Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Contributed by: Anonymous
There are two items that I've heard recently during City Council meetings. First, Brian Bain, in talking about his "5th Tuesday Forum" stated that 5 council members and about 20 citizens attended. How is this NOT a violation of the open meetings laws? Second, when discussions of the $1 ticket surcharge were presented by Mr. Leach, there was talk about the money being given to the Community Foundation (his reasoning was something like...because the city couldn't be trusted to handle that sum of money without spending it on something else). Well, my question is...How can this be done? I know the city can have outside management for it's investments, but the foundation is a non-profit, charitable organization. While they do a great service (this is nothing critical of the Foundation), GIVING them taxpayers money does not seem to be right, or legal. People need to understand that by giving the money to the foundation, that is essentially giving up ownership of those funds. The donor can suggest how the funds will be used, but they are no longer assets of the donor. There are also state statutes that limit the types of investments that cities can invest in. These don't apply to the foundation and their investment allocation would/should be more aggressive than the statutes would allow the city to invest on their own. Then there are the fees that the foundation and their investment managers charge...not exactly cheap. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a poor idea.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 17 2005 @ 09:48 AM MDT
Great questions!
I believe the answer to your first question (why can 5 council members be at the same meeting without violating open meeting laws,) is I believe that the City Clerk noticed the meeting, therefore allowing all the members of the council to attend if they wished.
The questions you have regarding the Foundation are really good questions, I'd like to hear a legal opinion of these questions.
Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Authored by: admin on Friday, June 17 2005 @ 10:16 AM MDT
I believe City Attorney Warren Kraft has already publicly stated that when the money goes to the foundation - great cause that it is - the foundation's board does have total control over how and when that money is spent. And while they would not likely say no to a request from the city for funds, that possibility does exist under the way the foundation is set up and operates. To "park" any surcharge funds with the foundation is a bad idea for this reason alone, I believe.
As I understand it and as David Leach Jr. suggested, the $1 per ticket surcharge would go toward future maintenance and upkeep of the amphitheater, as well as perhaps some future additions or improvements, etc. Since this is in a city park it, the maintenance of it is city responsibility. Therefore the sensible and most financially prudent decision would be to keep the money in city coffers and earmark it specifically for the amphitheater, if that is possible.
But one way or the other, if the city has the responsibility for maintaining the facility, then the city also has the responsibility of maintaining the money.
Our city council has previously misplaced responsibility of doling out monies for projects (i.e. Community Development Block Grant monies are now allocated based on recommendations from the foundation. This is wrong. The money is given to the city and the city needs to review disbursement requests and then make the final decision.) Let's hope this council doesn't abdicate its responsibility again by shifting it to the foundation.
I suspect we will hear a similar message from the city attorney when this item is discussed in July.
- Cheryl Hentz
Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Authored by: fmc6338 on Friday, June 17 2005 @ 03:03 PM MDT
You wrote: “Our city council has previously misplaced responsibility of doling out monies for projects (i.e. Community Development Block Grant monies are now allocated based on recommendations from the foundation. This is wrong. The money is given to the city and the city needs to review disbursement requests and then make the final decision.) Let's hope this council doesn't abdicate its responsibility again by shifting it to the foundation”.
While local business leaders continue to tout market principles they continue to suck on the teat of government. I believe that there is no real power with the city council, most members of the council are hoping to further their business careers and will follow whatever people like Leach want. David Leach has proven that he knows nothing of business and commitment to the community by coldheartedly selling off Leach in 2002, yet rather than a pariah he is still listened to by our city leaders. If our city continues to elect people with business acumen then we deserve the democracy we get.
---
War Is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
There are two items that I've heard recently during City Council meetings. First, Brian Bain, in talking about his "5th Tuesday Forum" stated that 5 council members and about 20 citizens attended. How is this NOT a violation of the open meetings laws? Second, when discussions of the $1 ticket surcharge were presented by Mr. Leach, there was talk about the money being given to the Community Foundation (his reasoning was something like...because the city couldn't be trusted to handle that sum of money without spending it on something else). Well, my question is...How can this be done? I know the city can have outside management for it's investments, but the foundation is a non-profit, charitable organization. While they do a great service (this is nothing critical of the Foundation), GIVING them taxpayers money does not seem to be right, or legal. People need to understand that by giving the money to the foundation, that is essentially giving up ownership of those funds. The donor can suggest how the funds will be used, but they are no longer assets of the donor. There are also state statutes that limit the types of investments that cities can invest in. These don't apply to the foundation and their investment allocation would/should be more aggressive than the statutes would allow the city to invest on their own. Then there are the fees that the foundation and their investment managers charge...not exactly cheap. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a poor idea.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 17 2005 @ 09:48 AM MDT
Great questions!
I believe the answer to your first question (why can 5 council members be at the same meeting without violating open meeting laws,) is I believe that the City Clerk noticed the meeting, therefore allowing all the members of the council to attend if they wished.
The questions you have regarding the Foundation are really good questions, I'd like to hear a legal opinion of these questions.
Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Authored by: admin on Friday, June 17 2005 @ 10:16 AM MDT
I believe City Attorney Warren Kraft has already publicly stated that when the money goes to the foundation - great cause that it is - the foundation's board does have total control over how and when that money is spent. And while they would not likely say no to a request from the city for funds, that possibility does exist under the way the foundation is set up and operates. To "park" any surcharge funds with the foundation is a bad idea for this reason alone, I believe.
As I understand it and as David Leach Jr. suggested, the $1 per ticket surcharge would go toward future maintenance and upkeep of the amphitheater, as well as perhaps some future additions or improvements, etc. Since this is in a city park it, the maintenance of it is city responsibility. Therefore the sensible and most financially prudent decision would be to keep the money in city coffers and earmark it specifically for the amphitheater, if that is possible.
But one way or the other, if the city has the responsibility for maintaining the facility, then the city also has the responsibility of maintaining the money.
Our city council has previously misplaced responsibility of doling out monies for projects (i.e. Community Development Block Grant monies are now allocated based on recommendations from the foundation. This is wrong. The money is given to the city and the city needs to review disbursement requests and then make the final decision.) Let's hope this council doesn't abdicate its responsibility again by shifting it to the foundation.
I suspect we will hear a similar message from the city attorney when this item is discussed in July.
- Cheryl Hentz
Two Items of Concern Regarding Recent City Council Meetings
Authored by: fmc6338 on Friday, June 17 2005 @ 03:03 PM MDT
You wrote: “Our city council has previously misplaced responsibility of doling out monies for projects (i.e. Community Development Block Grant monies are now allocated based on recommendations from the foundation. This is wrong. The money is given to the city and the city needs to review disbursement requests and then make the final decision.) Let's hope this council doesn't abdicate its responsibility again by shifting it to the foundation”.
While local business leaders continue to tout market principles they continue to suck on the teat of government. I believe that there is no real power with the city council, most members of the council are hoping to further their business careers and will follow whatever people like Leach want. David Leach has proven that he knows nothing of business and commitment to the community by coldheartedly selling off Leach in 2002, yet rather than a pariah he is still listened to by our city leaders. If our city continues to elect people with business acumen then we deserve the democracy we get.
---
War Is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 10:34 PM
<< Home