| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
JCARPENTER
F L I N T O I D
|
Lets see ,how are we going to balance this darn budget? I know, lets bust the police union and borrow the rest. Good idea staff,but do you think the council will approve? Oh ya they will go along with just about anything we propose, remember when they approved Jackie and Donnas neice for transportation director? Ya and she didnt know a pot hole from a post hole.
Ok but if this dont work remember our back up plan. Whats that? You know get ever citizen in flint to buy a $1 loto ticket and give them to the Mayor and take the wiinnings and pay off everything. I dont see how we could lose with over 100,000 chances ? Ok, but i still think we should try is plan first. |
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:59 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
How to balance a budget........
1. HOPE the State will increase revenue sharing.
2. HOPE the unions will agree to large concessions.
3. Leave the projected cost of the District Court location out of the calculations.
4. HOPE tax revenues meet projections.
Yup, the budget is balanced. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:44 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Pontiac has an emergency financial manager and just found out their revenue sharing will be cut by $2 million. walling says ours will increase?
New fiscal year starts July 1st, but Walling thinks he will have double digit concessions from all public safety unions by then.
November 1st and the current revenues will be depleted (sooner if the first 2 don't materialize) and the city will be in a state taleover. What about the finances to last from November to June 30, 2012? |
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:59 pm |
|
|
Bossman
F L I N T O I D
|
| The first negotiation scheduled between Walling and the Unions isn't until 06/22. Even if they come to an agreement on that date the unions would be hard pressed to get it ratified by the membership before 07/01. Walling is not making a legitimate effort to negotiate with the unions and hasn't since he took office. The budget is a sham, Wallings term as mayor is a sham, and Walling himself is a charlatan. |
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:57 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| I have the impression that Walling considers "negotiating" to mean: "Give me what I want". |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:44 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
Pontiac has an emergency financial manager and just found out their revenue sharing will be cut by $2 million. walling says ours will increase?
New fiscal year starts July 1st, but Walling thinks he will have double digit concessions from all public safety unions by then.
November 1st and the current revenues will be depleted (sooner if the first 2 don't materialize) and the city will be in a state taleover. What about the finances to last from November to June 30, 2012?
Another bond issue? |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:45 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Walling chose not to veto the budget and that may have been he first wise thing he has done. In 2008 a council budget that omitted funding for charter mandated offices and severely compromised the operations of the law department went to court.
In 2008 Kincaid displayed open hostility towards the entire Williamson administration. Like 2008 the budget process this year was shortened to one day instead of the usual series of longer meetings with department heads to discuss their absolute needs to maintain their offices. However in 2008, Kincaid and Brian Ross of Plante Moran worked all weekend to put together the final budget.
The final 2008 budget was out of balance by at least $1, 359,000 because in their haste and without communicating with the Flint Treasurer and the Budget Director, they failed to get a revised cost allocation plan. In the court example City treasurer Peter "D" referred to an auditor in his department that had been laid off. This auditor reviewed payroll for all departments in the city. When the auditor position was eliminated , the expense for that position was eliminated. However, as each department in the city contributed money towards that position, the revenue stram that position generated was now nonexiatant, but was still reflected in the budget. The city provides cost allocation plans to the auditing firm during the audit process and since the city departments were left out of the process, the new budget was flawed.
When Kincaid presented the final budget on 6/2/08 kincaid was visiblly shaken by the reaction of his fellow council. Near tears kincaid stated he got the feeling his colleagues did not support the final version and stated he felt the goal line kept changing. You told me privately what you want to fund, so tell me publicly what to change, asked Kincaid.
Kincaid made draconian cuts to the law department and eliminated the library and even paper and offce supplies for the office. The budget even took her offices to be used as new offices for the council. Other severe cuts were made to the 68th District Court, Ombudsman, Personnel and labor relations, police and fire overtime as well as department heads. Sheldon Neeley predicted correctly that the failure to provide for police and fire overtime would create future problems. Council increased the budget for their office.
On October 14, 2008 Judge Geoffrey Neithercutt commented on the budget battle. He spoke how case law recognized that when a board fails to perform duties imposed by the state legislature or constitution, the courts have the authority to order performance. (Wayne Co, Pros vs Wayne Co. comm) He further stated that premise could be extended to local government, whether a city council or a mayor governed by a city charter and the court can require both to obey their own charter.
Neithercutt atated the amended budget violated Articles of charter. Section 1-502 was violated when council budgeted less for th mayor than the Local Officers Compensation Board authorized for the Mayor. The line item budget items for the department heads reduced salaries and violated ordinance 35-67 wherein salaries are the sole discretion of the mayor as the appointing authority.
Neithcutt ordered amendment as the council's intent to interfere with the mayoral discretion was clearly shown in the line item action.
Neithercutt reflected on whether departments as cost centers have a constitutional or charter duty and what was the meaning of the word "serviceable".
The Judge referred to Attorney Hamo's survey of the Chief legal officer in comparable cities in Michigan. "The Court does not believe the Prosecutor's Office (City Attorney) could survive without causing constitutional, civil and criminal right issues and stopping the court operations". This creates an immediate emergency threatening the existance of a function. The judge also noted that a lawyer cannot operate without a library and paper. Neithercutt ordered amendments as "these line item deletions are capricious".
When council argued that there was no statuatory mandate for a Human Resources Department , the Judge accused them of playing a "word game" since all of the mandated functions are the duty of the personnel Director. The Judge noted the department was understaffed in relatioship to the comparable cities surveyed. Presently the office is closed 3 days a week and there are state and federal statuatory requirements for the office, the Judge said as he ordered the budget amended.
Neithercutt took no position on the City Administrators office or the Ombudsman. He also would not rule on the issue of the budget inbalance, but he ordered compromises and called council's action "petty gamesmanship".
Walling too, eliminated from his budget offices that were charter mandated.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:15 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:40 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Treasurer Peter "D' testified that of the $1.7 million in expenses eliminated from the budget only yielded a net $400,000 in revenue that could be distributed to other departments and that the budget was spending $1.3 million in revenue that did not exist. He stated they had a duty to request a cost allocation prior to adopting the budget. In their rush Plante Moran auditor Brian Ross and kincaid made a mistake in taking the funds out of cost allocations and not adjusting the revenue. In their line item budget they eliminated positions supported by revenue that would never be paid out of other funds.
In her deposition, Peggy Haw Jury of plante Moran kept discussing bumping rights, which Peter "D" testified was not applicable.
Michael Townsend also testified that the city council budget reduced expenditures from revenue producing departments and failed to reduce the corresponding revenues.
Council continued to fail to compromise and in the end there was 23 budgetary issues that remained to be resolved, inclusing the 68 the District court and police and fire overtime. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:58 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Other arguments during the court battle:
When Flint was the third most violent city in america, Kincaid cut out the Probation department of the 68th district Court.
While laying off people, Kincaids budget dipped into the self insurance fund and fringe benefits making it impossible to pay the unemployment. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:09 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Council refused to compromise and went to the state for help,thus complicating Judge Neithercutts role. the Judge ordered some changes to be made as budget amendments.
Ananich stated there would be no compromise as Kincaid went to the Treasurer's rapid response team and Val Washington. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
In October of 2008. Williamson sent a letter to Kincaid protesting the refusal of council to compromise and telling kincaid that a number of Kincaid's positions were inaccurate.
Since council violated the charter they were to amend the mayor's cost center. And because council violated City ordinance 35-67(d), the Council was directed to amend the budget to correct the department head salaries as originally proposed by the mayor.
The Mayor requested a solution to the 68th District Court and the Ombudsman. Despite the court's request for amended budget submissions by the administration, council refused to act. Contrary to Kincaid's assertions, the Judge never ordered individual resolutions for each department but ordered budget amendments after consulting with both the administration and the council.
The amount of revenue at the time of the closing of the jail was about $900.000, but by October had been reduced to $600,000. Council agreed that public safety cuts would have to be made in order to remedy the budget shortfalls. It ws stated that kincaid also refused to address the "cost allocation" issues.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:31 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Court records also contained a copy of a letter from the Chief legal Officer, City Attorney Trachellelle Young, to Council President Carolyn Sims.
'I have received your letter dated June 9, 2008 that was delivered to the Law department on June 10, 2008. It is quite unfortunate, however, that you failed to mention that I responded to your letter on May 7, 2008 (see attached). Rather, you implied that I had not responded, and proceeded to claim that I refused to appoint an attorney. This was not the case. In fact, you never responded to my letter.
Clearly I have not refused to appoint an attorney for the Council with regard to the budget, nor have you made "numerous" requests for an attorney, However, if you believe this is the case, please provide me with any transcript or communication that you believe i have not responded to.
During the budget hearing for the Law Department, i advised the Council that I felt the Law department had been singled out and treated unfairly. Councilman Kincaid verbally told me he was going to slash my budget. I informed the Council that the law requires that the mandated functions of the Law department be funded at a serviceable level. Both you and Councilman Kincaid voted to cut two-thirds of my staff and three-fourths of my budget for outside counsel. You also eliminated one Litigation Assistant and one Legal office Assistant. In addition to that, you cut all funds for supplies while adopting a line item budget. Further, even though you are well aware of the value and cost savings afforded to the City by utilizing interns and knowing that eliminating my interns would threaten my ability to service the 68th District court, you also completely eliminated that line item. Additionally, you reduced the amount of money that should be in the Suits and settlements kowing the outstanding judgements against the City. Not once, even during the hearing, did you request or mention that I was refusing to appoint an attorney for the Council. Also, i never told you that the Mayor and i were going to sue the Council over the budget. It was made clear that we were hoping to resolve all budgetary issues in house. For that specific purpose, we tried to schedule meetings with you and mr. kincaid before Council even voted to adopt the budget.
I would ask that you not continue to misrepresent the facts in order to attack my credibility. Your actions are disingenuous at best."....... |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:08 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision Young, supra supported Trachelle Young's authority to exclusively appoint legal counsel.
"However, the CLo (Chief Legal Officer) still argued strongly and correctly that the City Charter gave her the sole legal authority for the City of Flint."
"The clear alternative is [for the CLO] to select and retain independent legal counsel for both parties. Only by declining to personally represent either party, while in good faith choosing counsel for each can plaintiff comply with the MRPC and the charter."
Judge Hayman in 08-88184AS stated:
"No one can represent the Flint City Council, nobody can represent the Clerk's Office, nobody can represent the mayor's Office unless it comes through Trachelle." |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
