For the month of February, 2010, the citizens of Edmonds should be made aware of the following items.
The following Council members made the following misstatements, misrepresentations, or contradictions in the Council meetings:
• Council members Plunkett and Buckshnis claimed that the City’s due diligence and related financial work regarding the Fire District 1 contract contained misrepresentations by the City. These claims have yet to be proven to have any merit. It is worth noting that Council member Plunkett voted in favor of the Fire District 1 contract.
• Council President Bernheim acknowledged in the meeting on February 3, 2010, that the ordinance amendment to Title 20 proposed without public hearing on January 5, 2010, was developed and passed “on the fly” and although he was “in favor in principle”, more needed to be done. Council member Buckshnis claimed that have’s would be treated more fairly than the have not’s by the Council and that appeals to the Council are better for citizens. Factually, however, the Council has heard a minimal number of appeals in the last four years and in every instance, the citizen lost.
• Council President Bernheim and members Plunkett, Orvis, and Buckshnis voted against naming a park after late Council member Peggy Pritchard Olson, a much beloved and respected member of the Edmonds community. Council member Plunkett asked if the Planning Board had discussed this name. It should be noted that Council President Bernheim and members Plunkett and Orvis have disregarded the recommendations of the Planning Board on a number of occasions, including most recently on the Planning Board recommendation for Hickman Park. Council President Bernheim and members Plunkett, Orvis, and Fraley-Monillas also disregarded the final wishes of Council member Peggy Pritchard Olson with regard to her replacement on the Council.
The City of Edmonds redirected tax payer dollars from City projects to pay for or be at risk to pay for the following:
• Council President Bernheim placed a neighbor-to-neighbor conflict on the agenda (Reidy-Thuesen) on February 23, 2010, providing a full hour for both parties to say anything they wanted. During the hearing on this issue, it was made clear that the Council actions could allow the city to be liable for significant financial damages.
• Council members met for a two-day “retreat”, which they were paid to attend. Minutes show what seems to be no goals, tasks, or actions developed on behalf of the citizens of Edmonds. The taxpayers paid for two days of meetings for which they received no representation.
• Council President Bernheim presented his “10-year plan”, including ideas like taking away parking spaces downtown, at the meetings on February 5-6. These concepts were not accompanied by any method for discussion, implementation, or funding. The only idea proposed was to turn the suggestions and proposals over to volunteer committees and to take no action as a Council.
In addition, the following City Council members engaged in behavior contrary to their mission and duty as Council members:
• EdmondsWatch has been notified by several citizens that the Council is not representing the City’s best interest, especially in regard to planning for the challenges facing the City this year. As a result of the minutes distributed from the annual “retreat”, citizens are asking for answers and want to know what the Council plans to do to keep this City from suffering more effects of the Recession, other than to talk a lot. EdmondsWatch invites input from citizens in regard to this matter.
• Council member Orvis: Still awaiting trial on criminal Child Abuse charges.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
john.
ReplyDeleteJohn,The recording of the council retreat is very interesting to listen to. the lunch portion especialy. Adriane says in regards to Engels Gate, the witness was a little bit crocked, Diane says ya he was. Adriene says he wasnt able to walk stable out the door. They were told they were being record and the lunch was a business meeting. Kind of a waste of city gov. time
ReplyDeleteI have provided an audit scope of the Fire District 1 to a number of interested citizens since the City Council has not asked Mr. Plunkett and I to hire a consultant to review this matter. Bottom line is our $6.2 million was taken from a "stratified" sample of averages and did not utilize the actual salaries sans benefits of our Edmonds employees. We sold a century old fire service for less than $700K. I don't fault the CC, I fault those that were suppose to be looking after the public in regards to understanding the numbers.
ReplyDeleteMLT pays 1.3 the cost for their services and where are the EMS fees we were supposed to be getting. We are paying out the contract, but we don't seem to be getting the income.
Lots of questions, individuals that want to know the answer can get as it is all public record.
In response to Ms. Buckshnis' post above - I DO fault the Council. Specifically, the Finance Committee. That would be Mr. Plunkett, chair.
ReplyDeleteMr. Plunkett started asking questions in February, after the sale, and after the election, but that's far too late.
If the "due diligence" was faulty, there is a legal remedy. Stop holding up your hands in "oh well" position, and do something.
Here's the facts on the FD1 sale. The city desperately needed money. The Council did not want to ask for a levy (especially with Plunkett going up for re-election!). The FD1 idea came along at the right time, and almost the whole Council, in a love-fest, joined on the bandwagon. (That meanie, DJ Wilson, wouldn't join the party, though). Put the blame where the blame is due.
There's a lesson here. If you haven't got your books in order, you should not be obligating the City to a very large financial transaction on short notice. To wit, the $1.1 million you just spent on a no-notice land deal.
Ms. Buckshnis - I respect your credentials, and have high hopes for your future contributions on the Council. I haven't given up on you yet.