Who In The Hell Is Authorizing This Stuff?
In a surprise move, the IRB City Commission voted at the November 13th meeting to approve another nearly $300K adjustment (in a negative direction!) to the prior year’s budget (FY ’07-’08). Then, this year’s budget for FY ’08-’09 was adopted (for the third time!) a week later on November 20th. This third go-around was required by the Department of Revenue to fix an only slightly incorrect figure used for IRB's property valuation figure. It allegedly had nothing at all to do with the prior year adjustment. Hmmm.
Think about it…if the prior year’s revenue was adjusted downward by $300K, wouldn’t this reduce the amount of carry forward from last year to this year’s budget? One would think so. However, that is not what is reflected when comparing the most recently published budget to the one published prior to the commission authorizing the $300K downward adjustment. Was the revenue reduction reflected in the most recently adopted budget approved this past week? When the commission was asked that precise question, Commissioner-Mayor R.B. Johnson’s response…“YES.”
What does that mean? Since the most recent budget published didn’t change by $300K from the budgets advertised BEFORE the commission voted to amend last year’s budget, there is only one possible explanation: THE PRIOR-YEAR BUDGET HAD ALREADY BEEN AMENDED BEFORE THE COMMISSION EVER VOTED TO DO SO. Was the valuation screw-up fortuitous in that it allowed the commission to sanction the adjustment and then re-approve this year's budget a week later? If the commission didn't vote on this amendment to the budget until November 13th yet the adjustment was made well prior to that date, who approved it the first place? Is it the same person who authorized nearly a $1 million dollars in loans that we are now all being forced to repay?
Why aren’t our city commissioners livid enough about these mysterious “Casper the Ghost” approvals to insist the public be provided with answers? Only Commissioner Kennedy voted NO to approve the $300K adjustment—is this perhaps why? The other four commissioners seem intent on sliding this stuff through under the radar screen. Why do you think that is? Who are they protecting and why?
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
In a surprise move, the IRB City Commission voted at the November 13th meeting to approve another nearly $300K adjustment (in a negative direction!) to the prior year’s budget (FY ’07-’08). Then, this year’s budget for FY ’08-’09 was adopted (for the third time!) a week later on November 20th. This third go-around was required by the Department of Revenue to fix an only slightly incorrect figure used for IRB's property valuation figure. It allegedly had nothing at all to do with the prior year adjustment. Hmmm.
Think about it…if the prior year’s revenue was adjusted downward by $300K, wouldn’t this reduce the amount of carry forward from last year to this year’s budget? One would think so. However, that is not what is reflected when comparing the most recently published budget to the one published prior to the commission authorizing the $300K downward adjustment. Was the revenue reduction reflected in the most recently adopted budget approved this past week? When the commission was asked that precise question, Commissioner-Mayor R.B. Johnson’s response…“YES.”
What does that mean? Since the most recent budget published didn’t change by $300K from the budgets advertised BEFORE the commission voted to amend last year’s budget, there is only one possible explanation: THE PRIOR-YEAR BUDGET HAD ALREADY BEEN AMENDED BEFORE THE COMMISSION EVER VOTED TO DO SO. Was the valuation screw-up fortuitous in that it allowed the commission to sanction the adjustment and then re-approve this year's budget a week later? If the commission didn't vote on this amendment to the budget until November 13th yet the adjustment was made well prior to that date, who approved it the first place? Is it the same person who authorized nearly a $1 million dollars in loans that we are now all being forced to repay?
Why aren’t our city commissioners livid enough about these mysterious “Casper the Ghost” approvals to insist the public be provided with answers? Only Commissioner Kennedy voted NO to approve the $300K adjustment—is this perhaps why? The other four commissioners seem intent on sliding this stuff through under the radar screen. Why do you think that is? Who are they protecting and why?
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
2 comments:
We clearly have a voting block (dumb, dumber and RB).
None of the Commissioners are looking out for, much less care about, the citizens interests and needs. A bunch of prima donnas, too timid and too self absorbed.
Someone needs to start impeachment proceedings against RB Johnson...He is useless as a mayor and wasn't all that good a commissioner. I only he were up for re-election in March.
Post a Comment