Rhonda asked me to mention that there were a couple of agenda items that she did not report on involving budget items, and I agreed to comment on them. The only two objections we raise to these type of budget items is that the federal government exercises control of local affairs by providing funding with strings attached, and that they often take from many citizens to benefit a few.
Hal
CCTA Watchdog Report for New Bern Board of Aldermen Meeting - 12 March 2013
By Rhonda Taylor.
Mayor Bettis began adjudicating the evening's agenda as he usually does for a Board meeting that offers the Petition of Citizens segment: by reading the admonishment to citizen petitioners that they shall "not expect any comments, action or deliberation from the board on any issue raised during the public comment period". To illustrate why such a rule is detrimental to the taxpaying public and American citizens in general, Ms. Stevie Bennett, who was the 2nd petitioner, used her 4 minute allotment to ask a few important questions of this Board. Question Nr (1) Why had she not received a response to the letter she sent to City Manager Epperson on 2-14-13 via certified, signed receipt return mail? Question Nr (2) What was the status of the city providing her information that she requested of it on 2-12-13 regarding why the city needed to hire an out-of-town attorney to represent it in the Raynor v. City of New Bern litigation? She had asked the Board this question at the February Board Petition segment. At that time she noted that the taxpayers already pay Mr. Davis as the City Attorney so why did they also need to pay an additional attorney - one outside of New Bern at that? So, this is the second time she has had to repeat asking her questions before this Board as they have yet to respond. And, as Mayor Bettis reads to the meeting's audience every month, not only is it possible that she won't receive any responses or answers, but she'll not know she's not going to get those answers until an indeterminate time of waiting has passed without hearing from the city? Now that's what I call receptive and responsible government! (sarcasm off). Nonresponsiveness and lack of communication, as chronicled in this situation, between elected officials and their public only serves to aggravate and promote mistrust, dissatisfaction, and unrest with all parties: the elected officials, city staff and the constituency. One other important question posed by her was why does the City no longer provide hard copies of the Land Use Ordinance or Historic Preservation Commission guidelines to citizens? Good question. How does the city expect it's citizens to comply with its regulations if it is only going to make them available to the computer savvy public? That excludes those citizens who are not computer literate or who cannot afford to own a computer or smartphone or who cannot get to a source that offers free access to either? If a citizen who meets this criteria is found to be not in compliance I'll wager that not having access to a computer to view those ordinances will not be a defense. More importantly, these citizens are voters and taxpayers. Ms Bennett having to repeat her petition at multiple Board meetings is not unique. Since Mayor Bettis instituted these Petition of Citizens paramenters there have been several citizens who have been visibly frustrated at the lack of Board member response. I choose not mention their names though I do know who they are. And it's truly not important is it? The important point is that our elected municipal Board is unresponsive in the people's forum of City Hall as regards this issue provided for in the NC general statutes. Yes it is legal. However, my research of other NC towns' Petition of Citizens customs informs me that while there is usually a time alottment of 4 or 5 minutes, boards commonly allow respectful conversation between their members and the citizens to allow and promote resolution of their issues. My personal experience at New Bern aldermen meetings over the past two decades allows me to say that this restriction was not instituted prior to this administration. Regardless, it is not conducive for a good relationship with the constituency. One doesn't know if they've been heard, the content of their issue understood or how, if or when they can expect any remedy to what is to them an important issue. I have to give Ms. Bennett props on getting the Mayor to give her a response; however it was a get well wish to recover from her cold. I hope she recovers nicely also - but for selfish reasons. We citizens need her to advocate on our behalf. Thank you Ms. Bennett!
The first petitioner was a current candidate for the mayoral seat in the Oct 2013 election, Edwin Vargas. His petition involved asking the Board to validate the taxpayers' money (appx $400K) that was spent in 15 months of closed sessions to intervene in the Duke Power-Progress Energy merger. He remarked that the spreadsheet he received from the city Electric Dept Dir Jon Rynne was difficult to decipher and to reconcile with the previous information he had received from the Finance Dept. He also requested that the Board deliver a briefing to the public at the next BOA meeting about: New Bern's activities in the merger, deliver an expense report, explain what we gained in return and also explain why we continue to allocate funds for legal action.
During discussion of Agenda Items 12 & 13, awarding the contract for and adopting a budget ordinance for South Front Streetscape Improvements in Ward 1, I heard Alderman Bengel point out the presence of CCTA's Hal James and refer to him as "the Tax Man". She made an effort to explain that this project was being funded by $50K of MSD (Municipal Service District) funds and voiced her desire that he and the public fully understood about this funding for the project which is in her ward. The MSD funds are generated from a tax previously agreed upon by the downtown residents wherein they pay an extra one-third amount above their required city taxes to be used only for projects that benefit their district.
This reporter's observation of the Board's mood is that they seemed more responsive to the constituents' opinions that have been expressed through the local media of late. A few of the aldermen took extra time to throughly explain the budget ordinance amendments and the city's Finance Dir Mr. Fiaschetti was asked by the aldermen to elaborate even more than usual. I formed the impression that they were taking great care to ensure the public understood all they were doing as well as attempting to address some items that the public has expressed concern about due to the information coming out of the past three Board meetings (the Retreat of 2-16, the regular 2-26 mtg, the "special called" mtg of 3-6). This is a good move that needs to continue up to and well past the October city elections.
Agenda Item 15 dealt with approval of the minutes from the January 22, 2013 regular Board meeting. Mayor Bettis asked were the minutes up for approval this evening "from the Retreat?". This was in reference to the heated deliberations at the 2-26-13 regular Board meeting regarding the public & local media queries to the Board as to whether the Retreat was afforded proper public noticing and whether the city manager bonus of $30K was proposed or approved at that time. Alderman Bengel appropriately interjected her motion to approve the intended agenda item minutes of Jan 22nd which was unanimously approved.
That item being quickly disposed of, Alderman Outlaw, taking the Mayor's queue, asked if they were going to address or approve the Feb 16th Retreat minutes or not? This prompted Alderman Bengel to ask City Attorney Davis's advice on how to proceed. He advised (1) that it was allowable to have this discussion despite the fact that it was not on the agenda but (2) that it would be best if all the Board members had those minutes in front of them. Mayor Bettis then gave a refresher on the City Attorney's brief during the March 6th "special" meeting. The Board decided it best to take the City Attorney's advice and be prepared to discuss the Retreat minutes at the next Board meeting.
Still on the subject of meeting minutes, Alderman Outlaw points out that there are several prior Board meetings that have no published or posted minutes, that it would be wise for them to remedy that situation. The other Board members agreed. Mayor Bettis says to cull the list of meetings to find out which do not have minutes and expressed his opinion that it was important to remedy that issue. Alderman Bengel offered her assistance to City Clerk Mattocks in this endeavor. City Attorney Davis instructs that for the minutes that are lacking the Board needs to pull the files, their notes on their agenda copies and recreate a body of minutes for each meeting. This reporter has an issue with this activity. It is obvious that accuracy will suffer in all aspects of attempting to make a full public accounting of the Board's actions (actual events that occurred, monies allocated or dispersed, which aldermen took what position, etc.). The meetings that do not show minutes posted for them on the city website represent each year of this administration, beginning in 2010. But yes, once again, the Board will be considered to have come into legal compliance once it recreates these minutes.
Alderman Outlaw reiterates his interest in settling the approval of minutes for the Feb 16 Retreat "while it is fresh in their minds". He has read over what has been compiled as the minutes thus far and agrees with most of it except for the Retreat Agenda item dealing with the discussion of the proposal or approval of the amendment to the City Manager's employment contract to include the $10K annual bonus for each of the next 3 years. Alderman Bucher leads the other board members in stating they prefer to take the City Attorney's advice and discuss the Retreat minutes when they convene again and have them in front of them.
**Of note: I informed you in my report of 3-12-13 that an item to watch for was the BOA work session of March 19th wherein the Board would be discussing electric rates and electric fund transfers vice raising property taxes. I reported that in the BOA's Jan 15th work session that the Board said they would be discussing those issues "at the next work session". According to the city website that would indeed be March 19th. Well, they chose to discuss those topics at the Feb 16th Retreat. And since they did not arrange to have it taped or shown live on the City 3 TV PEG channel nor do they have approved minutes posted to the public we have no idea what the plans are for those extremely important issues!**
Readers may be satisfied to hear that once again, the Board validated the monthly $2.10 stormwater/drainage fee we're assessed by voicing their satisfaction and thankfulness for the hard work by the City Public Works Dept Stormwater Management Division in getting the drains and ditches free from debris and therefore, the storm waters flowing appropriately so as not to flood our neighborhoods and city streets. I hope the readers are seeing the same results and feeling the same satisfaction.
Also during the Announcements agenda item, Alderman Taylor commended the Sun Journal for their articles appearing in last Sunday's (Mar 10, 2013 edition) newspaper. This reporter is not sure if that was a well intentioned compliment or a sarcastic remark. I do know that there were thre articles appearing in the editorial section that dealt with the value and importance to the public of both local and national government bodies practicing transparency, holding open meetings and granting of information under the FOI Act. If that's what it takes to get his personal attention or the attention of any other elected official or government body, I say "thank you Sun Journal"! I wonder if he realized it was "Sunshine Week"? Of course, there were several more Sun Journal articles and citizen Letters to the Editor addressing the newspaper's and the public's negative reaction to the Board's activities during the week leading up to this evening's board meeting that could have added to his feeling compelled to remark on this subject.
The City Manager, Mr. Epperson, announced that the next work session would be March 19th. Topics include demo neglect issues and the other city's departments and boards presenting briefings on their activities, procedures and mission statements. The other boards are Planning & Zoning, Adjustments, and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
There was a closed session held to discuss former alderman Robert Raynor v. City of New Bern - the lawsuit about the current Board rescinding the healthcare ordinance which was approved by the previous Board. This ordinance provided for a healthcare policy to elected officials serving 16 years or more. This is the lawsuit that Ms. Bennett had questions about as I stated in the first paragraph above. I, too, am wondering how much this is going to cost the City - or should I say, us taxpayers. It will definitely be interesting to learn of the ruling.
Rhonda Taylor
No comments:
Post a Comment