In the Teflon Suit
This commission, unlike their predecessors, opted out of filing and approving quarterly financials as part of the commission meeting “Consent Agenda.” As a result, quarterly financials have not formally been approved by the commission since August 2007. More distressing is that this policy was not reversed even after the million-dollar loan debacle and after multiple requests from citizens to do so.
Now, the commission voted to ask our residents to approve a change so that our Finance Director reports to the revolving-door City Manager instead of serving at the pleasure of the City Commission. If the charter amendment passes on March 10, IRB’s CFO will cease reporting directly to our elected representatives and will become answerable to an individual who doesn't represent us.
At a time when finances deserve the most focus, why is our commission taking steps to back away from the responsibility? Is this commission more worried about insulating themselves from liability for incorrect financials, obviously flawed accounting practices and poor decision-making than in looking out for our collective butts?
When the subject of this charter amendment was addressed at the commission meeting, most in attendance (labeled the “yowlers” when in disagreement) opposed putting this issue on the ballot. Commissioner Wollin went so far as to state that the Finance Director hasn’t always been a charter officer position. That appears to be incorrect info from the individual who seemed to be the driving force behind making this change. Former Mayor-Commissioner Ed Piniero pointed out that the Finance Director has been a charter officer position from Day 1 of IRB’s incorporation and making this change poses a serious threat to a much-needed system of checks and balances.
Realizing that the commission was hell-bent on this issue gracing the March ballot, I focused my three minutes of public comment on suggesting changes to the wording of the amendment. I saw it as pretty much of a done-deal that it would be put before our residents for a vote, so we might as well at least give citizens a fighting chance of understanding what they are voting on. My suggested changes were adopted.
Last I heard, there has been no luck in finding someone to speak on the “pro” position for this charter amendment at Candidate’s Night this Wednesday. By contrast, there is a line out the door of City Hall and around the block all the way to the Red Lion of individuals who want to speak in opposition. Is this a change that only a few commissioners are in favor of? Who are these commissioners representing up there--us or themselves?
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)
This commission, unlike their predecessors, opted out of filing and approving quarterly financials as part of the commission meeting “Consent Agenda.” As a result, quarterly financials have not formally been approved by the commission since August 2007. More distressing is that this policy was not reversed even after the million-dollar loan debacle and after multiple requests from citizens to do so.
Now, the commission voted to ask our residents to approve a change so that our Finance Director reports to the revolving-door City Manager instead of serving at the pleasure of the City Commission. If the charter amendment passes on March 10, IRB’s CFO will cease reporting directly to our elected representatives and will become answerable to an individual who doesn't represent us.
At a time when finances deserve the most focus, why is our commission taking steps to back away from the responsibility? Is this commission more worried about insulating themselves from liability for incorrect financials, obviously flawed accounting practices and poor decision-making than in looking out for our collective butts?
When the subject of this charter amendment was addressed at the commission meeting, most in attendance (labeled the “yowlers” when in disagreement) opposed putting this issue on the ballot. Commissioner Wollin went so far as to state that the Finance Director hasn’t always been a charter officer position. That appears to be incorrect info from the individual who seemed to be the driving force behind making this change. Former Mayor-Commissioner Ed Piniero pointed out that the Finance Director has been a charter officer position from Day 1 of IRB’s incorporation and making this change poses a serious threat to a much-needed system of checks and balances.
Realizing that the commission was hell-bent on this issue gracing the March ballot, I focused my three minutes of public comment on suggesting changes to the wording of the amendment. I saw it as pretty much of a done-deal that it would be put before our residents for a vote, so we might as well at least give citizens a fighting chance of understanding what they are voting on. My suggested changes were adopted.
Last I heard, there has been no luck in finding someone to speak on the “pro” position for this charter amendment at Candidate’s Night this Wednesday. By contrast, there is a line out the door of City Hall and around the block all the way to the Red Lion of individuals who want to speak in opposition. Is this a change that only a few commissioners are in favor of? Who are these commissioners representing up there--us or themselves?
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)
6 comments:
it may too much for the yowlers to understand, but a part of the reason IRB cannot keep a good city manager is the four charter positions. look at other cities and you do not see a treasurer as a charter officer. but then again, the yowlers do not want good government, just control (see former Mayor O for example)
Welcome Back LYO, you are right once again. It is all Bill O's fault, heck he is responsible for the credit crunch, the housing crisis, our failure to find WOMD, unemployment and the recession. What else can we blame him for?? Who else from our past can we put blame on for the problems of today? How about former city attorney Andy, of course we need to blame Ed P and Jimmy and who else??? We certainly cannot blame the "Untouchables" currently blessing us with their omniscient "Not of the People" practice of the last two years!
dear fruitcake,
do not forget about the other former commissioner who drank/continues to drink like the fish who swim past his dock...
Bring back Leo's Trumverant, ockunzi, carmody and palamara!
The cut the tax rate, kept the sewer and solid waste systems solvent, pushed through more substantive improvements to the code and heard the people in town meetings, special meetings etc. than these five special interest commissioners could dream of acomplishing.
The problems started when ockunzi would not be leo's mole and jose and wollin stepped in to fill the void.
Remember when it was fun to go to a commission meeting and they listened, answered questions and actually helped people.
Perhaps Wollin will speak in favor of the PRO position since she was the author of it. Lets hear it Terry, why should we vote for it?
Isn't Wolling on the board of a2000?
Maybe she can explain the study and comp. plan amendments and who benefits.
Post a Comment