Springfield, We Have a Problem

Internal Auditor Position Should be Filled As Soon as Possible and Practical

If City Manager Greg Burris or City Clerk Brenda Cirtin announced today they would be retiring next week, how much time do you believe would pass before the City Council was discussing how they would go about filling the vacant positions?

Why does it seem the City Council's Internal Auditor position is and has been treated as though it is an unimportant, backburner issue? Because, I propose it has been.

I am fully aware that Ms. Lathrom's passing only occurred one week ago this evening, and I do not mean to sound callous but, I am aware that Ms. Lathrom had been on medical leave for many months prior to her passing, and the internal auditor position, although apparently not as *sexy* as the City Manager position, is an extremely important municipal government position.

I first started writing about the internal auditor position when I was still the City Council/City Government "beat writer" for the "Community Free Press." It's been obvious from the outset that the position simply is not valued in the same way the positions of City Manager and City Clerk are valued and yet, the internal auditor position is one of only three positions whose inhabitor answers directly to the City Council and who the City Council is tasked to hire and fire.

While today's Mayor and City Council look with ingenuity (sic) to a future appointment of a Citizens' Sales Tax Oversight Committee, I wonder when they will fill what I have advocated (in my own way) as a vitally important position within City government that has, in it's very short history, been consistently given only minimal thought and value. Such a position, if utilized properly would make a Citizens Sales Tax Oversight Committee a silly and unnecessary prospect.

Before Lathrom was hired, back in January, 2008, there didn't appear to be much consensus among City Council members as to the potential value of an internal auditor. Councilman Doug Burlison said, "This proposed position (internal auditor) is, in fact, the key to any reforms that City Council may enact in response to the audit." But, then Mayor Tom Carlson, in his State of the City Report, said about the position, "(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." (Community Free Press Archive edition June 18, 2008, page 1 article, "City Manager vs. Internal Auditor")

Why is it important?

A March 4, "Springfield News-Leader" "Our Voice" editorial column pointed out the City will lose $63,000 in taxpayer money by holding the CIP tax renewal election in June rather than including it in a legally mandated, already existing, April election. The editorial also pointed out that by skipping over the mandated April, 2010 election and opting to put the measure on a June ballot, it will cost OTC an extra (estimated) $32,000 because they are on the ballot alone.

City leaders gave the "News-Leader" a few reasons for holding the election in June rather than April but, admitted they could have prepared for it and put it on the April ballot if they had chosen to do so. In other words, they could have saved the taxpayer and Ozarks Technical Community College about $95,000 in combined funds.

Apparently, Mayor O'Neal didn't know putting the CIP sales tax question on a June ballot was going to cost the City taxpayers $63,000 more than if they had scheduled it for the April ballot. That alone is, to borrow a phrase from KSGF's old radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho, asinine stupidy...how could the Mayor not know that!? Why wasn't he told!? Would an internal auditor have made a difference? I'd like to think so, IF that internal auditor was valued, with his or her services properly utilized.

I hate to keep repeating the same information but, people! In Section 2.15 of the City Charter it describes the "Investigator," or Council's internal auditor:

"The council may appoint an investigator who shall serve for such term as the council may prescribe. He shall be a certified public accountant or a person specially trained and experienced in governmental or business investigation or administration. His duty shall be to keep the council informed as to the work performed, methods, and financial affairs of the city. He shall not be responsible for the keeping of accounts. He shall make such investigations of the work of all departments of the city and such reports to the council as it shall require. He shall make such other investigations as the council may direct. He shall have access to all books and records of all departments of the city. If the council desires, he shall certify to the correctness of any or all financial reports before the same shall be regarded as official."

After April Lathrom was hired, she wrote her own Policies and Procedures. They were adopted by the City Council on November 10, 2008, (see Council Bill 2008-322/Special Ordinance number 25510) but, even as late as March of last year (2009), then Council candidate Nick Ibarra questioned the efficacy and transparency of the internal auditor's position, and also in March, 2009, Councilman Burlison said, "...we do not interact with April enough, however, that is an issue I'd rather attack with 4 or 5 fresh faces. I'm not suggesting that there is any kind of communication problem, I just feel like we are not doing enough of it. If I was April, I think I would want more contact with my bosses, as well."

Today, I heard from Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee Dan Chiles. The Finance and Administration Committee is the Council Committee that was tasked with oversight of the internal auditor. Chiles seems to still have a bit of appreciation for the position that no one, to date, other than the occupant of the position, has taken very seriously at all, that is if we judge by actions instead of words.

"We haven't talked about a replacement for April. There is a hiring freeze, but I will make the case to hire an internal auditor," Chiles wrote in an email response to my query. "We promised the voters we would create and fill that position, so that is what we should do."

I would suggest to the Springfield City Council that you consider the position not as merely something you promised the voters but, rather as an invaluable and essential asset that you cannot function well without. You wouldn't try to do your job without a City Manager. You wouldn't try to do your job without a City Clerk. Why do you undervalue the essential job of the internal auditor?

The internal auditor in Kansas City, Missouri is known as the "City Auditor." His name is Gary White and he has his own Web page.

"Our goal is to conduct audits that answer questions that matter to people outside of City Hall; that enable the city to reduce, avoid or recover costs; and to alert city officials to potential problems that could undermine the public’s trust in City government," the Web page boasts, among other things.

Just including and since November of 2009, KC's City Auditor has filed two audit reports and two survey memos on his Web site. The documents are available to the public and include: Resolution Tracking, This audit was conducted in order to determine whether city staff are implementing resolutions adopted by the City Council; E-Service Systems Security, This audit was conducted in order to determine the security of the City's e-service systems; Fiscal Year 2010 Second Quarter Citizen Satisfaction Survey Results, This memo reports the second quarter results of the Fiscal Year 2010 Citizen Satisfaction Survey and; Fiscal Year 2010 Third Quarter Citizen Satisfaction Survey Results, This memo reports the third quarter results of the Fiscal Year 2010 Citizen Satisfaction Survey.

The Springfield City Council, if it ever decides to take the "investigator" or internal auditor position seriously, will have an invaluable oversight tool for assessing the operations of Springfield City government but, on this account, I'm afraid their eyes will continue to be wide shut.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Local Food Support/Industrial Hemp Among Springfield City Council Legislative Priorities

Springfield, MO - At the December 14, Springfield City Council meeting, a bill to adopt the bullet-point and sub-point legislative priorities of the City was approved. According to the City's summary of the Council meeting,

"Councilman Stephens made a motion to adopt Exhibit A, which summarizes the top priorities, while remanding the rest of the package back to Plans & Policies to review some of the language of the full policy."

Exhibit A included these topics: Maintain local control and avoid unfunded mandates; Red-light cameras and efficient traffic enforcement; Protect the natural environment and; Economic development and fighting poverty.

"Well-Fed Neighbor" readers will be interested to know, included in the language remanded back to the Plans and Policies Committee as the last entry in the category, "Economic Development and Fighting Poverty" are the words, "Support development of a stronger local food supply."

The language, which, again, will be reviewed by the Plans & Policies Committee, regarding support for the development of a stronger local food supply reads:

"Support local food

Local agriculture is key to providing a safe, secure, and reliable food supply for the citizens of Missouri.

We support farmers in our city limits and farmers nearby and we encourage legislation that will provide a stronger local food supply and remove barriers to the development of local food supplies or eliminate legislation that provides barriers."

Also of interest to "Well-Fed Neighbors" should be the information found in Tuesday's "Springfield News-Leader." Reporter Kary Booher recapped the Council meeting, reporting the City Council, "kicked back the body of the text -- including a suggestion for the state to remove restrictions on hemp in order to create new industries."

The language regarding the removal of restrictions on growing hemp, also remanded to be reviewed by the Plans & Policies Committee, read:

"Enhance The Economy By Removing Restrictions On Hemp to Create New Industries:

With the stroke of the pen, Missouri could create several new industries overnight. Agriculture, textiles, construction, alternative fuels, and many other areas would see an immediate boon in their markets. The cost of this type of government "investment" would be zero dollars. In fact, the savings that this could generate would be able to fund critical needs in other areas."

Support for a local food supply was proposed by Councilman Dan Chiles.

The proposal regarding removal of restrictions on growing hemp was brought by Councilman Doug Burlison.

For more information about what the Springfield City Council will be lobbying state and federal legislators about in 2010, and to read the bill, click here. If you would like to watch a video of the City Council meeting, it is available at "CityView."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Missouri State Rep. Burlison and Springfield City Councilmen Ibarra and Burlison to Hold Town-Hall Meeting Discussing Community Improvement Districts

A City news-release was generated to announce Councilmen Nick Ibarra and Doug Burlison, along with State Rep. Eric Burlison, "will co-host a Town Hall meeting focusing on the topic of Community Improvement Districts [CIDs] on Monday, Oct. 19."

The meeting, which will be held at the Brentwood Library, is open to the public. Doors open at 6 PM with the meeting scheduled to start at 6:30.

From the news-release:

Rep. Burlison, R-136, will open the forum with background on the state's role in CIDs, followed by Councilmen Ibarra and Burlison discussing the City of Springfield's involvement in CIDs....

The Councilmen will discuss proposals for signage notifying patrons at locations where CIDs are in effect in Springfield and Rep. Burlison will talk about ideas he is considering for CIDs at the state level.

There will also be a question and answer session at the end of the meeting.

The news-release advises, if you have questions about the meeting, you should contact Zone 1 Councilman Nick Ibarra at 773-9441.

The City also provided a link where you can find more information about the CIDs in Springfield.

The Brentwood Library is located at 2214 Brentwood Blvd.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Breaking: Council Members Issue Formal Request for Ordinance

Ordinance request seeks more transparency regarding sales taxes charged at businesses within the City

Councilmen Nicholas Ibarra and Doug Burlison issued a formal request to City Manager Greg Burris, City Attorney Dan Wichmer and other members of City staff in Springfield on Monday. The request calls for more sales tax transparency within the City of Springfield on behalf of their constituents.

In a post at Mr. Ibarra's Web log, "Zone 1 Matters," he noted the discussion needs to be more than a secondary issue when the Council is faced with other issues, "...the following was submitted to City Staff this morning, taking the first step in bringing this topic to the table as a debate in and of itself, rather than a side conversation while dealing with other topics as the basis of conversation," Ibarra wrote.

The request is not very specific or detailed regarding the way in which the sales tax notifications to the public might be posted at Springfield businesses and, while Ibarra did not want to be perceived as speaking on behalf of his fellow Councilmember, when questioned about the lack of specific details regarding placement of the notices in the ordinance request, Ibarra indicated his understanding was that Burlison has had difficulty moving ahead on proposed legislation, in the past, when he has been overly detailed in his requests for action on issues affecting Springfield and its citizens.

"When Doug and I started these discussions, he pointed out that when he has tried to get something done, the more detailed he is, the harder time he has getting anywhere… so we figured ambiguity in the beginning would be good given he is on the committee that will discuss this proposal," Ibarra wrote in an email.

The request, which Ibarra has identified as a "Transparency in Taxation Initiative," as submitted by the Councilmen on Monday, June 29:

FORMAL REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE DRAFT

Mr. Burris, Mr. Wichmer, and other appropriate City Staff:

Since the new Council has taken office in April, a consistent and contentious discussion has been that of Capital Improvements Districts (CIDs). While the philosophical value may vary from council member to council member as to the appropriateness of CIDs, the consistency of much of the discussion has been regarding the transparency to the customers (citizens) paying the additional tax.

While we understand that The Mayor and Council will have to charge the appropriate committee to review a request for an ordinance and the ordinance itself, this letter is a formal request to begin the process of bringing two different proposals to Council:

> The first request is one that would require any business that sells goods or services at the retail level, is part of a CID, and charges sales tax to display signage that notifies the consumer of such goods and services in an adequate manner that they are shopping in a CID and how much the CID tax amount is.

> The second request is one that would require any business inside the city limits of Springfield that sells goods or services at the retail level and charges tax to its consumers to display signage that notifies the customer of the amount of tax being paid as a patron.

As public servants, we believe that the number one duty in preserving trust with the people we serve is to offer transparency.

As a City with nearly a dozen CIDs either in place or in the works to be put into place, offering the citizens notice whether or not they are shopping or receiving services in a CID is not only about transparency, but also about honesty. Whether it comes to
fruition by way of CID-only signage or city-wide signage, to offer these two proposals to the citizens of this community for discussion and debate is the appropriate step to take at this time.

We look forward to working with Council and City Staff on this issue, and are available for questions, comments, or concerns at any time.



Respectfully Submitted,

Nicholas Ibarra, Zone 1 City Councilman

Doug Burlison, General C City Councilman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bus Transfer Facility Feasibility Report Available; Council to Discuss CU's Potential Use of Eminent Domain

The "Community Free Press" has posted City Utilities' (CU) Bus Transfer Facility Feasibility Report < at their Web site.

Monday night, the Springfield City Council voted unanimously to hold a special City Council meeting so that they, the public, and CU will have an opportunity to engage in an open discussion about the CU board's decision to exercise eminent domain to acquire property they have selected as their choice for constructing the bus transfer site, should it become necessary.

Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky seemed to prefer the Council make a more general statement about the use of eminent domain by Springfield's government entities but, in the ensuing discussion, after Councilman Doug Burlison raised a motion to consider the issue, Mayor Jim O'Neal was adamant the Council should make a statement on the specific case of the CU board's decision to exercise use of the measure to acquire property from a private property owner, should it become necessary to do so.

Assistant city attorney Nancy Yendez indicated the Council really has no standing in the decision process of CU's board. The Council would like the city's legal department to issue an opinion regarding what options, if any, the Council has toward weighing in on the issue beyond passing a resolution as to their position.

Mayor O'Neal said he and others among the Council have expressed their displeasure of CU's specific use of eminent domain in this specific case to the CU board, to no avail, "I want to get it on the table, get it on the floor," O'Neal said.

My understanding is that the City Council intends to pass a resolution, as a result of the special meeting, after hearing from the public and City Utilities. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for 7 pm Monday night, June 8, in Council chambers.

KSGF's Vincent David Jericho discussed the issue with the property owner and potential hotel developer, Becky Spence, on his program Tuesday morning. You can listen to all of his podcasts from that program here.

Related: CU backs off on plan to take land for station News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader

busplunge: City-CU Statement on Bus Transfer Station Site

Brown on a Blog: The New Issue

Brown on a Blog: Lunch Update

Brown on a Blog: Welcome, The Water is Fine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Councilman Doug Burlison Offers Pension Task Force Proposal for Consideration

Breaking...

Councilman Doug Burlison shared a proposal with Mayor Jim O'Neal, his peers on the City Council and the City Manager's office this evening via email. He also cc'd a myself and another local blogger, along with other media and news outlets in Springfield.

Following is his proposal:

Four months have nearly passed since we, as a community, went to the polls to decide whether or not to approve a 1-cent sales tax to fix or Police and Fire pension fund. By a slim majority, the vote was against this proposal at that time. Disregarding the one-time funds that have been contributed, instead of just over $13 million being injected into the fund by a new tax, we've let the liability get almost $4.5 million deeper in debt without it. It is undeniable that this is the position that we, as a city, find ourselves in right now. We have created a Task Force to dive into this issue, to evaluate different approaches, and to make a final recommendation for City Council to act upon.

As the citizen who called for an audit of this city, and now as a member of it's governing council, I have gone through a cycle of skepticism, investigation, and evaluation of my own. I am very appreciative of having a resource like this Task Force available to take an in-depth, independent look at the various proposals offered, and in light of that, I would offer up another proposal to introduce to the table. I would ask the Task Force to analyze the impact of a new, one-time (5 year) 3/4-cent sales tax, plus one-half of the next potential renewal of the 1/4-cent Capital Improvements Projects tax to supplement the pension fund. Perhaps this, coupled with other factors that the Task Force will recommend, could get us to the once-and-for-all remedy the situation requires.

Beyond just crunching the numbers, I am also aware of the political considerations to keep in mind:

*This community has a very low appetite/capacity for new taxes.

*Job # 1 for any level of government around here is public safety, with citical public infrastructure coming in at a close second.

*We want to solve this pension problem, not just put a band-aid on it so our kids will have to take care of what we couldn't.

*We have to be competitive with other cities if we want to maximize our police/fire training dollars, and to increase the retention of qualified personnel.

I personally feel like the ladies and gentlemen of our public safety departments have their finger on the pulse of what it takes to actively compete with other municipalities for (and to keep) good quality police and fire officers. To affect a workable solution to this problem will require their input. To place their negotiated benefits under the microscope may stop a couple of minor fiscal leaks, of which the pension board has already made recommendations to repair, but it won't make a dent in the big picture. The overall problem, however, will take great fiscal effort, and perhaps the swallowing of some political pride to handle effectively. Simply satisfying the state statute is nowhere near a long-term fix, and the problem with not handling this completely now, will absolutely result in the price tag getting much higher. If we continue to not adequately address this problem, lawyers and judges are going to force a solution on us, and that price tag will be astronomical.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I respectfully request the Police and Fire Pension Task Force to consider this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration,
--Doug Burlison

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The New Council: A Chemistry of Respect

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes....

Okay, I could tell you the cold, hard, factual details about the City Council luncheon today, I've got it on tape and I have most of the handouts that were available but, I'd like to touch on something a little different. Besides, I might follow up on Wes' report after it comes out in tomorrow's News-Leader.

I'd rather look at the attitude and chemistry of the new Council tonight. I like it.

I see a true consideration and respect for other members on the part of our new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. Almost a deference to them that can only be described as a humbleness of spirit on the part of the Mayor and his new Pro Tem. It's a refreshing change.

Twice today, I witnessed the Pro Tem defer to Councilman Doug Burlison, who offered some good suggestions, and I think Mr. Burlison has, sometimes, felt a bit shut out in the past.

This is not to say that our past Mayor, Tom Carlson, did not allow other Councilmembers to speak, he did, but, while that is true, there never seemed to be the level of respect we are witnessing on the part of the new Mayor.

I don't really think I am the only one who got a sense there was a certain feeling of entitlement on the part of the old Council. Often, they seemed to decide how they wanted to act, with little regard to the sentiment of the public. I also don't think I am the only person within this city that sensed a certain arrogance on the part of some of the past members. Sure, they were all, personally, likeable people but, they didn't seem to be very approachable to the general public.

Another attitude I like is the respectful but firm manner in which our new Mayor deals with the City Manager. I know it is pretty early to pass any judgement on the way the new Council works but, Mayor O'Neal has already set a precedent of establishing his and the Council's unquestionable authority over Springfield's fledgling City Manager. The effect seems to be a more genuine deference to the wishes of the Council on the part of the manager. He seems a bit more tentative in recommending certain actions and time lines than he has in the past, and I believe, he may be starting to take his place, under the authority of the City Council, a bit more seriously than in his first days as manager.

All this is good news to me, in part, because I am going to be letting go of covering the City Council more and more as time goes by. I'm going through my own changes. The last 4 months has been a transitional time for me. [Really the last year, considering I lost my little dog and my sweet Mother in late December, 2007 and early April, 2008.]

I really enjoyed the work I was doing for the Community Free Press but, it became more and more clear to me that they really needed to use staff personnel for the increasing work load they were requesting of me, if, as it became apparent was the case, they were not willing to pay me appropriately for the work I was taking very seriously and spending more and more time upon. It was good business for them but, not good common sense for me.

Here's the confession: I loved what I was doing, so much so, in fact, I've been doing it for free as I have been slowly and quietly weaning myself from continuing in the same manner as I have been able to perform in the past. You see, I'm not a rich person who can afford to keep sacrificing my time in the endeavor, regardless of how much I enjoy(ed) it and regardless of how much I enjoy(ed) offering information as a community service to those who were and continue to be interested in city business.

Anyway, no promises. I'll write about the city if and when I have time or, if and when I feel like it. There's a big, broad, beautiful world out there and I have interests in other areas too. Life is good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

City Council Began Budget Discussions Tuesday

Kicked around the best way to tackle the issue

"This is the first in a series of meetings," City Manager Burris said at the Council luncheon today. He asked the City Council to give him an idea of how many meetings they thought they would like to hold in order to discuss and possibly make changes to Springfield's 2009-10 proposed fiscal budget.

On Friday, May 1, as the City Charter requires, Burris delivered a copy of the proposed budget to each member of the City Council. Councilman Jerry Compton, of course, received his copy a little later.

Springfield's Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker went through the budget, hitting the highlights and answering a few questions from Council members.

The City also released a new document with the budget. This year they published a smaller document, a summary, which targets the differences between last year's budget and the newly proposed budget. The document is 38 pages in length.

Also released today: a document outlining the repercussions of budgeted City contribution cuts to the City's non-profit service-agency partners.

Councilman Doug Burlison didn't believe the City Council would be able to give Burris a good idea about how many meetings they might want to hold to discuss the budget until they'd had a week to look it over, forming questions and comments. Other Council members agreed with Burlison.

Councilman John Rush felt he needed more time to understand the budget. He said he had been trying to figure out a systematic way of looking at it and had been unable to do so.

Decker said, in the past, they have gone over it page by page. And, while it is up to the City Council to decide their procedure, Decker suggested time might be better spent by considering specific critical issues.

They casually decided they would begin their discussion at the next City Council luncheon by looking over the changes from last year to this year's proposed budget and they specifically asked to hear from Parks Director Jodie Adams and the Director of the Springfield-Greene County Health Department Kevin Gibson.

Councilman Scott Bailes said discussing priorities would be more helpful to him as a starting point. He wondered about the wisdom of cutting the parks department in a couple of the areas cited. Bailes felt by instituting cuts at Mediacom Ice Park and other potential sales tax generating sites, if the Department would not be, not only absorbing the initial general fund budget contribution loss but, lose revenue from sales tax receipts. He wondered if the parks budget was restored in those areas, what might be cut in their stead. Burris noted the Parks Department had decided for themselves the areas in which they cut their budget to deal with the cut in contributions from the City, as proposed in the new budget.

All of the budget workshops will be televised on TV23 and available for viewing at their Web site.

In other news, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Chiles said he had talked with Mayor Jim O'Neal's wife over the telephone. She had indicated the Mayor had come through his hip replacement surgery very well. She said they are estimating the Mayor could be released from the hospital on Thursday or Friday.

Related: Proposed Springfield budget full of cuts Springfield News-Leader

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Council Candidate Nick Ibarra Raises Questions about Internal Auditor's Job Efficacy; Transparency

Councilman Doug Burlison, "If I was (Internal Auditor) April (Lathrom), I think I would want more contact with my bosses...."

"The Springfield News-Leader" endorsed another Council candidate today, the second in as many days.

Yesterday, the editorial board endorsed Fred Ellison for General Seat B. Today, they endorsed Nick Ibarra for Zone 1. I have emailed questionnaires to candidates and await their responses with plans to post the questions, answers and comments in the order in which I receive them.

I found some of Ibarra's comments interesting in light of something I have been looking at myself.

From the News-Leader endorsement of Ibarra today:

"Ibarra stresses that the city hired an internal auditor in August of 2008, yet no legislation appears to have developed to show she has made progress cutting costs or changing administrative policies. He also complains that work she has done thus far has not been properly publicized."

I have been following the process of how the internal auditor's position came about and how she was selected, as well as updating the progress and process of the position for "The Community Free Press," and now, that work continues here at "JackeHammer."

From the outset, at the recommendation of the city manager, the Council determined their Finance and Administration Committee would oversee Ms. Lathrom's work and be the line of communication between her and the non-committee members among the City Council. There was however, always the understanding that any and all Council members could contact Ms. Lathrom at any time but, once the internal auditor's Policies and Procedures were adopted by the City Council on November 10, 2008, (see Council Bill 2008-322/ORD25510), it was determined it would take a majority of Council to request an audit not listed on the approved audit work program. Individual Council members have no individual authority to make changes to her work plan:

"Individual members of City Council shall have unrestricted authority to meet at any time with the Internal Auditor but shall have no authority to direct the Internal Auditor to alter the audit work plan without approval by a majority of the City Council."

Lathrom, according to the Policies and Procedures adopted, is to attend Council luncheon meetings, the City Manager's weekly executive staff meetings, and when requested by the Council, Monday night scheduled Council meetings.

Lathrom attended the meeting the night the Council approved her Policies and Procedures.

As far as what she has been working on since her hiring, one of the first things Lathrom attended to was the approval and recommendation of the Finance Department's Financial Control Procedures. In a "City Finance Update" I provided to readers in the October 22, 2008 issue of Community Free Press, the following information was provided:

City Council Adopts Control Procedures

"Springfield Finance Director Mary Mannix-Decker introduced written financial control procedures to the Council's four member Finance and Administration Committee on August 29. The committee unanimously voted to submit the procedures to City Council for adoption.

The City Council then unanimously adopted the (financial control) procedures at their September 29, 2008, Council meeting.

The procedures address several issues noted in last year's state audit report.

"...the city's Finance Department has not developed adequate procedures to ensure some departments are properly recording, reporting, and transmitting city monies," the report stated. It recommended, "the City Council ensure adequate controls and records are in place in all city departments to properly account for all monies received."

The newly established procedures address cash handling, grant application and administration, payment of invoices, petty cash and change funds, and guidelines for purchasing card credit limits.

Memorandums from the city manager's office also addressed travel expense considerations and meal and refreshment expenses.

"I've looked through them and I think they do a pretty good job of providing employees with some good guidance on how to approach some of these issues," Council's internal auditor, April Lathrom said, before the Council adopted the written procedures."

September 29, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes confirm Ms. Lathrom was in attendance to share her opinion regarding the financial control procedures:

"April Lathrom, Internal Auditor, gave a brief description of the proposed. She noted the Financial Control Procedures were created due to concerns raised during the State audit. Ms. Collette welcomed Ms. Lathrom as a new City employee."

I attended a Missouri Liberty Coalition meeting last night, the topic of discussion was the City Council Agenda for Monday night, March 23. One of the items discussed was COUNCIL BILL 2009-059, a special ordinance adopting the Internal Auditor’s General Audit Program and Independence Statement.

There was some concern about the proposed basic audit procedures within the Auditor's General Audit Program and Independence Statement.

After the report is finalized, Lathrom, in Council bill 2009-059, proposes to:

"Contact City Clerk to arrange for a closed meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee. Forward a copy of the confidential draft report to the City Clerk for distribution to the committee members. Notify Mayor and remaining Council members of Finance and Administration meeting."

The intent is to meet with the Finance and Administration Committee in closed session to discuss the draft audit report and once approved by the committee public release would be coordinated with the Public Information Office, "A copy of the news release along with the final report will be forwarded to all council members and the city manager. The report will also be made available to the public at this time," the document states.

That action seems consistent with the Internal Auditor's Policies and Procedures, as reported in CFP's October 22, 2008 issue:

"Once an audit is completed Lathrom will distribute a written report to the Council and the city manager. While her working papers are closed records protected under state law, the final report will be available the the public."

If one will refer back to the Auditor's Policies and Procedures approved November 10, 2008, one will find under the heading, "Management Response" these words:

"After receiving the management response, the Internal Auditor will incorporate the management responses into the final report. This report will be sent to the management of the audited entity for final review. The final report will then be presented to the Finance and Administration Committee of the City Council and then upon recommendation of the committee forwarded to the full council for acceptance."

So, while the meeting with the Finance and Administration Committee of the City Council is not identified as a "closed meeting," in the auditor's Council approved policies and procedures, it shouldn't be a surprise there will be a meeting with the committee and, perhaps it wouldn't be out of line to question the omission of that meeting being closed from her original document?

I also believe Ibarra raised a good point. According to the News-Leader report, "He also complains that work she has done thus far has not been properly publicized." Possibly, it hasn't been publicized because unless initiated by Lathrom, herself, no one is following up with her regarding her accomplishments?

I've been asking about that, myself, because I tried to track when the last meeting of the Council's Finance and Administration Committee was held, and the last meeting I could confirm occurring happened in late November or early December of 2008.

Since Councilman Doug Burlison is a member of that committee I emailed him to inquire as to the regularity of Finance and Administration (F & A) Committee meetings. Burlison responded, "There is no regularly scheduled F & A Committee meeting."

So, I followed up with Burlison, asking: Since the Committee is responsible for tasking and communicating with Ms. Lathrom, and her employment is so new, wouldn't it make sense for the Committee to meet a little more regularly just to check in with Ms. Lathrom?

And: It just seems that, since this is a new position and a new charge of the Council and the F & A Committee is the one charged with that direct communication with her, that there would be a benefit to more regular meetings to find out how her work is proceeding, etc.?

Burlison agreed but suggested he might be waiting to make changes until after the new City Council is in place, "I feel that we do not interact with April enough, however, that is an issue I'd rather attack with 4 or 5 fresh faces," Burlison wrote. He indicated he doesn't believe there is a communication problem, per se, "I'm not suggesting that there is any kind of communication problem, I just feel like we are not doing enough of it. If I was April, I think I would want more contact with my bosses, as well."

Burlison said calling the Finance and Administration meetings together is primarily the job of the City Clerk's office. "I believe that it is mainly a function of the city clerk's office that actually arranges schedules and "calls" committees into action. As far as who makes the determination of what issues fall under certain committee umbrellas, the city manager makes the actual decision based on council (and in reality, mayoral) input," Burlison said, "The council/mayoral input is generally required only on "new" issues."

It seems there is a lot riding on the new City Council. At a recent City Council meeting, Councilman Dan Chiles suggested he would prefer to stall in regards to the forming of the Police and Firefighters Pension Plan Task Force until after the City Council election in early April, so that the new City Council could decide who would sit on that Task Force.

Update: I just received the tentative agenda for this Tuesday's City Council luncheon. On the agenda is listed: "State Audit Status Report - April Lathrom" so, that'll be interesting. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will Jackie Vote Yes or No on the Police and Fire Pension Sales Tax?

How I'll vote and why

Each of us have many choices to make tomorrow but none of the choices is more important than the police and fire pension sales tax.

I suspect I have grappled with the issue for longer than most people since, I began watching the issue and following it for the Community Free Press (CFP) long before most of the community began trying to sort out the details and make an educated decision. That's not a brag, chances are, if I hadn't been covering the issue for CFP, I wouldn't have gone to extreme efforts to fully understand the issue either.

In the beginning, after watching Assistant Fire Chief and Pension Board trustee David Hall make his presentation regarding the status of the police and fire pension system at a City Council luncheon, before City Manager Greg Burris was even City Manager Greg Burris, I leaned toward supporting the sales tax but, later, I wavered and I'll tell you why.

I believe the "worst case budget scenario" presentation Mr. Burris made, at a later City Council luncheon, did more harm than good in trying to garner support for the sales tax. Further, some of the information and tactics on the part of the City to pass the sales tax were very distasteful and some, through omission of some facts, or selective sharing of information, struck me as not quite honest.

As an Independent conservative, many of the items on Burris' list of cuts he claimed will be required to make up the shortfall they need to raise to pay the full actuarial recommended contribution in fiscal 2009-10, were very appealing and I, and, I suspect, many others, began to think maybe, by not passing the 1-cent sales tax, some needed fiscal budgeting changes will come to the City, maybe they will begin to reset their priorities and begin to let some of their wants go by the wayside and address what we all, in our heart of hearts, know are the true core City services.

Core services, in most people's opinions, are not parks and parking garages, redeveloped, dilapidated department stores and, truly, are not even swimming pools being open 6 days a week in the dead of August, or fireworks displays in July.

Core services are the services we need and require to be safe in our neighborhoods and to run our businesses, and lives, free from overly stringent government interference. Core services are, primarily: SAFETY; clean water; sanitary sewers; utility service; clean air to breathe; and the ability, through infrastructure maintenance and unencumbered roadways, for movement of the people. Those are services the City should provide (now, how they are provided, that, is debatable) and they should be providing them without the help and assistance of non-profit groups, in my opinion. The City has, in the past, commended some non-profits for doing work in core City service areas so that the City is not forced to expend as much money as they would otherwise to provide them but, if the City was not spending so much of its money on non-core City services would the City even need that help and assistance?

The new City Manager and City Council have spent a little time in exercises intended to determine, "what are core city services?" Well, I believe we all know what they are, these exercises are futile and instead of simply identifying core City services they are identifying core City services with an attached wish list of everything that each member of the Council, personally, feels is important.

There are many important services the City provides which are not "core," services, they are services a City might provide when times are good and a pension fund is flush, unfortunately, our City continued to provide non-core services during times when the pension fund was not flush and times were not good. In fact, they withheld $10 million from the pension fund over four years during a time when they were purchasing the Heers building unnecessarily. Mr. Prost merely needed their approval to extend a loan with Great Southern and held two different loan approval letters in his hand the night the City Council swept him and other well respected Springfield business leaders aside to, instead, cut Prost out and take over the responsibility of the Heers building, accompanied by interest payments, until it could be sold to another owner who now, just like Prost, is unable to uphold an agreed upon timeline of redevelopment. I could say more, as an Independent conservative, about the City's ill use of taxpayer dollars but, that is only part of the point I am trying to make.

It is very tempting, indeed, to vote no for the sales tax and try to force the City to cut out their ongoing redevelopment plans and change their introverted, "I-want, vision-20/20" from looking in a continued, ill-conceived direction.

Then, I read the News-Leader's, by now, infamous "Our Voice" column announcing their position against the sales-tax, which, by the way, I felt was an overall, reasonable position.

Then, I read Cindy Rushefsky's foot stomping letter, which didn't sway me.(Unfortunately, though I searched extensively, I could not find a link to the Rushefsky letter which was published in the News-Leader after the News-Leader's "Our Voice" column was published).

...And, then I read the statement emailed to me by Councilman Doug Burlison and my potential no vote, again swayed, ever so softly, back toward yes. Here is the reason why:

Burlison wrote, in part:

"The resolution that we recently passed has added other protections that secures the interests of the taxpayer, and the pension fund recipient. The current management, and a majority of the upcoming City Council will not have had a hand in getting us to this point, yet will need the tools to fix this problem.

The question is, "Do we take care of this now?" I think at the rate of at least $39,000 per day of interest income lost, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" I have no personal love of taxes, and have worked to avoid increasing them. Higher taxes are not good for any public economy, but then again, neither is bankruptcy. If we do pass this measure, we need to work to shorten it's duration as much as possible; but before anything else, we need to insure that the shortfall in the pension fund gets taken care of, completely.

My main motivation behind my support of the 1 cent proposal is to avoid passing this problem on to others so they will have to take care of it in the future. Instead of handing down a list of bad choices to subsequent councils, and instead of sticking my head in the sand and letting my children's generation deal with this, I will take a stand that is politically unpopular with several in our community, and vote in support of the sales tax. The honest truth is that this proposal is the cheapest way to shore up this pension plan, and any delays will greatly increase the mountain of liability that we will have to overcome."

Bottom line, my thinking is this:

If the tax is passed, the City will be able to afford the genuine core City services they need and are obligated to provide to the citizens of Springfield, and the fact of the matter is, Mr. Burris and the Finance Department of the City of Springfield may recommend how money is spent in the next fiscal budget but it is our elected, representative City Council who will approve the budget. So, what do we know about our representative Council who will determine what are core City services and where money should be budgeted in the next fiscal year? We know who five of those Council members will be: Doug Burlison, Dan Chiles, Cynthia Rushefsky, Ralph Manley and Scott Bailes.

We have some opportunities to effect change in April among the City Council, we will determine tomorrow who will survive by a primary City Council election. Whether the pension sales tax passes or not will determine where their work will lie. I'd like to give our new City Council an opportunity to focus on providing funding for legitimate core City services in the next fiscal budget, we all really KNOW what those core City services are, we need the City of Springfield, led by the new, elected, representative City Council to recognize what are true core City services and what are services on a want and wish list, and we need them to act responsibly in, what are shaping up to be, some tough economic times, not just for our City but nationally. We need to hold this future Council, of our choosing, responsible for, as Councilman Burlison wrote, "work(ing) to shorten it's (the sales tax's) duration as much as possible."

I'd like to see the new Council have a little elbow room in which to make these decisions. While I am sympathetic with some who would like to force the City to pay the consequences for past actions in how they have dealt with the police and fire pension fund, forcing a City Manager and a City Council who were not in office during the creation of this crisis, out of what appears to be spite, to deal with the sins of past management and Councils, doesn't seem the most wise or forward thinking response.

I'd like to give a new Council and City Manager the opportunity to get our City back on the right track without punishing them for a crisis in which they played no role, and that is why I, personally, plan to vote in support of the pension sales tax tomorrow. This is also why it is very important that citizens place the right candidates on the City Council in April. Choose carefully tomorrow. Choose carefully in April. Find out as much as you can about the candidates, they will be your representatives, and, whether they are paid or not, they are accountable to you.

If we vote well and communicate well with the incoming Council, perhaps they will represent us well as they enter into budget discussions and determine where they can cut expenditures for the future. We will be voting them in and, inevitably, whatever comes of their service is the voters' responsibility. In other words, lack of attention on the part of the public in the past is where the buck stops. Whatever action or inaction was taken in the past on the part of your elected, representative City Council is your responsibility.

I'm not telling anyone else how to vote but, I felt it was a fair and reasonable thing to do to inform you of how, after all the study, research and open minded consideration I have spent on the issue of the police and fire pension sales tax, I came to the conclusion, in my own mind, that it is best to vote in favor of getting the issue of a sales tax behind us and move forward toward holding our new, come April, City Council accountable to represent all of us in regards to the provision of core services. We elect them and we are responsible, in the end, for the decisions we allow them to make on our behalf. For now, I believe it is in the best interest of our City to support the sales tax and then, do everything we can to keep ourselves educated and involved in the future actions of our representative Council.

A City Council Primary Candidate Responds to Councilman Burlison's Statement Regarding the Pension Sales Tax

Fred Ellison, a City Council primary candidate for General Seat B, forwarded an email to me, in which he has responded to Councilman Burlison's statement on the Spfd Police/Fire Sales Tax:

Mr. Ellison's response:

I believe that approval of the 1% Pension Sales Tax would be a huge mistake. As a matter of fact, Tom (General Seat A, City Council primary candidate, Tom Martz) and I discussed yesterday that this would be a 38% increase in the city/county portion of the sales tax (2.625%) that we already pay.

There are several specific reasons that I cannot support this proposal:

1) The proposed rate is too high for the economic situation that currently exists. To date we have a better economy than many other areas and will risk aggravating the downturn in our local economy.

2) If the sales tax is approved, all incentive for City government to improve efficiency, reduce wasteful spending, and get control of personnel and benefit costs will be eliminated. It will be back to 'business as usual'. Automatic wage and benefit increases will resume and the deferrred compensation of City management will be 'reviewed' (as approved in the Council Bill 2008-368, ( http://www.springfieldmo.gov/egov/agenda/2008-368.pdf ) see item #6 at line 128. (Is it any wonder that city staff supports the sales tax proposal? They are also being told that if it doesn't pass, they will risk termination.)

3) City management and the City Council are betting that the 1% Pension Sales Tax will get the funding level of the Police and Fire Retirement Plan (the legally correct name of the pension plan which was not used in the ballot language) back to reasonable levels before the settlement of the Telecommunications Sales Tax Lawsuit. If the settlement is received after the majority of the pension sales tax funding is received, the settlement funds will not go into the Retirement plan and thus can be spent on other 'priorities'.

4) The fundamental cause of the Retirement Plan under funding is that benefit increases granted in the late 1990's, as a result of poor personnel management (which continues today), has caused the liabilities of the Retirement Plan to spiral upward long before the investment losses that have occurred in the last six months. These benefit increases include: 1) The 100% return of employee contribution. 2) The inclusion of payments of accumulated leave, holiday, sick and vacation pay at the end of employment and overtime compensation in the calculation of pension benefits. The Police Officer and Firefighter Associations (Unions) need to accept their share of the responsibility for the unrealistic increases in these benefit costs. In 1996, the City's Annual Required Contribution was $2,578,429. In 2006, ten years later, the ARC was $9,834,917 an increase of almost 400%.

Based on these facts and that the 1% Pension Sales Tax will not be a permanent solution to the problem until the basic causes have been addressed, I cannot support the proposal.

Fred B. Ellison
Council General B Candidate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: Any other City Council member or City Council or Mayor primary (or otherwise) candidate who wishes to respond to Mr. Burlison's statement, or simply make a statement on the police/fire pension sales tax issue, may do so by contacting me at JMltnMO@aol.com - Jackie

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Horse's Mouth - Councilman Burlison's Statement on the Spfd Police/Fire Pension Fund Sales Tax

I was on a short list of local bloggers to receive the following statement from Councilman Doug Burlison this evening. It was sent to me with pretty much the same subject line used in the title of this post and is what it is. I have neither endorsed nor opposed the pension sales tax, myself, and continue to be very conflicted on the matter. All of us have our own opinions about it. I can certainly respect and understand Mr. Burlison's position, as well as many of the positions I have heard and read in opposition to the tax. - Jackie

Councilman Burlison's statement:

As January comes to a close, we are at the doorstep of decision time. Many voices have expressed support or opposition to the proposed 1 cent sales tax to repair the Tier 1 Police and Fire pension fund. If the numerous statements indicate the level of legitimate concern for our community, then Springfield is, indeed, a fortunate city in that a lot of us do actually care what happens here.
I've had the priviledge of serving this community on City Council for almost two years now. Prior to that, I was instrumental in having the State of Missouri audit our city. Early on in my term on the council, I resigned my position as the Chief Petitioner of the Springfield audit in order to reduce any conflict of interest, and to move into a place where I could help fix the problem, rather than just work to identify it. One of my first votes on the council was to oppose seeking authorization from Jeff City for this sales tax. My reasoning was that if we receive the go ahead for this proposal, then we would not explore any other options to fund the shortfall. In spite of my concerns, many options have been discussed over the last couple of years, especially during the 2009 budget deliberations. In a departure from the past, direct public participation was included the budget process, and a wide range of ideas was brought to the table for consideration. In light of all of this, I believe that it has become increasingly clear that there is only one mechanism that will be sufficient to take care of our shortfall in the time frame reqiured, and that is the 1 cent sales tax.
I have great respect for those that oppose this measure, and to denigrate those views would be disrespectful. It is that voice of opposition, in fact, that we need to continually keep our feet to the fire as we move forward, regardless of the outcome of this election. Those that support this measure, however, are earnestly looking at the real mathematical challenges, not just the minimum contributions required by state law. In another first (at least in my recollection), commitments have been made by the current City Council, in writing, to insure that these funds are spent as the voters intend. The resolution that we recently passed has added other protections that secures the interests of the taxpayer, and the pension fund recipient. The current management, and a majority of the upcoming City Council will not have had a hand in getting us to this point, yet will need the tools to fix this problem. The question is, "Do we take care of this now?" I think at the rate of at least $39,000 per day of interest income lost, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" I have no personal love of taxes, and have worked to avoid increasing them. Higher taxes are not good for any public economy, but then again, neither is banckruptcy. If we do pass this measure, we need to work to shorten it's duration as much as possible; but before anything else, we need to insure that the shortfall in the pension fund gets taken care of, completely.
My main motivation behind my support of the 1 cent proposal is to avoid passing this problem on to others so they will have to take care of it in the future. Instead of handing down a list of bad choices to subsequent councils, and instead of sticking my head in the sand and letting my children's generation deal with this, I will take a stand that is politically unpopular with several in our community, and vote in support of the sales tax. The honest truth is that this proposal is the cheapest way to shore up this pension plan, and any delays will greatly increase the mountain of liability that we will have to overcome. At the risk of offending some, this additional sales tax is the most fiscally responsible thing to do out of the options we have available to us. I am asking you to join with me on February 3rd, and vote "yes" on the pension fund sales tax.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notes on the November 10 City Council Agenda

First reading, Emergency and Second reading bills

The November 10 City Council Meeting Agenda is online.

The item suspected to draw the most attention from the public is:

Item 12. COUNCIL BILL 2008-339:

"A special ordinance calling an election on February 3, 2009 in the City of Springfield, Missouri, to submit to the qualified voters a question as to whether or not to institute a one-cent sales tax on retail sales within the City of Springfield, Missouri, for the purpose of providing revenues for the Springfield Police and Firefighters Pension System, providing for a sunset on the tax at the earlier of either the end of five years from the date of commencement of the tax or the Pension Fund reaching a fully-funded status, and declaring an emergency."

The bill has been declared an emergency but is not anticipated to be voted on Monday night, instead, it is listed as a first reading bill.

The proposed ballot language for the February election is:

"Shall the City of Springfield impose a sales tax at a rate of 1 percent solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the Springfield Police and Firefighters Pension System with said tax to sunset upon the earlier of A) Five (5) years from the date of the commencement of collection of this tax or B) the Pension System fund reaching a fully-funded (100%) status as determined by an independent actuarial study conducted for the Pension System Board of Trustees?”

There is one emergency bill on the November 10 agenda:

15. COUNCIL BILL 2008-340. (Carlson) A special ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and accept a Missouri Department of Economic Development Emergency Community Development Block Grant Fund grant for the purpose of acquiring, redeveloping and disposing of foreclosed/vacant properties, and to execute agreements and do all things necessary to carry out such grant; amending the budget provided for the Planning and Development Department of the City of Springfield, Missouri, for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 in the amount of $2,800,000.00; and declaring an emergency

Council will likely adopt the Internal Auditor's Policies and Procedures and approve the annual Audit Working Plan of April Lathrom. See Item 21. COUNCIL BILL 2008-322. If you would like more information on the Internal Auditor's Policies and Procedures, see Community Free Press (CFP) supplements to the print edition of October 22. There is also a summary update on page 4 of the October 22 editon of CFP.

Also up for vote tonight is COUNCIL BILL 2008-323, "a special ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to appropriate $165,000 from the level property tax fund balance to construct a public parking lot at Jefferson Avenue and Phelps Street."

Council is expected to approve the reappointments of 4 members of the City Utilities board, Patrick Platter; Lisa Officer; Mark McNay; and Tom Finnie. The vote was divided at Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting. Councilman Doug Burlison and Council woman Cindy Rushefsky cast nay votes regarding Mr. Finnie, citing him as the source of many problems the city faces today. The other three members up for reappointment were unanimously approved for recommendation to the City Council by the Committee of the Whole.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Highlights of the October 27, City Council Meeting

Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda

Here are a few items which will be up for public hearing at the Council meeting this Monday night:

> Item 8. COUNCIL BILL 2008-321: A portion of Phelps Street, between Kansas Expressway and LaFontaine Avenue is being considered to be made a private street, at the Paul Mueller Company's request.

The purpose is to allow the company to create a secured parking area. Muellers would take over all care and maintenence of the street should the bill pass.

Geoffrey Butler will represent Muellers in the matter. There has been no opposition raised.

> Item 10. COUNCIL BILL 2008-322: A special ordinance adopting the Internal Auditor’s Policies and Procedures and approving the annual Audit Working Plan.

If you'd like to read a summary of the Internal Auditor's Policies and Procedures, click on the cover shot of the paper at the Community Free Press Web site and scroll to page 4, you can also read the entire policy paper by clicking this and scrolling down.

> Item 11. COUNCIL BILL 2008-323: Will authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to appropriate $165,000 from the level property tax fund to construct a public parking lot at Jefferson Avenue and Phelps Street and amend the budget in that amount, if passed.

The parking lot is intended to provide parking for patrons and employees of the Jordan Valley Community Health Center, Greene County and the Missouri Highway Patrol.

Resolutions, which citizens may address but which will, likely, be voted on at the meeting (resolutions only require one reading) are:

> Item 13. COUNCIL BILL 2008-324: "...consenting to and approving financing of The Industrial Development Authority of Greene County, Missouri for the Pregnancy Care Center, a Missouri nonprofit corporation, by providing for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 to pay the costs of financing and reimbursing the costs of the acquisition and renovation of an office facility for the Pregnancy Care Center."

> Item 14. COUNCIL BILL 2008-325: "A resolution adopting the City of Springfield's Legislative Policy for 2009. (Recommended by the Finance and Administration Committee.)"

The city's legislative policy for 2009 was recommended by the Finance and Administration Committee with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay. Councilman Burlison did not support some of the more contentious legislative policies included and so, as a member of the Finance and Administration Committee, opposed it.

One of the contentious policies has been written about in the local news, it was a request made by the Parks Department to lobby for a ban on guns in open park spaces.

It is my understanding that there is to be a citizen speaking out against the potential gun ban at the meeting Monday night, at least that's a rumor I heard today.

As always, the second reading bills will be summarized and note made of the votes in the next issue of the Community Free Press.

To view the consent agenda bills, click this. Citizens wishing to speak to an item on the consent agenda must let City Clerk Brenda Cirtin know that they'd like an item removed from that agenda so that they might address it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

National Rifle Association to Endorse McCain for President

Slights one of its own board members

The Greene County Libertarian Party has issued the following press release:

The National Rifle Association will be endorsing Republican candidate John McCain tomorrow, but that organization will not endorse more-qualified Second Amendment-supporting third-party candidates unless they are already in office.

Mike Ferguson, National Field Director for the Bob Barr for President campaign, will be attending the press conference along with Libertarian candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Teddy Fleck - who is cancelling his NRA membership over this issue - as well as Springfield Councilman Doug Burlison, who voted against a concealed-carry in city parks proposal.

Ferguson said: "The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, not just a Constitutional right.

"It is tragic that a few in the leadership of the NRA have chosen to sell our their principles - and their members - by endorsing a candidate who has a track record of opposing one of our most cherished and important rights.

Looking at John McCain's record on gun issues shows that he is no conservative or an agent of change. His 30 years in Washington proves that he is the problem.

"The members of the NRA have been let down. Fortunately, they have a viable, credible choice from within their own ranks. Congressman Bob Barr has a lifetime "A+" rating from the NRA (as opposed to McCain's "C+") and he, to this day, serves on the NRA's Board of Directors.

"The members of the NRA - the real heart and soul of the organization - have been let down by their leadership. Fortunately, they can still have a real impact on this election by voting for the only candidate who stands up for all of our Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment, Bob Barr. Holding to our principles is showing John McCain, Barak Obama, both of the other two major parties and the NRA that we will not allow anyone to threaten the right to self-defense in America.

"Bob Barr represents the interests of the rank and file of the National Rifle Association. John McCain does not, regardless of what a few of their leaders say. The only principled vote for anyone who values their Second Amendment rights is a vote for Bob Barr for President.

"Fleck, a Springfield resident, was also concerned about the message this decision sends: "The average American concerned about Second Amendment rights - and incumbents or aspiring candidates who take these rights seriously - are not well-served by this arbitrary exclusion", Fleck said. He also said he will be cancelling his NRA membership, and will no longer support their cause.

Ferguson, Fleck, and Burlison will be at the press conference tomorrow, scheduled for 11:15 AM, at the University Plaza Hotel and Convention Center, 333 S. John Q. Hammons Parkway.

Contacts:

Mike Ferguson - (816)695-1425 mike@bobbarr2008.com

Teddy Fleck - teddyfleck@yahoo.com

Keith Rodgers - (417)840-8942 libertarian@intergate.com

Sexism or bias against parents with special needs children?

Oh, I don't know about this.

When Councilman Doug Burlison was running for Council in 2007, I asked him if he was concerned about working a job, serving on Council and still having enough time to spend with his children. He has more children than "the average bear."

Granted, the small difference, here, is that Roberts asked if Palin would have time enough to spend with a Down's Syndrome child, but isn't it well known that special needs children can, very well, have more diverse and time consuming needs than children without special needs? That's why they are called "special needs children" in the first place, isn't it?

If it had been a female Council candidate I was questioning rather than a male Council candidate, the same question I asked might have seemed sexist, unprofessional or unethical to some but I felt it was a legitimate question, though I wasn't able to include his answer, due to word constraints, at CFP.

His answer, just summarized, was something to the effect that by serving on Council he was taking care of his children. He was investing in their future.

That seemed reasonable to me.

New Community Free Press is Available!

Yep, the new issue (August 27-September 7) of Community Free Press is available for reading at the Web site or pick up at a location near you. For a list of vendors you can also visit the Web site.

Featured articles include "Ozarks Death Row Inmates," in which, CFP contributor Jennifer Hollis reported on how increasing euthanasia numbers are bringing animal issues to the forefront, and Brian Brown reported on the history of the Battle of Springfield, which, Brown noted, took place in January 1863, in and around the downtown Springfield area. Brown's front page article is titled, "Markers Tell of Forgotten Local Battle."

The Council Notes column includes previously unreported information concerning Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley's research on metal detectors, prepared at the request of Mayor Carlson and a quote from Councilman Doug Burlison regarding why he voted in opposition to the recent Council approved administrative delay on the controversial container ordinance the city and local container suppliers and users have been considering for some time.

Bob Mace touched close to my home in his regular column, "The Edge," when he wrote about an experience he had when he dropped the baton in a relay race years ago. My husband had a similar experience and had discussed it with me after watching both the men and women USA Olympic teams drop their batons in the Olympics.

Mace assumed bragging rights of his physical prowess, as he wrote about a friend of his who has told the story of him dropping the baton to, what seemed like, in the reading, anyone and everyone who would listen for years. "A Dish Served Cold," was a fun read, but then Mace's columns are always fun reading, even when discussing controversial or serious issues.

In "Letters to the Editor," Tim Kitta of Springfield asked questions of the new city manager and, in the "Local Voices" segment, Brown asked 6 different, unrelated people the question: " Would you be in favor of City Council approving a City Utilities natural gas rate increase of 7 percent spread over two years?"

Read their answers along with Mert Seaton's regular sports column, in which he covered the Olympics with a bit of opinion. "Celebration is all part of the sport. It is the right athletes and fans have," Seaton reminded party poopers who, apparently, don't like athlete *braggarts.*

There's much, much more here.

Two City Leaders Squared Off this Morning

Councilman Doug Burlison Defended City Council's Choice of New City Manager Greg Burris; Vincent David Jericho Defended the Legitimate Arguments of the City Council's Critics; Real Discussion Ensued

Hey, I'm a fan of both of these guys and I recognize good, healthy discussion when I hear it. Good, healthy discussion is what I heard on the Vincent David Jericho Program, on KSGF this morning. The podcast is listed as a "must listen," and for good reason.

I've suffered a few snide remarks from different quarters just like Jericho has because I expose information that sometimes, I think, the executive branch of the City of Springfield might not like exposed or discussed. It takes a strong stomach to take that sort of comment and remain focused on the main thing, the important thing. That important, main thing is what we got this morning on the Jericho program. We got what started out as a contentious argument but in the end became a real discussion.

We got two men defending their positions and, while they continued to disagree, the listeners of the Vincent David Jericho Program were treated to both sides of the argument and got insight into a government process that they might not have gotten otherwise. That, my friends, whether you agree with Jericho or you agree with Burlison, is valuable to the community.

So, my thanks to Vince for offering the platform and my thanks to Councilman Burlison for knocking on his door and giving voice to his reasons for voting for Burris. Listeners can make their own decisions about whether they liked, agreed with, or felt Burlison's argument was valid, I'm just impressed he stood up and made it.

The critics of the Council's choice for City Manager deserve to have legitimate complaints and questions addressed, and they should not be put down as if the word "critic" was a derogatory term.

When did being a critic, or a government "watch dog" group, or a questioning journalist become something of which to be ashamed? Too often people who have legitimate complaints in this community are written off instead of responded to and are treated as though they are an enemy of progress and an enemy of what is good for the community in which they all live and are invested.

To quote Mayor Tom Carlson:

"Any day of the week, I'll bet on people that have got real money at risk, time, money and effort to spend as opposed to the people from the peanut gallery" ~ Mayor Tom Carlson, October 16, 2007

Where I differ from Carlson is the distinction between "people that have got real money at risk," and "the people from the peanut gallery."

There should be no distinction.

Every single citizen of this city has real money at risk here, every single one of us. We all pay taxes into the city coffers and that tax money pays for core city services, economic development and the salaries of city employees and whether it comes from our money in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, federal taxes or state taxes it comes from the taxpayers, and the taxpayers ARE the people with the real money at risk.

Listen to the podcast, truly a "must listen." Get involved in your city and hold your elected officials accountable, however you feel directed. Sometimes that means holding them accountable for the good they do for your city, sometimes that means holding them accountable for the bad decisions they make and we all have an opinion about whether choices were, or are, good or bad. Without the sort of contentious dialog we heard this morning on the radio, forming those opinions about whether choices made on your behalf, by your elected officials were good choices or bad choices would be more difficult.

Mayor Carlson recently complained, ""It's not like it used to be, there's not the depth, there's not the scope, there's not the understanding on the part of the media, on the topics that they're covering." That understanding on the part of the media comes with discussion and that is what Vincent David Jericho offers to this community. Often, he can only offer one side of any given issue because there is no one from the city who will give their side of the issue. Today that was not the case. Councilman Doug Burlison knocked on the door and talked to the people who have real money at risk in this city, the taxpayers.

Thank you, Vince. Thank you Doug.

Note to Mayor Carlson: If you want understanding on the part of the media and therefore the citizens of Springfield, it takes hard work, it takes discussion, it takes real dialog, it takes Council members like Doug Burlison and, yes, it can sometimes get heated and be a bit unpleasant along the way.

If you are looking for sanitized, one-sided public information releases, you have an entire public information office working for you, isn't that enough?

The taxpayers want more than sanitized, one-sided public information releases and in the end, isn't that what is required for depth, scope and understanding? They get that other side from the media, the radio, the print media, other sources besides the city and City Utilities printing presses.

This morning the taxpayers got a chance for more depth, scope and understanding but it took some effort and discomfort on the part of a City Councilman who was willing to walk into an unfriendly atmosphere. The Council might not get paid for that but if the Council and Mayor want more understanding that is what it will take.

Great radio. A real public service!

Update on 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax Issue

I'm a believer in full disclosure (as I learn, so will you).

Yesterday, Mike Brothers, of the City, sent me an email after reading my entry on the 1/8-cent transportation tax (you can read that entry directly below this one).

I chose not to update it until I had a few more facts, but, what Mr. Brothers wanted me to know is that when a 1/8-cent transportation sales tax project is proposed as a cost share it does come before the City Council. I had questions about how it came before Council. I asked where it was placed on the agenda, whether it was listed as a one reading, first reading or consent agenda item, and I asked Brothers if he would mind providing me with an example.

The reason I asked, and the reason I felt it was important to know how it came up, is because there isn't as much understanding about how the public can address a "consent agenda" bill as there are first reading bills or even resolutions or emergency bills.

A consent agenda bill must be requested removed from the consent agenda by either a member of the public or the Council and, in my opinion, they often fly under the radar screen and are treated as just simple, "taking care of business" matters which don't warrant much attention or questioning. That's why I was interested.

Brothers provided me with an example and I'll get to that in a minute.

In his original email to me, Mike wrote:

"...anything involving the 1/8 cent goes to Council. Any kind of cost share with MoDOT or private developers or anyone else would go to Council for approval. Smaller projects on down to sidewalks would still have to be bid out to developers and that would require Council approval, too. So there are no staff decisions (if that's what you meant by administrative) as to how to allocate the money."

Facts are facts and as such, yes, it is important to note them, but my further questions as to how they are presented on the Council agenda also has bearing, in my mind, and it should be noted that Council members do not generally write the bills that come before them in Council chambers, and as a new Councilman by the name of Doug Burlison found out at, I believe, his second Council meeting, even the Council members who are listed as sponsors of any particular agenda item have not necessarily played a part in the creation of that bill or even necessarily support it. A Council member's name MUST be listed as sponsoring a bill on the agenda and so Council members' names are often listed as sponsors without their knowledge of a bill. After Burlison found that out, he specifically requested he not be listed as a sponsor of a bill without his approval (a little digression I thought readers might be interested in).

Also, though Council may review and approve the bills related to the transportation tax as they come up, Council, as the representatives of the voters, will generally support what the voters have approved, as they should. So, if and when the voters approve administrative (or staff) recommendations "to advance other high-priority transportation improvements related to economic development and quality of life enhancements," the Council will, likely, feel bound to honor whatever the administration (or staff) recommends will advance those goals. The Council will consider the people to have spoken and that will be that.

How many times have we heard in recent months that because the voters approved projects for the 1/4-cent park sales tax or had approved a CIP project that they feel they must follow through on what the voters wanted. Therefore, when (and if) the voters approve the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, the Council will determine that voters understood what they were voting for and will honor the voters wishes.

How this translates, in my view, is that this vote on this tax is crucial. Voters will determine whether they approve of projects, both listed and unlisted, that the City deems will serve "to advance other high-priority transportation improvements related to economic development and quality of life enhancements," and Council will feel bound to follow through on the wishes of the voters.

In my previous CFP Council Notes column, re-posted in the entry below, I pointed out that:

"This year’s ballot language does not specify parking, but includes “other shared funding projects with county, state, federal, and developers to advance high-priority transportation projects,” which are identified in the bill as, “related to economic development and quality of life enhancements.”

If you have not read beyond the ballot language, you should: ORD25392.

Now, as for the example Mike Brothers sent me. As suspected, it was a resolution on the consent agenda. It was listed as a one reading bill, meaning, unless removed from the consent agenda by a member of the public or the Council, it would not be read individually at all and would be voted on at that meeting as a part of the consent agenda.

The Mayor (Gannaway at the time), likely, as you will know if you have attended many City Council meetings, would have offered members of the public and the Council the opportunity to remove it (in the form of "any consent agenda items") from the consent agenda, otherwise, it would have sailed through as a bulk consent agenda item and been voted on, not individually, but as a part of the consent agenda as a whole. Which, it appears, is exactly what happened in the case of the example Brothers sent me. He sent a link to Bill 99-049, Ordinance No. 8620. You may read it yourself, RES8620 .

From the minutes of that meeting, we find:

"The following bills appeared on the agenda under Consent Agenda – One Reading Bills.

Glenstone & Battlefield

Sponsor: Rhodes. Council Bill 99-49. A resolution approving the plans, specifications and the bid of Hartman and Company for adding dual left turn lanes to the Glenstone and Battlefield intersection.

Council Bill 99-49. Resolution No. 8620, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Griggs, Vanaman, Wright, Gibson, Carlson, Hacker, Chancellor, Rhodes, Gannaway. Nays: None. Absent: None."

Had it been a first reading bill on the consent agenda it would have appeared on the agenda twice, at the next meeting as a "second reading" consent agenda bill. Since it was a one reading bill it would have appeared on the agenda at the February 1, 1999 meeting and been voted on that night, along with every other item on the consent agenda, as a whole, and never appear again.

So, technically, the Council has an opportunity to vote and approve these projects as they come up, then later to approve the bids, and the public can hold them accountable for their choices and it is all worth noting.

Certainly, the voters can hold the Council accountable if they feel the use of the tax isn't in keeping with what the voters had in mind, but, in my opinion, when voters approve such broad, open-ended language, it is all very subjective as to whether this is a use the voters would have approved without being specifically singled out for separate vote. This measure, as written, approves those broad, open-ended uses before they come up, voters have given their option of approving individual uses away at the outset by voting to support the measure and passing it. It's my opinion, they have, at that point, given away the option of holding the Council accountable because they've already authorized City uses that the City deems will, "advance other high-priority transportation improvements related to economic development and quality of life enhancements."

In the case Brothers provided, it was listed on the one reading consent agenda, not removed from it and then approved as a part of the consent agenda as a whole. There was no discussion in this case. The example Brothers provided happened to have been an item listed in the ballot language for uses of the tax. Short of studying every set of meeting minutes it would be difficult and very time consuming to try to track down particular cases and, as a result, I have gone with using the example he provided.

Further note: I don't intentionally omit information. In this blog format I relay information as it becomes available to me and if something later becomes available to me that has bearing on something I have previously written, I do make an effort to update it with the further information.

While blogging is a different format than writing a column in the newspaper there isn't much difference in some regards. Reporters write about facts as they become available to them. I have added these facts as they became available and supplied some opinion to go along with it. As always, the reader will have to determine what they will choose to do with the information available to them at the time they make a decision about whether they support this tax or not. My primary concern has been that voters have as clear an understanding about what they are voting to support, if they vote in support of this tax, as possible. I hope some of the information I've provided has been helpful.

Vote!

Whether you vote for or against the transportation sales tax, you owe it to yourself and the other members of your community to cast your vote. Do it.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,

but not their own facts.” - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan


The Springfield News-Leader's editorial board needs to get their facts straight.

In, Eateries must live with fees, someone from the editorial board wrote:

"Establishing the new fees came through a 7-2 vote of City Council on Monday; council members Doug Burlison and Cindy Rushefsky disagreed with the charges, worrying the city is moving forward too quickly with the fees."

Wrong. Council voted unanimously to establish the fees after Councilman Burlison moved the restaurant fees be removed from the bill.

Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky seconded Burlison's motion but it did not carry.

Then, there was a vote taken on the bill and it was passed unanimously by all of City Council.