Sunday, December 18, 2011
While most local governments are cutting back, Mayor Earling...
is lobbying for pay increases. At the December 13, 2011, City Council Finance Committee meeting, "Mayor Earling strongly supported implementing a 1.5% COLA for non-represented employees, viewing it as a matter of equity." Yes during the campaign for Mayor, Earling accused Mayor Cooper of unwise spending. Now unwise spending is a matter of "equity".
Mayor Earling is advocating spending tax dollars that are not available in the 2012 Budget. Where is the needed reform and transparency he promised in his campaign for Mayor?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Will I or Will I not get a meeting with and explanation from the City Finance Director?
From: finis tupper
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:09 AM
To: adrienne monillas (adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us); 'Diane Buckshnis'; dj wilson (djwilson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); michael plunkett (michaelppp98@yahoo.com); steve Bernheim (council@stevebernheim.com); strom peterson (peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us)
Subject: FW: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Although gambling isn’t allowed in Edmonds, thanks to Mr. Orvis – how about getting our Mayor to start a pool on whether I get a meeting with Mr. Hines.
______________________________________
From: finis tupper
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:59 AM
To: 'Hines Jr., Lorenzo'; 'Chase, Sandy'
Subject: RE: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Dear Mr. Hines:
Were you being disingenuous when you stated that “I’m always open to meeting with members of the community to provide clarifying information”?
If you are not aware, I am currently a member of the community.
My calendar is open June 6-10, 2010. At your convenience, please schedule a time for us to meet and discuss city finances.
Thank you.
Finis
PS Ms. Chase my email dated May 27 to Mr. Hines requested no public records only further clarification from him. But thanks for your email and concern to follow the law.
________________________________________
From: Chase, Sandy [mailto:Chase@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:56 PM
To: finis tupper
Cc: Hines Jr., Lorenzo
Subject: Your Email to Lorenzo Hines / Void Checks
Hello Mr. Tupper,
I was requested to contact you regarding your email to Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director, dated Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. with the subject title “Void Checks.” I want to ensure that we provide any records that you are seeking.
Public records requests are limited to identifiable documents and I would like a clarification regarding what document(s) you are seeking. Under the Public Disclosure Act, public agencies are not required to prepare reports but to produce records in response to inquiries.
Thank you for your time,
Sandy Chase
City Clerk
City of Edmonds ~ City Clerk's Office
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.775.2525 Fax: 425.771.0266
chase@ci.edmonds.wa.us
From: finis tupper
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:08 AM
To: lorenzo hines (lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us)
Cc: adrienne monillas (adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us); steve Bernheim (council@stevebernheim.com); dave orvis (daveandmartha.orvis@gmail.com); 'Diane Buckshnis'; michael plunkett (michaelppp98@yahoo.com); strom peterson (peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); dj wilson (djwilson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); Gary Haakenson (haakenson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); scott snyder (ssnyder@omwlaw.com)
Subject: Void Checks
Dear Mr. Hines,
Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report.
I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue".
The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report also lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674162, instead of #674159, in the amount of $53,603.44. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which again I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
Now, I will admit, this does seem very odd, but how is a citizen supposed to make heads or tails out of this? Does the City have the ability to issue manual checks with the same check number as a computer generated check? Can two different computer checks be issued with the same check number?
Please explain how two checks, each with the same check number show up as Cleared on the original report you provided. Please also explain what the "isolated software issue" that you refer to is and how it could have only affected the Vendor Master Report.
Complicating matters is the fact that the "Check History Listing" report you subsequently provided lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 for $28,483.76 and invoice # 674162 for $25,705.22 totaling to the amount of $54,188.98. Under "Status", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
So now, I am up to 3 checks, all numbered check number 111583, that City reports appear to indicate have all cleared the bank for 3 different amounts. I am more confused than ever.
Further complicating this is the fact that the May 5, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate:
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18.
While reviewing these approved claim checks, I couldn't help but notice Check number 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 related to invoice # 674159 and invoice # 674162. This really confuses me. Check Number 111413 is not on the "Check History Listing" provided, so I have no way of knowing whether or not this check cleared or was voided? There is a column on the "Check History Listing" for "Clear/Void Date", so a reasonable person would expect this check to be on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated, assuming the check was in fact voided. You claim that Check 111413 was voided. As such, why was it not included on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated? Note the April 30th check #111413 was approved by the City Council on May 5th 2009 and duplicated check issued on May 7, 2009 and approved on May 19th 2009 by the City Council. How do you report voided checks to the City Council so they are aware that a check they have approved was subsequently voided?
There is a similar confusing sequence of transactions in July, 2009. I won't go into all of the details of those transactions. Rather, I'll wait for your detailed explanation during our meeting to discuss all of the above.
Finally, please disclose whether or not the City owes any monies for legal services performed since January 1, 2007 through the current date and are unpaid and outstanding invoices. It is very important that the public have this information.
Thank you for your assistance with these matters.
Finis Tupper
From: Hines Jr., Lorenzo [mailto:lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:18 AM
To: Monillas, Adrienne; Diane Buckshnis; dave orvis ; Wilson, DJ; michael plunkett ; steve Bernheim ; Peterson, Strom
Cc: scott snyder ; Haakenson, Gary; finis tupper; joan@edmondsforum.com
Subject: RE: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Good morning all,
I want to correct some of the information that was provided to you in the email below. The report that was initially attached to the email below represents the results of a public records request for all payments made to Ogden Murphy and Wallace for 2009 and the first 4 months of 2010. Checks 111413 and 113005 were not included in this report because these checks were voided, and as a result, these payments (check amounts) were never made to Ogden Murphy and Wallace.
As always, if you have questions about the format and content of city financial reports, I’m always open to meeting with you or members of the community to provide clarifying information.
Sincerely,
Lorenzo Hines
Lorenzo Hines Jr., CPA, MBA
Director
Finance and Information Services Department
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0240
Fax: 425.771.0265
lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us
From: finis tupper
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:55 PM
To: Monillas, Adrienne; Diane Buckshnis; dave orvis ; Wilson, DJ; michael plunkett ; steve Bernheim ; Peterson, Strom
Cc: scott snyder ; Hines Jr., Lorenzo; Haakenson, Gary
Subject: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Dear City Council members:
The City Finance Department has provided an updated of OMW Checks 2009 report with $81,194.27 missing from the payments. Specifically two checks were not included in the report, 4/30 check 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 and 7/16 check 113005 in the amount of $27,590.83 were not included in the report of city expenses. I’ve looked over the drafts and descriptions of the payments. It appears the city has paid these invoices for legal services twice.
At last weeks Council meeting Mr. Snyder provided incorrect legal advice most likely for purpose of hiding these double payments. Please look at your draft meeting minutes of the May 18th Meeting and the following paragraphs:
Agenda Item: 12. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST TO MAYOR OF CITY OF EDMONDS
BY EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL FEES PAID BY
THE CITY OF EDMONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2010.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson asked if he was required to abide by the motion. Mr. Snyder answered no, advising
RCW 35A.12.030 provides that the Mayor is charged with day-to-day administration of the City.
Here is the RCW Mr. Snyder referred to;
RCW 35A.12.030 Eligibility to hold elective office.
No person shall be eligible to hold elective office under the mayor-council plan unless the person is a registered voter of the city at the time of filing his or her declaration of candidacy and has been a resident of the city for a period of at least one year next preceding his or her election. Residence and voting within the limits of any territory which has been included in, annexed to, or consolidated with such city is construed to have been residence within the city. A mayor or councilmember shall hold within the city government no other public office or employment except as permitted under the provisions of chapter 42.23 RCW.
[2009 c 549 § 3006; 1979 ex.s. c 18 § 20; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.12.030.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1979 ex.s. c 18: See note following RCW 35A.01.070.
I hope you understand this section has nothing to do with Mayor and Finance Department having some expressed governmental authority to stonewall the City Council requests for vital financial information needed to make policy decisions. It’s pretty clear Mr. Snyder was blowing smoke and pretending to have some legal expertise in this issue.
The City Council has the power to cancel the OMW contract at anytime. Section 3.3 Termination of Agreement. The attorney/client relationship is a personal one involving the ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore, the City Council reserves in its sole legislative discretion the right to terminate this Agreement upon reasonable notice during the its term. Section 3.1 Term. The term of this agreement shall be for four (4) years commencing January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2010. Council member Fraley Monillas stated her belief that the contract term was through 2011. She asked the Mayor to confirm her understanding of the term through 2011. The Mayor confirmed her belief that the contract was through 2011. Well guess what the contract expires on December 31, 2010. I just don’t understand why both Mayor Haakenson and Mr. Snyder wouldn’t know the term of this contract.
The City Council should be very concerned about inaccurate and untimely information provided by the Mayor, Scott Snyder and Lorenzo Hines. How can you operate with inaccurate and untimely legal and financial information?
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:09 AM
To: adrienne monillas (adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us); 'Diane Buckshnis'; dj wilson (djwilson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); michael plunkett (michaelppp98@yahoo.com); steve Bernheim (council@stevebernheim.com); strom peterson (peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us)
Subject: FW: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Although gambling isn’t allowed in Edmonds, thanks to Mr. Orvis – how about getting our Mayor to start a pool on whether I get a meeting with Mr. Hines.
______________________________________
From: finis tupper
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:59 AM
To: 'Hines Jr., Lorenzo'; 'Chase, Sandy'
Subject: RE: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Dear Mr. Hines:
Were you being disingenuous when you stated that “I’m always open to meeting with members of the community to provide clarifying information”?
If you are not aware, I am currently a member of the community.
My calendar is open June 6-10, 2010. At your convenience, please schedule a time for us to meet and discuss city finances.
Thank you.
Finis
PS Ms. Chase my email dated May 27 to Mr. Hines requested no public records only further clarification from him. But thanks for your email and concern to follow the law.
________________________________________
From: Chase, Sandy [mailto:Chase@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:56 PM
To: finis tupper
Cc: Hines Jr., Lorenzo
Subject: Your Email to Lorenzo Hines / Void Checks
Hello Mr. Tupper,
I was requested to contact you regarding your email to Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director, dated Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. with the subject title “Void Checks.” I want to ensure that we provide any records that you are seeking.
Public records requests are limited to identifiable documents and I would like a clarification regarding what document(s) you are seeking. Under the Public Disclosure Act, public agencies are not required to prepare reports but to produce records in response to inquiries.
Thank you for your time,
Sandy Chase
City Clerk
City of Edmonds ~ City Clerk's Office
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.775.2525 Fax: 425.771.0266
chase@ci.edmonds.wa.us
From: finis tupper
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:08 AM
To: lorenzo hines (lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us)
Cc: adrienne monillas (adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us); steve Bernheim (council@stevebernheim.com); dave orvis (daveandmartha.orvis@gmail.com); 'Diane Buckshnis'; michael plunkett (michaelppp98@yahoo.com); strom peterson (peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); dj wilson (djwilson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); Gary Haakenson (haakenson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); scott snyder (ssnyder@omwlaw.com)
Subject: Void Checks
Dear Mr. Hines,
Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report.
I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue".
The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report also lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674162, instead of #674159, in the amount of $53,603.44. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which again I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
Now, I will admit, this does seem very odd, but how is a citizen supposed to make heads or tails out of this? Does the City have the ability to issue manual checks with the same check number as a computer generated check? Can two different computer checks be issued with the same check number?
Please explain how two checks, each with the same check number show up as Cleared on the original report you provided. Please also explain what the "isolated software issue" that you refer to is and how it could have only affected the Vendor Master Report.
Complicating matters is the fact that the "Check History Listing" report you subsequently provided lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 for $28,483.76 and invoice # 674162 for $25,705.22 totaling to the amount of $54,188.98. Under "Status", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
So now, I am up to 3 checks, all numbered check number 111583, that City reports appear to indicate have all cleared the bank for 3 different amounts. I am more confused than ever.
Further complicating this is the fact that the May 5, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate:
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18.
While reviewing these approved claim checks, I couldn't help but notice Check number 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 related to invoice # 674159 and invoice # 674162. This really confuses me. Check Number 111413 is not on the "Check History Listing" provided, so I have no way of knowing whether or not this check cleared or was voided? There is a column on the "Check History Listing" for "Clear/Void Date", so a reasonable person would expect this check to be on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated, assuming the check was in fact voided. You claim that Check 111413 was voided. As such, why was it not included on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated? Note the April 30th check #111413 was approved by the City Council on May 5th 2009 and duplicated check issued on May 7, 2009 and approved on May 19th 2009 by the City Council. How do you report voided checks to the City Council so they are aware that a check they have approved was subsequently voided?
There is a similar confusing sequence of transactions in July, 2009. I won't go into all of the details of those transactions. Rather, I'll wait for your detailed explanation during our meeting to discuss all of the above.
Finally, please disclose whether or not the City owes any monies for legal services performed since January 1, 2007 through the current date and are unpaid and outstanding invoices. It is very important that the public have this information.
Thank you for your assistance with these matters.
Finis Tupper
From: Hines Jr., Lorenzo [mailto:lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:18 AM
To: Monillas, Adrienne; Diane Buckshnis; dave orvis ; Wilson, DJ; michael plunkett ; steve Bernheim ; Peterson, Strom
Cc: scott snyder ; Haakenson, Gary; finis tupper; joan@edmondsforum.com
Subject: RE: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Good morning all,
I want to correct some of the information that was provided to you in the email below. The report that was initially attached to the email below represents the results of a public records request for all payments made to Ogden Murphy and Wallace for 2009 and the first 4 months of 2010. Checks 111413 and 113005 were not included in this report because these checks were voided, and as a result, these payments (check amounts) were never made to Ogden Murphy and Wallace.
As always, if you have questions about the format and content of city financial reports, I’m always open to meeting with you or members of the community to provide clarifying information.
Sincerely,
Lorenzo Hines
Lorenzo Hines Jr., CPA, MBA
Director
Finance and Information Services Department
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0240
Fax: 425.771.0265
lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us
From: finis tupper
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:55 PM
To: Monillas, Adrienne; Diane Buckshnis; dave orvis ; Wilson, DJ; michael plunkett ; steve Bernheim ; Peterson, Strom
Cc: scott snyder ; Hines Jr., Lorenzo; Haakenson, Gary
Subject: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs
Dear City Council members:
The City Finance Department has provided an updated of OMW Checks 2009 report with $81,194.27 missing from the payments. Specifically two checks were not included in the report, 4/30 check 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 and 7/16 check 113005 in the amount of $27,590.83 were not included in the report of city expenses. I’ve looked over the drafts and descriptions of the payments. It appears the city has paid these invoices for legal services twice.
At last weeks Council meeting Mr. Snyder provided incorrect legal advice most likely for purpose of hiding these double payments. Please look at your draft meeting minutes of the May 18th Meeting and the following paragraphs:
Agenda Item: 12. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST TO MAYOR OF CITY OF EDMONDS
BY EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL FEES PAID BY
THE CITY OF EDMONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2010.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson asked if he was required to abide by the motion. Mr. Snyder answered no, advising
RCW 35A.12.030 provides that the Mayor is charged with day-to-day administration of the City.
Here is the RCW Mr. Snyder referred to;
RCW 35A.12.030 Eligibility to hold elective office.
No person shall be eligible to hold elective office under the mayor-council plan unless the person is a registered voter of the city at the time of filing his or her declaration of candidacy and has been a resident of the city for a period of at least one year next preceding his or her election. Residence and voting within the limits of any territory which has been included in, annexed to, or consolidated with such city is construed to have been residence within the city. A mayor or councilmember shall hold within the city government no other public office or employment except as permitted under the provisions of chapter 42.23 RCW.
[2009 c 549 § 3006; 1979 ex.s. c 18 § 20; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.12.030.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1979 ex.s. c 18: See note following RCW 35A.01.070.
I hope you understand this section has nothing to do with Mayor and Finance Department having some expressed governmental authority to stonewall the City Council requests for vital financial information needed to make policy decisions. It’s pretty clear Mr. Snyder was blowing smoke and pretending to have some legal expertise in this issue.
The City Council has the power to cancel the OMW contract at anytime. Section 3.3 Termination of Agreement. The attorney/client relationship is a personal one involving the ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore, the City Council reserves in its sole legislative discretion the right to terminate this Agreement upon reasonable notice during the its term. Section 3.1 Term. The term of this agreement shall be for four (4) years commencing January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2010. Council member Fraley Monillas stated her belief that the contract term was through 2011. She asked the Mayor to confirm her understanding of the term through 2011. The Mayor confirmed her belief that the contract was through 2011. Well guess what the contract expires on December 31, 2010. I just don’t understand why both Mayor Haakenson and Mr. Snyder wouldn’t know the term of this contract.
The City Council should be very concerned about inaccurate and untimely information provided by the Mayor, Scott Snyder and Lorenzo Hines. How can you operate with inaccurate and untimely legal and financial information?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Who's confused?
My email to Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director - City of Edmonds
Dear Mr. Hines,
Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report.
I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue".
The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report also lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674162, instead of #674159, in the amount of $53,603.44. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which again I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
Now, I will admit, this does seem very odd, but how is a citizen supposed to make heads or tails out of this? Does the City have the ability to issue manual checks with the same check number as a computer generated check? Can two different computer checks be issued with the same check number?
Please explain how two checks, each with the same check number show up as Cleared on the original report you provided. Please also explain what the "isolated software issue" that you refer to is and how it could have only affected the Vendor Master Report.
Complicating matters is the fact that the "Check History Listing" report you subsequently provided lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 for $28,483.76 and invoice # 674162 for $25,705.22 totaling to the amount of $54,188.98. Under "Status", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
So now, I am up to 3 checks, all numbered check number 111583, that City reports appear to indicate have all cleared the bank for 3 different amounts. I am more confused than ever.
Further complicating this is the fact that the May 5, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate:
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18.
While reviewing these approved claim checks, I couldn't help but notice Check number 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 related to invoice # 674159 and invoice # 674162. This really confuses me. Check Number 111413 is not on the "Check History Listing" provided, so I have no way of knowing whether or not this check cleared or was voided? There is a column on the "Check History Listing" for "Clear/Void Date", so a reasonable person would expect this check to be on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated, assuming the check was in fact voided. You claim that Check 111413 was voided. As such, why was it not included on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated? Note the April 30th check #111413 was approved by the City Council on May 5th 2009 and duplicated check issued on May 7, 2009 and approved on May 19th 2009 by the City Council. How do you report voided checks to the City Council so they are aware that a check they have approved was subsequently voided?
There is a similar confusing sequence of transactions in July, 2009. I won't go into all of the details of those transactions. Rather, I'll wait for your detailed explanation during our meeting to discuss all of the above.
Finally, please disclose whether or not the City owes any monies for legal services performed since January 1, 2007 through the current date and are unpaid and outstanding invoices. It is very important that the public have this information.
Thank you for your assistance with these matters.
Finis Tupper
Dear Mr. Hines,
Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report.
I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue".
The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report also lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674162, instead of #674159, in the amount of $53,603.44. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which again I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
Now, I will admit, this does seem very odd, but how is a citizen supposed to make heads or tails out of this? Does the City have the ability to issue manual checks with the same check number as a computer generated check? Can two different computer checks be issued with the same check number?
Please explain how two checks, each with the same check number show up as Cleared on the original report you provided. Please also explain what the "isolated software issue" that you refer to is and how it could have only affected the Vendor Master Report.
Complicating matters is the fact that the "Check History Listing" report you subsequently provided lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 for $28,483.76 and invoice # 674162 for $25,705.22 totaling to the amount of $54,188.98. Under "Status", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank.
So now, I am up to 3 checks, all numbered check number 111583, that City reports appear to indicate have all cleared the bank for 3 different amounts. I am more confused than ever.
Further complicating this is the fact that the May 5, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate:
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18.
While reviewing these approved claim checks, I couldn't help but notice Check number 111413 in the amount of $53,603.44 related to invoice # 674159 and invoice # 674162. This really confuses me. Check Number 111413 is not on the "Check History Listing" provided, so I have no way of knowing whether or not this check cleared or was voided? There is a column on the "Check History Listing" for "Clear/Void Date", so a reasonable person would expect this check to be on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated, assuming the check was in fact voided. You claim that Check 111413 was voided. As such, why was it not included on the "Check History Listing" with a "Void" status and the Void Date indicated? Note the April 30th check #111413 was approved by the City Council on May 5th 2009 and duplicated check issued on May 7, 2009 and approved on May 19th 2009 by the City Council. How do you report voided checks to the City Council so they are aware that a check they have approved was subsequently voided?
There is a similar confusing sequence of transactions in July, 2009. I won't go into all of the details of those transactions. Rather, I'll wait for your detailed explanation during our meeting to discuss all of the above.
Finally, please disclose whether or not the City owes any monies for legal services performed since January 1, 2007 through the current date and are unpaid and outstanding invoices. It is very important that the public have this information.
Thank you for your assistance with these matters.
Finis Tupper
Thursday, May 27, 2010
City Attorney payments
The City of Edmonds Finance Department explains the duplicate payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The Council approved payments were voided
How to Neutralize Dissenters
Make the whistleblowers, instead of their message, the issue: Discredit the dissent by attacking the dissenter's professional competence or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issue.products and expanded co-op principles
-Courage Without Martyrdom: A Survival Guide for Whistleblowers,
by the Government Accountability Project
How to Neutralize Dissenters
Make the whistleblowers, instead of their message, the issue: Discredit the dissent by attacking the dissenter's professional competence or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issue.products and expanded co-op principles
-Courage Without Martyrdom: A Survival Guide for Whistleblowers,
by the Government Accountability Project
Monday, May 24, 2010
City Attorney legal expertise
If you get a chance read the May 18, 2010 - City Council Meeting Minutes - Agenda 12 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST TO MAYOR OF CITY OF EDMONDS BY EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL FEES PAID BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2010.
The Mayor doesn't want to provide the information to the City Council. The City Attorney states the Mayor doesn't have to provide financial information to City Council citing Ch. 35A.012.030 RCW Eligibility to hold elective office.
It appears that the City Attorney has received $81,194.27 in duplicate payments for same the invoice in 2009. Unbelievable.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan - Changes!
EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MEETING -
MAY 12, 2010
Update on Comprehensive Plan purpose, effect, and context amendments and Hearing Examiner comprehensive plan review requirements.
7PM
The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to establish a long-range plan, looking into the future, addressing the needs and vision relating to land use, transportation, parks and open space, community facilities and economic development. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan sets a foundation for decision-making from a broad and far-reaching policy standpoint for all governmental action even though the plan itself is not regulatory.
The most important power and duty granted to the City of Edmonds is the authority and responsibility to regulate land-use for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting public health, safety and general welfare of current and future citizens.
All private projects requiring city review and approval should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
All public projects should have Hearing Examiner review and advisory opinion. All public projects and street vacations must be consistent with and satisfy the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Having this requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory opinion for all public projects, capital facilities projects and street vacations provides additional public participation and ensures the city council has another legal opinion ensuring consistency.
Planning Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Board to make changes to the Effect of Plan is inconsistent and contrary to the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) and Hearing Examiner duties. Specifically EMC 10.35(F) requires hearing examiner review, Vacations and Dedications, The hearing examiner will review the comprehensive plan and report on the same prior to any street vacation of dedication as provided in ECDC 15.05.020.
ECDC 15.05.020 was the Comprehensive Plan, Effect of Plan prior to the 1997 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as a separate stand alone document. The Mayor and City Staff admit their failure to not act according to the mandatory requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory opinion prior to Council decision-making in the adoption of the street vacations, capital facilities and property purchases. This failure is not a good enough reason to make changes to the current Comprehensive Plan. Saying long ago adopted procedure was forgotten and does not apply does not make it ripe for wholesale edit and elimination.
The Planning Board should not accept any change to the current Edmonds Comprehensive Plan that is inconsistent with the Edmonds Municipal Code. Action like this just makes the process less certain and more contentious for those of us who know the code and understand the meaning of the words.
MAY 12, 2010
Update on Comprehensive Plan purpose, effect, and context amendments and Hearing Examiner comprehensive plan review requirements.
7PM
The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to establish a long-range plan, looking into the future, addressing the needs and vision relating to land use, transportation, parks and open space, community facilities and economic development. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan sets a foundation for decision-making from a broad and far-reaching policy standpoint for all governmental action even though the plan itself is not regulatory.
The most important power and duty granted to the City of Edmonds is the authority and responsibility to regulate land-use for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting public health, safety and general welfare of current and future citizens.
All private projects requiring city review and approval should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
All public projects should have Hearing Examiner review and advisory opinion. All public projects and street vacations must be consistent with and satisfy the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Having this requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory opinion for all public projects, capital facilities projects and street vacations provides additional public participation and ensures the city council has another legal opinion ensuring consistency.
Planning Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Board to make changes to the Effect of Plan is inconsistent and contrary to the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) and Hearing Examiner duties. Specifically EMC 10.35(F) requires hearing examiner review, Vacations and Dedications, The hearing examiner will review the comprehensive plan and report on the same prior to any street vacation of dedication as provided in ECDC 15.05.020.
ECDC 15.05.020 was the Comprehensive Plan, Effect of Plan prior to the 1997 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as a separate stand alone document. The Mayor and City Staff admit their failure to not act according to the mandatory requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory opinion prior to Council decision-making in the adoption of the street vacations, capital facilities and property purchases. This failure is not a good enough reason to make changes to the current Comprehensive Plan. Saying long ago adopted procedure was forgotten and does not apply does not make it ripe for wholesale edit and elimination.
The Planning Board should not accept any change to the current Edmonds Comprehensive Plan that is inconsistent with the Edmonds Municipal Code. Action like this just makes the process less certain and more contentious for those of us who know the code and understand the meaning of the words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
