With all the discussion of who has "power" I wondered what the state statutes had to say.
19-646. City manager; powers; duties.
The powers and duties of the city manager shall be (1) to see that the laws and ordinances are enforced, (2) to appoint and remove all heads of departments and all subordinate officers and employees in the departments in both the classified and unclassified service, which appointments shall be upon merit and fitness alone, and in the classified service all appointments and removals shall be subject to the civil service provisions of the Civil Service Act, (3) to exercise control over all departments and divisions thereof that may be created by the council, (4) to attend all meetings of the council with the right to take part in the discussion but not to vote, (5) to recommend to the council for adoption such measures as he or she may deem necessary or expedient, (6) to prepare the annual budget and keep the council fully advised as to the financial condition and needs of the city, and (7) to perform such other duties as may be required of him or her by sections 19-601 to 19-648 or by ordinance or resolution of the council.
16-319. City attorney; duties; compensation; additional legal assistance.
The city attorney shall be the legal advisor of the council and city officers. The city attorney shall commence, prosecute, and defend all suits and actions necessary to be commenced, prosecuted, or defended on behalf of the city, or that may be ordered by the council. He shall attend meetings of the council and give them his opinion upon any matters submitted to him, either orally or in writing as may be required. The mayor and city council shall have the right to pay the city attorney additional compensation for legal services performed by him for the city or to employ additional legal assistance and to pay for such legal assistance out of the funds of the city. Whenever the mayor and city council have by ordinance so authorized, the board of public works shall have the right to pay the city attorney additional compensation for legal services performed by him for it or to employ additional legal assistance other than the city attorney and pay such legal assistance out of funds disbursed under the orders of the board of public works.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Map of Current City Limits
Because of all the comments on the post here, I thought it might be a good idea to put up a picture of the city limits on South 11th Ave.
I was at the council meeting a few years ago when Greg Huck was asking to have his development annexed. I don't remember the exact details, but as they discussed various annexation suggestions, Filsinger moved that Weiderspon's land be excluded from the annexation. People asked Weiderspon's opinion on the matter, and he said nothing.
Of course he abstained from the vote, but that is why his clinic sits on that strange peninsula of land that is surrounded by the city. In fact, the Verde Lane Dam is city property, just not technically in the city limits.
On the map below, the bright green line shows the current city limits. The words "CITY LIMITS" are OUTSIDE of the city limits. Click on the image to see it larger.
Setting Things Straight
My question for council regarding financial matters was derailed by the sudden panic that I might be making accusations. Let me set it straight.
I was not there to accuse, I was there to point out a few facts that I had gathered.
I requested information from the city offices about all funds paid to ALL city council members or to businesses owned by council members in the past 2 years.
Among those numbers were the travel reimbursement amounts paid to Gaston and Hiett. No big deal. No disclosure statements necessary.
I was not attempting to imply that Van Vleet had done anything wrong, only to point out that his last disclosure statement was signed in 1993, during a previous stint on council. I merely wanted to suggest that he consider filing a new form, if appropriate. He jumped to the conclusion that I was questioning his sale of iron to the city. I couldn't care less, as long as the relationship is disclosed properly. He has every right to do business with the city.
I merely wanted to point out that Weiderspon's disclosure is current and in order. If I have any question at all about his contract with the city, it would simply be to ask how the bills from him are reconciled against the services rendered.
Regarding Filsinger, my main point is that he has never filled out a financial disclosure form, required by law, to fully disclose the nature of his business dealings with the city. We know that he loans equipment to the city, but we don't know the city's obligation in return. A disclosure form would totally remedy the confusion over issues such as the Fedex matter discussed Tuesday. It would also stop ALL rumors of his intentions.
I checked again on Friday. No new disclosures have been done. Because I asked in an open meeting, they can no longer blame the city attorney for their own ignorance of the law. I will continue to check, and will let you know as soon as anything changes.
I was not there to accuse, I was there to point out a few facts that I had gathered.
I requested information from the city offices about all funds paid to ALL city council members or to businesses owned by council members in the past 2 years.
Among those numbers were the travel reimbursement amounts paid to Gaston and Hiett. No big deal. No disclosure statements necessary.
I was not attempting to imply that Van Vleet had done anything wrong, only to point out that his last disclosure statement was signed in 1993, during a previous stint on council. I merely wanted to suggest that he consider filing a new form, if appropriate. He jumped to the conclusion that I was questioning his sale of iron to the city. I couldn't care less, as long as the relationship is disclosed properly. He has every right to do business with the city.
I merely wanted to point out that Weiderspon's disclosure is current and in order. If I have any question at all about his contract with the city, it would simply be to ask how the bills from him are reconciled against the services rendered.
Regarding Filsinger, my main point is that he has never filled out a financial disclosure form, required by law, to fully disclose the nature of his business dealings with the city. We know that he loans equipment to the city, but we don't know the city's obligation in return. A disclosure form would totally remedy the confusion over issues such as the Fedex matter discussed Tuesday. It would also stop ALL rumors of his intentions.
I checked again on Friday. No new disclosures have been done. Because I asked in an open meeting, they can no longer blame the city attorney for their own ignorance of the law. I will continue to check, and will let you know as soon as anything changes.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The reason for the questions was public perception
I did say personnel file, mea culpa. What Bob asked for was "Why was the crew leader position created and by whose request."
The question to Bob was why would you ask for this the very next day after Palmer spoke out in a meeting? He has been in this job for 5 years. And by all accounts has done it very well. In speaking with people who work with and around him he is a very good employee. So again, why the day after? The public perception and the perception of some of the city employees was and is, "if you speak up we will get you." And the mayor said "How can we do anything, Gary runs the city?" Can he really not understand the threat felt when a councilman requests information on you? I have no power over council, but look how they felt when I questioned their actions.
I want to make it very clear. I did not say Bob is a bad person. I do not think Bob is a bad person. In fact I voted for Bob. I heard from a third party that Bob is concerned with the type of business that is being recruited to town. I would like to hear it from Bob during a council meeting. If what I was told is true, Bob has a good point, if it was his point. That goes back to wanting open meetings open. I want to hear what the councilmen have to say about the economic development/city manager job.
As far as the amounts being paid to councilmen, Bob turned that entire topic into something about him. I said he signed a disclosure form in 1993 on his last time around on the council. How did he know to fill one out then, but not this time? How is it that the Mayor's disclosure is current and the others are not?
It is not Jordan's job to make sure they fill out the disclosures. When you are elected, you are offered the chance to go to a class to be sure you know what you need to know. As I pointed out, Gaston and Hiett had been reimbursed expenses for just that. The "public perception" was that Filsinger said he would do something for free and then billed the city. Had he filled out the proper disclosure forms prior to doing the work everyone would have known just what he was doing. I asked them to follow the rules and laws. Again, this was NOT about Bob. It was about doing the councilman job completely and in the open. Even when they have the best intentions, but don't follow the laws, things get in a big mess.
As far as why did I go in front of them at a council meeting and not take each one aside to discuss these things personally, I have talked with the mayor about open meetings. I did not get much of a response from him. It was about the fair board that I spoke to him, but still everyone in attendance was asked to leave a public meeting by him. Why would I ask again? By making my request in public, they can't deny or say they did not know. I asked through proper channels if Marv had written understandings with the city years ago, and was told he has never agreed to a written disclosure. So again by doing it in public they can't deny they were told.
I read Bob's site, Pitchforks and Torches. It was Bob who put the whole idea in my head to bring it up in council. He said he did not read the unsigned letter. He went to the Tea Party and stood for what he believes. I didn't write a letter. I stood before him in public and asked my questions.
Bob is correct about getting our constitution back. But, I don't think we can ask Washington to do to the job right if we don't start at the local level.
The question to Bob was why would you ask for this the very next day after Palmer spoke out in a meeting? He has been in this job for 5 years. And by all accounts has done it very well. In speaking with people who work with and around him he is a very good employee. So again, why the day after? The public perception and the perception of some of the city employees was and is, "if you speak up we will get you." And the mayor said "How can we do anything, Gary runs the city?" Can he really not understand the threat felt when a councilman requests information on you? I have no power over council, but look how they felt when I questioned their actions.
I want to make it very clear. I did not say Bob is a bad person. I do not think Bob is a bad person. In fact I voted for Bob. I heard from a third party that Bob is concerned with the type of business that is being recruited to town. I would like to hear it from Bob during a council meeting. If what I was told is true, Bob has a good point, if it was his point. That goes back to wanting open meetings open. I want to hear what the councilmen have to say about the economic development/city manager job.
As far as the amounts being paid to councilmen, Bob turned that entire topic into something about him. I said he signed a disclosure form in 1993 on his last time around on the council. How did he know to fill one out then, but not this time? How is it that the Mayor's disclosure is current and the others are not?
It is not Jordan's job to make sure they fill out the disclosures. When you are elected, you are offered the chance to go to a class to be sure you know what you need to know. As I pointed out, Gaston and Hiett had been reimbursed expenses for just that. The "public perception" was that Filsinger said he would do something for free and then billed the city. Had he filled out the proper disclosure forms prior to doing the work everyone would have known just what he was doing. I asked them to follow the rules and laws. Again, this was NOT about Bob. It was about doing the councilman job completely and in the open. Even when they have the best intentions, but don't follow the laws, things get in a big mess.
As far as why did I go in front of them at a council meeting and not take each one aside to discuss these things personally, I have talked with the mayor about open meetings. I did not get much of a response from him. It was about the fair board that I spoke to him, but still everyone in attendance was asked to leave a public meeting by him. Why would I ask again? By making my request in public, they can't deny or say they did not know. I asked through proper channels if Marv had written understandings with the city years ago, and was told he has never agreed to a written disclosure. So again by doing it in public they can't deny they were told.
I read Bob's site, Pitchforks and Torches. It was Bob who put the whole idea in my head to bring it up in council. He said he did not read the unsigned letter. He went to the Tea Party and stood for what he believes. I didn't write a letter. I stood before him in public and asked my questions.
Bob is correct about getting our constitution back. But, I don't think we can ask Washington to do to the job right if we don't start at the local level.
This was sent to the paper.
Stacy,
Because you are Bob's daughter, I guess I should expect you to jump to the same conclusions as him before actually listening to what I was saying.
When I was talking about financial dealings between the city and the members of council, I wanted to make it clear that I was not singling anyone out. So, I pointed out the amounts paid to EACH councilman by the city in the past 2 years. Unfortunately, I was immediately interrupted before I could get to my real point by your father and others.
The only purpose in bringing up the subject was to ask them to keep their required disclosure documents current. Your dad and all of the council members certainly have a right to do business with the city. I have no problem with that. None at all. However, the people have a right to fully understand the financial arrangements between their elected officials and the public funds they are responsible for overseeing. That's why the law requires that they have current disclosure forms on file. I simply want them to abide by the law.
They are responsible for knowing the law on this matter.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I want your dad thrown in jail.
I pointed out that when I asked about how these matters are enforced, I was told that I could file suit, or file complaints and have them investigated. I simply investigated them myself and went to the meeting to ask them to comply without going to such drastic means.
I stated at the beginning what my purpose was. I want fair, honest and open government from our council. I want discussions about important city matters conducted in public, instead of behind closed doors. I want them to stop violating their own rules by interfering with city staff. I want them to comply with ALL of the city and state ordinances that they expect us to comply with.
I have not asked for fines.
I have not asked for penalties.
I have not asked for decisions to be overturned.
I have not asked for resignations.
I have not asked for recall petitions.
I ask only for open discussions in public meetings and full disclosure of financial arrangements according to the law. I am offended when they simply thumb their noses at the rules that govern them and expect us to do nothing out of fear.
Your dad should have listened to what I was saying instead of jumping to the conclusion that he did. It wasn't easy standing up there and talking about these things. That's why so few people do it.
Because you are Bob's daughter, I guess I should expect you to jump to the same conclusions as him before actually listening to what I was saying.
When I was talking about financial dealings between the city and the members of council, I wanted to make it clear that I was not singling anyone out. So, I pointed out the amounts paid to EACH councilman by the city in the past 2 years. Unfortunately, I was immediately interrupted before I could get to my real point by your father and others.
The only purpose in bringing up the subject was to ask them to keep their required disclosure documents current. Your dad and all of the council members certainly have a right to do business with the city. I have no problem with that. None at all. However, the people have a right to fully understand the financial arrangements between their elected officials and the public funds they are responsible for overseeing. That's why the law requires that they have current disclosure forms on file. I simply want them to abide by the law.
They are responsible for knowing the law on this matter.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I want your dad thrown in jail.
I pointed out that when I asked about how these matters are enforced, I was told that I could file suit, or file complaints and have them investigated. I simply investigated them myself and went to the meeting to ask them to comply without going to such drastic means.
I stated at the beginning what my purpose was. I want fair, honest and open government from our council. I want discussions about important city matters conducted in public, instead of behind closed doors. I want them to stop violating their own rules by interfering with city staff. I want them to comply with ALL of the city and state ordinances that they expect us to comply with.
I have not asked for fines.
I have not asked for penalties.
I have not asked for decisions to be overturned.
I have not asked for resignations.
I have not asked for recall petitions.
I ask only for open discussions in public meetings and full disclosure of financial arrangements according to the law. I am offended when they simply thumb their noses at the rules that govern them and expect us to do nothing out of fear.
Your dad should have listened to what I was saying instead of jumping to the conclusion that he did. It wasn't easy standing up there and talking about these things. That's why so few people do it.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Closed Meeting from May 26, 2009
Well, I'm on the agenda for tomorrow night's council meeting. I've got a few questions about open meetings and I hope we can shed some light on the procedure required for closing a meeting to the public.
Here is a video of the May 25, 2009 meeting where they went into closed session. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I can't read the law and tell you what I think it means. I think they were clearly in the wrong for the way they have been going about their business behind closed doors. Read the law, and let me know what you think.
Here is a video of the May 25, 2009 meeting where they went into closed session. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I can't read the law and tell you what I think it means. I think they were clearly in the wrong for the way they have been going about their business behind closed doors. Read the law, and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Want to read the Open Meeting Statutes?
Sidney's self-appointed Guardian, in an effort to be helpful, says he has posted the entire contents of Nebraska's open meetings law on his site...I was going to comment there, but I changed my mind because I know that it'll get published here.
Mike...contrary to what you state at the beginning of your post, you have not posted the actual open meeting law as displayed in council chambers.
You have copied and pasted word for word, the helpful interpretation provided by Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General, on his site.
Mike...contrary to what you state at the beginning of your post, you have not posted the actual open meeting law as displayed in council chambers.
You have copied and pasted word for word, the helpful interpretation provided by Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General, on his site.
Bruning's information is helpful because he gives case law that helps shed light where the law itself can possibly be misunderstood, perhaps by council members thinking that a closed session to hire a new lawyer is somehow legal (just whose reputation were they trying to protect?).
Or perhaps by a council thinking that they can meet to discuss "personnel" without giving the person being discussed the opportunity to have that discussion in the open...in fact, not even inviting that person into the closed meeting.
These were the situations at the closed sessions convened by the Sidney City Council last year. Of course, these facts are not convenient to you, Mike, and I imagine you will discount them, although the videos prove that those are the facts.
Before you start screaming to me to file a complaint, consider that someone would have to pay a lawyer to file this complaint and since council took no action, there is nothing to void or correct. I simply seek to keep them from doing it again, which is clearly their intent from their public statements. Although if a lawyer stepped forward and offered to file the complaint pro-bono, I'd gladly sign it. Why? Because the next time they do it, it would be a second offense and carry possible jail time.
These were the situations at the closed sessions convened by the Sidney City Council last year. Of course, these facts are not convenient to you, Mike, and I imagine you will discount them, although the videos prove that those are the facts.
Before you start screaming to me to file a complaint, consider that someone would have to pay a lawyer to file this complaint and since council took no action, there is nothing to void or correct. I simply seek to keep them from doing it again, which is clearly their intent from their public statements. Although if a lawyer stepped forward and offered to file the complaint pro-bono, I'd gladly sign it. Why? Because the next time they do it, it would be a second offense and carry possible jail time.
By the way, I'm not just talking about Van Vleet, Weiderspon and Filsinger. Gaston and Hiett may not have always voted no, but they went into the meetings and didn't come out and tell us that the meetings were improper. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defense.
In case you are interested, the actual laws can be read in their entirety on the Nebraska Legislature's site. Go to the Nebraska Legislature site and scroll all the way down to where the law begins at section 84-1408.
Anyway Mike, because you are such a stickler for facts and accuracy, I thought you would want to know all this.
Here's the video from May 12, 2009. Go read the statutes. Go read Bruning's interpretations. Bob wants to protect people's reputations in case he says something that might be misconstrued as negative. The law says he must invite those same people into the meeting with him unless they request an open session. And we have a right to know who they are talking about.
In case you are interested, the actual laws can be read in their entirety on the Nebraska Legislature's site. Go to the Nebraska Legislature site and scroll all the way down to where the law begins at section 84-1408.
Anyway Mike, because you are such a stickler for facts and accuracy, I thought you would want to know all this.
Here's the video from May 12, 2009. Go read the statutes. Go read Bruning's interpretations. Bob wants to protect people's reputations in case he says something that might be misconstrued as negative. The law says he must invite those same people into the meeting with him unless they request an open session. And we have a right to know who they are talking about.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Taxes
Total City of Sidney tax evaluation per $100 in 1998 .325313, total for 2009 .420347. The increase over the past 11 years .095034.
So over 11 years, we had a city tax increase of less than ten cents per $100. The city has grown, so more people are paying tax. Valuation of land back in 1998 was $178,959,068 and current valuation is $372,735,802 total increase of $193,776,734. The maximum that the city could levy is .50 according to the law.
So, the city manager and department heads suggest a budget, but in the end it is our city councilmen who approve that budget. And when we have a tax increase it is our councilmen who approve that.
Over the weekend I came across an old story about taxes. Today I spoke with the author and she has given me permission to link to it.
I just have to ask, how can we say the current city manager/economic development manager is not doing his job?
Over the weekend I came across an old story about taxes. Today I spoke with the author and she has given me permission to link to it.
I just have to ask, how can we say the current city manager/economic development manager is not doing his job?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)