State Auditor Susan Montee was a guest on the Vincent David Jericho Program this morning. Listen to the discussion, which revolved around Missouri's low income housing tax credits and the commission which oversees that program (I haven't even had the chance to look at it myself).
Montee and her staff filed a report on the Missouri Housing Development Commission in June of this year. You can read the report here.
Thanks for the great programming, Vince!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label State Auditor Susan Montee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Auditor Susan Montee. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Monday, April 21, 2008
City Utility's "profits," "surpluses," "civic contributions," and "subsidies"
I toyed with whether I wanted to go here over the weekend. I decided it's worthwhile to comment on the Saturday News-Leader article. In particular, this excerpt from Wes Johnson's article:
Now, I understand that when money is taken from the electric system's "profits" to pay for needs of the gas system at C.U. the electric system is "subsidizing" the gas system, but when the electric system's "surplus" is used for maintenance of the electric system, is the electric system "subsidizing" itself or is it paying it's own way?
Twitty has communicated that each of the utilities should be paying it's own way.
There was a base electric rate increase in 2003 (the last base electric increase according to Twitty) to pay for new pollution controls, yet the electric system is still making more than is necessary, enough to subsidize the gas system, subsidize public transportation and make civic group contributions.
A citizen questioned City Utilities at the last Council meeting that if the natural gas rate increase was approved by City Council would electric rates be reduced since the electric system's "subsidy" would no longer be needed to maintain a separate system, but it didn't appear that C.U. was considering lowering electric rates. Further, C.U.'s contributions to civic groups was called into question by State Auditor Susan Montee who later expressed satisfaction with the utility's explanation as to why their contributions benefit the utility but still leaving questions in our community, see "Spending practices examined" from April 4, 2008.
Suggestion: City Utility's John Twitty likes to refer to hedging natural gas as "insurance," giving us a prime example of his ability to describe one thing as something more palatable by identifying it to the media, the State Auditor and its customers as something not quite what it is. So, it seems to me, if the utility wants to benefit its community (customers who are paying electric rates to the tune of giving C.U. a "surplus" to "subsidize" other systems within the utility's purview) why don't they call the "subsidizing" of the gas system by the profits generated by the electric system a "civic contribution," rather than a "subsidy?" In my opinion, this would benefit their customers more than some of the other civic group contributions C.U. is making with money that goes beyond what is necessary to pay for the electric system, and please don't pretend that the electric rates paid above and beyond what is necessary to pay for electricity to its customers would be "subsidizing" tree trimming maintenance necessary to stabilize C.U.'s delivery of electric to its electric customers.
C.U. wants to raise the base gas rates to pay for maintenance of gas system delivery so that the gas system can "pay its own way," and then a board member wonders whether it will be necessary to raise our electric rates rather than use the electric system's "subsidy" currently spent, in part, on civic group contributions, for tree trimming, electricity delivery maintenance.
Can anyone else see the irony here, or is it just me? If they have enough money in the electric system to subsidize the gas system for 8 or 9 years, subsidize public transport and make civic group contributions, then they have enough in the electric system to pay for tree trimming maintenance without "eventually" passing the cost "on to CU customers." It seems to me C.U. customers have been "subsidizing" tree trimming maintenance for a long time, C.U. just hasn't chosen to utilize that "subsidy" for tree trimming maintenance.
Of course, there is also the option of using some of that "subsidy" money to upgrade their current system by developing a plan and phasing in underground electric delivery to their customers.
*emphasis mine
"CU plans to spend $2.5 million on tree trimming this year.
Board member Lisa Officer asked whether spending an additional $1 million a year for several years would require a rate increase for electric customers.
CU general manager John Twitty said it wouldn't necessarily trigger a rate increase, but the cost eventually would be passed on to CU customers.
He noted that CU hasn't increased its base electric rate since 2003, to pay for new pollution controls.
A rate hike for tree trimming would be particularly sensitive now because CU already is asking the City Council to approve a 4.1 percent natural gas rate hike.
Electric customers have been subsidizing gas system losses in recent years.
If the gas rate hike goes through, CU board member Tom Finnie suggested using the electric system subsidy to help pay tree trimming costs."*
Now, I understand that when money is taken from the electric system's "profits" to pay for needs of the gas system at C.U. the electric system is "subsidizing" the gas system, but when the electric system's "surplus" is used for maintenance of the electric system, is the electric system "subsidizing" itself or is it paying it's own way?
Twitty has communicated that each of the utilities should be paying it's own way.
There was a base electric rate increase in 2003 (the last base electric increase according to Twitty) to pay for new pollution controls, yet the electric system is still making more than is necessary, enough to subsidize the gas system, subsidize public transportation and make civic group contributions.
A citizen questioned City Utilities at the last Council meeting that if the natural gas rate increase was approved by City Council would electric rates be reduced since the electric system's "subsidy" would no longer be needed to maintain a separate system, but it didn't appear that C.U. was considering lowering electric rates. Further, C.U.'s contributions to civic groups was called into question by State Auditor Susan Montee who later expressed satisfaction with the utility's explanation as to why their contributions benefit the utility but still leaving questions in our community, see "Spending practices examined" from April 4, 2008.
Suggestion: City Utility's John Twitty likes to refer to hedging natural gas as "insurance," giving us a prime example of his ability to describe one thing as something more palatable by identifying it to the media, the State Auditor and its customers as something not quite what it is. So, it seems to me, if the utility wants to benefit its community (customers who are paying electric rates to the tune of giving C.U. a "surplus" to "subsidize" other systems within the utility's purview) why don't they call the "subsidizing" of the gas system by the profits generated by the electric system a "civic contribution," rather than a "subsidy?" In my opinion, this would benefit their customers more than some of the other civic group contributions C.U. is making with money that goes beyond what is necessary to pay for the electric system, and please don't pretend that the electric rates paid above and beyond what is necessary to pay for electricity to its customers would be "subsidizing" tree trimming maintenance necessary to stabilize C.U.'s delivery of electric to its electric customers.
C.U. wants to raise the base gas rates to pay for maintenance of gas system delivery so that the gas system can "pay its own way," and then a board member wonders whether it will be necessary to raise our electric rates rather than use the electric system's "subsidy" currently spent, in part, on civic group contributions, for tree trimming, electricity delivery maintenance.
Can anyone else see the irony here, or is it just me? If they have enough money in the electric system to subsidize the gas system for 8 or 9 years, subsidize public transport and make civic group contributions, then they have enough in the electric system to pay for tree trimming maintenance without "eventually" passing the cost "on to CU customers." It seems to me C.U. customers have been "subsidizing" tree trimming maintenance for a long time, C.U. just hasn't chosen to utilize that "subsidy" for tree trimming maintenance.
Of course, there is also the option of using some of that "subsidy" money to upgrade their current system by developing a plan and phasing in underground electric delivery to their customers.
*emphasis mine
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Citizens have a responsibility
When Councilman John Wiley and Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky hosted their Town Hall meeting toward the end of last year, Wiley said the turn out was better than it had been in years past. Wiley, who has hosted these events annually since he was elected as a City Council member, told me at a Council meeting shortly after the Town Hall meeting that there had been a good turn out the first year he held the meeting but that it had dwindled after that first year and has been slowly building in attendance ever since. Is attendance of about 50 a success? Wiley might say yes, since it's a lot better than an attendance of 6 or 10.
Wiley may not be a perfect Councilman (I haven't met one yet) but even though there have been some years he's been disappointed by the turn out at his annual meeting he has kept having it! He kept having it because he told the people who voted for him that he'd have an annual Town Hall meeting so, whether those voters take advantage of the opportunity or not Wiley has kept his word and whether you like John Wiley or think he is a good Councilman or not he should be commended for it.
Look again at the list of people that he made available to answer questions at the last Town Hall meeting! They didn't HAVE to be there, folks. There they were, on a week night, honoring Wiley and YOU by volunteering to show up to answer people's questions....look at the line up! Wiley was right to be appreciative that they took time out of their busy lives to be there for people in Zones 2 and 4 to question.
About 50 people took advantage of it. 50 people.
I'm sorry folks, all the complaining about a "good old boy network," about how our City's staff doesn't do a good job, well, there they were. You could have asked them anything. They could have answered or they could have waffled, regardless, it would have offered some insight into how our city's government works.
City Council members have a responsibility to represent their constituents. Do their constituents have a responsibility to let them know how they would like to be represented? Are they just supposed to know how their constituents feel about issues as they come up? Maybe they're supposed to listen to Vincent David Jericho of KSGF or read JackeHammer? Are they supposed to find out what their constituents are interested in by reading the News-Leader forums? Is the Missouri Liberty Coalition going to inform them for you? Maybe if you leave a comment at busplunge or write a letter to the editor of the Community Free Press they'll know how you want them to react? How you want to be represented?
They listen to that show, they read those papers and blogs, believe me, I know, but when you speak at City Council meetings, when you take time out of your life to show you are passionate enough to attend a meeting, that is when they take you seriously, that is when they are prepared to listen. I think it's safe to say anything less than getting involved in the formal process is considered as so much sour grapes by Council and city staff.
When Councilwoman Rushefsky told me that the 68 citizens who had applied to be a part of the City Manager Search Committee was a good amount of people I was surprised. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised and I'm struggling not to be pessimistic. I'm struggling not to be frustrated over the lack of interest in the City Manager's Search Committee Town Hall meeting last night and I'm struggling that no one had any comment at the Council meeting last night about the City and C.U. unnecessarily donating $20,000 each for a Partnership for Sustainability, HELLO?
Vince summed it up well on his program this morning. The State Auditor was as strong in her opinion as she could be from her position when she said she believed C.U. was violating the state constitution by contributing to such alliances, by contributing to charitable organizations from profits that a public utility shouldn't be making in the first place. I guess it doesn't matter, or it matters but it only matters as an issue to be complained about after it is approved, not when complaining could make a difference in the actual outcome of a bill.
I can report what citizens say at City Council meetings. I can write glowing articles about how citizens made a difference in city government but first they have to make a difference or there simply isn't anything to report.
"Present to answer questions were City Manager Bob Cumley, Police Chief Lynn Rowe, Traffic Engineer Earl Newman, Parks Director Jodie Adams, Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith, City Utilities Associate General Manager Scott Miller, and Public Information Director Louise Whall." ~ Community Free Press - Midweek Dec.19-Jan. 1, 2008.
Wiley may not be a perfect Councilman (I haven't met one yet) but even though there have been some years he's been disappointed by the turn out at his annual meeting he has kept having it! He kept having it because he told the people who voted for him that he'd have an annual Town Hall meeting so, whether those voters take advantage of the opportunity or not Wiley has kept his word and whether you like John Wiley or think he is a good Councilman or not he should be commended for it.
Look again at the list of people that he made available to answer questions at the last Town Hall meeting! They didn't HAVE to be there, folks. There they were, on a week night, honoring Wiley and YOU by volunteering to show up to answer people's questions....look at the line up! Wiley was right to be appreciative that they took time out of their busy lives to be there for people in Zones 2 and 4 to question.
About 50 people took advantage of it. 50 people.
I'm sorry folks, all the complaining about a "good old boy network," about how our City's staff doesn't do a good job, well, there they were. You could have asked them anything. They could have answered or they could have waffled, regardless, it would have offered some insight into how our city's government works.
City Council members have a responsibility to represent their constituents. Do their constituents have a responsibility to let them know how they would like to be represented? Are they just supposed to know how their constituents feel about issues as they come up? Maybe they're supposed to listen to Vincent David Jericho of KSGF or read JackeHammer? Are they supposed to find out what their constituents are interested in by reading the News-Leader forums? Is the Missouri Liberty Coalition going to inform them for you? Maybe if you leave a comment at busplunge or write a letter to the editor of the Community Free Press they'll know how you want them to react? How you want to be represented?
They listen to that show, they read those papers and blogs, believe me, I know, but when you speak at City Council meetings, when you take time out of your life to show you are passionate enough to attend a meeting, that is when they take you seriously, that is when they are prepared to listen. I think it's safe to say anything less than getting involved in the formal process is considered as so much sour grapes by Council and city staff.
When Councilwoman Rushefsky told me that the 68 citizens who had applied to be a part of the City Manager Search Committee was a good amount of people I was surprised. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised and I'm struggling not to be pessimistic. I'm struggling not to be frustrated over the lack of interest in the City Manager's Search Committee Town Hall meeting last night and I'm struggling that no one had any comment at the Council meeting last night about the City and C.U. unnecessarily donating $20,000 each for a Partnership for Sustainability, HELLO?
Vince summed it up well on his program this morning. The State Auditor was as strong in her opinion as she could be from her position when she said she believed C.U. was violating the state constitution by contributing to such alliances, by contributing to charitable organizations from profits that a public utility shouldn't be making in the first place. I guess it doesn't matter, or it matters but it only matters as an issue to be complained about after it is approved, not when complaining could make a difference in the actual outcome of a bill.
I can report what citizens say at City Council meetings. I can write glowing articles about how citizens made a difference in city government but first they have to make a difference or there simply isn't anything to report.
“I don’t think most people understand how much influence they have on what government does,” Rushefsky said. “It carries a major impact and actually relieves a lot of the burden of governing because, as an elected official, you want to be responsive to their needs.” ~ CFP Midweek - December 19 issue, Citizens Helped Change City in 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Talk is cheap - Thoughts on C.U. General Manager John Twitty's comments on the Vincent David Jericho Program, December 21, 2007
Okay, I've gotta say this about this:
What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.
Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?
The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.
Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:
As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.
The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.
Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.
This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.
Twitty said:
My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.
Talk is cheap.
*emphasis mine.
December 21_6:50am_What does CU have to say about things in the Audit
Friday, December 21, 2007 - 42 - Guest John Twitty, General Manager of C.U.
What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.
Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?
The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.
Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:
"It's again, Vince, I think, an area that's ripe for some really good DISCUSSION and we intend to address that one in particular because it is such a policy based or philosophical CONVERSATION and those questions that you ask are certainly fair.
I would say that we would never, ever, at City Utilities, do anything, KNOWINGLY, to violate either the constitution or any statute, whether federal or state or the city charter, so if there are things that we need to do differently on a going forward basis in this area we certainly want to do them in a way that is acceptable and supported by the community."*
As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.
The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.
Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.
This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.
Twitty said:
"If there are some of these kind of things that give people heartburn or heartache then I want to engage in the dialog with them to give them the information to at least from their own opinion."*
My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.
Talk is cheap.
*emphasis mine.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Vincent David Jericho interviewed and hosted question and answers with Susan Montee about C.U. Audit December 19, 2007
"I was highly offended by the suggestion that we just wouldn't understand because they're way too special." --- State Auditor Susan Montee regarding C.U.'s questioning about whether the State Auditor's office was qualified to audit a large utility company
Listen to more of what Susan Montee had to say on the Vincent David Jericho Program this morning:
December 19_7:50am_Could we be paying less for our utilitiesWednesday, December 19, 2007 - 22
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:00am_Should the be a profit on city owned utilitiesWednesday, December 19, 2007 - 19
*A Must Listen!
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:30am_What questions came out of the audit on CU Pt 1Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 9
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:50am_ What questions came out of the audit on CU Pt 2Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 8
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
