| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
On June 13, 2007 Marjory Raymer for the Flint Journal posted, "In a similar 5-2 vote, Council members approved a resolution calling for an independent legal opinion on whether Williamson could veto part of the budget."
On June 30, 2007, Marjory Raymer wrote in "City services will remain; Despite budget fight, all sides agree:""City Attorney Trachelle Young cited a section of the City Charter which states, in part, that "the mayor may veto any amendment to the budget" . . . . "Some City Council members, including Ananich and Council Vice President Sheldon Neeley, said a partial veto is not possible, so no budget exists." "City Council unanimously voted earlier this week to request an outside attorney for an independent opinion on the issue."
On July 10, 2007 Lindsey Poisson wrote in "Flint City Council balks on '08 budget items": "The Finance Committee unanimously held nearly all budget items late Monday afternoon. The earliest those items could be approved is at the July 23 council meeting." "That resistance is meant to send a message through government officials who have "the ear to the mayor," said Councilman Scott Kincaid." "The bottom line is this: We believe there's no budget for the city of Flint, and the mayor wants to go on spending, spending and spending," he said. "If you (the mayor) don't want to work with the council, then that's fine. Go out and do what you want to do on your own, but if it takes our support, you're not going to get it.'" * * * * "Their response was to sort of taunt us by saying, 'We have a budget, we don't care what you say,'" said Jim Ananich, chairman of the Finance Committee. "If we believe we don't have a budget, then we shouldn't pass any resolutions. "We can't operate without one, and I'm prepared to postpone until we have one." * * * * But some City Council members argue a partial veto is not possible, and they believe the city does not have an approved budget. They sent the city's budget information to the state and are waiting to hear if the city currently is operating lawfully, Councilman Sheldon Neeley said. "Our single most important responsibility as a council is to oversee the treasury of this city," Neeley said. "Until that time, we are holding true to our responsibility and not spending any of the city of Flint's money." * * * *
Despite having the opinion of Flint City Attorney Trachelle Young, twice calling for an independent legal opinion because they didn't like hers, and now sending budget information to the state to see if the city is operating lawfully, Flint City Council continues to sandbag because they're not getting their own way and utterly refuse to cooperate with the mayor simply because he is who he is. I'd like to know the contents of the independent legal opinion(s) they were to have sought and what they have cost the city. Or did they not follow through because they're looking for another state takeover. It seems to me none of those who complain the loudest have any experience with finances or budgeting, given the items that have been discussed publicly. Some (or one) would have spent down to about $200,000 left in the general fund which is absolutely not wise. One of the items the council wanted was a new city building--like we can afford to build new when we've got all this property now going into the land bank and the city can't handle taking care of all the property it owns now.
Though I'm not a lawyer I can read and my opinion from this Flint City Charter is that the council passed a budget as amended, and the mayor was entitled to veto those changes as he sought fit, thus leaving a final budget. Here's the Charter, what do you think? I'm so disgusted with city council I have made my opinion known to my own councilman.
City of Flint, MI Code of Ordinances
PART I: CHARTER
CITY OF FLINT, MI CHARTER
ARTICLE VII. FINANCE
ARTICLE VII. FINANCE
Sec. 7-101 BUDGET.
On or before the first (1st) Monday in April of each year, the Mayor shall submit to the City Council a proposed annual budget for the next fiscal year which shall begin on July 1.
(Adopted by the electorate, 11-5-74)
Sec. 7-102 BUDGET ADOPTION.
A. After a public hearing has been held in the manner provided by law, the City Council shall, no later than the first (1st) Monday in June, adopt the budget with or without amendment.
B. The adoption of the budget may be accomplished by resolution.
C. Adoption of the budget shall constitute appropriations of the amounts specified therein from the funds indicated and a levy of the property tax specified therein.
(Adopted by the electorate, 11-5-74)
Sec. 7-103 ITEM VETO ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
A. The Mayor may veto any amendment to the budget in the manner provided in this Charter for veto of ordinances and resolutions.
B. Within 168 hours after receipt of the notice of veto, the City Council shall complete its reconsideration of the amendments disapproved by the Mayor.
C. No budget amendments disapproved by the Mayor shall have any force or effect unless two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members elect vote in favor of those amendments at the time they are reconsidered.
(Adopted by the electorate, 11-5-74)
Sec. 7-104 AMENDMENTS AFTER ADOPTION.
A. At any time during the fiscal year, upon written request of the Mayor, the City Council may consider amendments to the previously adopted budget which:
1. Transfer an unencumbered appropriation balance from one program, service or activity to another,
2. Provide for expenditure of revenues in excess of those in the budget, or
3. Meet a public emergency affecting life, health, property or the public peace which may require emergency appropriations as provided by statute.
B. If the action taken by the City Council differs from the action requested by the Mayor, the Mayor may exercise the veto power.
(Adopted by the electorate, 11-5-74) |
|
|
Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:25 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Believe it or not. I believe the Mayor may actually be correct on this one.
However, The intent of the Council is also correct. To force some common sense. |
|
|
|
Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:43 am |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
Unfortunately, 7-103 of the Charter does not speak to what happens once the amendment is vetoed. Does that mean that what was orginally presented is then in effect? Probably not. In the US Congress for example. If they present a bill to the President to be signed into law and he vetoes it, the bill is dead. I realize that the Pres does not have a line item type veto, but the principle seems to be the same.
Furthermore, lets say that what the Mayor did was prefectly legal, that he does have the ability to veto specific line items. Then why is the budget that he is operating under different than the budget that he presented? It seems that once he vetoed the amendments it would revert back to the orignial proposal. I don't believe that is what has happened.
Relying on the opinion of Trachelle Young, you would have to be a moron to do that. She has consistantly shown that her alligience is not to the law but to the Mayor in an effort to protect that $90,000/yr job that she has.
As for the surplus, the Mayor is the one that is spending the money down. The audit for the fiscal year that ended while I was on council showed that we had an $8 million surplus. At the end to the fiscal year 07/08, the Mayor's proposed budget shows a fund balance of only $4 million. That means that he has overspent revenue by $4 million dollars. How is that being fiscally responsible? Consistently spending more than you take in is hardly a sustainable policy. Even in the budget that he proposed for this year, he shows that he is spending $2 million more than we are taking in. Not exactly the picture that he paints for everyone. If we are heading towards a state takeover, the blame for overspending clearly lays at the feet of the Mayor. |
|
|
|
Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:47 am |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
Unfortunately, 7-103 of the Charter does not speak to what happens once the amendment is vetoed. Does that mean that what was orginally presented is then in effect? Probably not. In the US Congress for example. If they present a bill to the President to be signed into law and he vetoes it, the bill is dead. I realize that the Pres does not have a line item type veto, but the principle seems to be the same.
Furthermore, lets say that what the Mayor did was prefectly legal, that he does have the ability to veto specific line items. Then why is the budget that he is operating under different than the budget that he presented? It seems that once he vetoed the amendments it would revert back to the orignial proposal. I don't believe that is what has happened.
Relying on the opinion of Trachelle Young, you would have to be a moron to do that. She has consistantly shown that her alligience is not to the law but to the Mayor in an effort to protect that $90,000/yr job that she has.
As for the surplus, the Mayor is the one that is spending the money down. The audit for the fiscal year that ended while I was on council showed that we had an $8 million surplus. At the end to the fiscal year 07/08, the Mayor's proposed budget shows a fund balance of only $4 million. That means that he has overspent revenue by $4 million dollars. How is that being fiscally responsible? Consistently spending more than you take in is hardly a sustainable policy. Even in the budget that he proposed for this year, he shows that he is spending $2 million more than we are taking in. Not exactly the picture that he paints for everyone. If we are heading towards a state takeover, the blame for overspending clearly lays at the feet of the Mayor.
Josh hasn't my girl Trachelle and liberal Judge Neithercut taught you anything? The charter and city ordinances are only for people not friends with the mayor! This is Flint we're talking about! Why would we need rules to follow and things like a mster plan/economic development plan. In other words it doesn't matter what section 7-103 says. It only matters what Trachelle says it means. |
_________________
Adam
-
Mysearchisover.com
-
FB
-
Jobs
|
|
|
Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:42 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Josh,
I see your point. what cracks me up is in the charter it says it is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the City! So Who gets the Liberal interpretation? City council or the Mayor in this case.
Sec. 1-401 POWERS OF THE CITY.
The City has comprehensive home rule powers and all other powers conferred by the Michigan Constitution and state law. The City's power are subject only to the limitation contained in this Charter or state law.
(Adopted by the electorate, 11-5-74)
Sec. 1-402 LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.
The powers of the City under this Charter shall be construed liberally in favor of the City. The specific mention of particular powers in this Charter shall not be construed as limiting in any way the general power of the City stated in Section 1-401.
(Adopted by the electorate, 11-5-74)
Sec 1-402A SPECIAL INTERPRETATION.
When my City Attorney makes a ruling on the charter it must first be approved by me.
(Amended by Don Williamson)
You know that amendment has to be true since it was written DON WILLIAMSON LARGE font.
I feel they wrote so many loop holes in the charter and left so much open for interpretation that in reality. You could have it interpreted one way today and be perfectly legal. Then interpret it its direct opposite the next day and have that still be a legalinterpretation.
LOL |
|
|
|
Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
