A $3,000 Door!
I was witness to the rather unpleasant way citizens can be treated at City Hall sometimes. While paying a utility bill, a citizen came in to request a look at a city document. I believe it had to do with candidate names for the upcoming election. It was not the first request, and the citizen was told that the mayor had the folder and was busy talking with the city administrator. The citizen chose to knock on the mayor's door and ask to look a the folder briefly. His request was denied and some tense words were exchanged. The mayor's response was to call the chief of police into city hall and have the citizen arrested for disturbing the peace! In fact I was asked by the chief to provide a report, but was unable to provide much detail because I was around the corner and could not see definitively who said what. The county attorney decided not to pursue this frivolous action.
Some time later, the mayor decided on a permanent solution to those pesky citizens and their requests to see public documents. The construction work at the pool was moving along, and the mayor asked the glass crew about installing a door between the city hall lobby and the hallway. The decision was made by the mayor and/or administrator without council approval and the door was installed at a cost of $2,995.
What did we get for this money? We got a seven foot high glass door with two seven-foot high glass panels on the side. The door has a key lock. However, it must remain unlocked during business hours. After hours, the lock does no good because the wall stops two to three feet short of the ceiling allowing any fit person to crawl over. The mayor plans to add a buzzer lock to allow the administrative staff to buzz people in. Having no buzzer yet, there is simply a paper sign on an unlocked door instructing visitors to check in before entering the hallway to visit city officials or even use the drinking fountain or restroom.
The Big Bend Sentinel covered this issue and stated that the door was commissioned by Lanman. The mayor claimed to have a $3,000 spending limit. How curious that the door came in just five dollars below the mayor's alleged spending limit. One wonders what shenanigans went on between the mayor and the contractor to allow them to spend the maximum amount of money that the mayor can authorize.
But wait! Upon further research, it turns out that the mayor has NO SPENDING AUTHORITY without council approval. Zero dollars. It is the City Administrator that has a $3,000 spending limit for administrative purposes without getting council approval. When asked who authorized the expenditure, the administrator said he thought it was a good idea when he first arrived but that the mayor had pushed for this door. Knowing that the mayor is not authorized to spend this money, he took the fall to claim responsibility for authorizing the expense without council approval. When asked about this issue at the July 27 council meeting, the administrator promised to seek clarification from the attorney. No word yet.
1. This is a terrible misuse of city money, no matter who authorized it.
2. The mayor negotiated for the door and ordered its installation without authority to spend money.
3. The administrator covered for him and claimed responsibility for the expense.
Think of all the departments that could use that kind of money! What kind of life-saving equipment and supplies could EMS purchase? What could the nutrition center do with $3,000 worth of kitchen equipment? Does the police department have all that it needs to maintain safety? I know that the public works department cannot even afford to purchase the equipment required to determine if lead-solder is used in plumbing installations. We put a city employee in a shed at the compost area without water, sewer, electricity or telephone because of cost issues. And don't even think about raises for employees.
This is troubling for many reasons. The mayor has authorized expenses without the council's approval. The mayor has wasted city money in order to isolate himself from citizens. The city administrator covered for the mayor when he should have reported this to council (who he reports to). City council looked the other way instead of formally reprimanding the mayor. No accountability in any direction.
posted by RobC at 2:24 PM
4 Comments:
Thank you, Rob. I must say, a fair and accurate representation of the events of that fateful day.
Wait, that ain't all. Flo told that $700 for the door came out of Municipal Court Technology Funds. Per Texas Statute Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 102.0172, this is "a fund designated by this article may be used ONLY to financ the purchase of or to maintain TECHNOLOGICAL enhancements for a municipal court." examples: computer systems, hardware, software. No doors.
Re the door expense:
In tape of 7/27 meeting, Flo first said the doors came from the $5,218.00 in the Administrative Capital Outlay Fund. Then he said he used the Municipal Court Security Fund to pay for the doors. Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 102.017: create a municipal court building security fund from $3 security fee charged to certain types of defendants. There is no Municipal Court Security Fund in the Municipal Court Budget (the door would have been eligible).
What there is: line item 1.04 551.00 Technology Fund. This can be spent ONLY on techological enhancements.
What is this man doing with the city budget??
Can't wait to see what happens at the budget meeting. Agenda item is a Proposed 2006 agenda. That would be changes that Flo has had recently typed into the September 2006 budget that was approved by the council in 2005. This is where the door and illegal raise, for instance, will be covered up if the Council accepts this. Still no public hearings, no workshops. Making amendments to an approved budget should be done with line item budget transfers individually by each individual department fund. For example, we hear that Flo created a Municipal Court Security fund out of thin air and plugged in money from another budget fund. This is illegal. But so are many of the other like transfers he and the Mayor have done. Where is Council member Martinez on this? He should know better.
Post a Comment
<< Home