Steady the drum beat

RE: Mayor’s Voting on waiving second reading. Here is the E-mail response I received from City Manager Mark Biernacki
—————————————————————-

Prior to May, 2006, the ordinance in effect at that time was properly
written – meaning the Mayor was required to vote on waiving second
reading. A comprehensive revision to Ch 2 in May 2006 inadvertently
altered this language. The City Clerk will be reviewing ordinances
passed since then to see what ramifications, if any, were created as a
result of the Mayor’s vote on waiving second reading.

——————————————————————————————-
Questions: Who altered the city code language? Was the alteration approved by council? What actions were approved by council that should or should NOT have been. Who was asleep at the wheel here? (Legal dept, City manager, City Clerk) When will we hear from City staff as to the ramifications of this oversight?

Ivan… I think they (city council) may finally be addressing these issues thanks to an involved citizenry and the emergence of Brendon Gallagher with an assist by Dave Baker. Hopefully, a staff report is forthcoming that will identify elected and appointed employees with outside business interests.

I still have some related technical/legal concerns with this issue but the skies are brighter, methinks.

Mac, yes, that's the one. I need to look up whether the 7-1/2% is merely the disclosure threshold or if they intend to allow folks at and above the threshold to do business with the city, which would run counter to state law. What with the previous errors in this area, it might be wise for Council to get an outside legal opinion on whatever product gets pounded out in the deliberations.

I looked at Kim Williams' latest Statement of Economic Interest a couple months ago. According to the SEI, his company does business with other units of local government but not with DeKalb itself. I assume this means he accepts neither money nor property outside of his compensation as a city employee.

Mac, what would be the case say with Midwest Tree Service and Jim Ryan when he worked for the city? Supposedly the wife owned the tree service but Jim was very active in it.

Also, isn't their a potential conflict in IT? If you have a business as a sideline and work for the city in the same field how do you address this issue?

Lynn, you must be referring to…

(b) However, any elected or appointed member of the governing body may provide materials, merchandise, property, services or labor, if:
A. the contract is with a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or cooperative association in which such interested member of the governing body of the municipality has less than a 7 1/2% share in the ownership; and
B. such interested member publicly discloses the nature and extent of his interest prior to or during deliberations concerning the proposed award of the contract; and
C. such interested member abstains from voting on the award of the contract, though he shall be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum; and
D. such contract is approved by a majority vote of those members presently holding office; and
E. the contract is awarded after sealed bids to the lowest responsible bidder if the amount of the contract exceeds $1500, or awarded without bidding if the amount of the contract is less than $1500; and
F. the award of the contract would not cause the aggregate amount of all such contracts so awarded to the same person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or cooperative association in the same fiscal year to exceed $25,000.

Council sent at least two messages to staff with its work on the proposed contract ordinance Monday. One was about compromised trust in staff, and the other was about actions having consequences.

Indeed they are taking back their rightful authority. Once again my own alderman, Gallagher, did not disappoint.

I am concerned with how they seem to be interpreting the 7-1/2% rule. The disclosures are OK but my understanding is that state law doesn't allow city contracts for the elected/appointed over the 7-1/2% ownership limit, period; and, if so, then the ordinance shouldn't. Otherwise I couldn't be happier with the direction the Council is going, in strengthening this ordinance.

Thank you for going to the visitation for Tim Humes. I work with his mother and she is a great lady. What a sad loss.

Well, a check of the votes will not do things like bring the Old Post Office back. I know what boxes and boxes of documents look like, as well as what directories after directories of electronic files look like. There will not be a quick solution to that.

I second what Kerry wrote at 5:21 and 5:34 p.m.

Oh yeah, on the reduction in discretionary spending authority…from the discussion, I got the distinct impression this is a temporary but useful means to send a clear message to staff as to who's in charge and there are penalties for messing up. If I'm right, and they follow through on second reading, it could signal a positive change in the way council conducts business. In particular, that council is engaged and will not simply rubber stamp everything handed to them by staff. I doubt these reductions in discretionary procurement limits will be such a stumbling block, at least for a while, and certainly the amounts can be moved higher in the future after trust is restored.

This longstanding error is a good example why citizens need to be involved in government, not only as leadership, but as ordinary citizens providing checks and balances against corruption or just plain ineptitude. Hard to imagine the written voting rules have gone unnoticed for such a long time. It really does make one wonder about the competency of the city legal department. Mayor/council would be wise to direct Mr. Biernacki as City Manager to hire an independent outside counsel familiar with municipal and state law for a review of consequences in this long running voting aberration. Perhaps while that attorney is consulting, she/he could also advise what to do about representation for Mr. Wogen's ward. This certainly has been dragging on for a long time now.

Mark… good catch and thanks for your efforts. They can't really go back and undo actions taken when the mayor voted when he shouldn't have, can they? I mean, because we are Home Rule and all, must we change the drinking age back to 19, for example, if the Mayor voted improperly? If so, you, my man, will be a rock star! 🙂 It's not a ringing endorsement of Legal, is it?

I am requesting an complete investigation by the City Of DeKalb into the Council voting practices over the past years! I am the Citizen who made this inquiry to City Clerk Kapitan and Ald Gallagher in reference to the Mayor Casting votes when he/she is NOT supposed to in Violation of City Code for over 20 years. Here is the letter I have sent to City Staff:

——————————————————————-

To Mayor, City Council and City Staff

I am the citizen who brought the matter of the Mayor's improper voting to the attention of Ald Gallagher and City Clerk Kapitan on Monday 11/23/09. Procedure was clearly violated.

I am requesting that the city's legal department and city staff examine the entire voting record of the City council for the past 20 years. There are many potential ramifications here. Votes that the sitting Mayor participated in that he/she should NOT have participated in. I think there may be many potential Legal problems here for the city. Ordinances that should have been approved or denied may be have to be reversed or be made NULL and VOID.

I am requesting a complete investigation in this matter and would appreciate a timely response.

Mark Charvat

I think it was Gallagher/Baker's way in telling Biernacki that he screwed up and that is their way in letting him know. I believe that is the reason you are seeing the $10,000.00. I personally believe the same could have been done by lowering it to $15,000.00 but remember this comes back to council in 3 weeks and you probably should expect that this matter is not over yet, by no means.

Me with a megaphone would be scary Mac. I wanted to be there but it was more important to pay final respects to a former teammate and a very good friend. It would be nice if Tim Humes family can be added to your prayers. He passed away Friday morning after a 3 1/2 month fight with liver cancer. Only 46 he touched many lives in that short time and it was very evident with the turnout displayed at his visitation last evening down in Somonauk.

Mac, you know my stance on the Wogen issue especially with his missing in action. The citizens in the 3rd Ward need proper representation and a definite voice on the council especially when so many important issues are being discussed, voted on, and implemented. They are literally being left out of a process that they have been guarantee a part of.

Hopefully in the upcoming days, I will address this issue myself with letter to the editor over at the Chronicle. I'm hoping that Mayor Povlsen will do what is right and look past Victor Wogen and his problems and fulfill his responsibility to make sure that ALL the citizens of this community are heard including those in the 3rd Ward.

To all, may you have the good company of family and friends this week as we approach Thanksgiving. Even though many are going through some trying times we must remember that if we have the love of family, friends, and God along with good health we than have the strength we need to persevere. Happy Thanksgiving!

Hey Ivan! Kay, Lynn and John did a nice job putting the rally together and keeping the pressure on. You should have come and manned that megaphone. With your booming voice the whole town would have heard the chants.

I watched the meeting from the comfort of my recliner. Reduced stress. 🙂

But… I don't like the Gallagher/Baker proposed ordinance and here's why:

Biernacki screwed up and I think in this case he might be somewhat falling on his sword. My hunch is a department head initiated the city work with Wogen and that is based on Biernacki looking to cut department head discretionary authority from $20k to 10k. (Same flawed reasoning as the Gallagher/Baker amendment).

Wrong system error. All those involved – Wogen, Biernacki, department head — should be reprimanded. Even fired, as Mark Charvat said last night. But we've allowed the bureaucracy grow to the point where it is only concerned with protecting itself. So admit no wrong-doing and increase the bureaucracy further my creating more legislation that will hamper city response time.

Charvat said that there is not enough backbone on the city council to act accordingly (and accountably). He's right. But its the Mayor who needs to step up here. Ultimately, on issues like this, the buck stops with him. He hires and fires the city manager (with council approval) and he appoints when aldermen vacancies occur. The Mayor may or may not believe termination is warranted but had he issued a strongly worded reprimand back when it counted I think this issue might have subsided.

Now, if the Gallagher/Baker amendment stands as is the city staff's hands could be tied and as you know… time is money.

The biggest discovery last night was the mishap on the Target vote as reported in the minutes of the previous city council meeting. The Mayor shouldn't have voted. He did. He should have known he should not have voted. He didn't. This should rock anyone who is paying attention's confidence in our legal department. Povlsen needs to stop taking black eyes for under-performing staff. I did note his shaking confidence in our legal dept at the last Finance Advisory Committee meeting. When confronted with legal questions on the early retirement health care issue he suggested seeking outside legal opinion.

If I was him, I'd say enough and no more.

Nice job!