Dying Longton, Part Nine; City Hall’s Lack of Transparency

[CCarl]

City Hall's Lack of Transparency            Copyright © MMXXII CCarl

I've lived in one other very poor county. It was poor because of permanently, and seasonally, laid off miners and logging industry workers. And those layoffs were due to regulatory requirements, not to lack of supply of resources, nor poor demand for products, nor an incompetent workforce. Its county seat was much like Howard, and its four other communities had one grocery store among them, and very few paved roads. But that county was different in one major way, the residents of that county had fire in their bellies. They were activists about things happening in the county, and they contested their town's governance.

I do not sense that Longton has any fire in it's belly. I do see that the Forum views of these Dying Longton posts seem to be higher than views of the political posts made a few years back by redcliffsw and wake-up, now both long gone. The Forum view numbers are good to see, but, as usual, there is very little comment. And that comes across to me as folks just shrugging their shoulders in helplessness. So I am going to double down on some posts that I hope will instill a little fire in the bellies of some readers. All it takes to make change are a few. Are you one?

City Hall lacks transparency. By that I mean it acts on things without seeking any significant input from the town residents, and it fails to disclose to us. It's kind of a 'give us your money, then go away' attitude. Here is the latest example. The January 2023 minutes state that the Council approved folks to positions in municipal court and other city offices. Did Council ask us for our input? Not that I heard or read. Why not, those folks are there to serve us? Shouldn't we be informed what their qualifications are, how much they are paid, what jobs they routinely do for the City, how often they do those jobs, how many choices there are for each position, etc? Why doesn't Council ask us what people we want appointed? But nothing like that comes from the City. We do not even get a Council agenda so we know what will be discussed for any of the Council meetings. We are essentially ignored, at least until the City and County governments collect property taxes from us.

You want another example of lack of transparency? Read, or reread, Post Three on surveillance cameras. How many of us were informed of that action ahead of time? Where was the questionnaire asking if we wanted cameras, or not, regardless of how much money was spent on them? Where was the public comment period for such expensive purchases? How many of you have had a Council member contact you and ask your opinion on this, or some other possible Council action? That lack of transparency falls on the Mayor's and Council members' shoulders.

And what of the taxpayer money spent for those cameras? It was paid [or will be] to the owner of the remodeled cafe, who happens to be affiliated with the company [Protec] where the City bought the cameras. Is partial security of that cafe now going to be recorded by a camera paid for by taxpayers? Is that one of those scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situations? Is that lawful, i.e., public funds spent for private gain? I know it is not ethical. But if our government cared about ethics, it would be more open and forthcoming, and I wouldn't feel compelled to post several dozen times.

And now there is a questionnaire for us to answer, as if the City is truly interested in our input. The questionnaire says the Council wants our input, but the January minutes say the Mayor wants it. What a charade! We all know it's the Mayor agenda, don't we? The Mayor pushed that agenda a year ago, and now the perceived problem has grown to be called a blight. The Mayor is the one pushing an issue of abandoned buildings and used trailers, as if they have no value to the owners, because they have no value to the Mayor. The Mayor is pressuring poor folks to move away, according to this agenda. Call it the Blight Questionnaire, because the questionnaire tells us there is a blight, as if the wording will psych us into believing we have one! I have news for the Mayor, we have no blight in this town, we have a way of life in this town. We need not judge how others live on their private properties, we only need to judge how we live on our own properties. The government need not judge any of us. Of that, the Mayor, and possibly a few Council members, are ignorant. And I am not the only one who needs to tell them so.

City Hall also lacks fiscal transparency. The City only received two bids on those cameras mentioned above, according to a conversation with the city clerk. That is simply not enough bids to determine what camera [or any other purchase] costs can be considered competitive, and what are not. The City needs to see half a dozen bids, and the more the merrier. BUT, what is most ridiculous is that City Hall did not advertise to its own residents for someone who may buy and sell on the internet, and just may have the ability to put together a package deal of cameras at a significant savings to taxpayers. AND, if the camera money were spent locally, it would stay in our local economy, as much as that is possible in a dying local economy. It is that action of buying locally that will help our town by supporting its residents. Financially supporting Protec Inc, ninety miles away in a town of half a million people is NOT helping us, it is not thinking or acting locally. It is City negligence, and it is economically hurting our community. We need to change that.

Let's look at the latest bad choice of hiding the cost of running our government, look at the purchase of the old Pizza business for a City Hall. No one in government has shown the residents and taxpayers a detailed and comprehensive cost proposal for the purchase and remodel of that building. We have not seen an iota of due diligence, as if the purchase is not the residents' concern, as if we do not matter, as if the money spent is not ours. The City has not given us any idea of remodeling material costs, labor costs, utility costs, clean-up costs, nor insurance or annual maintenance costs. I will wager those costs have not even been looked at comprehensively. If I'm wrong, show the public the spreadsheet. Neither have remodeling options that might save money. We have zero information on any of that. It appears the project is moving forward without regard to a total investment cost to the taxpayers.

Isn't that just how government works, soak the taxpayer, write a grant proposal, seek state and federal monies, and ask for donations? Still not enough dough, well then, maybe just divert some funds earmarked for firefighting [for example] to the new city hall. Not enough yet, well, we can always raise property taxes. Let's vote on that, For, For, Against, Against, For . . . yep, passed 3 to 2, just City Council business as usual. That is exactly what has unfolded in our City government this past year on numerous fronts. How does it feel [after they take from you everything they can steal]? LOL

An option of framing out, say twenty percent of the City firehouse was not developed into a comprehensive budget for public review. Why not? We can do with a small City Hall. The intent is for function, not appearances, isn't it? Hey, wasn't City Hall in the same building as the fire department back in the day? Wasn't that Brighton Hall? It worked then, why not now? No need to spend $30,000 buying more property, it is already City-owned. And the partitioning inside would be much less expensive than the work on the pizza building! I'll wager that is a least expensive alternative for a City Hall [outside of leaving it where it is], AND THE CITY DID NOT PROVIDE THE RESIDENTS ANY COMPREHENSIVE COST OF THIS OPTION. Why not? Do you believe we are too dumb to think it through? Or might the City end up with a new office space that wouldn't fit its collective ego? [As an aside here, at some point residents need to question why they are paying for the duplicity of two fire departments.]

Other options like a new building behind the existing City Hall have not been explored with dollar numbers provided to the public. New is almost always cheaper than remodel/upgrade. But we get nothing of significance from City government on that possible option. And there is the biggest crime here, City government does not give a shinola about us, apparently it does not feel it is accountable to us. It is, and it is time a lot of us let them know who is in charge.

Speaking of budgets, how about presenting us a complete annual operating budget for the City. Hmmm? In this case, Mayor, I am finger pointing directly at you. You are in charge of the City's various departments, at least according to State regulations for Class 3 cities. So where is the budget? Show us. And I do not mean the simple cash in-flow 'budget' that was reviewed last summer, you know, the one that was only based around the previous two year's of revenue as a model for this year's budget.

What I mean is how ALL the money is spent, how it is apportioned among the various departments, and what portions of it are spent on wages, equipment, facilities, utilities, insurance, etc, in each department. And those costs should be broken out as mandatory costs, as in an employee wage, versus discretionary costs, i.e., ones that do not need to be spent. That allows the taxpayer and the Council to fiscally evaluate, for example, whether to hot patch, cold patch, or gravel-fill our pot-holed streets; it also allows examination of whether a piece of equipment, say a motor with 5000 hours on it, should be rebuilt, a new one purchased, or if the equipment it is on should be retired/replaced. Without specific monetary out-flow numbers, none of that economic decision making is valid. And, of course without such an expense budget there is no way for an accountant, or a taxpayer, to 1) determine where budgets are too fat and money can be saved, and 2) see where funds are being removed from the books unlawfully. Oh, I'm not finger pointing too harshly at you, Mayor. The same lack of transparency, not to mention due diligence, was in force with the mayor before you, and the mayor-before-the-mayor-before-you, no doubt. But you are on the hot seat now. And your re-election may very well be partially dependent on budgetary transparency.

The taxpayers have a right to review and approve comprehensive budgets for city departments, for city projects, and for overall city annual operations. The City is NOT providing us that opportunity. When city leaders are not transparent in the city's operations and expenses, power must be removed from their chairs and returned to the residents. The solution to this problem may lie in a change in the town's ordinances. That will be discussed in a Forum post down the road, probably well after our gardens are in. There is a lot of other ground to cover first. In the meantime, read all these posts and let City Hall know what you are thinking. Talk among your friends, and post on the Forum. Communication is necessary. It is okay to speak out. It is also okay to be outspoken. Get some fire going in the City's belly.

[lilakerr]

Online exams are a great way to assess students' knowledge and skills in a timely and cost-effective manner. Through online exams, students can take tests from anywhere in the world at any time, providing greater flexibility and convenience.

[upoladeb]

The city took the only viable place to have a grocery store and are making it a office ,some towns have remodeled grocery stores and rented them out,im with they should be back in the fire station or the front of the city shop