licensed. Whether they have the authority to require licenses for landlords, I cannot say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ozarks Law & Economy" is written by Harry Styron, an attorney with the Branson, Missouri firm Styron & Shilling.
Styron's post, "Court reminds city that its powers are limited," was interesting in light of recent discussions at Council luncheons pertaining to the City's nuisance ordinance and the process by which it is enforced.
In part one of a series regarding the Council's ongoing discussions, I noted that Councilman John Wylie raised a question about the possibility of some sort of City mandated, tenant registration for utility services in rental properties. At issue was the possible benefit such tracking of services could be for landlord screening of tenants.
Part two of the series noted that, over the years, Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly said his department has noted some areas the ordinance (ORD5465 and see Chapter 26, Article III and Chapter 36, Article X of the City's Municipal Code) could be "tweaked" to improve their ability to take action. Enforcement of the nuisance ordinance is made more difficult by the City's inability to track problematic renters who float from one rental property to another, seeming to wreak havoc wherever they go.
While I don't think the word "license" might have been used specifically, in the course of the City Council discussions, and I didn't note the singular word, "license" in those previous two postings, I wonder if it might be difficult to require landlords to register their tenants without the City having the ability to track rental property owners, themselves, through some sort of licensing system? I can't fathom landlords voluntarily offering those lists of registered utility customers without being mandated to do so by the City, how would the City be able to mandate such registration without first licensing landlords for regulation?
In part one of the nuisance property series, local rental property owner Sherry Byrne said anything the City could do to help track problematic tenants who shift from one rental to the next would be welcome, "I'd be all in favor of that," Byrne said, though she expressed concern about the creation of more "red tape" for landlords.
I'm not sure how the City would be able to enforce such a tenant registration mandate without more red tape.
At the last luncheon I attended, I inquired of City Attorney Dan Wichmer whether the Council would be continuing their discussions on the nuisance property issue and he indicated the discussion would be ongoing. It is not, however, on the agenda for tomorrow's luncheon meeting. I'll try to keep you updated as more information becomes available.
But it is interesting to note, according to Mr. Styron, in the case of Cliff Hindman Real Estate, Inc. v. City of Jennings, the Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri, "struck down an ordinance requiring landlords to buy licenses from the City, because the state of Missouri didn't give the City the power to require such a license."
To read previous JackeHammer entries on the Nuisance Ordinance discussions, follow these links:
Springfield City Council/City Officials Continue to Discuss Nuisance Property Issues (Part 1)
Nuisance Property Discussion Continued Today (Part 2)
Update: I received a personal note from Mr. Styron. Styron pointed out that because Springfield is a charter city, it has more extensive powers than third-class and fourth-class cities. "Springfield also is the beneficiary of many statutory powers not shared by other cities," Styron wrote.
Jackie's Note: Springfield does not currently require landlords to be licensed. Whether they have the authority to require licenses for landlords, I cannot say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Springfield City Council/City Officials Continue to Discuss Nuisance Property Issues (Part 1)
Springfield City Attorney Dan Wichmer and Springfield Prosecuting Attorney Johnnie Burgess began educating the City Council about the procedure undertaken when nuisance complaints are filed by local residents, at the Council's last luncheon.
Wichmer said the nuisance ordinance (ORD5465) adopted by the City Council in 2005, was based on a similar University City, Missouri ordinance, which allowed for a property being used for criminal activity to be closed for up to a year. The closure is accomplished by the City's legal ability to order utility service shut off to a property in violation of the nuisance ordinance but, no case in Springfield has ever risen to the point that such utility service shut off was ruled necessary.
According to Wichmer, Springfield's nuisance ordinance has been used two times on commercial businesses and 15 times in residential settings.
Once the police department notifies the law department of frequent complaints on a particular property, an active file is kept on the property and a determination is made as to whether a "nuisance letter" should be delivered. If a letter is delivered, Wichmer said he and the Police Chief, personally, deliver it so, there is no question it has been properly served and a legally compliant court case may be built.
"When we have had these meetings (with property owners or managers) it has been successful," Wichmer said.
He said there has been cooperation, and troublesome tenants have been kicked out by the property owner or manager when such cases have arisen in the past. While there may be ongoing incidents and several months may pass between the time of a letter delivery and remedy, "In the end, they (nuisance violations) are being corrected," Wichmer reported.
When asked by Councilwoman Rushefsky about repeating problems in a complex, even though the occupants of any given complex had changed, Wichmer responded, "To my knowledge we have not had that come up."
While this might, at first blush, appear to contradict past news stories that there have been repeated complaints filed against certain apartment complexes, Wichmer had earlier noted that the ordinance is only violated when there is commission of crime and conviction of same. It is the same reason given at a meeting, in early December, between residents and property owners of the West Central area and City officials, when a frustrated real estate investor and re-developer, Carol Nachbar, complained about non-enforcement of the ordinance:
Returning to last Tuesday's luncheon (February 10), Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky wondered how many of the property owners owned multiple rental properties. Springfield Prosecutor Burgess didn't have a statistic but, he said many own multiple properties, some between 50 and 100.
Councilman John Wylie raised a question about some sort of City mandated, tenant registration for utility services in rental properties. At issue was the possible benefit such tracking of services could be for landlord screening of tenants.
According to local rental property owner Sherry Byrne, anything the City could do to help track problematic tenants who shift from one rental to the next would be welcome, "I'd be all in favor of that," Byrne said, though she expressed concern about the creation of more "red tape" for landlords.
Byrne owns 26 rental properties in Springfield. Being a landlord is not without it's own set of frustrations, she said. Byrne wishes there was more good will toward landlords.
"I try to come in and do something corrective and I get called on," she said, as she described getting reported by neighbors last week because a car was pulled up on the curb in front of a rental property she is improving. Now, she complains, a homeowner on the same street has a similar vehicle parked on the curb but, it appears nothing is being done and no homeowner in the area has filed a similar complaint against the neighboring property.
"It's the homeowner that doesn't get enforced," Byrne continued, "Clutter and junk and fire hazards, I come in and start to clean (the neighborhood) up and I get called on. There are so many rules and regulations applied to landlords, if they were applied to home owners, the City would look a lot better."
Byrne was concerned there is not enough good will on the part of residents or City officials toward landlords who work very hard to improve properties in the older sections of town. She felt, oftentimes, law enforcement turns the other way when re-developers and landlords need support and are working conscientiously to try to benefit the neighborhoods where they own properties.
According to prosecuting attorney Burgess once a summons is issued on a property, a report is submitted to him; the report is reviewed within, approximately, 5 days and a charging decision is made. Then, there are two options, the case may be filed with the court or the case may be declined for lack of evidence. If filed with the court, the defendant appears for arraignment and enters a plea.
If the defendant pleads not guilty, he or she is given the option of a trial, which is scheduled within 4 to 6 weeks, or meeting with the prosecutor. Burgess said if a meeting with the prosecutor is chosen, such a meeting often happens the same day and, much of the time, will take place in the hallway on the way out of the building. They discuss how to abate the nuisance without the necessity of a trial and the defendant is given 1 to 2 weeks to correct the problem and then enter a plea agreement.
If the defendant pleads guilty, the prosecuting attorney makes a sentencing recommendation based on information that has been provided by an inspector. Often the penalty is suspended upon the condition the nuisance is abated by a date certain, usually 10 days from the date of arraignment.
According to the City's Nuisance Ordinance, a public nuisance is:
At the next Council luncheon, scheduled for February 17, the tentative agenda includes a follow up discussion of nuisance issues. The tentative speakers who will address the Council on the topic will be Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly, City Attorney Dan Wichmer, Municipal Prosecuting Attorney Johnnie Burgess and Citizen Service Coordinator Claudia Crighton.
The luncheon meeting will be held at noon in the 4th floor conference room at the Busch Municipal building. The meeting is open to the public.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wichmer said the nuisance ordinance (ORD5465) adopted by the City Council in 2005, was based on a similar University City, Missouri ordinance, which allowed for a property being used for criminal activity to be closed for up to a year. The closure is accomplished by the City's legal ability to order utility service shut off to a property in violation of the nuisance ordinance but, no case in Springfield has ever risen to the point that such utility service shut off was ruled necessary.
According to Wichmer, Springfield's nuisance ordinance has been used two times on commercial businesses and 15 times in residential settings.
Once the police department notifies the law department of frequent complaints on a particular property, an active file is kept on the property and a determination is made as to whether a "nuisance letter" should be delivered. If a letter is delivered, Wichmer said he and the Police Chief, personally, deliver it so, there is no question it has been properly served and a legally compliant court case may be built.
"When we have had these meetings (with property owners or managers) it has been successful," Wichmer said.
He said there has been cooperation, and troublesome tenants have been kicked out by the property owner or manager when such cases have arisen in the past. While there may be ongoing incidents and several months may pass between the time of a letter delivery and remedy, "In the end, they (nuisance violations) are being corrected," Wichmer reported.
When asked by Councilwoman Rushefsky about repeating problems in a complex, even though the occupants of any given complex had changed, Wichmer responded, "To my knowledge we have not had that come up."
While this might, at first blush, appear to contradict past news stories that there have been repeated complaints filed against certain apartment complexes, Wichmer had earlier noted that the ordinance is only violated when there is commission of crime and conviction of same. It is the same reason given at a meeting, in early December, between residents and property owners of the West Central area and City officials, when a frustrated real estate investor and re-developer, Carol Nachbar, complained about non-enforcement of the ordinance:
"According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance." (See CFP cover story, December 17, 2008 issue).
Returning to last Tuesday's luncheon (February 10), Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky wondered how many of the property owners owned multiple rental properties. Springfield Prosecutor Burgess didn't have a statistic but, he said many own multiple properties, some between 50 and 100.
Councilman John Wylie raised a question about some sort of City mandated, tenant registration for utility services in rental properties. At issue was the possible benefit such tracking of services could be for landlord screening of tenants.
According to local rental property owner Sherry Byrne, anything the City could do to help track problematic tenants who shift from one rental to the next would be welcome, "I'd be all in favor of that," Byrne said, though she expressed concern about the creation of more "red tape" for landlords.
Byrne owns 26 rental properties in Springfield. Being a landlord is not without it's own set of frustrations, she said. Byrne wishes there was more good will toward landlords.
"I try to come in and do something corrective and I get called on," she said, as she described getting reported by neighbors last week because a car was pulled up on the curb in front of a rental property she is improving. Now, she complains, a homeowner on the same street has a similar vehicle parked on the curb but, it appears nothing is being done and no homeowner in the area has filed a similar complaint against the neighboring property.
"It's the homeowner that doesn't get enforced," Byrne continued, "Clutter and junk and fire hazards, I come in and start to clean (the neighborhood) up and I get called on. There are so many rules and regulations applied to landlords, if they were applied to home owners, the City would look a lot better."
Byrne was concerned there is not enough good will on the part of residents or City officials toward landlords who work very hard to improve properties in the older sections of town. She felt, oftentimes, law enforcement turns the other way when re-developers and landlords need support and are working conscientiously to try to benefit the neighborhoods where they own properties.
According to prosecuting attorney Burgess once a summons is issued on a property, a report is submitted to him; the report is reviewed within, approximately, 5 days and a charging decision is made. Then, there are two options, the case may be filed with the court or the case may be declined for lack of evidence. If filed with the court, the defendant appears for arraignment and enters a plea.
If the defendant pleads not guilty, he or she is given the option of a trial, which is scheduled within 4 to 6 weeks, or meeting with the prosecutor. Burgess said if a meeting with the prosecutor is chosen, such a meeting often happens the same day and, much of the time, will take place in the hallway on the way out of the building. They discuss how to abate the nuisance without the necessity of a trial and the defendant is given 1 to 2 weeks to correct the problem and then enter a plea agreement.
If the defendant pleads guilty, the prosecuting attorney makes a sentencing recommendation based on information that has been provided by an inspector. Often the penalty is suspended upon the condition the nuisance is abated by a date certain, usually 10 days from the date of arraignment.
According to the City's Nuisance Ordinance, a public nuisance is:
"Any place that is used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any of the inhabitants of the city after notice is given and the place continues to be used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city is a public nuisance." - Section 74-392. A, General Ordinance Number 5465.
At the next Council luncheon, scheduled for February 17, the tentative agenda includes a follow up discussion of nuisance issues. The tentative speakers who will address the Council on the topic will be Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly, City Attorney Dan Wichmer, Municipal Prosecuting Attorney Johnnie Burgess and Citizen Service Coordinator Claudia Crighton.
The luncheon meeting will be held at noon in the 4th floor conference room at the Busch Municipal building. The meeting is open to the public.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, August 24, 2008
No perfect Scotts
but there ARE perfect brothers
My brother's name is Scott but he's brilliant.
This other Scott wrote his letter and submitted it before city attorney Wichmer had explained:
Myself, I wonder how smart it is to get huffy over one person getting their facts a bit off base while getting their own facts a bit off base. :0
Danged if there ain't no perfect people in the Ozarks, whether they be Council members, journalists,* or Scotts.
I like my Scott. I think I'll keep him.
:)
*Mert Seaton excluded, of course. I have decided he is well worth a peanut.
My brother's name is Scott but he's brilliant.
This other Scott wrote his letter and submitted it before city attorney Wichmer had explained:
"Currently, the ability of public bodies to offer incentive pay is largely restricted under state law. Therefore, the city currently does not have a salary structure that can accommodate individual performance pay. Public bodies across Missouri are examining ways to implement performance pay for public workers within the limits set forth in the Missouri Constitution." - city attorney Wichmer (see previous post for link)
Myself, I wonder how smart it is to get huffy over one person getting their facts a bit off base while getting their own facts a bit off base. :0
Danged if there ain't no perfect people in the Ozarks, whether they be Council members, journalists,* or Scotts.
I like my Scott. I think I'll keep him.
:)
*Mert Seaton excluded, of course. I have decided he is well worth a peanut.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Recommended Reading 29: City Manager Search Process
Springfield City Attorney Dan Wichmer weighed in with legal fine points on the city manager search process in the Springfield News-Leader today.
It is recommended reading 29
It is recommended reading 29
Friday, June 20, 2008
Council's Independent Internal Auditor; What's Happening?
A commentator on this post was asking me questions about the internal auditor position. I wrote an article about the Council's internal auditor for the January 16, 2008 issue of CFP that I would recommend for even more background on the position.
Following is the article I wrote concerning the difference between the city manager and the internal auditor search for the current issue of CFP (June 18, 2008). The story (re-formatted) ended up taking an odd turn, read for yourself. - Jackie
City Manager vs. Internal Auditor
By Jackie Melton
CFP Contributor
Springfield may have cut employees by attrition to help raise the $5.2 million needed to fund the police/fire actuarial recommendation, but there are at least two positions they will be looking to fill this year. Those positions, the city manager and the Council’s internal auditor, seem to be receiving very different levels of scrutiny.
While a 22-member city manager search committee attempts to find the new city manager, the search process for the internal auditor seems to have been relinquished to the city manager’s office and human resource department.
In January, Councilman Dan Chiles said he and Councilman Doug Burlison had informally discussed the possibility of forming an external citizen search committee, but that never happened.
“This position is being handled through our HR (human resource) department and will not be done by committee, except for possibly the final selection and evaluations,” City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an e-mail.
Burlison said it would be difficult for the all-volunteer Council to handle the search for applicants. He acknowledged he has some concerns about the Council’s dependence on the city manager’s office and human resource department in their search to find qualified applicants for the position. “My suspicion is the internal auditor is not something the city manager’s office wants,” he said.
Burlison noted he’s looking forward to having an auditor to assist the Council in overseeing city government. “This proposed position is, in fact, the key to any reforms that City Council may enact in response to the audit,” Burlison said in January.
Mayor Tom Carlson, in his state of the city report, didn’t seem to share Burlison’s view of the importance of hiring an auditor. “Primarily, they [state auditors] talked about an internal auditor, and we’re going to have one of those, and so, I hope everybody’s happy, but it’s not that big a deal,” Carlson said.
According to the audit report, an “internal auditor could have helped in discovering and resolving several of the areas commented on,” adding, the auditor would, “provide a means whereby the City Council can be made aware of current activities.”
At the June 2 City Council meeting, Burlison asked for an update on the internal auditor search.
“We made a few changes to the job description and expanded the advertisement that we had earlier put out,” interim City Manager Evelyn Honea responded.
Director of Human Resources, Sheila Maerz, acknowledged she had already received the job description changes, and Sharon Smith, Honea’s administrative assistant, acknowledged the city manager’s office had made them. “The city manager’s office made the changes, and Gary Deaver, chairman of the finance and administration committee, was in agreement of those changes,” Smith wrote in an e-mail.
One change contradicted Springfield’s city charter. Under the charter, the internal auditor “shall be a certified public accountant (CPA) or a person specially trained and experienced in governmental or business investigation or administration,” but the city manager office’s changes to the job description made CPA certification a requirement. “In addition, a CPA certification is required along with….” reads one change. Another reads, “Licensed CPA certification is required.”
City Attorney Dan Wichmer was unaware of the changes, because they were not posted in the job description on the city’s Web site; he suggested they might be a draft, then an old copy, then a draft. “She (Honea) said the comments that Council had been making were that they probably would not consider anybody other than a CPA,” Wichmer said, after talking to Honea, “but the requirements are set by charter. They (Council) are free to screen higher than that, but, as far as the actual job description, it needs to say what the charter says.”
Burlison was surprised to hear of the changes. “That’s news to me, unless I’m forgetting a meeting. The change that I thought had been discussed with us in the committee, if not with the Council as a whole, was to not require the internal auditor be a CPA, so we could cast a wider net,” he said.
Wichmer said the Council would discuss it at the luncheon on June 10. The issue was not specifically mentioned on the city’s published agenda for that luncheon meeting and was not brought up by any person who attended the meeting.
Advertisements for the position, listing CPA certification as a requirement, have been sent or posted to several professional journals and publications.
Internal Auditor Job Description Changes Approved June 12
> By unanimous verbal vote, the City Council’s Finance and Administration Committee approved changes made to the Council’s internal auditor job description on June 12, 2008.
> Certified Public Accountant requirements have been removed from the changed job description.
> The Finance and Administration Committee is the body who will work most directly with an internal auditor once hired.
> Members of the Council’s Committee are: Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver, Councilman Ralph Manley, Councilman Denny Whayne and Councilman Doug Burlison.
Go to www.cfpmidweek.com to view the original Council approved job description, circulated changes, and final approved changes, along with the advertisement as published and posted by the city of Springfield.
-------
There is more information available at Community Free Press - Midweek, including an update on the city manager search and the internal auditor application process.
-------
Also, available at CFP, click on the "On-line Supplements to Print Edition," (link found under the cover shot of the current issue) to find:
The Answer to: Who Recommended the Changes?
A Link to the City Manager Search Video
The Four Sub-Committees of the City Manager Search Committee
Following is the article I wrote concerning the difference between the city manager and the internal auditor search for the current issue of CFP (June 18, 2008). The story (re-formatted) ended up taking an odd turn, read for yourself. - Jackie
City Manager vs. Internal Auditor
By Jackie Melton
CFP Contributor
Springfield may have cut employees by attrition to help raise the $5.2 million needed to fund the police/fire actuarial recommendation, but there are at least two positions they will be looking to fill this year. Those positions, the city manager and the Council’s internal auditor, seem to be receiving very different levels of scrutiny.
While a 22-member city manager search committee attempts to find the new city manager, the search process for the internal auditor seems to have been relinquished to the city manager’s office and human resource department.
In January, Councilman Dan Chiles said he and Councilman Doug Burlison had informally discussed the possibility of forming an external citizen search committee, but that never happened.
“This position is being handled through our HR (human resource) department and will not be done by committee, except for possibly the final selection and evaluations,” City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an e-mail.
Burlison said it would be difficult for the all-volunteer Council to handle the search for applicants. He acknowledged he has some concerns about the Council’s dependence on the city manager’s office and human resource department in their search to find qualified applicants for the position. “My suspicion is the internal auditor is not something the city manager’s office wants,” he said.
Burlison noted he’s looking forward to having an auditor to assist the Council in overseeing city government. “This proposed position is, in fact, the key to any reforms that City Council may enact in response to the audit,” Burlison said in January.
Mayor Tom Carlson, in his state of the city report, didn’t seem to share Burlison’s view of the importance of hiring an auditor. “Primarily, they [state auditors] talked about an internal auditor, and we’re going to have one of those, and so, I hope everybody’s happy, but it’s not that big a deal,” Carlson said.
According to the audit report, an “internal auditor could have helped in discovering and resolving several of the areas commented on,” adding, the auditor would, “provide a means whereby the City Council can be made aware of current activities.”
At the June 2 City Council meeting, Burlison asked for an update on the internal auditor search.
“We made a few changes to the job description and expanded the advertisement that we had earlier put out,” interim City Manager Evelyn Honea responded.
Director of Human Resources, Sheila Maerz, acknowledged she had already received the job description changes, and Sharon Smith, Honea’s administrative assistant, acknowledged the city manager’s office had made them. “The city manager’s office made the changes, and Gary Deaver, chairman of the finance and administration committee, was in agreement of those changes,” Smith wrote in an e-mail.
One change contradicted Springfield’s city charter. Under the charter, the internal auditor “shall be a certified public accountant (CPA) or a person specially trained and experienced in governmental or business investigation or administration,” but the city manager office’s changes to the job description made CPA certification a requirement. “In addition, a CPA certification is required along with….” reads one change. Another reads, “Licensed CPA certification is required.”
City Attorney Dan Wichmer was unaware of the changes, because they were not posted in the job description on the city’s Web site; he suggested they might be a draft, then an old copy, then a draft. “She (Honea) said the comments that Council had been making were that they probably would not consider anybody other than a CPA,” Wichmer said, after talking to Honea, “but the requirements are set by charter. They (Council) are free to screen higher than that, but, as far as the actual job description, it needs to say what the charter says.”
Burlison was surprised to hear of the changes. “That’s news to me, unless I’m forgetting a meeting. The change that I thought had been discussed with us in the committee, if not with the Council as a whole, was to not require the internal auditor be a CPA, so we could cast a wider net,” he said.
Wichmer said the Council would discuss it at the luncheon on June 10. The issue was not specifically mentioned on the city’s published agenda for that luncheon meeting and was not brought up by any person who attended the meeting.
Advertisements for the position, listing CPA certification as a requirement, have been sent or posted to several professional journals and publications.
Internal Auditor Job Description Changes Approved June 12
> By unanimous verbal vote, the City Council’s Finance and Administration Committee approved changes made to the Council’s internal auditor job description on June 12, 2008.
> Certified Public Accountant requirements have been removed from the changed job description.
> The Finance and Administration Committee is the body who will work most directly with an internal auditor once hired.
> Members of the Council’s Committee are: Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver, Councilman Ralph Manley, Councilman Denny Whayne and Councilman Doug Burlison.
Go to www.cfpmidweek.com to view the original Council approved job description, circulated changes, and final approved changes, along with the advertisement as published and posted by the city of Springfield.
-------
There is more information available at Community Free Press - Midweek, including an update on the city manager search and the internal auditor application process.
-------
Also, available at CFP, click on the "On-line Supplements to Print Edition," (link found under the cover shot of the current issue) to find:
The Answer to: Who Recommended the Changes?
A Link to the City Manager Search Video
The Four Sub-Committees of the City Manager Search Committee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
