City Council Preview - June 3. Part 2

Yesterday we looked at several issues

• Revisions in the Conflict of Interest Code
• Portola Park
• Street Sweeping
• Election 2014 Term Limitless Ordinance

INCREASING FEES (Item 19)

Apparently Mayor Pro Tem Nick has been reading my Patch articles, because he’s asked that the Council require a 4/5 vote when fees are increased. As my faithful readers know, Scott Voigts promised not to raise taxes and then went about voting for the biggest fee increase in the City’s history with the new trash contract (even though there was an alternative bid with lower costs), and then he voted to fine people who don’t move their cars on street sweeping day, without ever trying to do something less intrusive, like warn them. To guard against this, Nick is now asking that any move that increases fees (or taxes) requires 4 out of 5 people voting for it. Kudos to Nick for looking out for our interests.

BTW – there is a nice chart on the City’s website that summarizes all the taxes and fees that the City can impose.

COUNCIL TRAVEL & EXPENSE POLICY (Item 20)

I’ve been investigating the activities of Council members and their use of public monies. The good news is that Mayor Robinson and Mayor Pro Tem Nick have been paying out of their own pockets and not tapping into the City’s piggy bank. When you consider how little the City pays for being a Council member, and how much work these two guys do, it’s really praise worthy that they pay their own money to do their civic duties.

But putting aside the good news, I found several things that worry me. It looks to me that at least one Council member is using public funds to pay for their spouse’s expenses when their spouse accompanies them. Yet the City code specifically prohibits “Family expenses, including a partner’s expenses when accompanying the Official on City-related business…” I’m working with the City Clerk to confirm this, and I also have a forensic accountant working on the issue with me. This is not a single example, but rather multiple instances over time. While it probably doesn’t amount to more than a few hundred dollars, it’s the principal that disturbs me. And it may even constitute a crime.

Meanwhile, let’s look at what the City’s code permits –

The City allows Council members to be reimbursed for “Meetings with the City Manager or his or her designee” and attendance at “city sponsored events”. That seems a little excessive. That means if a City Council member goes to a city sponsored event, where he usually gets some good and free food, we also pay for his mileage. Can’t we just ask him to take a few sandwiches and some drinks home with him, and we’ll call it even? Or what happened to car pooling? If they want to be on the Council, and they voluntarily attend the city sponsored events, they should pay for their own gas.

“City Council travel is self-approved” which means that Council members can decide for themselves when they want to go somewhere on the “approved list”. There is no need for the 5 members to decide who goes where, so that all 5 might find themselves spending the weekend at the Sacramento Hilton. There’s something wrong here too.

According to the code “baggage handling fees up to $2 per bag are reimbursable” but I have seen this provision violated several times. Bear in mind, that “baggage handling fees” do not require a receipt.

 During my investigation of Council travel expenses, I’ve had a hard time figuring out exactly who is paying for what. I gave some preliminary copies of documents to my forensic accountant and he just scratched his head. “Really!?” he said.

The bookkeeping on travel expenses is horrendous. Maybe it’s supposed to be that way. The guidelines are pretty clear, so it looks as if the Council members themselves are abusing the system by refusing to submit reasonable accounts for what they’ve spent. This should be changed.

See you tonight